Hillary and Obama Are Running Two Different Campaigns

Barack Obama's interview with the Washington Post this morning recapitulates the message he's been propounding from day one:

"I think it is fair to say that I believe I can bring the country together more effectively than she can," Obama said. "I will add, by the way, that is not entirely a problem of her making. Some of those battles in the '90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists, and so, yes, I believe I can bring the country together in a way she cannot do. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be running.

Obama and Clinton are, in effect, running two different campaigns each based on two different readings of the temperature and directional pull of the electorate right now.

Hillary Clinton reads recent political history materially; The country's political cleavages are not artificial or contrived; they're cut from basic differences in how to organize society. Democrats want to be proud of their identity as Democrats again; the central animating principle of her candidacy is that the country sufffers; that President Bush and the Republicans are to blame; that Hillary Clinton is the solution. Americans don't hate government; they just hate when government doesn't work. The Clintons know how to make government work; as president Hillary Clinton will recertify government. How does Clinton win news cycles? When she's attacked by Republicans or President Bush.

Obama wants to remind Democrats of the feeling they get when they're at a ball game and the national anthem is played -- a post (or pre) partisan, transhistorical patriotism that is then channeled into the political system as the ultimate expression of Democratic ideals. It's a complex argument, easily and reductively characterized as "Obama versus the System." In the context of the primary, Obama is simultaneously addressing the Clinton dynastic ambition, the allure of a post-Clinton era for Democratic political elite and the nagging sense for many Democrats that the Clintons contributed to and were in some ways responsible for the downturn in Democratic fortunes after Bush v. Gore. How does Obama win news cycles? When everyone notices there is daylight between him and Clinton.

Comments

Given Obama's inability to convince 80% of Democratic primary voters to vote for him, I fail to see how he will magically unite the entire nation behind him.

Posted by JoeCHI | August 15, 2007 11:28 AM

Given pollster's persistence in asking about support for Al Gore, I tend to think your 80% figure may be a bit off.

The other issue, of course, is that the MSM neglects the dark cloud behind Hillary's silver sheen: 96% of democrats have made up their mind about her, and only 30% support her.

(And this is polling for the supposed national primary.)

Hillary would have it locked up if it weren't for the pesky first four... (but then the Obama campaign wouldn't be playing the game it is playing now.)

Posted by Carrington Ward | August 15, 2007 11:59 AM

Given her negatives, Hillary would have to run a 50%+1 campaign in the general. That's not going to win a consensus for anything and that's why she knows and admits that she won't be able to do much on health care until her second term. Obama can run a much more open general election campaign. I think that's crucial to winning a mandate for progress. Obama's first priority will be political reform. Anyone that looks at his record as a legislator knows this is his passion. Obama understands politics as a process and realizes that process is broken. However, from climate change to health care America faces some fundamental issues. I don't think we need divisive, 50%+1 style campaigning. We need a mandate for change. An Obama campaign creates that opportunity. A Hillary campaign re-entrenches existing political divisions.

Posted by Jeremy | August 15, 2007 12:34 PM

Your interpretations are fundamentally flawed. The idea that government with Hillary's insiders is a good sell is ridiculous.

This campaign is about how much Obama will convince people he can effect the change he speaks of, not if this change is necessary.

Posted by Yiannis | August 15, 2007 1:04 PM

Response to JoeCHI. (Copied this from a poster called Kathleen.mcgee):

Replying to JoeCHI's comment, 80% of the Dems don't even know who Obama is! The national poll numbers are as follows: 43% Clinton; 23% Obama. Less than a majority of Dems prefer Clinton at this point. However, if Obama were the candidate can you seriously say that all or certainly the vast majority of Dems would not support him? If you are saying this, I believe you are mistaken.

With respect to Republican support, any Democratic candidate will have to get some independent and Republican support. Currently, Obama is polling 6.7% among Repubs in Iowa, a state where the voters have had a much better chance to get to know the candidates. Hillary polls 2% among the same voters. McCain polls at 3%, which means that Obama is currently favored over a well-known Republican in that state! What does that tell you?

As far as Obama's ego, it is no bigger than Mrs. Clinton's. He is right in saying that whoever becomes president will have to reach out to Republicans. If we don't, we will not heal from the polarizing politics of the past several years, some of which Hillary Clinton is responsible

Posted by Sarah Jane | August 15, 2007 1:46 PM

Really good post. Worth noting that if the other wasn't in the race, either Clinton OR Obama might have hit upon a strategy that the media would be hailing as genius about now.

