Clinton/McCain vs. Obama/Huckabee: Bipartisan Similarities?

Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton (whom I am supporting for president) and Senator John McCain differ on most issues. So do Democratic Senator Barack Obama and Republican Governor Mike Huckabee. But, in my view, there are similarities in the campaign themes and core messages of Senators Clinton and McCain, on the one hand, and Senator Obama and Governor Huckabee on the other.

First, Senators Clinton and McCain make the same argument that they have superior experience and readiness to be president from day one; whereas Senator Obama and Governor Huckabee make a similar argument that little or no experience in national political office and in domestic and foreign policy decision-making is not a disadvantage.

It is hard to dispute that Senators Clinton and McCain have greater experience in Washington and, in the case of Senator Clinton, for eight years on the front lines of key decisions in the White House. The only debate seems to be whether such experience should be more influential in a voter's choice for president than a campaign theme of "change" and "new leadership." Fair enough. But what strikes me as illogical, even irrational, is the Obama/Huckabee argument that superior and national and foreign policy experience is somehow inconsistent with change. How can that be? Certainly one can have extensive experience and be committed to use it to enact fundamental changes. How can it be argued otherwise?

A second similarity between Clinton/McCain vs. Obama/Huckabee is that the former are appealing to more traditional bases within their respective parties than the latter.

The data shows that Senator Clinton runs far more strongly than Senator Obama among working middle-class/working class voters -- certainly, the core of the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" since FDR; whereas Senator Obama has greater appeal to the so-called "Starbucks voters" - upper income professionals and college students who have the luxury of focusing more on cerebral political inspiration since they do not feel serious economic pain in their daily lives.

We saw the same split in data in the Democratic Party's base in the Walter Mondale-Gary Hart contest in 1984 (with Mondale appealing to workers and Hart appealing to "Starbucks voters" before anyone had ever heard of "Starbucks.") More recently, there was the 2000 Democratic nomination contest between Vice President Al Gore (with a strong base among blue collars) and former Senator Bill Bradley, both more cerebral and appealing to upper income voters.

Similarly, Senator McCain emphasizes more traditional fiscally conservative, pro-business Republicanism going back to Dwight Eisenhower through Ronald Reagan and President Bush I - although clearly Senator McCain has ruffled the feathers of some core conservative base voters by his early support for comprehensive immigration reform and campaign finance reform; whereas Governor Huckabee doesn't mind sounding socially liberal, even populist, in his rhetoric, with a record of Governor of Arkansas of increasing spending, "fees" and supporting progressive social programs, far more off-putting to traditional Republican economic conservatives than Senator McCain..

If the data and themes continue in this dichotomy, history would suggest that Senators Clinton and McCain will ultimately be the nominees because they seem to appeal to the core values and historic bases of their respective parties more than Senator Obama and Governor Huckabee.

It will be interesting to see whether Senator Obama will try to shift his campaign theme from inspirational oratory to more substantive economic issues. He might remember what happened to Senator Gary Hart in 1984 when he focused on "change" and "inspiration" at the expense of specific bread-and-butter economic issues. He too could be vulnerable, if he isn't already, to the question Vice President Mondale asked him on a nationally televised debate:

"Where's the beef?"

Meanwhile, Senator Hillary Clinton has already taken leadership of the phrase that became emblematic of her husband's first successful presidential campaign in 1992:

"It's the economy, stupid."

Republican voters are clearly fascinated by the novelty and inspiration of Governor Huckabee's plain-spoken, faith-based messages. But in the final analysis, Senator McCain is a better fit of the traditional Eisenhower-Reagan conservative values of most Republican voters over the last half-century.

One prediction: If the nominees end up to be Senator Clinton and Senator McCain, it should be one of the highest level presidential campaigns waged in U.S. history. They are both personal friends. They both respect each other. Both have been on the vicious receiving ends of the politics of personal destruction. And both believe it is possible, indeed imperative, to debate the issues and to disagree agreeably.

In this respect, all four candidates - Clinton, Obama, McCain, and Huckabee - agree on one overriding theme: It is time to put America to move beyond the hyper-partisanship of the last six years and back into the bipartisan solutions business. That's good news for the country if any one of them happens to be elected president.

Comments

[bobh]

I agree that if McCain is the nominee the Republican campaign will be jerked toward the center and will be the most civicly responsible since Eisenhower.

That McCain has no clue about economics at a time of gathering economic downturn, has no plans dealing with middle class issues like healthcare, has a primitive, unnuanced view of foreign policy and national security issues, and in general has made himself George Bush's biggest supporter makes me believe both me and Lanny will be happy at the end.

[nicole5]

.....Yawn.....just another partisan hack pimping the establishment candidates. Anyone of either party would be better than Clinton or McCain. Both will be no better than having Chimpy McFlightsuit serve another term.

[cuthbertallgood]

Well Huckabee and Obama have that whole gay baiting thing in common as well. That whole down home hating for the Lord, call myself a saint and you all sinners kind of religionism, the whole McClurkin/Dobson dogmatic thing.
Let's not forget that one!

