Which candidate is more likely to keep and increase the Democratic majority in Congress?

You're basically right.

Well, whoever it was who "let the dogs out," Mitt Romney, that was ten freaking years ago.

Sorry to have to tell ya.
.

The suggestion that Hillary is the next LBJ is a joke, right?

The Clinton's have the best punch and counter-punch in contemporary politics. And while there maybe some "Democratic Party Leaders" who are reaching for the smelling salts, it's only because they haven't seen a successful Presidential campaign since 1996, and forgot what one looks like.

Democrats take note: this is how Presidential campaigns are won!

As a Democrat who desperately wants a Democrat back in the White House, the Clinton's muscle-flexing gives me every confidence that the they will do what it takes to beat the GOP in the fall, something that both Gore or Kerry failed to do.

I've been smelling a sea change for a while now. Demographics are changing, and the Reagan coalition is falling apart. His unifying theme was "Government isn't the solution to problems, government IS the problem."

But we saw the fruit of that idea in New Orleans. So I think that idea has run its course. The Republican party threatens to split between the religious right, which, other than abortion/gay/hollywood stuff is quite receptive to the idea of helping the weakest among us. Enter Mike Huckabee. The business types are going to lose their support, and they may lose interest in politics altogether.

The Republicans have held seats and prevailed on issues in which they don't actually have majority support in America. Just changing that will unleash a lot of energy.

Obama isn't really positioning himself as a "policy" change agent. He's just going to change the style or character of discourse. So I don't think his election will be interpreted as a mandate for change. Hillary is somewhat better, and Edwards is square on the mark.

Anyway, I see a sea change coming.

Yeah, Hillary is the next LBJ in that they both supported an ill-advisable foreign excursion.

Looks like you drank some serious Clinton Kool-Aid KD. Good luck with that.

The points you mention in Obama's favor--his ability to inspire people and his presumed capacity to peel off moderate Republican legislators--are true enough.

Your praise for Clinton--that she can play political hardball--is also true. But Obama, coming out of Chicago politics, is *also* able to play old-style hardball. He has "demonstrated a remarkably strong ability in the Senate to work with Republicans" to at least as great an extent as Clinton. So I think it comes out in his favor.

And as for who better supports a progressive agenda, Obama has shown a hell of a lot more leadership in the past few years: he opposed the war in Iraq which HRC supported (and WJC enabled), just the other day he used an MLK sermon to condemn homophobia and anti-Semitism in a church, etc. Hillary Clinton might verbally support a progressive agenda during the primary campaign, but I haven't seen her take the kinds of political risks that Obama has to show real leadership.

"On the downside, however, his speeches don't tend to overtly push a progressive agenda as much as Hillary's do.

How would this work out in practice? Hard to say. One possibility is that Obama would get everyone inspired, but not inspired about a specifically progressive agenda. That would be bad."

Kevin - it's hard to put this any more delicate way than that you're simply full of crap. Don't you listen to Obama's speeches. Are you so blinded by the dazzling prospect of another Clnton telling America stuff like "The era of big government is over ", or "We will end welfare as we know it", or that they're "Tough on crime" (as in executing the mentally deficient during one's primary campaign), that you assume that Hillary's disingenuous soundbites in a debate even remotely resemble the truth about Obama's ideas.

You seem like a good guy and run an excellent blog, but it's disheartening to read this braindead stuff about Obama from you. Very, very disheartening. Support Clinton if you will, but do it openly and honestly and don't let yourself sound pretty damned dumb when discussing Obama's quite clear and VERY progressive agenda.

I have no problem with Obama's agenda, but his comments about there being a Social Security "crisis" and his kind words about how Reagan restored "entrepreneurship" to the country only serves to undermine it. There are somethings a Democratic candidate just shouldn't do politically, and pushing the GOP's talking points about Social Security and aiding & abetting the historical revisionism of Reagonomics are a couple of them.

If Obama becomes president, he will already have altered the political landscape so dramatically along the way that it will indeed be ready for the kind of action he is proposing.

By contrast, if Hillary becomes president, nothing about the landscape will change; it could be exactly like it is now.

So I wouldn't worry about Obama being ineffective; if he can win the presidency, he will have effected enough changes in the country's political culture to make his program a viable one.

So there goes Kevin's argument.

I find it strange that anyone believes that Obama would not be able to practice carrot-and-stick relations with Congress. The guy comes from Chicago, and has a reputation for getting progressive things done in Republican-controlled legislature. At worst, Clinton and Obama are tied in the "sharp elbows" department.

Kevin leans towards Clinton because Kevin's boss is one of the largest Clinton fundraisers in the country.

But Kevin will never mention that.

i can't believe the corporatists at washington monthly are censoring john edwards from the debate. who got to you? big business?!?!?

I suspect Hillary needs the bigger congressional majority to actually get anything done. The Dems aren't disciplined enough to hold together in the face of the right-wing onslaught, which will use her to keep the GOP congressfolk in line. A majority similar to what the GOP had during W.'s time won't be enough under Hillary to get anything done. Obama might be able to push through real progressive policies with a smaller majority through his appeal to moderates and independents, recasting liberal proposals as common-sense solutions. Not saying he will; just that given the choice between the two I think Hillary will be the real uniter-- for Republicans.

close enough on policy issues that their differences are far less important than their ability to get things done.

I agree that the differences that matter are mostly not policy differences. But picture each of them as President if Iran continues to bluster and taunt, and continues to try to develop nuclear capabilities. Which one would be more likely to continue to try to use international diplomatic pressure to resolve the problem, and which would jump most quickly to a military approach?

This is one thing that worries me about Hillary. She seems to be afraid of appearing "weak" on such issues. And so at every opportunity she's voted in favor of, and (up until last summer or so) spoken in favor of, every military plan or surge or threat that Bush has put forward.

Hillary supporters don't want to talk about this. When they do, the assumption they seem to want to make most often is that most of these votes and speeches and so on were just for political cover (they don't use the word "triangulation" of course). In other words, they hope that she didn't really mean what she was saying. But why? She can't or won't distance herself from the worst of those decisions even to this day.

And so the question is whether she'd continue as president (with her eye on a second term) to want to err on the side of war whenever taking a more diplomatic approach might mean having the Repos paint her as "weak". The same goes for keeping substantial numbers of troops in Iraq.

