I don’t read Andrew Sullivan regularly, but Ezra called this piece on Clinton and Obama to my attention today, and it’s quite interesting, especially this bit:
Clinton has internalized to her bones the 1990s sense that conservatism is ascendant, that what she really believes is unpopular, that the Republicans have structural, latent power of having a majority of Americans on their side. Hence the fact that she reeks of fear, of calculation, of focus groups, of triangulation. She might once have had ideals keenly felt; she might once have actually relished fighting for them and arguing in their defense. But she has not been like that for a very long time. She has political post-traumatic stress disorder. She saw her view of feminism gutted in the 1992 campaign; she saw her healthcare plan destroyed by what she saw as a VRWC; she remains among the most risk-averse of Democrats on foreign policy and in the culture wars.
It’s an insightful take on Clinton and who know, Sullivan might even be right. He goes on to compare her with Obama:
The traumatized Democrats fear the majority of Americans are bigoted, know-nothing, racist rubes from whom they need to conceal their true feelings and views. The non-traumatized Democrats are able to say what they think, make their case to potential supporters and act, well, like Republicans acted in the 1980s and 1990s. The choice between Clinton and Obama is the choice between a defensive crouch and a confident engagement. It is the choice between someone who lost their beliefs in a welter of fear; and someone who has faith that his worldview can persuade a majority.
Traumatic events will have an impact, that’s a given. The real question is, what lessons do you learn from the past, and how do you choose to respond to it as you move on in life? I understand Clinton’s risk-aversion, but given that significant repair job that the next President is going to have on their hands, I’m not sure that someone whose impulse response is to be cautious is necessarily the right person for the job at this point in time.
That’s a really good citation. I haven’t been a Hillary fan since her cattle options-trading skill was revealed. She’s really given in to the temptation of corruption a few too many times.
That said, I’m not super-charged over any members of this particular collection of Senators and former Senators. Is that it? The Democrats don’t have anyone in the queue who’s ever run anything?
Thanks Seamus. I agree that none of them is perfect, but I’m definitely leaning towards Obama so far.
How about now, after Obama announced that he’d invade Pakistan with or without Musharraf?
Sounds like the Hillary attack last week really threw him for a loop, and now he needs to show his hawkish side.