Obama, Clinton and the "Vision Thing"

After Oprah Winfrey's weekend with Barack Obama, there's much talk as to how much her support bolsters his cause. I don't know the answer to this. I do know that when I saw the two of them in the same photograph, I saw two people who were powerful in the most magical way possible--the power of expansive possibility. Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama are two people who continue to surge forward and upward in their lives, breaking down walls--especially the psychological ones--shifting fixed understandings as they go.

Winfrey and Obama are brave people who risk capital on "impossible dreams," often proving that these dreams are only impossible for the timid. They walk into situations that are not guaranteed, that may be utterly foreign, or hostile, with only their faith, knowledge, and intuition to guide them. They risk, because risking is the only way to jump the tracks that others would otherwise keep them on. As Oprah pointed out in South Carolina, they don't sit nicely and wait their turn. They know that those who wait often wait in vain.

Clinton herself has tremendous personal power. I have worked many events and trips with her present, and I have always been moved by the fierce admiration and respect she inspires. She means a lot to people here and all over this world. But if elected President, will she be brave enough to leverage this personal power into significant changes for the country?

With Clinton, I see caution. I don't sense the same sort of open expansiveness as I do with Obama--that willingness to dream out loud about something more wonderful than the fact that she is a woman, and that yes she's running for President. Once or twice a month, new policy plans get rolled-out by the Clinton campaign but she has yet to articulate, or embrace, any sort of big idea that we as Americans can rally around (again, beyond the fact that she is a woman, or "wouldn't it be great to have the Clintons back in power.")

We have massive problems in this country that need the attention of bold, brave thinkers. We need a president who is willing to risk big for the chance to achieve significant change in our country. Yes, our next President must be tough and strategic, but not so hardened that he or she forgets how to dream and bet big.

For sure, Obama could do more to embrace bigger, bolder policy ideas. But I feel that this is the direction he is headed. As things stand now, I have yet to hear Mrs. Clinton articulate reasons why she should to be president that go beyond the fact that she feels she is the best and most experienced candidate (a supposition that once under assault, doesn't always hold up). Curiously enough, I have yet to hear her explain why exactly she wants the job. I always wondered how she'd do if someone posed the question, Roger Mudd style. I doubt she'd trip-up and ramble, like Ted Kennedy did in the '80 race. But the presumption that she is the smartest and most studied and somehow the best person for the job--I don't know, that leaves me colder than I wish to admit. There's no doubt that she would be a remarkable President. But with global warming, with the war in Iraq, with the health care crisis, I fear that incrementalism is not enough.

The "vision thing" is not a criticism of Clinton alone. The only contender I know who is totally behind a big idea is Al Gore, and he's not running. [How wonderful it would have been though to know that if he had run, and won, that there be guaranteed bold action regarding global warming...] Dana Milbank recently pointed out that Democrats tend to nominate laundry-list makers: smart candidates yes, but ones who lack passion. With the notable exception of Bill Clinton, the dry guys lost. For all the cheerleading I do for Obama, he too can be a laundry-list maker. Luckily for his supporters, we know that he has the power to deliver much more.

Our nominee needs the three Ps: policy; poetry; and passion. While Clinton is a policy wonk's policy wonk, I'm not sold on the idea that she can deliver on passion, or on poetry--the kind of power that can indeed move mountains. In my opinion, Mrs. Clinton would be a more appealing candidate if she offered people a big idea to believe in that is about more than her, and her alone.

Comments

[GreatFutureForAll]

Great post.

But, I have to take issue with one thing you said: "There's no doubt that she (Clinton) would be a remarkable President."

Her vote on the Kyle-Lieberman amendment, which essentially opens the door for possible military action against Iran, shows a horrible lack of judgment reminiscent of the Bush administration.

Hillary Clinton: "Let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not – must not – permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons."

"And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran – that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons."

These words could have just as easily come from George Bush himself.

Of course, none of this squares with our own intelligence reports that tell us Iran is years away from being even a remote threat to American or European interests (and are, likely, no real threat to Israel).

This goes back to the judgment problem she has. She voted for the Iraq invasion and has defended the invasion to this very day (her lone criticism of the war is that George Bush did not orchestrate the war effectively).

This kind of "Wild West" foreign policy (including an unwillingness to talk to our enemies without them agreeing with us beforehand) is extremely dangerous. In many ways, it is simply a continuation of the Bush doctrine under a different name.

Knowing that she will split America across political lines of "red" versus "blue," I cannot agree with your assertion that Hillary will be an effective leader capable of galvanizing the country behind her vision.

Can we deal with another four years of old Clinton scandal stories coming to the surface (many of them for the first time)?

[deminlit]

I do think that Obama and Oprah can stir a crowd to think big but what I fear is that their lack of real specifics as well as experience in legislating and governing is a serious hindrance. What the press won't let you see is the way Dennis Kucinich electrifies a crowd and makes them not just believe that things can be better but just how that work will be done and can be done. I wish Obama could say a word or two about the specifics of a policy he has worked on that has led to something better for someone like me. That I have not heard. I have heard promises, not real policies.