Obama would face the same pressures, but he's been willing to stand up to those pressures and oppose Bush's warmongering. Hillary never has.

Joseph Clarke: It's easy to work with the GOP in the Senate when you haven't sponsored anything major yet. (And, no, I'm not a HRC supporter.)

Obama strikes me like Jack Kennedy in one way. If elected, like Jack, he probably won't do anything major for more than two years. Jack's two big foreign policy issues of 61-62, Cuba and Berlin, were thrust upon him. He didn't even start lifting a finger on civil rights until the second half of 63.

Your calculus discounts Hillary's high negatives and off-putting personal style, esp. when compared with "The Messiah."

I know, I know, "after months of vicious right-wing attacks, how will he look?" Still looks pretty good after months of vicious left-wing attacks.

This point is not dispositive in itself, but, as you're framing the problem, it's a consideration.

And as for who better supports a progressive agenda, Obama has shown a hell of a lot more leadership in the past few years: he opposed the war in Iraq which HRC supported (and WJC enabled), just the other day he used an MLK sermon to condemn homophobia and anti-Semitism in a church, etc. Hillary Clinton might verbally support a progressive agenda during the primary campaign, but I haven't seen her take the kinds of political risks that Obama has to show real leadership.

Agree with Joseph C.

Can't at the moment take apart Kevin's post. But it contained some fallacious premises. Clinton as LBJ?

"Hillary Clinton might verbally support a progressive agenda during the primary campaign"

That allegedly politically sophisticate people like Kevin and Paul Krugman fall into this timeworn trap of assuming that what an innately moderate (at best) Democrat tells the base during a primary means a damned thing is more than a bit shocking - the truth about Clinton is that she's done NOTHING to revitalize the grassroots, has a long history of very bad judgement, of the worst sort of calculated political opportunism, of taking the most money from the worst lobbies, of being surrounded by old-school hacks like Richard Holbrooke and the rest, has sleazemerchants like Mark Penn as her campaign brain trust, and tells calculated lies about her opponents with no shame. But she' "more progressive" than Obama.

For Christ sakes Kevin - listen to the entire video of Obama's speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church on Sunday. Do a little goddam homework. Pleeeze don't keep insulting your readers with this "Obama may not be as progressive as Clinton" horsehocky. If you're more comfortable with a bunch of recycled hawks and corporate Democrats running the country, that's your prerogative. But don't make dumb assertions like "Obama's not as progressive." It doesn't wash.

I'm not sure about the notion that Hillary Clinton is terribly likely to win the general election. I know it was a long time ago, but remember what happened when she lost Iowa? Full scale panic in her campaign, talk of heads rolling, etc.. A lot of this was hyped by our awful press of course, but the fact is if she hadn't fallen ass backwards in to the biggest political fluke of our time by miraculously winning NH, where would she be right now? Perhaps I'm overly pessimistic and cynical but I don't think McCain will have too much difficulty beating her. Obama will face challenges, sure, but general elections in this country really are popularity contests. I wish they weren't, but surely the last 30 years should have taught us this unfortunate truth. And as much as Dems love Hillary, half the country really really doesn't.

The Reagan myth lives on

...Time magazine (6/14/04) cheered that "the Reagan years were another of those hinges upon which history sometimes turns. On one side, a wounded but still vigorous liberalism with its faith in government as the answer to almost every question. On the other, a free market so triumphant-- even after the tech bubble burst-- that we look first to 'growth,' not government, to solve most problems." As NBC 's John Hockenberry put it (6/5/04), "The Reagan revolution imagined the unimaginable. When poverty and welfare were at crisis levels in the 1980s, Reagan declared war on government and turned his back on the welfare state." The long-term impact of cuts in social spending, gutted environmental protections and other casualties of Reagan's "war on government" were relegated to passing mentions.
Reagan's fervent support for right-wing governments in Central America was one of the defining foreign policies of his administration, and the fact that death squads associated with those governments murdered tens of thousands of civilians surely must be included in any reckoning of Reagan's successes and failures....

"he'd manage to convince the public that his liberal agenda isn't really "liberal" — a word that's been successfully demonized by the right — but just common sense."

Kevin, I think this assumes that Obama HAS a liberal agenda, which isn't something I've seen much evidence of. Hillary's economic, tax, and healthcare plans are much more progressive, and she doesn't go around spouting right-wing talking points about Ronald Reagan, Social Security, etc.

It says something interesting about the zeitgeist, though, that people hear "hope" and think "liberal."

Count me as one who thinks there's a real "change" (that word again) coming in the electorate. 8 years of Bush's idiocy + a candidate who can charge up the base, independents and fence sitting conservatives = moving the field. I don't think Hillary can do that. At best, she would be effective at getting some moderate gains through, but do we really want another 4-8 years of politics like we've just had? I know some of the netroots and folks like Paul Krugman do, but for the people who don't live and breathe politics, the tone and promise of Obama is refreshing. With Obama, I think you can get a real shift to the left. Check out Cass Sunstein's "visionary minimalist" article from TNR. He gets into how Obama might govern and it's, to me, pretty convincing.

Let's face facts: Hillary Clinton is no LBJ, a person who had real clout with the Senate. Plus, she's too tied into all the proper Wall Streeters who run our show. So expecting a getting-it-passed-in -Congress-progressive agenda from her on the economy is a fairytale.

Obama,the golden voice from the great midwest,speaks with the usual political forked-tongue and also owes Wall Street. Hope of him getting through a progressive agenda on leaving Iraq and substantially helping the poor and middle class is also,alas,a fairytale.

We need a real Robin Hood figure--take from the rich, give to the poor, end our death-cult globo- cop role in the world.

Don't see that person yet but perhaps one day..

lampwick hit it on the head, and all you need to do is use your own reasoning and branch it out from there. You nominate Hillary Clinton, you will will lose the November election. You elect Hillary Clinton, and you will see a Republican viability in the next congress. You'll see endless gridlock, and inability to get things done.

