Dispatches from the front, part 1

Well, seeing as I am now officially an all important, coveted primary voter, I thought it would be a good time to sketch out some thoughts on these two guys.

Now, when Obama first announced his candidacy, I, like so many other's with a dream in their heart and a paperback copy of his book in my backpack, was an instant supporter. And he hit the ground running. Message is everything in politics, and Obama was flawless in the extent to which he laid claim to the "change" mantra, defining himself as an anti-war candidate with serious plans for domestic progress and, of course, a side of inspiration.

But then Obama ran into a wall over the summer, and many commentators all but declared him dead. Simply put, he was getting mowed over by Hil's inevitability claim, and offered no legitimate rationale why he was better suited for--and more deserving of--the nomination.

Then, sometime around the J-J dinner, Obama started "acting presidential," allowing commentators and voters to imagine how, with a tidal wave of grassroots support, Obama could end the war and pass progressive legislation in a way no other candidate could. That's how he won Iowa.

Then after Iowa Obama made the single biggest gaffe of his political career. In a new hampshire debate, when hil was asked an odd question about her likability, Obama interjected to say, "You're likable enough," which David Brooks accurately labeled as Obama's most inhumane moment. Now, Hilary may be a little cold and calculating, but this is a woman who has spent her entire life with her nose to the ground, who has worked hard at every turn, and not for the sake of personal gain, but rather for the public good. This is a woman who has been instrumental to the building of our Democratic party and our country. It was wrong of obama to say something so demeaning and disrespectful.

In fact, since Iowa, Obama has, I think, for the first time, indicated the kind of president he would be, but it is not the young man from Dreams of my Father. After all this, after civil rights on one hand and george bush on the other, is this the type of manager we want in the oval office? Someone who smiles as he spews ad hominam attacks from the side of his mouth while standing behind a personality cult and a giant banner?

Meanwhile, Clinton has made pointed contrasts based either on policy or resume, but rarely have her attacks reeked of the old politics that Obama has so vigorously railed against.

And finally, I do not think that Obama's claim of electability holds much water. Indeed, Hil has a very clear path to winning, but also a clear path to building a working majority. Not only will she win every state Kerry won, but she will also barnstorm the states that showed their disaffection with the GOP in the 2006 election, including Ohio, Virginia, Montana, Missouri, New Mexico, Indiana, and Kansas. She will be a favorite in Arkansas, and have a good shot at all its neighbors. And then--mark my words--Hilary will have a monstrously strong chance of winning Texas, by building a coalition of hispanics (the biggest and fastest growing ethnic minority in america), city liberals, Reagan Democrats, white women, and low income voters, a pattern she can repeat in many other states as well. Barack Obama's candidacy seems propped up on a single idea, an idea that could very well grow, but one that could also deflate and leave his campaign floundering. Hilary has done the hard work that pays off in politics; Obama has relied on personality and abstractions. Those are important, but not vital.

Obama has 6 weeks to define himself and give us a greater sense of what he would do over the course of the campaign and his first term. As for now, Clinton has done the harder work better.

3/11
Hil: 65%
BHO: 35%