Barack vs. Hillary: Which one?
Monday, February 4th, 2008I’ve watched the debates, followed the race closely and read position papers. To me, the choice is obvious.
Both Democrats are good candidates. But one was wrong when it came to the most momentous decision of her public life. And Hillary Clinton continues to compound her poor judgment on Iraq by pretending her vote wasn’t what everyone knows it was: political cover.
It’s the dissembling that bothers me. Clinton reminds me too often of the gamesmanship that diminished her husband’s presidency. Take last week’s CNN debate. When asked about Bill Clinton’s role in her campaign, she guffawed loudly. She said something like, “Well, we all have spouses.â€

But behind the laugh was someone avoiding legitimate questions: What exactly is the former president’s role in her campaign, and what will it be in the White House? Do we really want a high minister who’s unaccountable and unimpeachable? Do we want the same family to control the Democratic Party for more than two decades?
And when it comes to the election, do Democrats really want to cede to Republicans the most salient message that voters are sending this year — that they yearn for change, for leaders who’ll do things differently? Do Democrats want to be tagged as the status quo party (when it in fact is the party that’s been out of power) in an election year that features neither peace nor prosperity? Do they really want to bank this election on the only couple that’s sure to unite and motivate a dispirited opposition?
The rap on Obama is that he’s unproven. True enough. But it shouldn’t disqualify him. When you stop and think about it, he’s handled almost every challenge thrown at him in a way that inspires confidence.
It’s he, not Hillary, whose campaign is outperforming expectations. It’s he, not the Clintons, who has consistently taken the high road. And it’s he who not only opposed the war from the start, but also avoided sinking into simplistic sloganeering when he’s called for a withdrawal.
At times, Obama has waffled more than I’d like. When he tells voters in Idaho he won’t push hard for gun control or when he compromises with power companies on nuclear-plant safety, I wonder how fast he’ll hold to his principles once he’s president. But, by and large, Obama is a remarkably straight shooter. While both he and Hillary are legit policy wonks, it’s Barack who articulates nuanced positions that don’t necessarily conform to orthodoxy.
Since the 1950s, liberals have pinned their hopes on a parade of similarly straight-talking, brainy reformers. Adlai Stevenson. Eugene McCarthy. Paul Tsongas. Bill Bradley. All in vain.
Obama’s in that mold, but with a built-in advantage: He has the charisma and background to add millions of black, young, and never-before voters to a base of latte-drinking progressives.
Two presidents come to mind who also were labeled as inexperienced dreamers but managed to broaden their base beyond the idealistic intellectuals of their eras. One, of course, was John F. Kennedy. The other was Lincoln. That’s pretty good company.
Your thoughts?
(Photo by Joeff Davis)