You elect Barack Obama, and you can possibly win against John McCain in November. You elect Barack Obama, and the political landscape favors the Democrats. It's that simple. Kevin saw an inkling of that possibility during Obama's speech after Iowa. The political landscape favors the Democratic Party if Barack Obama is elected President, because the independents will look at Democrats as a viable option. It won't happen with Hillary Clinton, sorry. You can point to all of her positives, but it's Hillary Clinton. C'mon.

Thompson's out.

A couple of factors Kevin doesn't include in his reasoning are the likelihood that the post-Bush divisions within the GOP now playing out on the campaign trail will continue after the campaign ends, thus giving the next President (potentially) more options than might otherwise be the case; and the centralization of power in Congress in the leadership of the respective parties, which probably will afford the next President fewer options.

He also doesn't consider the possibility that neither Obama nor Clinton may prove particularly effective in the White House. Obama's legislative record is relatively thin, and his record in executive office nonexistent. Clinton's "remarkably strong ability to work with Republicans" in the Senate has been demonstrated in the context of pretty minor stuff, legislatively speaking. As any number of people have already pointed out here, her one adventure into major-league policymaking was the health care reform effort she led in her husband's first term; this ended in a failure that left Mrs. Clinton disliked as well as distrusted by many Congressional Democrats as well as Republicans.

Of course if a Democrat gets elected this November and Democrats win enough seats in Congress, the enactment of a liberal legislative agenda will be a lot easier whether a celebrity candidate or a creature of the permanent campaign moves into the White House. And there is always dumb luck to fall back on. These possibilities aside, the record does not support optimism about either Democratic candidate's ability to do much better than tread water in the White House.

And the biggest issue, aside from Hillary's potential for losing to McCain, should be what the candidate's impact is down-ticket in "purple" and "reddish" regions. The endorsement of Obama by Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Jean Carnahan is enough information for me on that one. There's no spin that puts Hillary ahead of Obama in impact on getting more Democrats in swing regions elected to congress. Because of her ability to mobilize the GOP, there will be fewer Democrats in Congress with Hillary at the top of the ticket. Which should be a deal-breaker for anyone who actually gives a shit about successfully legislating a liberal agenda.

Go figure where guys like Krugman and Kevin are coming from when they slam Obama as being inferior to Hillary for getting results for progressives. There is definitely some Clinton Kool-Aid being passed aroung.

The script for the change has yet to be written, so there is no "change" candidate. We have yet to get out from under the anti-socialist neoliberal policies that were championed by "conservatives" in the United States and Britain during the Cold War. These policies were so anti-socialist that they ended up as anti-social and counter to the much older ideals of republicanism and commonwealth. They were frankly anti-parliamentarian and quite ironically anti-democratic in essence. The end result has not been more liberty, as Milton Friedman promised, but more insecurity, little social mobility and flat wages for the majority. The nationalism that came along with neoliberal imperialism was hollow and did not result in riches flowing into the home country for the general population.

No candidate is really able to dig into this yet because the counter reaction is just being formulated. For me the best person to be president is the best person to stymie and even undermine movement conservatism.

Kevin Drum, you keep sputing this HRC is more progressive than BO BS. A lot of your readers have called you on it but you've yet to give us a comprehesive evidence based proof, just some more hogwash.

As to who's more likely to get effective legislative things done, well lets look at their respective resumes. BO has more successful legislative accomplishements than HRC. Check out his record in the Illinois congress. Also, look at his short stay in DC and what he's been able to do. Comapre that to HRC legislative successes. Nothing to write hopme about. Of course, she is successful with the flag burning and video game moralizing type bills she likes to talk about.

It amazes me that Clinton has a reputation for being able to play "political hardball" when the number of significant bills she's authored in six years in the Senate is dramatically less than the number of bills Obama's authored - and passed - in four.

The problem I have with Obama is I'm not sure how well he will really support the progressive agenda. He seems so busy trying to curry favor with the media elite, I don't see that changing once he is in office.

If elected I think he will be a big disappointment, just as Bill Clinton was.

"I believe that both candidates are ... close enough on policy issues that their differences are far less important than their ability to get things done"

This is really, really wrong, as best I can tell, when it comes to foreign policy.

A lot has been said how Obama is no JFK, but is Hillary anything close to LBJ? She has had some success as a Senator, but I don't see her doing the arm twisting necessary to get 60 Senate votes on her side unless the Democrats gain ten seats in the coming election.

He didn't say Hillary was LBJ -- he just used it as a way of describing what her approach is likely to be.

If the country is really ready for change then there's no need to hide what your agenda is.

Maybe I'm drinking my own Kool-Aid as well, but after watching these contentious debates and how "low" people rate Obama's abilities to take on the hard-charging attacks, I just don't see it. Obama makes on point rebuttals and also makes somewhat "progressive" arguments. I can see how the old regime, though I'm suprised to find Kevin and Josh Marshall (though he's seeing the light) and others in the blogosphere among them, get excited about Hillary and the Clintons and their abilities to "throw elbows", but I don't think that come November this is their year. After eight years of pure nastiness, I'd imagine that voters are sick of it. The Clintons are appealing to that knee-jerk reaction to get through their losses (not Obama's, look at how closely he finishes), and to turn against a fellow Democrat like that is pure evil.
Will I vote for Clinton if she's the candidate, sure. But if it's Clinton and McCain, would I take a closer look at McCain, even with his turn toward the right? Maybe. Because I'm more concerned about the probability things can get done, and that the right person is there to do it.
But really, look at what the future would hold. You think a divided Congress (even military) would appreciate Hillary, even more another four--probably eight--years with a Clinton, as President? If that's what it comes down to? Hillary Clinton is a great woman, I appreciate everything she has done and will do, as a Senator. It seems the Clintons are showing that they haven't moved with the times and are counting on hardball politics and anachronistic friends to win this nomination.
And I hope, and feel, that it comes back to defeat them. I believe it will. Just listen to Obama. That is a man with a gifted mouth and a gifted brain. It's someone who can lead this country, not just show off their resume and last name as if it's supposed to be the key to the Oval Office.

Kevin, I could write 1000 words here, but I want to zero in on one point where your logic is incoherent.

First, you say that Clinton would make overt appeals for the country to support progressivism, while Obama would rebrand progressivism as pragmatism.