Posted by J. | August 15, 2007 4:53 PM

Hillary Clinton reads recent political history materially; The country's political cleavages are not artificial or contrived...

Was this a veiled Clinton clevage joke?

Posted by William | August 15, 2007 5:00 PM

Its August and this thing is still wide open. Numbers move, often in the weeks or even week before Iowa.

Clinton isn't the typical candidate, as noted. She's almost completely known (and only partially liked). Many of her supporters - those 38-40 percent of Democrats - are unshakable, but as we see continual press speculation about her electability, some might decide winning the war next November is better than winning the battle this February.

Obama is much more of an unknown. People know the name, but aren't sure what to make of him. And many won't form opinions until they actively start paying attention toward the end of this year. In a way, its his race to win or lose. We could make an argument that Clinton's campaign is irrelevant, so long as she avoids major mistakes. In the end, Democrats will look to see what Obama is all about, and either support him or fall back on the known Clinton.

Of course that's assuming another candidate doesn't move up. And its early enough for that to happen, too, but how much oxygen are Clinton and Obama leaving for anyone else?

From another angle, Clinton benefits by having multiple opponents who can pull more than 5 percent of the vote. Her's is a plurality strategy - which she may well get. If other candidates start fading or even drop out of the race, then that doesn't favor Clinton.

Posted by Paul | August 15, 2007 9:19 PM

Hmmm. So the choice is Barry Bonds or Kate Smith? As part owner of this team (America) I love Kate's voice, but what we really need is somebody who can hit home runs.

Posted by John H | August 16, 2007 1:06 AM

Obama is playing Jimmy Carter's theme. And he has the smile. If he'd just stick to arugula....and Whole Foods....while campaigning in Iowa, we could avoid the disaster that followed Watergate. Let's hope the electorate's reaction to the demise of Dubya won't lead us into another round of malaise.

Posted by Keith P | August 16, 2007 6:18 AM

People know who Obama is. And according to National Journal, Clinton is more conservative than Obama. And 96 made up their mind? Where did that statistic come from? Everybody knows who she is, but some people may be deciding between one candidate or another. And hardly any frontrunner has a majority of votes. There are so many other options. By the time it only comes down to two democrats, more than half the states would be decided, and the nomination will likely be decided. According to Rass. Reports, 92% of people already have an opinion on Obama, whose favorable unfavorable ratings are creeping closer, dramatically. Obama is trying to expose himself as a moderate-conservative Democrat, while in reality, he is more liberal than John Kerry, according to National Journal. I can see many Republican attack ads now.

"National Journal says Barack Obama is more liberal than Hillary Clinton...and John Kerry!
This means Obama is way too liberal for America."

Republican: I'm ____ _____ and I approve this message."

Posted by SatGur | August 16, 2007 5:52 PM

It has been less than a month since Bill Clinton last suggested there is not much difference between Hillary and Obama on the issues. It is only subsequent to that statement that Obama has proposed there is a fundamental dichotomy in Democratic Party approaches to the most urgent policy questions. Suggesting that current polls, in which 80% of the voters have not even begun to focus on the primary, prove one or the other more convincing is entirely premature.
For a better understanding of the numbers that are daily tossed out read An Idiots Guide to Public Opinion Polls at http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/8/16/153544/214

Also, those who still believe this is ultimately about liberals vs. conservatives may be very surprised by the impact of crossover voting in the primaries. To paraphrase the old saying: "It ain't over till the American people sing... the national anthem."

Posted by wizinit | August 17, 2007 1:39 PM

farmost homager retral interroad cabellerote uprighting galga prisal
http://www.uwex.edu/ces/cty/waukesha/4h/ >Waukesha County 4-H
http://www.turboprop.com/

Posted by Clifton Park | December 17, 2007 7:02 AM

Historically, Americans have fought and died for representative government. When Abraham Lincoln said, Government of the people, for the people, and by the people (words to that effect), that's what he meant. Nor did he mean for it to perish. He knew the Union armies had fought and would continue to fight for that ideal. The Revolutionary War, was, among other things, fought to abolish the right of kings. The 22-Amendment to the US Constitution was passed to limit the terms of American presidents, to no more than two. There do exist political dynasties in America, but they're few in number. However, the Clintons represent an end-run around the 22-Amendment. So, if you're just plain sick of the Clintons, it's not without good reason: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | August 15, 2008 2:56 PM