  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 E.J. Dionne Jr.: The Upstart Versus the MachinePosted on Jan 22, 2007
By E.J. Dionne WASHINGTON—Three differences and three similarities will define the contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. The most important difference lies in where their respective political journeys began. After her early work as an advocate for children, Clinton came to political maturity in the South as part of her husband’s efforts to rescue the Democratic Party from its low point in the 1980s. She was shaped by her party’s need to win back moderate and conservative voters who had strayed to Ronald Reagan’s banner. The resulting Clinton project was a brilliant top-down effort to shape new Democratic ideas that would appeal to Southern whites and the Northern working class. This explains why both Clintons were drawn to the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, far more an elite policy shop than a grass-roots organization. In a 2002 speech, Clinton signaled her respect for this approach by praising Al From, the DLC’s founder and chief executive, for understanding “from the very beginning ... that the right ideas were more important even than improving technology, organization or fundraising.” Both Clintons have employed Mark Penn, the premier DLC pollster, who is incessant in his efforts to locate the political center. Obama, by contrast, began his political life as a community organizer in inner-city Chicago. His earliest experiences were of a bottom-up politics mobilizing the poor and the marginalized. This had the paradoxical effect of giving some of his ideas a decidedly progressive and activist tilt and others a more conservative tinge. Consider two statements he made in 1997, shortly after his election to the Illinois Senate. On the one hand, Obama noted that welfare recipients “generally are not represented down here in Springfield,” the capital, and that his job was to stand up for them. But the organizer’s emphasis on local and community responsibility sounded quite traditional when he declared the same year that “though we may be lobbying for more school funding, it’s also important for us to bring education into the homes and ensure parents are checking children’s homework, turning off the television, teaching common courtesy.” In keeping with his grass-roots background, Obama’s campaign for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination kicked off with a sense that it was a national movement, while Clinton, from the moment she announced her intentions on Saturday, commanded a well-established, well-staffed and well-financed national organization. This second contrast can be exaggerated, since Obama will have ample financing. But the feel of the two campaigns is palpably different, with Obama enjoying an advantage on passion and Clinton on organization and discipline. There are warnings for both candidates from the 1984 Democratic primaries, when Walter Mondale, the clear favorite, was nearly upended by a bright young upstart, Gary Hart. The danger for Clinton is that her front-running campaign will develop the habits of a cautious, inflexible behemoth. The bad news for Obama is that the solid Mondale had staying power and ultimately prevailed, though he lost in November. There are, however, limits to the 1984 comparison, as a Clinton supporter noted over the weekend. Obama has been built up into a party savior a full year before the primaries—he will not enjoy Hart’s element of surprise—even as expectations for Clinton have been defined downward by the incessant speculation about whether she can win. Thus the third difference: Clinton, more than any other Democrat, has been both scarred and toughened by the partisan warfare of the past 15 years, while Obama is unscathed and untested. This contrast was reflected in their announcement speeches. Obama attacked a politics that “has become so bitter and partisan” and pledged himself to “our common interests and concerns as Americans.” Clinton spoke proudly of her ability to take on partisan foes. “I have never been afraid to stand up for what I believe in or to face down the Republican machine,” she said. “I know how Washington Republicans think, how they operate and how to beat them.” Yet if Clinton and Obama present different profiles, they are, in certain respects, very much alike. Both have displayed an unusually sophisticated and apparently genuine understanding of the role of religious faith in American politics. Both pride themselves on their ability, proved in their home states, to win over political moderates and voters not tethered to ideology.
And the woman who would become the nation’s first female president and the man who would become its first African American president know how important the men and women of the white middle class will be to the outcome of the next election. Such voters are likely to determine if either of them gets to become a national trailblazer—and also if any other Democrat can find a way to get in the middle of their fight.
SHARE THIS TRUTHDIG ARTICLE:
|
|
Clinton Pick Wins Conservatives’ Approval
Email
Print
Share
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
TwitThis
YahooBuzz
Jump to Comments
By Joan, January 26, 2007 at 11:09 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Well...does it matter all that much whether a republican or a democrat wins? Isn’t it much more important that we elect people of integrity that can lead this country, and the rest of the world, back into a place of safety and hope for all people?
I don’t happen to believe that Hillary can do that. For one thing - she seems to believe that war is okay. I don’t but, hey, it’s a personal opinion.
I look at Obama and I think, Yeah, he feels right. He’s young and he’s untried and that could be a darned good thing. He doesn’t ‘owe’ millions to outside interests. I like that he’s idealistic and I don’t care that he’s of mixed heritage. He’s human and to date I haven’t seen much of a temper. Hey, that’s BIG!!!
I think what I’m trying to say is that your party affiliation isn’t so important any more. It’s whether you can love your neighbor that counts - cuz - folks - when whoever pushes the button - we can all bend over and kiss our behinds goodbye.
Report thisBy Ichthus, January 25, 2007 at 4:46 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Billary is an elitist, globalist, NewsCorp sell out. She loves to mingle with corporate beasts who relish our country’s fall into a subjugated police state. The only reason she is anything is because her wife allowed the Bush gang to run drugs through Arkansas when he was governor.