Then, you say that Obama's approach needs a great hunger for change in the country in order to succeed, while Clinton's approach does not.

Do you see the lapse in logic here? In fact, Clinton's approach necessitates a greater change in the country's attitude. America will have to embrace progressivism in a way it hasn't shown itself willing to do in the past. Obama on the other hand will not need a huge change in attitudes if he is successful in rebranding progressivism as pragmatism, as his support among independents and republicans shows that he is able to do.

I think your problem, Kevin, is a misunderstanding of what Obama means by change. What he means is a change in politics--a change in the level of trust people have in their government--that their president is not a shallow, lying, scumbag only looking out for his or her self. And yes, I am really pissed at the Clinton's right now for their lies. If the liberal media won't call them out on it, how can we blame the MSM when they don't call the Republicans out? Don't aid and abet them Kevin, or else it will never stop. Read Jake Tapper:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/obama-v-clinton.html

If you're going to weigh in on their legislative effectiveness, I'm surprised you're not considering the Obama data offered most recently by Charlie Peters in the Post, or Brad DeLong's early incendiary review of Clinton's handling of the 94 health care initiative.

If you want to hear news stories in 2011 start with the phrase "Today, Majority Leader McConnell and Speaker John Boehner..." then nothing achieves that goal more effectively than nominating Hillary! Hell, voting for Hiilary! might bring that goal two years closer for the House.

Hillary, by contrast, would play a more conventional form of politics: a bit of hardball here and a bit of logrolling there, a process that might not be pretty but can be effective.

Okay, I must've nodded off when this happened. What was the issue on which Clinton succeeded in playing hardball with the administration? Which logs did she roll in order to pass legislation that her Republican colleagues didn't want to see enacted? No one can dispute that she'd be as policy-savvy a President as you could ask for, but where does that leave you at the end of the day when you're facing the inevitable filibuster from Mitch McConnell? And exactly what is it you're claiming she's done in that storied Senate career of hers that earns a comparison to LBJ? It'd be great if she could push through meaningful legislation in spite of an intransigent Republican Party, but let's not simply manufacture a meme that she's been doing it all along.

I lean toward the Hillary approach

Why is this the 'Hillary approach'? Exactly what LBJ-style legislative accomplishments does she have under her belt?

Could someone please tell me what progressive legislation Hillary has "worked with Republicans" to pass? From where I sit, she sponsored a flag-burning bill, lets Schumer do the heavy lifting on things like port security, and voted for the Iraq War without reading the full NIE. I really can't think of a single progressive bill she championed. Seriously, can I have a list of such legislation. Seems like she's spent all her time running for pres and making nice to those she scares --- at this progressive NY'ers expense.

Do you see the lapse in logic here?

Posted by: nathan

I've read the post five times and still can't figure out what the hell he is trying to say. Maybe he's stoned.

How bizarre. Bill is the archetype of the triangulating, centrist, DLC golden boy, yet in this twisted logic, Obama is his rightful heir, not Hillary. She went along with the DLC's "liberal hawk" strategy, selling out progressive values in a Lieberman-esque effort to rebrand the party as pro-war.

All this navel-gazing does no good. It seems like so many liberals have such an aversion to following their gut and crowning a candidate as king that they waffle endlessly while the candidates draw out the knives to differentiate themselves from each other.

Kevin earlier said that his gut was to go with Obama, but maybe its a white, middle-class gut that is unlike other kinds of guts of other colors or classes. Untrue. The only thing different about the white middle-class gut is that it is constantly paralyzed by white, middle-class hyper-analysis and second-guessing.

What was the issue on which Clinton succeeded in playing hardball with the administration?

Or even hardball with her Democratic Senate colleagues? (same applies to Obama). When have these potential leaders of the free world exhibited strong leadership in their own domain of the Senate?

If you elect Hillary, you're not just electing her--you're electing the Clinton team.

And I don't think that team has been particularly effective legislatively.

In fact, they were disasterously bad at dealing with Congress -- including Democrats. When I think of the Clinton administration and Congress, I think of a brash arrogance at first combined with excessive caution and tendency to give up after the first roadblock. Also, an eagerness to use a hostile legislature as an excuse for inaction.

Hillary Clinton has been an effective Senator, but my impression is that she is good at behind-the-scenes maneuvering on low-key issues. It's a lot harder to do that as president. It's not like President Hillary Clinton can go around and secretly pass a new health care plan.

It's a matter of faith that Barack Obama would be better at this, but I'd say it's also a matter of faith that Hillary Clinton and Co. have "learned their lesson" and will approach things differently in a new term. It's kind of like assuming that Bob Shrum has gotten smarter with each loss.

1) Hillary and Bill know how to throw elbows when it comes to campaigning, but on the policy front he capitulated to Republicans every chance he got.

2) What on Earth makes you think Hillary will actually pursue a "progressive agenda"?

Kevin,

Your questions exactly are in George Packer's article in The New Yorker today. Here:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/01/28/080128fa_fact_packer

Nickel summary is there are no hard answers, in each politician there is a bit of "the roll of the dice", but you'll understand a lot about the why of Senator Clinton by reading this article.

Joseph Clarke >"...Hillary Clinton might verbally support a progressive agenda during the primary campaign, but I haven't seen her take the kinds of political risks that Obama has to show real leadership."

Bingo !

And note that what they are saying now has NOTHING to do with what they are likely to do when actually in office. Partly because there are a lot of other actors along the road to actually getting things done.

Wise up folks, it is ALL propaganda.

(and no, I have no idea who I will actually vote for come November)

"History can save your ass." - William Gibson

Obama would face the same pressures, but he's been willing to stand up to those pressures and oppose Bush's warmongering. Hillary never has.

Really? I would think his lack of experience with the military establishment would hinder his ability to do anything effectively ... he would get played by the hawks, as Bill Clinton did.

Furthermore, there is very little talk about Hillary Clinton's support within the military brass. I believe this is an area requiring much more attention, and we will surely hear about sooner or later.

The next president will have to face two major problems: Iraq and the Economy.

