On a Roll

Watching the MSNBC debate between the democratic contenders last night underscored a point that has been growing more and more obvious since Super Tuesday: Hillary is sunk. It seems that at this point in the race, every new trait that she exhibits simultaneously brings her down a notch while adding to Obama's assets by comparison. It's certainly possible for her to stage a come-back in Ohio and Texas (although the polls aren't looking good), but it's difficult for me to see that she has garnered one iota of new support as a result of her recent campaign missteps. She's going to be riding purely on her stalwart supporters who have resisted the Obama hurricane, and a shrinking base does not an effective candidacy make.

Rather than my usual weekly political post that tend towards the long side, I thought I'd just list some of the revelations about the candidates that have come out in the last couple weeks:

- Hillary has exclusively adopted a negative and divisive message. This applies to both her proposed governing technique (she claims that she will be a "fighter," while Obama talks about reaching out to the other side) and her assaults on Obama's abilities and lack of experience. Chiding voters for believing in Obama's "false hope" is a failing course - nobody wants to vote for a curmudgeon.

- Hillary claims that she possesses superior management skills and can tame the bureaucracy. It is difficult to take this claim seriously when her campaign has run itself into the ground both financially and strategically. As Frank Rich pointed out in his recent Op-Ed piece, the Hillary Campaign was so confident that it would have the nomination locked up after Super Tuesday that it failed to plan for the future. As a result of this oversight, her presence in states like Wisconsin have been close to one quarter that of her opponent (4 offices to Obama's 11). Furthermore, her bank account only had enough funds to last her through Feb. 5, and recently disclosed financial records from the campaign show that they have spend money frivolously for months now, blowing through hundreds of thousands of dollars on expensive hotels, pizza, and Dunkin' Donuts. Is this the sort of political and fiscal management we want for the country?

- Obama is unflappable, and the more orotund Hillary and the GOP grow, the more calmly he deflects the negativity. The insightful blogger Glenn Greenwald often writes about a peculiar phenomenon in democratic politics these days: on issues like national security and other so-called GOP strengths, democrats often respond to threats with anxiety, back-peddling, excuse-making, and general concession. This sort of behavior casts their positions (like the recent PAA extension) as indeed "soft" by playing by the republicans' rules and allowing themselves to be portrayed as "soft." Obama, on the other hand, is cool in the face of baseless attacks, whether they are from Hillary or from the GOP. Moreover, he rephrases the issue to expose the real dynamic of a situations. This was illustrated wonderfully when he his patriotism was disputed because he doesn't wear an American flag lapel pin. Here's how he responded:

"A party that presided over a war in which our troops did not get the body armor they needed, or were sending troops over who were untrained because of poor planning, or are not fulfilling the veterans' benefits that these troops need when they come home, or are undermining our Constitution with warrantless wiretaps that are unnecessary? That is a debate I am very happy to have. We'll see what the American people think is the true definition of patriotism."

Unfortunately, all too many democrats would have simply made excuses for their lack of a lapel pin and not used an attack like this as an opportunity to question failed GOP policies.

- It is now a widely-circulated observation that the two candidates are nearly identical on their positions. As Chris pointed out, if there really is no difference in substance, then it is entirely logical to vote based on style. If they are saying the same thing anyways, why not choose the candidate who says it in a more inspirational manner and who is capable of bringing more people to the table to hear the message? Obama drove home a very good point in the debate last night: in order for real change to happen, you need the people behind an issue. Unlike the endless calls for committees and position papers that seem to comprise Hillary's idea of change, Obama recognizes that the people need to be psyched about action for it to happen.

- Although the race issue has reared its ugly head a few times during the campaign, Obama has skillfully managed to avoid falling into the role of the "black candidate," as much as Bill Clinton tried to spin that narrative in S Carolina. His broad support among all ethnic groups points to his inclusivity on the issue of race. Hillary, however, is making her sex more and more of an issue as the campaign drags on, not less. In the debate, she closed by saying that "I'm thrilled to be running as the first woman president, which would be a sea change in our country and around the world, and would give enormous...you know, hope, and would be, you know, a real challenge to the way things have been done." While I happen to agree with the potential social and symbolic power of a woman president, that's no reason to vote for someone. Obama has tossed race out of the equation; Hillary's use of her sex as a political asset brings down the level of the debate.

- Nobody likes a complainer. Much of the criticism coming out of the Hillary camp lately has just seemed like whining, whatever way you cut it. For instance, in the debate last night Hillary opened with a playful tirade about always being asked the first questions in debates. She then alluded to an SNL sketch that portrayed the media fawning over Obama, and concluded with asking Obama how comfortable he is and if he needs extra pillows. Hillary has been complaining of media bias and sexism now ever since Iowa, and while at first she had a good point (MSNBC's Chris Matthews was pretty inappropriate in the week between Iowa and New Hampshire), her continuous claims of bias and unfair treatment smack of petty resentment. Do we want a president who is always looking for excuses during hard times? As a NYT piece points out after analyzing the pattern of blaming that has become endemic in Hillary's campaign, she probably would have claimed bias had she been asked the second question in the debate. This victim mentality won't fly.

These are just the distinctions that are popping into my mind right now as I sit here avoiding work. If you have any addition thoughts or things that you've learning about the candidates in the last couple weeks, please post them into the comments.