[bayman]

What, exactly, is Hillary's 'superior experience'? Her failed health plan initiative? Her Iraq War vote? Her failure to criticize the war until her finger in the wind told her she should?

She keeps touting '35 years of experience'. What was she doing 35 years ago that qualifies her for president? Why isn't anyone calling her out on this?

How do her years in the WH count as experience? Is Laura Bush experienced?

[jakibaez]

The media said a few days ago, Ho..hum another day at the same old grind! Let us start trouble with the african american man and the old iron pant woman. Presumably, it is a game for them. But for me, I see the turmoil and the danger ahead for our America. It would be wonderful for Hillary to win, but, the media will do everything to put this young man in to govern us. What puzzles me is the 'faults" and issues that are not presented as a microscope toward his governing. But, as Hillary it appears to be everyday. I watched Cnn one day and I saw the conditions of his Kenya black grandmother. Flies, an old shack for a house, the conditions were the conditions of proverty. Why a am like Obama who has reached the dream of wealth, with a wonderful wife and beautiful children, would leave his own family in such conditions. This is a man who is ambitious, and this man does not belong in our Whitehouse.

[IdeasNotMoney]

Only by breaking the iron triangle of big money, special interest lobbyists, and the legislation they buy, can sovereignty be restored to the American people.

Only John McCain can make this happen!

[Splinter]

"...move beyond the hyper-partisanship of the last six years and back into the bipartisan solutions business"

And you are endorsing Hillary to help American get past the hyper-partisanship?

There must be another Hillary Clinton out there that I have not heard of. The one I know proves nearly every day that she is poll driven and triangulates on every issue depending on what audience she is speaking to.

If Hillary gets the nominination, I just won't vote. I want no part of the sickening boomer-politics of the last 20 years.

[whb]

I'm sorry, what again was Clinton's (we are talking about Hillary, not Bill right?) experience? She has been in the Senate for 8 years. Good for her. She was in the White House for 8 years... So she's met foreign dignitaries. Did she negotiate any treaties with them? No.
Chelsea Clinton was in the White House for 8 years, lets elect her.
Clinton is almost as inexperienced as Obama, which is why her experience comments are a joke. She has a few more years in the Senate than Obama and 8 years of pillow talk about Pervez Musharraf.
I only wish the news media would stop buying her BS about having experience.

[birdman98]

This is just laughably bad analysis:

"...McCain will ultimately be the nominees because they seem to appeal to the core values and historic bases of their respective parties"

and

"...Governor Huckabee doesn't mind sounding socially liberal..."

Are you even following this election?

[birdman98]

Your desire to get another job dealing with the near certain legal controversies of a second Clinton presidency is clouding your judgment. Hyper-partisanship is a guarantee if Clinton is the nominee, whether she likes it or not.

[NeuvoLiberal]

Lanny,

with all the alleged "experience", Hillary Clinton has only two bills in her name passed into law to show for her "experience" (will post links later).

Add to that he vote for Lieberman war resolution and against a sensible Levin amendment. Then her vote for Kyl-Lieberman knowing fully well how Iraq turned out.

McCain, likewise, has been hawking wars all over the place.

That's not the "experience" we want.

These videos tell all:

McCain hawkin' it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf7HYoh9YMM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny_iYRG8bAo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lqr2z0JzMp8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAzBxFaio1I

Hillary hawkin' it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0icVblxh2dI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSu0zXCR9sE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8

Edwards hawkin' it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2JfndMusfc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY6BZgkI0kI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g238i7O529o

Thanks.

[Lon]

It is certainly true that experience is not iminimical to change. But of course one should look at what one did with that experience. After 8 years "on the front line" in Washington, Clinton not only voted to give Bush authority for the biggest foreign policy blunder in the last 40 years, she gave speeches giving the right cover for those policies. Even worse she used her time on the front line as the source of her wrong claims about the danger of Hussein.

In other words, one can have experience as an agent of change. Clinton's experience is one of bowing to the Republicans when push comes to shove in order to avoid looking weak.

Experience can help if one learns from ones mistakes. Edwards claims to have learned from his mistaken vote. Clinton still either refuses to admit she made a mistake or has not even learned from her experience. So the actual case against Clinton is stronger than just that anyone with experience is incapable of leading change. It is that her own history suggests taht she is incapable of leading change.

[bach]

Boy, it never ceases to amaze me. When you put up the facts, the Obamamites come up...silent.

[Pepper14]

If it comes down to Clinton and McCain you can bet every dollar you have (and win) that Bill and Hillary will do everything they can to destory McCain. The good news is that McCain will beat her in a general election because she has just to much baggage and voters want to move away from the Clinton/Bush era.

[benjaminblue]

You seem to have neglected mentioning Senator Edwards, along with several other candidates, and that reduces your credibility. Maybe you want Senator Clinton to be elected, but pretending that other candidates simply do not exist will not make those other candidates evaporate.