We're in a recession folks. And if the next president doesn't fix it, we're looking at 1 and done. Honestly, I don't know who would be better to fix the mess that the Cowboy President has created. If it's going to take some bipartisanship, then I'd rather have Obama. I think people have forgotten just how much the GOP hates the Clintons and I don't expect an HRC presidency to be one of getting things done (easily). But honestly, I don't think either one of them has said anything that can shed light on how they'll manage an economic problem that is worsening by the day and will be much much worse in Jan 09. (And no, HRC's foreclosure moratorium ain't gonna cut it.)

The second problem is Iraq. We've got to get out (costs too damn much and we aren't doing anything productive anyway) but we risk sparking a genocide if we leave too quick. I'm not convinced there is any solution to that problem although I wouldn't consider myself to be an expert. But, i would say that I have a lot more confidence in Obama and his liberal internationalism than Hillary and what appears to be an affinity for neo-conservatism (or at the least, niavete).

In fact, Obama has been much more impressive on international policy than Hillary and, all things being even, a lot of their domestic policy differences are minimal. I have a real hard time understanding when people tout out her lines about getting things done when she's most noted for failed health care reform and voting for the Iraq war. At the very least, please don't drink the Clinton Kool-Aid and ignore that Obama got an awful lot done in a GOP dominated Senate in Illinois.

Thompson's out.

In memory of Phlegmatic Phred's candidacy, I'm going to go take a nap.

Southpaw,
Very few congress critters get to read the full NIE - it is classified at a very high level, so that even little toads with lowly secret clearance can't see it. So you can't fault anyone, excepting maybe the senior members on the foreign affairs, armed forces and perhaps the homeland security committee, who might have access to it - depending upon how magnanimous Cheney was that day.

As for the pertinent topic. I think all of us are trying to make a decision too early in the game. The situation outside is changing very rapidly - especially the economy. And maybe in a month from now Pakistan will implode. Right now I think we should ask all the candidates tough questions, and demand explicit answers about what their course of action will be with regard to solving specific problems, or responding to specific international scenarios. Without this information we will be unable to make a well reasoned and rationlized decision over who makes the best candidate for president and who would be most able to convince moderate republicans and independents to join a common bandwagon.

Like Donald from Hawaii said the other day - we have to win this one folks.

Like many Liberals, i have lived my entire life in the Northeast. I once told my wife i didn't know if we had ever had a person to dinner who owned an American car. Now I live in the center of Pensylvania surronded by Republicans. From what they say or don't say, it is obvious that we are overlooking the bias against a black man.When I say to them that they wouold have voted for Colin Powell, they tell me he was different This primary has given these folks a way of voting against obama without appearing prejudiced. Hillary will be the safer bet if she only stops acting like a common scold.

We don't know how effective Obama would be in working with Congress, but we know that HRC tried once and failed. She didn't just fail, she failed miserably. Maybe she would do better a second time after that "learning experience." Maybe not. In the real world (as opposed to the world of campaign spin) there is no real evidence that Clinton would be better at getting things through Congress and some evidence to the contrary.

Come on, Kevin. We know that you can do better than this!

Nathan is not stoned. He made some valid points, I was shaking my head in agreement and I don't do drugs. And I hope Kevin was in agreement too, because I am still surprised that he isn't pulling for Obama yet.
There is something brewing beneath the surface here that polls and the normal, proven methods are not registering. People need to pay attention to it.
Kevin: You said it would come down to Clinton and Romney. I think you're starting to fear your words. The Republicans are turning to McCain because they know he's their best chance. And if you don't think McCain can be the next President, you haven't been paying attention the past month.
And Democrats need to look at that and congeal behind one candidate too. Enough of this "progressive" litmus test, and enough of the personal attacks. We need to find the person best for America, not for our own personal views. This an election where we need to look beyond our own personal needs, and the details of every single policy, and look for the PERSON who will best accomplish putting a salve on the past eight years.
(And I was a huge Clinton--the Bill--supporter until about two weeks ago. I guarantee you there are a ton more like me out there.)

Bottom line: we're electing a leader. Hillary Clinton has had countless opportunities to show leadership in the past seven years (*cough* Iraq *cough*), but I can't think of a single instance when she's stuck her neck out to promote a progressive agenda.

Obama has not been on the national scene as long as she has, but he has demonstrated a much better balance between political calculation and risk-taking leadership.

Kevin, one critical thing that your analysis doesn't even speak about is the ability of a President to retain his/her clout in the face of adversity.

In the end, the ability of a President to get his agenda passed is based, more than anything else, I think, on his or her perceived support by the people.

More than anything else, this is where I see Hillary succeeding and Obama failing. Obama has never encountered serious, determined opposition in his entire, sheltered political life. For a certainty, he will do so when he enters the WH and tries to implement all the change he talks so much about.

How will he counter those attacks? I've seen precious little evidence he has good, effective answers. "Inspiration", per se, means virtually nothing in the face of an onslaught. An academic's "nuance" is useless -- having to get caught up explaining everything that comes out of your mouth because it seems to say something antithetical to your actual goals is not a positive trait.

With Hillary, in contrast, I have little difficulty envisioning her counterattacking effectively.

In some ways, the current back and forth between Obama and the Clintons show you in microcosm what they would be like in the macrocosm of the WH. Obama tries to hit back, but he never seems to knock the Clintons off their message.

Hillary Clinton seems so unbelievably toxic to me. I guess it's time to donate to Obama's campaign. I just hope she doesn't do too much long-term damage as this process plays out.

What about Edwards? Quit counting him out.

I am shocked reading these posts. I really appreciated Kevin's article because it discussed what is a real dilemma for me and a lot of other Democrats. I see strong arguments for both HRC and Obama and I think that he laid them out quite well.

But if I am to take the tone and substance of the reaction seriously, there simply is no dilemma because the superiority of Obama's candidacy is about as unclear as the existence of prime numbers.

Geesh, I never really appreciated what the commentariat meant when they said that Obama's support came from the Starbucks wing of the Democratic party until I read this.

Let me just point out two things. First, Kevin's claim that perhaps HRC would offer a more progressive agenda than Obama--a claim that caused several of you to more or less foam at the mouth with rage--is not exactly unique to him. He didn't make this up. Paul Krugman has itemized several occasions where Obama has criticized HRC's positions FROM THE RIGHT (Health Care, Social Security reform, and Reagan nostalgia to name just the instances that come to mind). Now you can disagree with Hillary's positions on these issues, but please don't pretend that Kevin is just making this stuff up because he is drinking Hillary cool-aid. Is Paul Krugman also a fan-boy whose judgment is unworthy of consideration?

