Clinton, Obama and the Narcissism of Small Differences

It's a great phrase: the narcissism of small differences. Freud used it to explain group madness, suggesting that our greatest hatred is often directed at those most like us. "Closely related races keep one another at arm's length," he wrote. "The South German cannot endure the North German, the Englishman casts every kind of aspersion upon the Scot, the Spaniard despises the Portuguese."

The phrase could apply to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and their wide-eyed legions. Certainly, when compared with the differences among the Republican presidential contenders we've seen this year -- Mike Huckabee, oh, proposed eliminating the Internal Revenue Service and replacing it with a kind of national sales tax, and John McCain has spent the winter in a raging argument with himself over the Bush tax cuts (he voted against them and now he loves them) -- there ain't much difference between Obama and Clinton. Both would repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and spend most of the money to provide health-care coverage. In fact, when the two senators rolled out their stimulus packages back in January, they were so similar that Clinton's economic adviser, Gene Sperling, had no specifics in Obama's plan to deride and was left thanking the Obama camp for following Clinton's lead. An Obama adviser acknowledged to me, "The difference is really shades of gray."

So when I sat down to write about Obamanomics, it struck me to look at the delivery, not the script. Even there, the differences are narrow. Obama presents himself as being above politics, congenitally bipartisan. But his tone on economics has the same mild populism as Clinton's. Knowing that angry Democrats want some grit, Obama sometimes tries to seem tougher than he is. After he took his Health Care for Hybrids plan to Detroit last year -- basically a grand bargain in which the auto industry would get more relief from Washington if it did more to raise fuel efficiency -- he touted it as a tough, tell-them-what-they-need-to-hear speech, not pandering. But its tone was hardly the kind that would send auto executives reeling, which is why, for all the talk of change, Obama's done fine with wealthy donors, whether they're in Silicon Valley or on Wall Street. Even when he adds a couple of populist flourishes -- a jab at Wal-Mart in January's South Carolina debate, for instance -- they fall as flat as Clinton's jabs at, say, the pharmaceutical lobby.

Still, all said, there's something in between the lines that's exciting about Obama and what he means to business. He's bringing some change, and executives in Asprey should be taking notice as much as those cheering kids in Abercrombie have.

Read more here

Comments

[S1m0n]

"Still, all said, there's something in between the lines that's exciting about Obama and what he means to business."

Obama is the first democrat since Ronald Reagan who hasn't run scared. Everyone else bought the GOP big lies, like "government is always the problem, never the solution" and "tax cuts are the answer to everything."

Obama doesn't. It's always a sucker play to accept the other guy's paradigm, because it means conceding the battleground: you're fighting on his turf, not yours.

Obama is able to stand his ground and forcing his opponants to come to him, and to fight on the battlefield he chooses.

It's going to make a huge difference. This is as far from a slight distinction between Obama and Clinton as its possible to be.

[MyThought]

Gosh, Matt Cooper wouldn't be a Republican leaning journalist would he?

Name the last time the Republicans balanced a budget historically?

[anika]

well the last time the budget was balanced by a man named Clinton... someone the obama has been so keen to disparage...

Obama's pushing the race card against Bill shows his true character... -- two faced hope peddler

If hillary loses it will be Mccain 2008, Hillary 2012 for me...

[JasonEverettMiller]

While there is very little difference in their plans, as written and campaigned on, there is a HUGE difference in their ability to actually get some of this stuff done. Hillary Clinton, should she get elected, will face a divided country and a divided Congress. Gridlock. Again.

Barack, on the other hand, already has a long history of avoiding partisan politics in a way that turns enemies into friends and get progressive legislation passed, usually against fierce initial opposition. "We can disagree without being disagreeable." That is the way to get things done in America. Calling half the electorate evil and then trying to cram policies down their throats never works.

That's why Washington is broken and what a Barack Obama presidency could mean - the ability to actually reverse some of the long-term damage to and concerted assault on our social fabric that started with Reagan and hasn't stopped since.

Angry Democrat doesn't get elected president of the United States. The most Populist Populist doesn't get elected either. Americans won't get behind sweeping change unless they feel intimately involved in the process.

That is what Barack provides - an invitation into politics for millions of Americans who never gave a shit before and finally feel like they can be part of the solution. He is asking us to join him in this journey to remake America - democrats, independents and republicans.

