1 Boring Old Man

Looking at the various analyses of the Democratic Primary Race leaves me a little cold. Most of the pundits point to tactical errors on Clinton’s part – too much focus on Iowa, too little attention to caucus states, Bill Clinton’s mouth, emphasizing experience over change. On the other hand, simply saying that Obama is more charismatic, or more dynamic seems naive – like saying he’s a rock star who has the "it" factor. While I say that he won my vote in 2002 by voting against the Iraq War, I expect that was just an example of something, rather that something itself.

I don’t know who Obama’s advisors are. I don’t know about his strategy team. I don’t even know where his headquarters are. I don’t even think much about how he "plays his cards." I expect he gets lots of advice and has lots of advisers – that some of the things he says in speeches are aimed at a particular audience or interest group. But I don’t think about that when he’s talking. What I think about is what he’s saying, not who or what is behind what he’s saying. I don’t think of his message is planned by someone else and then delivered.

We’ve had eight years of speeches from George Bush and I don’t believe he wrote a one of them. My fantasy is that there’s a room full of people somewhere that take the various issues as they come up and write them on a chalkboard, then their leader says, "How are we going to play this one?" They spin their web du jour, then one of them turns it into a speech on a teleprompter or heavily briefs Bush before a Press Conference. He’s the Charlie McCarthy puppet to someone else’s ventriloquist, Edgar Bergen. The only act in the eight long years that I felt he authored was to pick Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. Everything else feels Cheney or Rove driven, in consultation with the people in the room with the chalkboard.

And that’s something of the way Hillary Clinton comes across to me. I expect she’s a lot more involved with the people in the room with the chalkboard than George Bush has been, but her advisers and polsters are a big piece of "how are we going to play this?" Bill Clinton’s in that room too. I thought she voted for the war, not because she supported it, but because she was afraid not to for political reasons, or was advised not to. I see Obama in a room with the chalkboard with people who throw out ideas. After he’s heard what they have to say, he tells them how "he" wants to "play it." When they hand him a speech, he red lines it, makes it his own, then it gets put on the teleprompter. I see Hillary as a much bigger part of who she is than George Bush – by a mile, but still just a part. With Obama, I feel like he’s the person and the person behind the curtain. I don’t just feel it, I believe it. It’s what people mean when they say, "the real deal."

Hillary Clinton lost because we saw her as tactical person, not because of her specific tactics. There is nothing wrong with that except that Bush has presented us with such a malignant version of it. With Barack Obama, we saw Barack Obama – a man who may have gotten good advice, but who made it his own. I wonder how all of this will play out with John McCain? I believe he’s being "handled" – and it shows. With him, I see two rooms. There’s the one with the chalkboard and speechwriters and policymakers. Next door, there is a room full of similar people completely devoted to damage control, working on how to "play" his most recent political blunder and turn it into something that makes sense.