Second, I have read and listened to a lot of reporting (which I must trust because I have no way of independently verifying this) that Hillary's promise when to was elected to the Senate to be a work horse rather than a show horse was kept and she she has earned the respect of colleagues on both sides of the aisle for her serious attention to legislation and the issues that drives it. Obama, on the other hand, has NOT earned this reputation. Instead, leaving aside from some raw personal jealousies, he is not well-liked by his Senate colleagues precisely because he is widely seen as something of a grandstander.

On the other hand, I see real appeal in Obama's ability to inspire and his appeal to independent voters. However, even this point has been exaggerated. The latest RealClearPolitics summary of head-to-head match-ups, shows that Obama does a couple of points better than HRC in a match-up against McCain. This far out from real voting, this tiny difference is meaningless.

Personally, I am stung by the last 2 general elections in which the Democratic candidates were insufficiently aggressive in fending off Republican attacks. Say what you will about Hillary, she will NOT be swift-boated. On the other hand, I fear that by November the Republican slime machine will have voters believing that Obama is a crack-dealing cousin of Osama Bin Laden.

What were Bill Clinton's main legislative accomplishments? Welfare reform? Free trade and NAFTA? Balanced budgets? Base closures? Aren't these all initiatives of previous Republican administrations? Aside from maintaining funding for Head Start, what were the Clinton's great ideas and successes for education, health care, seniors and labor?

To suggest that the Clintons can manipulate Congress to pass a Progressive agenda is laughable.

"The ability to tap into the zeitgeist and sway public opinion in the direction you want it to go. In recent history, think of Ronald Reagan as the best exponent of this style of governing"

Oh my God, did Kevin just pay an Obama-like compliment to Reagan??

Come on people, get out your torches and pitch forks, and let's drive this Reagan-loving blogger out of town...

"On the downside, however, his speeches don't tend to overtly push a progressive agenda as much as Hillary's do."

Have you been listening to the same speeches I have?

Everything I have watched happen in politics in my lifetime (and that goes back to the Truman years) tells me that Hillary very likely could accomplish a great deal (provided Democrats give us enough numbers in Congress to nullify Republican negativity).

I believe nobody's better at talking to "folks" than Obama. But I just can't see him standing up to Republicans (or, for that matter, to self-serving Democratic committee chairs).

I believe Hillary can lead.

(I believe Obama should go back to the Senate, build a reputation as somebody who can actually accomplish something, and then come back in 2016.)

I would think his lack of experience with the military establishment would hinder his ability to do anything effectively ... he would get played by the hawks, as Bill Clinton did.

Senator Clinton's "experience" got her to vote for both AUMF & Kyl-Lieberman, so if, as you say, her husband was played by the hawks, then Senator Clinton seems to be one of those hawks.

Norman! Come here. Come here. Norman! Hurry up! The loons.

Does anyone really think Republicans will commit suicide and vote for anything Hillary favors no matter how centrist?

Hillary's totemic image among right-wingers means there'd be absolutely no hope for governance by coalition under her Administration absent a Dem supermajority. Any Republican who cooperates with a President Hillary on anything risks his or her political career. They'd be pilloried by the far right and face challenges in the next primary.

Maybe some shift in the wind will inspire Republicans to cooperate for the greater good, and they'll stand up to Club for Growth, and maybe this will create a moderate Republican class, and maybe I'll father Penelope Cruz's next child.

>

Endorsements don't mean votes. To pick an extremely recent example, the heads of the Cilinary Union in Nevada all endorsed Obama strongly. Their membership all voted for Hillary.

And to cite an example from history, Walter Mondale was perhaps the most endorsed candidate in all of American history. Ronald Reagan cleaned his clock electorally in 1984.

Nathan is not stoned.

Posted by: Raven

Sorry, I was asking if KEVIN was stoned.

Seriously, why wouldn't Hillary get "swift-boated"? She's as radioactive as anyone else, and spoils for the fight. Do we really want to make things even worse by having the Clinton registered trademark out front again? You think Obama is such a rube that they have to protect us (and him) from them as if the Clintons are better equipped to take on the right-wing "conspiracy"? That boat has sailed. I guarantee you the predominance of America is ready to move beyond it.
And the Repub "machine" (notice how they also describe the Clinton "machine") is turning against McCain, and what has that done? Nothing. Their time is over, get with the present people.
And yes, I drink wine. And I listen to only NPR. And I like coffee. But Tully's, not Starbucks. And *gasp* I'm in the military, and have been to Iraq. Twice. Voluntarily. And I've been a die-hard Democrat for 16 years.
So stop with the stereotyping. This isn't the year for it.

Obama has never encountered serious, determined opposition in his entire, sheltered political life.

Oh, really?

"Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped. This seemed likely to stop the beatings, but the bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, who worried that Obama's bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to "solve" crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it. Obama had his work cut out for him. "

In some ways, the current back and forth between Obama and the Clintons show you in microcosm what they would be like in the macrocosm of the WH. Obama tries to hit back, but he never seems to knock the Clintons off their message.

This is like that Sideshow Bob political ad. I can see it now:

Barack Obama is so weak and inept, he can't even shake off Hillary Clinton's lies about him. Vote Hillary Clinton for president.

Very few congress critters get to read the full NIE - it is classified at a very high level, so that even little toads with lowly secret clearance can't see it. So you can't fault anyone, excepting maybe the senior members on the foreign affairs, armed forces and perhaps the homeland security committee, who might have access to it - depending upon how magnanimous Cheney was that day.

You're completely wrong on the facts here. Dana Priest was pretty clear about this in the Post:

"In the fall of 2002, as Congress debated waging war in Iraq, copies of a 92-page assessment of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction sat in two vaults on Capitol Hill, each protected by armed security guards and available to any member who showed up in person, without staff.

"But only a few ever did. No more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page National Intelligence Estimate executive summary, according to several congressional aides responsible for safeguarding the classified material."

If you have to bring up Reagan as an example, I should think that you would note one critical difference between Reagan's tenure and that of, say, Clinton.

