The Clinton-Obama Exchange You Might Have Missed
I’d like to highlight a very tense, and–I believe–revealing exchange between Senators Clinton and Obama that took place during last week’s CNN/Univision Democratic debate in Austin, TX. In case you didn’t notice, it was a surprisingly explicit evocation of the difference between each contender’s approach to the policymaking process, whether in the US Senate or in the White House in 2009. Unfortunately, it happened right in the midst of the much more superficial, but apparently more memorable, back-and-forth over Obama’s “change you can Xerox,” so this angle has gotten approximately zero media coverage.
Here is Obama’s line, on the heels of his stinging observation that Hillary’s people talk about Obama backers as if they’re somehow “delusional”:
Well, I think they perceive reality of what’s going on in Washington very clearly. And what they see is that if we don’t bring the country together, stop the endless bickering, actually focus on solutions and reduce the special interests that have dominated Washington, then we will not get anything done. And the reason that this campaign has done so well — (applause) — the reason that this campaign has done so well is because people understand that it is not just a matter of putting forward policy positions.
Here, omitting about three minutes of back-and-forth on the Deval Patrick “plagiarism” issue, is Hillary’s response:
Now, there is no doubt that you are a passionate, eloquent speaker, and I applaud you for that. But when you look at what we face in this country, we do need to unite the country, but we have to unite it for a purpose around very specific goals. It is not enough to say, “Let’s come together.” We know we’re going to have to work hard to overcome the opposition of those who do not want the changes to get to universal health care.
To me, these were the two soundbites in which the candidates actually engaged what I would term the single most important difference between them. The issue is not just whether Obama’s call to “bring people together” and to change the way business is done in Washington is realistic, but whether it’s even a worthy aspiration. Clearly, the Obama camp answers yes to both questions. That’s nothing new. What is striking is that I think Hillary’s response last Thursday—obviously unscripted though it came on the heels of the highly scripted “change you can xerox” line—reveals that she doesn’t even agree that the next President should be seeking to heal America’s deep divisions.
It is precisely because the quotes above were overshadowed by political maneuvering on the plagiarism issue that they are more revealing of each candidate’s natural instinct on how to solve policy problems. In this case, the problem on the table was health care. Obama’s health care proposals really are not all that different from Clinton’s—and neither Democratic option is likely to suit Congressional Republicans—yet at every juncture, Obama says he’ll look to consultation and compromise to get things done. Clinton “applauds” his passion and eloquence about “bringing people together,” but in the same breath eviscerates that spirit by saying people need to come together to “overcome the opposition” of other people. In other words, when Obama is preparing the ground for possible compromise, or at least for a reasoned dialogue, Clinton is spoiling for a fight.
It may not be big news that Hillary and Obama have dramatically different political styles, but given how close they are on substance, many still undecided voters—and superdelegates—may be looking for some indication of how those differences in style are likely to play out. I think last Thursday’s debate offered us a valuable glimpse. At worst, a President Obama might be accused of being more style than substance, but at best, he could be the inspiration around which centrists coalesce to make real progress on dozens of longstanding “stuck issues” in Washington. A President [Hillary] Clinton, on the other hand, will definitely make a lot of new policy, but she’s not likely to make a lot of new friends, and that suggests her great ideas might not go anywhere.
Lastly, let’s not be unfair to either of these candidates. Obama is a very competent policymaker, who knows the issues and offers intelligent opinions on all of them. He has put forward at least as many substantive proposals as his opponent, and has rightly earned both her respect, and that of the press and the pundits. For her part, Hillary Clinton knows Washington well enough to recognize that she’ll have to come to terms with at least a handful of centrist Democrats and Republicans to get anything done. She has co-sponsored bipartisan legislation in the past, and she would certainly be a credible partner on future cooperation across the aisle.
