There is no doubt that Barack Obama is inspiring. His primary victory in South Carolina was inspiring in itself, and his speech later that evening was more so. His vision of an America less divided and better able to tolerate differences while we search for common ground is exhilarating. To paraphrase Sigmund Freud, we are all more human (read "American") than otherwise.
There are risks to Obama's vision, however, and what follows is only one: the risk of losing specificity in the service of focusing exclusively on what we have in common. This can lead to lumping things together. In her passionate support of Obama's message of hope, Caroline Kennedy writes that Obama reminds her of what inspired people about her father, that he helps "our children believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future" (NYT Op Ed p18, January 27).
What gets lost in her hopeful essay is the possibility that important policy differences exist among Obama, Clinton, and Edwards. In writing that the candidates' goals are "similar", Kennedy risks having us overlook or discount these differences. At its worst, I'm reminded of 2000 when Nader supporters said there are no differences between the major political parties, that George W. Bush and Al Gore are pretty much alike. We have all suffered from the results of that kind of dangerous thinking.
The differences among Democrats are far less than those between Bush and Gore -- at least in hindsight. But to pick just one policy, universal health care, we can see what could be major differences. All three Democrats favor national health insurance -- but the ways in which each would implement his/her ideas are remarkably distinct. For example, Clinton and Edwards want mandatory participation; Obama does not. Edwards opposes big pharma; Clinton and Obama both take money from health insurance and pharmaceutical companies.
There are many other differences among the Democratic candidates that require our attention. And because they are all far preferable to the current White House occupant, hope can be applied to any one of them. To differentiate among them based merely on how much hope each inspires can lead to lumping - and that could prove a big mistake. There are many things to think about, for each of us about each of them.
No one can predict with certainty how someone will perform as President. The best we can do is gather as much information as possible, listen to a variety of opinions, observe behavior. Dr. Frank, I read your book "Bush on the Couch" and it only confirmed my belief that personal qualities are every bit as valuable as resume when it comes to electing our leaders: intellectual curiosity, a strong moral compass, an ability to value others and opposing points of view, the ability to grasp complexities and nuances of issues, adaptability to changing circumstances, and a genuine balance between academic and emotional intelligence, right brain and left brain, confidence and humility.
Hillary Clinton possesses many fine, admirable qualities, but I look at the polarization already taking place within her own party and I worry about how that would translate at a larger level. I observe behavior that seem dysfunctional at some levels, and cannot ignore the red flags in my own mind.
Both candidates possess obvious strengths and weaknesses, but approaching my evaluation from a "Candidate on the Couch" perspective, Obama seems to possess the qualities that I look for in a leader in greater measure.
But Senator Obama is like Mr. Bush in other ways: he is smirky, sarcastic and stuck on himself, he is petulant and he whines a lot. In addition, he seems short on substance and experience.
It is true that the differences between democratic candidates can be important if either of them can win. In the summer I argued that Clinton's willingness to support war and not admit mistake was such a reason for prefering any other democratic candidate. It is obviously as legitimate to argue for her superiority on the same grounds.
It is hard to miss though that the Nader comparison is so far off as to raise suspicions. The problem with Nader is not just that he overstated the similarities between dems and repubs. It is that in legitimately arguing that his views would be better than either, he effectively threw the election to the republicans.
There is nothing similar in the argument above. In fact there seems to be largely an acknowledgement that Obama is more inspirational and so electable. It is Frank then who is arguing that we should risk losing the election by supporting Clinton because her policies are better. That may be true, but it is silly to pretend the other side is comparable to Nader.
Senator Clinton takes more money from insurance & pharmaceutical companies than ANY other candidate, Democrat or Republican! What does that tell you about the kind of health care program we'll end up with if she's elected? She's already squandered one opportunity with Health Care, let's not give her another chance.
Our peculiar form of government, in which the Head of State and the Head of Government are combined in one person has its pitfalls. One could well imagine the soaring rhetoric of Barack Obama as best suited to the position of Head of State, while the brilliantly wonky and hard working Hillary Clinton is best suited to the position of Head of Government.
It is our job to determine which skill set we prefer.
we're going to repair the mess that will be Bush's shameful legacy.