Reagan had no well-funded, highly organized opposition that stretched from pseudo-pundits and pseudo-thinkers at the top down to the crassest radio talk show host at the bottom. Clinton did endure such an opposition. For Reagan, under those circumstances, it was far easier for him to "inspire" rather than attack (though he certainly reached for demagoguery when it served his purposes). If anything, Reagan had such forces arrayed behind him, doing his dirty work.

No Democrat will ever enjoy that one-sided advantage. There will always be attacks against Democrats, and there will always be a need for a President capable of counteracting them.

Can Obama play that game? Every ingenuous thing he says suggests otherwise.

Tom, based on the 1990s, we should have a good idea of where the Clintons stand. Look, I think that Bill Clinton was a fairly good President, but he doesn't have an especially progressive record for a Democrat. Comparing campaign platforms is not the only way or necessarily best way to determine the "progressiveness" of candidates. I won't claim that Obama is more "progressive" than Clinton, because we don't really know that. I would say that Obama has a slightly more progressive record (small data set) and a slightly less progressive platform. The bottom line is that we know the Clinton's M.O. and it hasn't involved taking a real stand for anything important in a way that expends political capital since at least 1994. Obama might be better and, at worst, will be about the same on this front.

I agree that head-to-head matchups are just about meaningless now. I would pay more attention to the favorable / unfavorable numbers (Clinton's are poor, Romney's are really bad but probably have more room to change, McCain's and Obama's are very good but would presumably get worse in the general election). The arguments for Clinton that I can see are that (1) if the economy is the central issue, Bill's record is a plus, (2) some voters who otherwise would vote D might not vote for a black candidate (at least once the Republican spin machine goes to work), (3) she might appeal to female swing voters (plausible but unproven conjecture). I don't think that any Democrat will repeat Kerry's mistakes in the general election this year. I worry more about Clinton lacking any real message other than competence and a grab bag of individual policies. This hasn't been a winning formula for the Democrats in the past 30 years. Clinton might be different if she can run on fixing the economy. Otherwise, the Democrats will just be doing the same old thing and expecting different results . . .

"Devil" "Shrew" "Common Scold" "Blonde Dyke" "Nurse Ratched."

These are the phrases used to describe Hillary Clinton that I've seen on progressive blogs (TPM, Hullabaloo, Political Animal) in just the last 48 hours. The mainstream media has nothing on you boys. Even George W. Bush hasn't had that many nasty names thrown at him.

Women are taking this all in, and that, of course, is why she's winning. So by all means, please keep up the torrent of sexist abuse. We're laughing all the way to the nomination.

Obama is an empty vessel you get to pour your hopes into. To tell the truth (I'm largely feeling around in the dark) my impression is that Obama has a fairly strong independent/contrarian/moderate streak. I think in office he'd gravitate toward triangulation and aisle crossing and be a lot like Bill Clinton and Joe Lieberman before their behaviour got tainted with the bitterness and wounded animal behavior.

... what Obama means by change ... is a change in politics--a change in the level of trust people have in their government--that their president is not a shallow, lying, scumbag only looking out for his or her self.

Posted by: nathan

Now THAT'S the best definition of change I have seen yet!

Tractarian:

One simple point. Obama was never in any jeopardy of losing popularity with his own constituents, because he was situated in a very, very safe liberal seat in the State Senate. That means he could not be effectively attacked by his opponents with, say, attack ads; he essentially had free rein to push whatever he might want to.

If you don't see how important that distinction is, you're not getting something very important.

As I said, the single most important thing for a President to be able to do is to retain his or her clout in the face of determined opposition.

But I just can't see him standing up to Republicans

You can't envision it, you mean. Your lack of imagination isn't exactly a strong selling point in your argument.

What you can't see is Hillary standing up against Bush's proposals of war, the surge, or military threats against Iran. That's not a matter of envisioning, that's a matter of looking at her record.

You can, in fact, see her not just voting in favor of all of the above neo-con ideas about foreign policy, you can see her praising Bush's handling of the war, praising the "success" of the search, talking about keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely, etc., etc. Even as recently as last summer, before she went into full campaign mode. And even now in full campaign mode she can't bring herself to admit that any of the above was a mistake.

If you want a continuation of neo-con foreign policy, vote for Hillary. Personally I think she knows better, but she's so afraid of being painted as "weak" by the Repubs that she unfailingly decides to err on the side of war.

Optical Weinie,
HRC herself has admitted that she could have seen the whole NIE but chose to rely on staff synopsis. I think it is unforgiveable to okay a war that will eat up other people's kids based on a synopsis. Bon Graham read the whole thing and than voted NO, citing the ambiguities apparent in the document. I don't deny that HRC is smart and hard working in service of her own interests. More than anyone, she reminds me of poor smart Judy Borden, condescended to by the sweathogs on "Welcome Back Kotter."
But contrary to her outrageous claim to have been working for me for "35 years," she's used her smarts to further her ambitions. Every once and a while, her ambitions and my interests as her constituent converge. I hope that will be the case if the FISA bill comes up again. Hopefully both she and Obama will make it back to defeat telecom immunity this time.

Either Americans are sick and tired of Republicans, or they're not. If they are, it hardly matters who the Democratic nominee is. If they're not, I want a nominee who can explain to them why they should be.

Incidentally, we still have to survive one more trip around the sun with Dick and Dubya in the White House. Americans have 10 more months to decide whether they're sick and tired of Republicans. Most of the pro-Barack/pro-Hillary debate seems to discount the possiblity that we're in for some kind of nasty surprise between now and the election. A market melt-down, another 9/11, another Katrina, another GOP sex or bribery scandal -- who knows? It's a fair bet that SOMETHING will be an issue in the fall campaign that is not in the mix right now.

-- TP

It doesnt really matter what the actual facts or the positions of the candidates are. What matters is the media narrative that will inevitably take shape once we have the Dem and Republican contenders.

My fear is that the media has a "crush" on Obama right now, and nothing is more bitter and angry than a jilted media once some of the more questionable things come to light (as I am sure they will, no one is perfect). This is the age of the trivial scandal, blown to sky high proportions by a bored media talking heads.