The real question—and the debate on which the Democratic contenders have staked their candidacies—is whether Americans are willing to commit to more cooperation, more dialogue, and more bipartisanship as objectively positive values for the long term, or whether we view these things as mere instruments for achieving short-term policy goals. As somebody who works for dialogue and cooperation across party lines every day, I can’t help but view the latter as both pessimistic and destructive.
No related posts.
[...] Kyle E. Moore wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptHere, omitting about three minutes of back-and-forth on the Deval Patrick “plagiarism” issue, is Hillary’s response:. Now, there is no doubt that you are a passionate, eloquent speaker, and I applaud you for that. … Read the rest of this great post here Posted by [...]
Pingback on February 25, 2008 @ 11:23 am
It is important for Americans to look at the positions of the two candidates at the in depth level posed. It is also important to point out that Hillary Clinton has been a Senator under a Republican majority. Most Americans don’t understand that the majority party controls the adjenda; what is discussed/debated; what comes to a vote on the floor. Senator Clinton has obviously had to work well with many Republicans to get anything accomplished. Our system was designed this way.
Americans must remember that no matter how much you attempt to work with Republicans, they are not going to change their mind on stem cell research, they will not change their mind that the free market is the cure all for all that troubles our nation, that oversight is somehow big governement, that tax cuts need to reward the wealthy, and the list goes on. When the Republican members of the house walked out of the chamber last week, it is clear, they will not work with anyone who doesn’t share their position–staunchly. Not nuance, not grey area. They shut off microphones during hearings. Republicans approach governing from a “my way or the highway” attitude. They demonize any Republican who does work with Democrats. (Senator Mc Cain). It is time we had a candidate that aggressively persues Democratic core values. We’ve lost in 2000 and 2004, we can’t afford that again. There is a difference between wanting change (Obama) and needing change (Hillary). It is time Democrats went for some blood and make the Republicans pay for what they’ve done.
Comment on February 25, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
This is an analysis that has been there for many of us to see for many months and in large part explains my decision to support Sen. Obama after concluding that both candidates’ policy positions were “in the ball park”. (Yes Obama has policy positions – the “no substance” critique is one that caters only to the stupidest of the electorate… if anything, the only empty suit is John McCain … try tracking down where John McCain stands on global warming or rural development or any number of issues other than taxes and war… there is no policy there other than vague platitudes).
The difference between the Dem candidates is remarkable – a difference of executive vision. Change for Clinton means, getting a Democrat in the White House with a Dem-controlled Congress to exact a partisan revenge on an overly partisan GOP. Jeff in Illinois clearly is of the mind that the blood fued must go on. No, it must stop. It is time to heal and listen and compromise. The pace of political progress has been terribly slow under the partisan warfare model that emerged 25 years ago.
Comment on February 25, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
Hillary’s entire campaign has been built around the idea of division and fighting. She’s the “battle tested” candidate who’s covered with “scars” and is ready to “take on the Republicans”. She simply does not get it. This country has had enough of this horseshit. She just doesn’t understand America in the year 2008.
Comment on February 25, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
Matt, you’re reading too much into her words. Can we achieve universal care with no financial sacrifice or reduction in quality for some? This question is what makes the discussion of the health care issue in the US so difficult, and the process of providing or mandating universal health coverage is not one I would recommend as a starting point for bringing everyone together.
Senator Clinton’s reference to overcoming opposition is a reminder of the heat she took in 1993 with her health care proposal. Those who opposed her and so-called socialized medicine still oppose universal coverage and will fight the concept to the end.
She’s right. It’s not enough to say “Let’s come together,” because the adage is true, that if you aim at nothing you will surely hit it. So in the quest to rebuild trust, we start with small steps, and Clinton says as much when she advocates seeking “very specific goals,” finding some common ground on an admittedly very hot issue, and moving forward from there.
Although I can’t agree with Jeff in Illinois that Democrats need to take revenge on the Republicans, he correctly cites Senator Clinton’s proven ability to work with the other party to get things done, which defines bipartisanship.
