Obama's a Mac, Clinton's a PC

With John Edwards out of the race, Democratic voters must squarely confront a choice this election season every bit as stark as that facing millions of Americans each year as they replace their outdated computers: Mac or PC.

We have all seen the ads, we know the right thing to do is to buy a Macintosh, but we hesitate. Will I be able to open all my PC files? Will it be able to run Outlook? Am I really going to make those photo albums and movies anyway? Am I cool enough for a Mac?

Obama, like the Mac, seems almost too good to be true. He's young, hip, inspiring, and promising to do for Democrats what Ronald Reagan did for Republicans, assemble and maintain the working majority in Washington desperately needed to enact changes in foreign policy, health care and energy security. And in soaring moments at the podium -- at the Democratic Convention in 2004, in Iowa at the Jefferson/Jackson dinner, at Ebenezer Baptist over the Martin Luther King holiday weekend -- Obama appears ready and able to make good on these grand promises.

But Democrats are still deeply divided. Having been in the political wilderness for much of the last 30 years, we are, understandably, a risk adverse bunch. We cling to Hillary like that old-reliable PC that we keep on our desks. We respond to her message: she's tested, able to handle every dirty trick Republicans will throw at her, ready on day one.

All true, but there's also the darker side of the story. As the hipster in the Mac commercial loves to point out, a PC isn't actually all that reliable: reboot, reboot. We all experienced the rollercoaster ride that was the eight years of Bill Clinton's presidency: we should be confident in voting for Hillary only to expect the unexpected. And PC owners just try to forget about the whole "blue screen of death," melted hard drive thing, just like Democrats put Monica, impeachment and disbarment as far from their minds as possible as they contemplate pulling another voting lever for a presidential candidate named Clinton.

Still, what if the alternative is worse? We think we know what we'll get with Hillary -- more of that '90s show -- and right now that doesn't seem bad. Plus no one is better at bare knuckles politics than the Clintons, and that may still be required to win the White House. What if Obama loses a foreign policy fight with John McCain, then where will we be. What if he can't navigate the slings and arrows of Washington, and ends up slinking back to Chicago in 2013 the way Jimmy Carter slunk back to Plains in 1981. No Democrat can afford that.

But we can't afford another four years of Washington infighting where nothing gets done either. For me, Macintosh sealed the deal last week when they introduced that new paper-thin, feather-light laptop. After clunking around my 10 pound, 2 inch-thick Windows job for the last 8 years, enough is enough. Perhaps for Democrats, seeing Obama trounce Clinton in South Carolina -- after taking everything the Clintons' could throw his way -- will have a similar effect.

Comments

[rplevy]

It's more about software than hardware. Allow me to explain:

Barack Obama is a solid free/open-source kernel built on the project of progressive hope 2.0, and is actively developed by a broad values-driven base. While designed with the philosophy of Ubuntu linux in (package available as of Gutsy Gibbon) he is platform independent and is thus compatible with MacOS X, and Windows.

Hillary Clinton on the other hand is proprietary code with many known unaddressed faults that lead to widespread incompatibilities with a number of different systems. She is owned and protected by several different corporations, all of conduct their business in secret. As a result, achieving a stable build of Hillary Clinton is a project that has been all but abandoned. Corruption is a known fact that users of Hillary have grown to accept.

[erincnyc]

I think it's a perfect analogy. Obama is all image and no substance. The candidate for the poseurs. The hipsters. Etc. Likening him to a paper thin laptop is right on point. That laptop has no power. It is only useful for surfing the web. But people want it to look cool. Obama is a lightweight. My heavier Windows laptop is actually useful. Its compatible with nearly all programs and is a workhorse that gets things done. Hillary is the same. She is widely respected on both sides of the aisle. She already has the connections to get things done out of the gate. My Windows laptop has never crashed. I don't believe what I hear in television commercials. Evidently, Microsoft doesn't need to bring its competition down to build itself up. They have a quietly superior product. Go Hillary!

[NYC07]

I think Hillary is more like a Word Processor.

[factanonverba]

This is just silly. I've been a Mac user my entire life, I own four currently. But my Macs don't vote, I do.

And if something is too good to be true, it generally it is. Obama is hype. Why is it the attacks seem to becoming from the Obama camp.

I'm for Edwards so it strikes me as odd that if you really want my vote then your petty attacks still occurring on John Edwards seem counter-productive. Larry O'Donnell called him "a loser" right here on the Huffington Post. Well if an Obama supporter thinks my candidate a loser I sure as hell ain't going to vote for his. And then today some other hack questions John Edwards' desire to lead. Really?

I am tired of Obama and his supporters who care not for the Democratic Party, only their candidate. Well I have news for you, I care about the Democratic party because it is the only one we got. If Hillary is the nominee how many Obama supporters will cut and run.

The progressive left is however like Apple Inc, we are slowly building our case on why our products are better. And Obama is not a member of the progressive left. Hell he isn't even for universal healthcare. He has surrendered the fight before even waging it like he did on the bankruptcy bill. He sells out time and again.

[casiguapa]

There's a reason PCs outsell Macs y'know...

[LiamSherborn]

I would take this whole argument one step further.

Both the Mac and the PC, Barack and Hillary do and would do the same tasks (there is not much daylight between Hillary and Barack on policy). That said, the user experience is completely different.

The Mac elegantly inspires me to do better work while the PC is constantly interrupting my workflow with details and distractions not essential to the task at hand.

The two presidencies would be equally different. Obama would inspire and lead and leave the details of policy implementation to lower level dedicated processors while Clinton would constantly be interrupting my inspiration with too much wonkery and too many little ethical sideshows.

I elect a president and choose an operating system so that they can do their job and let me and America focus on theirs.

The job of a President is to inspire and direct. Just look at the difference between two recent Presidents - Reagan accomplished more bad things in eight years than Carter could have accomplished good things in 16.

And then there is the blue screen of death or in Hillary and Bill's case, the ethical crash that will come along sooner or later and bring all progress to a halt with the very good possibility that everything we've all been working on is lost.

Happily cranking away on my Mac,

Liam

[Serfie]

The Mac is for the user who has no brains and overpays for simplicity, bells, whistles and marketing gimmicks.

The PC doesn't necessarily use Microsoft and is more open and democratic to users all over the world.

[honeybee49]

PC has the monster slice of market share, and so does Hillary.

[alkamm]

Hillary's laugh is a window, if you will, into her soul and it's as hollow as all the claims PC ad man makes. If he cried, the analogy would be just as apt. Contrived, employed to appear more human than human, more competent than authentic is his argument.
Obama,the slender, the articulate, the shape of the future, thinking on his feet, flexible, ready.

On the day of battle, it's the slender horse, not the lumbering ox that is of use.

[RoseMerry]

I guess Ron Paul is a rack of Linux blade servers. Open source and supported by a dedicated community of volunteers.

[ProgressiveNotLiberal]

More like Obama is an XP and Hillary a 98!

[mommadona]

"HA!"

Perfect analogy.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

... and McCain's a Commodore 64.

Romney? "Hal" from 2001 Space Odyssey.