So, I think that the candidate that is mostly immune to this kind of attack is what we want. I mean seriously, what else are they going to say bad about Hillary?

The fact that she is willing to kick in some teeth and do whatever it takes to win is just a bonus. Obama just doesnt have the jugular instinct. And he seems like a really decent guy, so maybe thats for the best.

Our country doesn't need bipartisanship and a new spirit in Washington. Thats for suckers and chumps. You have to heal the infection for the patient to get better before you can change the view out the window.

And I think Hillary is the woman to kick in the teeth to get it done.

When the race started what seemed like eeons ago, I was agnostic about the choices. I was happy that I wouldn't have to hold my nose or keep myself from rolling my eyes. However, since before the primaries, but much more in the last 2 weeks, I have decided that I am coming to loathe Hillary Clinton.

I was never a huge fan of the Clintons, neither liked nor disliked. He was a reasonably good president that let what was in his pants hold too much sway, but generally a good president. I felt both - especially Hillary - got bad press. It was obvious that the press hated her. Maybe their dislike was just too much familiarity, because ever since I started paying more attention to her, the more I dislike her.

I wouldn't be able to quantify why I have come to dislike her. Couldn't point to any one thing in particular and say "that is it." But I have to say that by the convention or the general election if she is the nominee, I won't have an ounce of goodwill left and may consider staying home (I would never vote for a single one of the Republicans).

Speaking of Donald...Donald, where are you? We need your insight here.

I've said it before but I'll say it again. I think Obama needs to seriously develop a strategy for keeping above the fray. If he failed at anything last night, he failed in maintaining his central message that he is all about not falling prey to the half-truth, gutter attacks. He needs his "there you go again" line - something to remind voters that his opposition wants to shoot from the gutter while he's on a different plane. That's his "change politics" truth and he failed to prove it under fire last night.

In that sense, Hillary totally out-strategized him. She drew him into a fight that he doesn't want to have and he whiffed. If he can develop a better method for avoiding the nitpicky confrontation of gutter lies then he'll withstand the GOP Swiftboat machine better than Hillary simply because Hillary's tactic is to throw as much mud back as she can (and I think people are tired of that crap).

People say he's not as good a debater. It's true. His eloquence doesn't translate to the forum as well. But it can. He just needs a catch phrase that he can use to remind people that his opponent is, once again, spewing forth lies in a desperate attempt to tarnish his record. If he gets this and uses it in a debate, I believe he'll be unstoppable. If not, this thing is going to drag into March or beyond.

Your assessment is just a restatement of the "hope" versus "experience" dichotemy. Obama is essentially relying on broadbase support to provide the basis for significant change, while Clinton is following the old playbook--small-bore proposals designed to appeal to specific demographics coupled with sharp elbowed attacks.

Perhaps the reason that there is such a generational divide among those supporting these two candidates is that the elders are jaded, and youth is optimistic.

Clearly, Mr. Drum, your response places you into the jaded category. It's important to note, however, that the jaded perspective is a form of resignation--it essentially concedes the fact that no significant change is possible in the current environment.

If I held that view, I wouldn't support Obama either. I also wouldn't be nearly as depressed as I will be if the Clinton administration is restored.

Another fly in the logical ointment is the persistent assertion on the part of the Clintons that HRC (1) has been vetted to a fare-thee-well and (2) is therefore immune to the catcalls and wingnut attacks on her character.

You know, the first part is true. HRC has been vetted to a fare-thee-well. But only to the satisfaction of her supporters and those who bear her no ill will.

But what about (2)? Honestly. HRC mobilizes the haters. I think that's a given. (Hasn't this been determined in polls?)

This is another of those Clinton premises/talking points (like her vaunted experience) that, IMO, doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Her campaign hypes her weaknesses (experience and imperviousness) and attacks Obama's strengths (fill in the blanks).

What we don't know yet, and what makes this campaign so interesting, is who--what kind of voters and in what numbers--will BO mobilize?

Reagan had no well-funded, highly organized opposition that stretched from pseudo-pundits and pseudo-thinkers at the top down to the crassest radio talk show host at the bottom. Clinton did endure such an opposition.

Yes, he did endure that kind of opposition. She, however, did not, so it's an open question as to whether she can govern effectively in the face of that. There's a common & mistaken tendency among people to assume that, during the Clinton administration, she was doing everything that he was, but backwards & in heels. She is no more proven than any of the other candidates when it comes to governing, much less governing while facing the right wing noise machine.

I.m sure when Hilliary takes the oval office the right will line up behind her,That has been there approach for the last eight years(Just let the President do what the President does and shut up)You don't think the right will change in attitude do you.That would be unpatrotic and not in support of the troops and we know how the right supports the troops.

I'm ready for HRC and Obama to take a firm stance on improving the adult film industry. Those movies need better plots with hotter actors and more steamy action.

Our country doesn't need bipartisanship and a new spirit in Washington.

I think this gets to a key point. Hillary supporters often say things like this. But hard-core progressives don't make up a majority in this country.

There are a lot of moderates and independents (and I'm one of them) in this country. Pissing them off isn't a good way to win anything. Bipartisanship doesn't mean reaching out to the hard-core wingers, the mirror-images of the hard-core progressives. They're unreachable. It means trying to put together broad support so you actually get something done, as opposed to trying to bully everyone into giving in.

And even if you wanted to write off the moderates and independents, why would you view Hillary's polarizing style as a plus? Edwards is far more progressive than Hillary. But he's also far more appealing to moderates and independents.

When interviewing candidates for a job opening, one normally looks at their record. In this particular case, you can reduce it to an apples-to-apples comparison: both have been U.S. Senators. Based on their legislative records (what laws have they helped pass and were they able to work across the aisle to get it done) and their mastery/familiarity of the issues that come with the job (the economy, healthcare, national security, the environment) you can determine who is the better candidate. I think Hillary is the better candidate using these measures.

I would like to add: If someone started saying that I was a good marketer because my wife works in marketing, wouldn't you say they were pretty dumb?

Seems like that's exactly what about 50% of the pro-Hillary posts come down to. Well, Bill did pretty good with the econ, so I'm gonna put a check in Hillary's column for that one...

I thought that perhaps we were a bit more evolved than that. Maybe not.