Those San Culottes and Bourgeousies who cannot see this are living in denial!!! Or they find their egos inflated by being part of a fascist regime.
Obama may be “sold out” already. God, I hope not. We need young blood in the White House--Not three decades of two evil families in quasi-control of our country. Pray for him.
Report thisBy Fools on the Hill, January 23, 2007 at 1:02 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Hillary has been more Bush than Bush when it comes to his wars. So no Obama and Hillary are not the same at all. Neither have the credentials to run for President. And pointing out decades ago Hillary did something to help children proves it.
Report thisBy Mad As Hell, January 23, 2007 at 11:29 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The Democrats NEED an exciting primary race, to generate enthusiasm FOR the race. Therefore I am torn.
On the one hand, I want all Democrats, ESPECIALLY the candidates to realize that this in the intramurals, all leading up to the REAL race, which officially begins in July of 2008.
Why? Because when it’s all over and one man or woman is left standing, ALL the others must put their differences aside and say “Now Let’s Go KICK some GOP booty!” We don’t need a 1980 Teddy Kennedy to viciously split the party For/Against the nominee (to me, THAT was Teddy’s sin, not Chappaquidick).
On the OTHER hand, we NEED a good primary fight to generate excitement: Remember when Ronald Reagan hollered at George H.W. Bush “I PAID for this microphone, Mr. Bush!”? That was the moment he locked up the GOP nomination in 1980.
Last time, we looked at ALL the candidates and picked THE WORST one possible. A stiff who looked like Lurch, and had NO feel for what to do when. Ok, Ok, Al Sharpton or Dennis Kucinich (’scuze the spelling) would have made the race like shooting fish in a barrel and might have actually been worse. Yet our stiff managed to LOSE to the man who said “Bring it ON!” This is clearly the DUMBEST thing ANY American President has EVER said--and we STILL lost to Chimpy McFlightsuit! I don’t know if even Idi Amin or Saddam Hussein ever said anything dumber!
Can Hillary win? I darn well hope so if she’s nominated! Can Obama win? Same!
Right now guys like Joe Biden and Chris Dodd and Kucinich are there for comic relief.
And REAL competition to these two will come from the governors--because governors win (except Dukakis) and Senators LOSE ever since JFK in 1960.
Report thisBy George S Semsel, January 23, 2007 at 8:51 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The Republicans must love it. Neither of the two top Democrats can win. It doesn’t matter who runs. The White House looks quite secure.
Report thisBy anonymous, January 23, 2007 at 8:34 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
We live in late primary state.
We will have no say in the selection of the nominees because the race will be over before we get a chance to vote.
I can send money to their already overflowing campaign chests so they can fight each other to the death in early primary states but, nobody’s going to look me in the eye, shake my hand and hear my views for a vote that won’t matter.
I can try to influence people but, I’ve never met anybody that didn’t already have an intractable opinion.
In spite of all this, I’m expected be interested in every little tidbit that political nerds can come up with 24/7 365 year after year.
Then, on election day, I’ll watch them ignore my vote unless my state is decided by one person after a “recount”.
Wake me when the shooting starts.
Report thisBy DennisD, January 22, 2007 at 7:47 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
E.J. - Listen up.
I’m sick to death of you journalists, pundits and whatever else you want to call yourselves peddling these two 24/7.
Report thisEnough with the infomercials already or I’m changing channels. Find someone of substance and hype them half as much and we’ll have a winner in 08.
By Los Angeles Democrat, January 22, 2007 at 6:05 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Dionne writes:
“… Obamas campaign for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination kicked off with a sense that it was a national movement...”
and:
“...Obama has been built up into a party savior...”
It’s this kind of b.s. from you and others in the lap dog media that needs to be removed from the national discourse. Jeez. We’ve had enough of you blithering journalistic idiots in Washington and your delusional view of things.
Report thisBy Jon B, January 22, 2007 at 3:01 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
When it comes to Iraq and Iran, Clinton is no different than Bush.
“.....Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) accused the Bush administration of playing down the threat of a nuclear Iran and called for swift action.....Clinton’s call for sanctions was another example of the hawkish posture on national security issues that has marked her tenure in the Senate and is seen as part of her preparation for a possible 2008 presidential campaign. On Iraq, she has often criticized the administration for not preparing for the chaos and violence after the initial invasion. But she has remained steadfast in resisting calls within her own party to support a rapid withdrawal of troops there, to the dismay of some on the left.”
Report thishttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2 006/01/19/AR2006011903220.html
By Ben Stone, January 22, 2007 at 2:00 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
E.J.,
I may have the wrong impression, but hasn’t Hillary supported the Iraq invasion) much more ardently than Obama?
That’s the deciding factor for me. Thumbs down on Hillary.
Report thisBy John Lowell, January 22, 2007 at 12:21 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
E.J.,
You say:
“Both have displayed an unusually sophisticated and apparently genuine understanding of the role of religious faith in American politics.”
Your intention is to entertain with this remark, no doubt.
John Lowell
Report this