Obama's Spare Change

Hillary Clinton should be sending a thank you note to the voters of Iowa. Throwing Obama into the spotlight by making him the caucus winner forced Hillary to clarify her "ready on day one" shorthand. She took a swing and hit the false choice of change versus experience out of the park. Rather than change being mutually exclusive from experience, the former is rarely accomplished without the latter, especially in Washington. Hillary finally found the words to clarify that idea, and Barack Obama didn't have a good answer.

Hillary trumpeted her years of hard-earned experience on issues like winning health care for children and expanding educational opportunity. She said words weren't enough. It was Mondale's "where's the beef?" to Gary Hart's "new ideas" rhetoric. Obama's reaction was to say that words do make a difference, especially words that inspire. Well, sure they do and he's good at delivering them, but as Hillary pointed out, words alone don't make change. Words that turn into action make change.

Hillary argued that the only way to know, not just guess, who can turn their words into action is to look at the candidates' records. On that score, Obama has spare change and Hillary has a few of those five gallon water cooler jugs full. Or as Hillary put it, "I'm not just running on a promise of change. I'm running on 35 years of change." And Obama's running on a whole lot of promises and a few years of, well, learning his way to the Senate cloakroom.

Don't get me wrong. Obama's a brilliant, inspirational man whose leadership potential is clear. I'd love to see him be president one day when he does have the experience to match his soaring rhetoric. He clearly believes deeply in people power and the importance of inclusion. I get it. I'm from Chicago, too. I was raised on the Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, community organizer, move people from where they are and make them part of the change idea. But Hillary and the other candidates make the same promise of inclusion as Obama, even if their rhetoric isn't as polished or passionate. Would Obama be the best Community-Organizer-in-Chief? Maybe. But that's not enough to make him the right choice for president.

I want Obama to run when I can believe that he'll have the savvy and knowledge to deliver on his promises. In the meantime, running this year gives him the campaign experience he'll need in the future. John Edwards has said many times that he learned a great deal from running in 2004. No doubt, Obama will feel the same about this year. He may well look back at the New Hampshire debate as a pivotal moment when the real contrast with his main rival became clear.

On the stage in New Hampshire Hillary finally made her case. She's been a leader with a long record of action for change, and she'll be ready on day one in the White House to continue.

Comments

[LizM]

I have a news flash for y'all...this campaign is about many things but real change, relevant experience, knowledge, and action are NOT among them...the Iowans made that perfectly clear.

[sky2evan]

Ms. Gerber,

You are simply extrapolating the ever-changing talking points that are coming out of the Clinton campaign.

Do you seriously believe "You need experience to produce change"?

Please apply this statement to Clinton's record on Iraq. Ms. Clinton claims she has a lot of "experience", but evidently, it failed her (like many others, EXCEPT for Mr. Obama) when it came to avoiding America's biggest foreign policy catastrophe since Vietnam. And for the past 5 years of this Iraq War-Occupation, she STILL has not "changed" her mind that it was a mistake.

No matter how Clinton supporters try to spin it (or refuse to see it), the Truth will always be the Truth... and the Truth in this case is, Ms. Clinton is very much an establishment politician, who will follow the prevailing political winds wherever they blow.

Which is why few people seriously believe that she will bring change. The only way that people will believe that is, if by some miracle, SHE starts to change.

Gandhi said, "Be the Change that you wish to see in the world." Ms. Clinton needs to change first, before she can cause others to believe that she really stands for change.

Speaking of Gandhi, or MLK, Susan B Anthony, or the American Revolutionaries who founded this country, none of them had any "experience" for the change they produced in the world. Significant change has most often been brought about by Outsiders - not by Insiders, who benefit most from maintaining the status quo.

[Giglawyer]

You know, HRC's 35 years of change argument is really wearing on me. If she was such an agent of change, how is it that she utterly gave up on health care, the biggest policy challenge ever assinged to her, in 1993-94? Oh yeah, because that change was too hard (maybe she shed some tears there). The funniest part about all of this? The best change she could have made was to dump Bill for cheating time and time again, and yet hse never did.

[Nommo]

35 years of change and all that experience, and all it got her was a 3rd place finish. Oh, she'll be ready, alright. Ready for pasture.
It's all kind of catch up from here on out, isn't it.

[TWOSHORT]

The fear is what will he do as President? Stop unfair practices in housing-jobs-health care-education-Stop states from having unfair court system that use prison and jails as a way to keep minority from holding office-jobs and power-What could he do with the F.B.I against white hate groups?what could he do about eight years of bush-cheney lieing to the american people with his justice dept?Hugo Chaves could become a fast friend to america!Cuba will become a trading parner!Iran won't feel like they are hated by the west anymore and real talk can start with them!Start to see what happens when a Black Man step into the room.

[IndyStacey]

Obama has shown good judgement where HRC has not. We've had "experience". Look where that has gotten us. We need change. HRC is old Washington. I like HRC, but not as president. She caves too easily.

[timm0]

Robin, you know, the standard rule is to add a disclaimer to sarcastic posts.

If this was not sarcasm, you are genuinely scary. HRC has clearly demonstrated time and time again throughout her Senate career (not to mention the actual process that dropped her into New York state to begin her long determined march to her self-ordained destiny) that she is the absolute embodiment of the status quo. Her handlers are the same cronies who brought us Bubba. Her handlers are many of the same people who have drowned Democratic candidates since 1994.

Her techniques and campaign messages ("I'm tough - you need a toughie," "I'm the only one who can beat a republican," and "Make history by making me the first female prez!") are as predictable, hollow, useless, pointless, and "old school" as the repugs. You can't possibly believe she's a credible agent of change. People can say she's smart, wily, vicious, well-read, eloquent, etc. But a credible agent of change? Not a chance.

I'm not a fan of Obama because his kumbaya thing only works on those who haven't had the political experience to deal with Repugs (as I have). I've learned that the only way to get a repug politician to honestly work with you is to have them in a headlock with a knife on their throat. One day, I believe that will change. But that day won't be within the next 4 to 8 years. For me, Obama's got to convince me that if he's gonna play nice first, he'll not loiter too long before steamrolling obstructionists in order to get things done - like get the hell our of Iraq.

[illinoisan]

This post is another example of institutional self-preservation. It's like a manager with MBA weeding out exceptional non-MBA talent to hire a dolt with an MBA. What's important to the manager is that her own sense of self worth is at stake and hiring a non-MBA would diminish her own accomplishment.

Hillary's experience is what we specifically don't want. Obama has the character, judgement and the quality of experience that the times (and the voters) are crying out for.

[Lon]

What exactly are Clinton's 5 gallon jugs full of? On foreign policy I can remember a lot of bad votes, but I am having trouble remembering any actual accomplishments that were due to her.

Admittedly as a Democratic Senator durign a Republican administration, there is a limit to what one can accomplish. But giving speeches that support the worst policies of that republican administration is just about the worst form of change imaginable.

[diamondprynzez]

Hillary supporters are beating a dead horse.

If Clinton's idea of experience means more of the healthcare debacle she created in the 90s, and and the dumb vote she made for the Iraq War in 2002, then I will gladly take "change" over experience.

Not that Clinton has much-- Hillary supporters have knack of ignoring a very inconvenient fact that he's had more experience in elective office than she does. That "I've worked for 35 years of change" line utter nonsense. Does everyone have healtcare? No? That means nothing changed.

I worked for her campaign for three weeks and quit, since it was obvious that she was doing nothing to mobilize her California interns to enfranchise new voters, even though she was the richest candidate by far, and could afford to be making a difference in that respect. I know for a fact that she didn't give a damn about the youth vote until Iowa.