Why Democrats must choose ObamaBy Clive Crook
Published: February 11 2008 02:00 | Last updated: February 11 2008 02:00
The manager or the visionary. Hillary Clinton's own supporters - the candidate herself, in speech after speech - have cast the fight this way. Stirred emotions and soaring rhetoric are all very well, goes the line. If that is what you want, vote for Barack Obama. But if you care about getting something done, choose experience, technical expertise and a safe pair of hands. Do not be blinded by passion and excitement. Do not gamble on a dream that way. Rise to the challenge of being dull. "I am Hillary Clinton, and I endorsed this message."
It may not be the most alluring pitch, but it has served well enough so far. Such a boastful lack of sex appeal in a political campaign does command a certain respect. And after two terms of President George W. Bush, Americans would give a lot for humdrum competence. The Democratic electorate is split in half and bracing for weeks and maybe months of further campaigning. Mrs Clinton, on some estimates, is still favourite to win the nomination.
Still, this was an audacious theme for her to adopt. Hillary Clinton, manager extraordinaire? It bears repeating that there is a single point of data to test this claim: her supervision of the healthcare task force set up by her husband during his first term. Opinions differ even now about that exercise - about whether Mrs Clinton was responsible for one of the most celebrated domestic-policy train wrecks in recent American history, a scapegoat for her husband's misjudgments, or the hapless victim of organised special interests. What is undisputed is that the whole affair was an epic of hubris and mismanagement.
...The US is tired and discouraged these days. The country is right to seek a little inspiration, a lifting of the spirits, a sense of renewal. Mrs Clinton is the perfect antithesis of those things. She is commanding in debate; she knows her facts. But she is dreary and angry at the same time, which is no easy feat. She personifies partisan division. And, through her husband and her nostalgia for the 1990s, she is tied to the past. She is indeed the paradigm of business as usual, with the taint of dynastic succession thrown in. The Democrats would be wrong to make her their nominee, in my view, even in a field of unexceptional candidates - but this is not a field of unexceptional candidates.
...Make no mistake, Mr Obama is a once-in-a-generation possibility. Admittedly, in many ways he is too good to be true. Hopes of what he might achieve are running out of control...
...All this is true, but secondary. What makes Mr Obama remarkable is that his message of hope, resonating so powerfully with black America, is cast to every American, regardless of colour, to Democrats and Republicans alike. This is surpassingly important: a man of outstanding intellect and magnetic personality, he is running on a one-nation platform, as though he merely happened to be black. And the best part is, the whole country is paying attention: polls say that he is more electable in November than Mrs Clinton. In a close election, he could make the difference.
Republicans, of course, are bound to dislike his liberalism - but what is there for Democrats to think about? Why are they even having this conversation? They have been waiting an awfully long time for a politician like Mr Obama. If, having come so close, they still manage to nominate Mrs Clinton, I think it is a choice they will regret for years and maybe decades.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f6d16e42-d843-11dc-98f7-0000779fd2ac.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
