Clinton, Edwards, and Obama, considered

Short and somewhat rude though it may be, I thought this summary of how these candidates present themselves, from the blog Atrios, was the best such short summary I’ve seen:

Obama: The system sucks, but I’m so awesome that it’ll melt away before me.

Edwards: The system sucks, and we’re gonna have to fight like hell to destroy it.

Clinton: The system sucks, and I know how to work within it more than anyone.

You can probably guess which approach seems the most realistic to me (Edwards), but I don’t think Obama’s or Hillary’s is ridiculous either. A lot of things about the system did work under Bill Clinton. And I’m seeing more and more articles like this one, from Charlie Peters, the legendary founder of the Washington Monthly, that point to some very remarkable — yes, it’s a dirty word, I know — bipartisan work done by Obama.

I realize everything being said here is simplistic.  But I think that we, as voters, should give serious thought to how each major candidate plans to operate, in a broad sense, and whether or not these plans are realistic.  To me, Edwards is the most realistic, but I think the others are sincere in their belief that theirs can succeed as well.

Apologies if this sounds like a D&C opinion piece.

RSS feed | Trackback URI

3 Comments »

Comment by Rottenchester
2008-01-05 11:30:30

If you’re interested in another take on how Obama’s can be bi-partisan yet effective at getting his agenda accomplished, check out this article. Money quote:

The reason the conservative power structure has been so dangerous, and is especially dangerous in opposition, is that it can operate almost entirely on bad faith. It thrives on protest, complaint, fear: higher taxes, you won’t be able to choose your doctor, liberals coddle terrorists, etc. One way to deal with that kind of bad-faith opposition is to draw the person in, treat them as if they were operating in good faith, and draw them into a conversation about how they actually would solve the problem. If they have nothing, it shows. And that’s not a tactic of bipartisan Washington idealists — it’s a hard-nosed tactic of community organizers, who are acutely aware of power and conflict. It’s how you deal with people with intractable demands — put ‘em on a committee. Then define the committee’s mission your way.

As for the Peters article, which is excellent, remember that Obama started his political career on the South Side of Chicago. Chicago politics isn’t for dreamy wonks - it’s a harsh world.

(Thanks to Vincent, who was kind enough to share the article with me.)

 
2008-01-05 14:36:41

[...] author (Mark Schmitt, a very savvy observer) suggests that we should view the different candidates’ strategies through this lens: As an observer of politics, and commenter on it, I almost entirely share [...]

 
2008-01-06 06:31:41

[...] have of Obama and Edwards, it’s fair to say.ÂÂ ÂÂ But I do think that she sincerely believes her approach is the best one for the country.ÂÂ She says her piece pretty well about this in the following clip [...]

 
Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

Election Day Countdown

All content on this site © 2006-2008 RochesterTurning.com, All Rights Reserved.
Read about Joe Bruno's shady campaign cash.