Comment on February 25, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
Great post. You know, I think that Hillary supporters unfairly characterize Barack Obama’s philosophy of “reaching out” as meaning that he will “cave” to the Republicans. I do not believe this to be the case. Rather, I believe that Hillary, who has positioned herself as a “fighter,” will be so combative toward all Republicans, and even the Democrats who disagree with her, that she will find it impossible to get anything done.
Example: she’s taken to calling her health-insurance proposal a “core Democratic value.” Oh, really? I was unaware that a plank of the Democratic Party was the idea that all citizens must be forced to purchase private health insurance or else have their wages garnished.
Conversely, I think that Barack Obama has shown that he will not be baited into lashing out against people who disagree with him. He is a consensus-builder, and Democrats in red and purple states believe that an Obama candidacy would have huge coattails in their states. He has the ability to usher in a true “governing mandate” in November.
Comment on February 25, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
Mark F – you are absolutely right. One crystal clear example of this difference is the speeches given by Clinton and Obama on the evening of Super Tuesday.
Clinton – “I am the one ready to FIGHT Republicans”
Obama – “Let’s work together to make the country better”
THAT’S why he’s going to win.
Comment on February 25, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
Wolfpack,
I think you’ve got a few of your facts crooked. First, how is it possible that someone is “reading too much into her words”? It was a nationally televised live debate. He said what he said. She said what she said. A few million interested parties watched and took from it what they chose to take from it. But the argument that somone “read too much into her words” is just as silly as the argument that “words don’t matter.” She wanted a debate. She got a debate. She made her point. Reasonable people will assess it accordingly. I think this post makes an astute analysis of the most stark contrast between the two candidates.
Second, given the choice of “common ground” or “scorched earth,” the disctinction in what the candidates represent is clear. Both of them talk about change. Barack means changing the overall way of doing business in Washington, and actually having a government that solicits the input of and represents the American People. Hillary has made it abundantly clear that she means moving away from the Bush Administration and their disasterous policies. I support the latter, but the former means a great deal more, and it is obvious that one message is resonating with a wider swath of the population.
Third, I think you’ve lost sight of why the health care battle of the early 90s turned out the way it did. There are numerous individuals on all sides of that fight who have spoken out on the process, and the one point on which they all seem to sound the same note is the notion that Hillary thought the best method was to go behind closed doors with like-minded individuals, hash out a plan, and ram it down the throats of those who had even the slightest disagreement or other ways of achieving the goal. She talks about experience, but she hasn’t changed her tactic very much. When Edwards was in the race, she was just as critical of his plan as she is of Obama’s now. It’s as though she can’t conceive of anyone having a good idea that she didn’t think of first. That’s the Washington way, I guess, but it surely isn’t productive.
Last, I think you missed the contradiction inherent between “having very specific goals” and “starting with small steps.” Hillary’s way of thinking about that is “I set the very specific goals and you take small steps away from your position, toward mine.” That’s just not the way negotiation works. It’s not the way compromise works. It’s not the way bipartisanship works. In order to have a true working relationship with someone, you have to have a specific goal and I have to have a specific goal. If our specific goals are not the same, we have to come together in understanding that, and in establishing a willingness to know what each other’s goals are, and why/how we arrived at those goals. We also need to figure out where our interests coincide and where they diverge. When we figure out where they coincide, that’s when we take the small steps. Once we arrive at a compromise (the place where our shared interests lie), then we both need to reassess how tied we are to where we originally were. In other words, we let the circumstances at the time and the results of our approach dictate our course of action, rather than our preconceived notions of “the ONE RIGHT WAY” to solve a particular problem.
Remember, as Junior Johnson once said, if you sit down to a breakfast of eggs and bacon, the chicken is dedicated, but the pig is committed.
Comment on February 25, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
Julie…that’s all we need. Another “gorverning mandate.”
Mark F…yeah, it’s so refreshing they way Obama’s campaign started working to define the Clinton administration and Hillary as “devisive”, from the start. And how reasonable and moderate are so many Obama supporters.
Comment on February 25, 2008 @ 9:01 pm