That means a governing majority for a democratic president for the first time since 1932. That is how you get big change done in America - inspiration and perspiration.

[heywhat]

There is a big difference between getting things done as President and being the candidate of sunshine and post partisan light. In my dealing with many Obama-ites they are as mean and divisive as any Republicans with whom I've had dealings; in fact, a lot of Republicans have been nicer to me - a Dem - than many Obama-ites. Also, having spent the last eight years under a President who believes himself to be chosen by God, I am not sure I want to spend the next four under one who believes he is destined to be President.

http//stri­ctlyanecdo­tal.com

[shano]

Obama is brilliant in that he sees to bring change one must develop and nurture broad coalitions. It is the essence of Democracy.

We tried it the Clinton and Bush way of governing for the 50%. It does not work.

For the real difference between Clinton and Obama one only needs to see how their campaigns have been run and managed. Clintons from the top down, Obamas from the grassroots up, preparing by being well informed in each state and county. Obama has spent his time and money wisely, Clinton not so much. Nothing Hillary supporters say will change this fact. Her campaign will be studied years from now for this fact-she blew a shoo-in candidacy and was beaten.

Anyway, beautiful post Jason, well said.

[altohone]

Gee Matt.

Hillary's campaign theme again?

You are confusing rhetoric with the record.

Hillary's rhetoric does not match her record, and no amount of similarity in campaign literature will convince me she wouldn't revert to her DLC ways if elected.

[mcostello]

The difference between these two lies in the saying: "Every battle plan disolves when the battle begins".
These two are going into battle with the same policy, but law will be forged by compromise. The candidate we pick will probably end up with a different outcome based on their priorities and values.
I thing Obama will be batting more for my team, but with the limited info we are working with, I might be wrong.
That is not to say that I wouldn't wholeheartedly back HRC if she were the candidate.

[Rescisco]

Its just plain narcissism on both sides. Both of the candidates are pursuing an ambition rather than responding to a calling. A candidate who offers him or her self (as the "change" or the "solution" or the "war hero who is the only one strong enough to win this war")is not nearly as trustworthy as one who responds to the call. For Hillary and Obama (as well as the repugs still standing), this election is about them and their ambition. If 'twere otherwise, one would detect a bit of humility. One would hear respectful articulations of our hopes together with intelligent discourse on just where we must go as a nation. Instead, we hear self laudatory proclimations, we hear the same old applause lines and we observe the same old not so clever tactics to paint a negative image of the opponent. All have their scripts, although one has better writers, better stage presence, and delivers the lines so much better than the others. Policy matters, but it is not nearly so important as ambition in the motivation of most candidate behavior.

[JasonEverettMiller]

"One would hear respectful articulations of our hopes together with intelligent discourse on just where we must go as a nation."

Have you actually listened to Barack speak? It has never been about HE and was always about WE - Where WE want to go as a nation?; What WE were going to do to change Washington?; How are WE going to hold our leaders accountable for the change we seek.

Hllary has been mostly about ME - I can make Washington work; I can ensure these detailed plans get passed; I know how to fight the republicans.

Barack is changing the equation. We are sick of fighting. We want results. Barack has a long history of getting results.

Barack has worked as a civil rights attorney, constitutional law professor and community organizer. He was also responsible for personally bringing together a divided state house to pass very progressive legislation and has done the same in DC. Barack has more actual legislative experience than Hillary and has done more in three short years in the senate than she has done in 7. He has a long legislative record that can easily be Googled.

These long years of experience in both DC and Illinois informed his answers in this 52-minute, uncut interview with the editorial board of the SF Chronicle that was very illuminating, even for an Obama supporter: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?o=0&f=/c/a/2008/01/18/MNSNUH8DR.DTL.

Barack has more experience, in the classroom, the courtroom and on the streets of south Chicago. He has more accomplishments working for real people in the real world. He has more grassroots support and has raised his money from a million individual donors, most in increments under $100. He has run a better campaign and won more states, more delegates and has more volunteers in all 50 states.

These two candidates couldn't be further apart and remain on the same continent.

[Rescisco]

I applaud your support for Obama and agree that he has much to offer. But the very same thing can be said about Hillary (or any of the other respected Democratic candidates who have dropped away). The policy differnces between Barack and Hillary are very small. Frankly, neither is very creative or new in their approach to the basic issues. This is not intended as a criticism. But if one believes fundamental change, not just tinkering around the edges, is important you will find most politicians (including these two) to be lacking. When all is said and done, more is said than done. The good news is that a Barack candidacy may occasion the fueling of a public movement in the right direction. i.e. A redefinition of our national character and our ambitions is in order. But it is us, not they, who have to take the process forward. Whoever wins, we must hold their feet to the fire. That is my view. To say they are politicians is not disrespectful, nor is disrespectful to say it is their ambition and inflated sense of self that motivates them (that is human nature and that especially is politics). Support your choice with all your might, but there are no saviors. We may thrust our hopes onto a candidate, and the candidate may be a "good" one, but always remember that they are not all their manufactured or projected image suggests. Stay inviolved. That will do more for this country than any candidate can.

[braveryexists]

It's about time somebody pointed out the incredible lack of difference between Clinton and Obama at the policy level, not that anyone seems to care about policy anymore.

[thoughtfullyours]

Far from being about time, it has been pointed out extensively, and often by the candidates themselves, that they are in general agreement 'at the policy level'. Voters do care about policy and are letting the candidates know about their concerns. What voters are deciding now is which candidate is able to produce the changes we are all looking for, hence the (faux) experience disscussion. Let's stay away from the negative generalities especially when they are this unwarranted.

[FreedomLoverX]

Major differences:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

[Beckinspate]

Once upon a time politics was supposed to be about persuasion as part of argument, not batter and divide and overcome. So, offering a fresh vision and possibility of unity around commonly held positions is a huge advantage, hardly a "small difference" (You must not be a Celt). I am a populist spouse of a Silicon Valley guy, and when Obama quickly and convincingly pushed back at the coastalism and idealism of a Sierra club activist assaulting his record by linking pollution and global warming issues to the whole country, not just views off the California coast, I started paying attention at the posh fund raiser. And when he went on to talk about jobs in the Midwest as part of this as well, I was impressed again that he was not telling the tech crowd the usual flattering "hype". And when he even defended faith communities for their community service, very unpopular in the exclusive woods of the left coast, I was further surprised. He didn't pander, he didn't hype, he talked about the power of getting things done when you find common ground. Life in the polis.

[oafishcad]

I voted for Hilary, but would be quite happy voting for Obama in the general election. There's hardly a hairsbreadth of difference between them. I would have preferred a more progressive candidate than either of these moderate Democrats. However, I do find fault with the Obamamaniacs vitriolic attacks on Hilary and all of us who do not kneel and worship at the altar of Barak.

[texanna]

I am going to have to REALLLLY work at voting for Mr. Obama as I have been so put off by the shrillness and vitriol of his supporters and his preachy campaign. I too would have preferred another candidate, but the corporatist media had it in their minds all along for this to be Obamania and they drove this thing with a vengeance. I can't help but remember the last time it was all about the personality of the candidate and we wound up with Shrub.

[ohnoyoudiint]

If it's going to be so difficult, then please don't. We are going to be just fine without you. So sorry for our shrillness, vitiol, and preachiness. We didn't plan on having the best candidate in a generation and we just don't know what to do with ourselves. Oh! and don't forget we are all in a cult and don't know any of the policy issues... we just love Obama for no reason.

[thoughtfullyours]

Obama has so very little to do with the media, who pre-coronated Clinton very early on in the race, and everything to do with individual Americans contributing their time, energy, thoughts and cash in this attempt to support a once in a lifetime presidential candidate. And can we be real about how we 'wound up' with Bush? We (and by we I mean the voters not the media) chose Gore and 'wound up' with Bush after the most nefarious low-life theft (Katherine Harris) in American history. I'm REALLLLY getting sick of people attacking Obama supporters as if we are so out of touch that we are just following Jim Jones to cult-land. If he's not for you, don't vote for him. I personally decided, long before the campaign started that I would not be able to vote for Clinton. I'm glad I did have a choice to put by vote behind, but I wouldn't have voted for someone I didn't believe in.

[Nommo]

Hey, their water circles the drain in the wrong direction!