[hankandted]

This post really captures the moment. As a canvass coordinator, I can say that the voters are not engaged by crassly practical right now.( I don't know,maybe they should be) Bush has been such a traumatic experience that they want someone who is willing to take risks and project a vision. They need someone, like FDR, who can relate to all of the big issues and put them together into a projection of the future. Global warming, loss of jobs, health care crisis, we could go on and on. The voters want someone who can think big and tell them that they can get it done. In a way Obama is more pragmatic than Clinton, because he is explicit that he will work with anyone to get to a better result.

[LeeFromVA]

A candidate should, at the very least, try to inspire you. They should, at the very least, make you feel like they want to make the world a better place. HRC doesn't have that in her. A world leader should, at the very least, be able to motivate people. Obama and Edwards can both do that. We need that now more than ever. We need to be lifted up from the hole we're in with Dubya. It's the very least we should expect.

[vbond]

Excellent post, and you just limned the dream Democratic candidacy of this election cycle: Obama and Gore.

Obama and Gore would balance beautifully... in foreign policy attitude and experience, in breaking new ground in leadership and governance, in geography, in temperament.

Obama needs a bit of "inevitability" to maintain the delicate balance he is maintaining, between being the traditional combative candidate and "being the (new) way forward."

Gore would like to be in power (maybe now more than ever), and he would not forsake the platform that an empowered Vice-Presidency would give him... not to mention that to return to power in this role would virtually politically canonize him as a bold and selfless man (while neatly depoliticizing the spectacle of his running in the glow of Oscar and Nobel).

Obama would have a partner with whom no one would doubt that they would be among the best qualified leadership teams in history.

Gore would have a less rigorous route to power than the insanity of a Presidential bid this time, and he would likely have the Presidency in the bag in 2016, with the effective power of incumbency, given his role for the prior four years as Saviour of the Planet. [Which, by the way, only the ego-secure personality of Obama would allow...]

The Democrats could usher in a new era of good governance and world leadership in the most challenging time since the founding of the Republic.

Will somebody please get these two together?

And Obama should declare his intention to name Gore as his running mate THIS MONTH, before the Iowa caucuses. And Gore should accept. [THAT will dispel the memory of the Dean endorsement.]

Warren Buffet... I know that you like Hillary too (and this combination would be a nightmare for her) but - if you could pull this off - you would be the political dealmaker of the century, with an impact greater even than your stunning philanthropy.

Am I right?

Am I?

[LizM]

I am hoping that people around here are savvy enough to know that the “power of expansive possibility” that you describe is an illusion.

It is not a question of being “brave enough” to make positive change happen. Bravery will not get the job done, domestically or internationally. The next POTUS will need a mandate considerably larger than a 50% simple majority that extends through both houses of Congress if they hope to advance any progressive agenda at home or to regain US credibility throughout the world and restore America’s global leadership role.

With Joe Biden you won't need hope or dreams because you'll get action!

You talk about the Democratic nominee needing the three P’s: policy, poetry, and passion. I like that because it describes Senator Biden in a nutshell as he has all of these - in spades - and demonstrated, time and again, that he is a bold and brave thinker to boot! Senator Biden wants the job because he needs to be in the oval office to launch his big and bold ideas (Al Gore doesn’t even come close in the ‘big and bold idea’ department) that will change the nation and reshape the world.

[altohone]

Nice post.

I fully agree that a two-term Hillary presidency doesn't qualify as a suitable vision for America.

We can dream bigger and better.

[6PercentIsUpperClass]

Great Post Stacy!!!!! Fired Up! It seems to me that Hillary's campaign is somehow saying.."Let's be logical here. Hillary is it. Put your dreams aside and be practical." I was in SC yesterday and Oprah hit the nail right on the head when she said "We can vote that dream into office". Sometimes being practical comes at the expense of your full potential.

[BUSHsurvivor]

So after criticizing Hillary, you say "There's no doubt that she would be a remarkable President."

Huh?

[Rule Of Law]

Stacy, thank you for writing this piece!

Yes, there is something magical about Anyone who strives to be more than they have been told they can be! I think, in that one statement you have probably said more about Obama's campaign than all other journalists combined. What do our candidates really stand for and why do they believe that they deserve our vote? Beautiful.

But the 9 tenths of the iceberg, always lurking below the surface of the process, uses its mass to move the discussion in directions that do the country and the people, who would demand more if not be more, a diservice. When I contrast your words of passion and hope with Earl Hutchinson's inane super market tabloid rant of yesterday, where he asks--"A Challenge to Hillary Bashers: Tell Me Exactly Why You Hate Hillary?"--I can feel your "power of expansive possibility" begin to congeal beneath the chilling weight of this supercilious and dream deadening gabble.

In my response to Earl I asked him why it seemed he was content to pull a page from Karl Rove's playbook of divisive politics, rather than take the high road as you have done here.

"Earl, Why is it that the pundits who try to control the national dialogue around this most important nomination, insist on characterizing a difference of opinion as bashing or hatred? Is your resolve so weak? Is it the DLC formula for victory? Or is it just more of Senator Clinton's well know penchant for claiming that there are conspiracies all about her, and her ex-president husband?"

Had I known you were going to write today,"I'm not sold on the idea that she can deliver on passion, or on poetry..." I would have willingly used your beautiful phrasing, instead! Clinton may feel she is the best for the job, but she must go a long way toward passion and dreams before she will convince many of us.

[SeanGardner]

Very, very good post Stacey.

I like that even though you support Obama, you can still be measured and constructive in your criticism of what you would like him to do.

Once again, you rock!

[RalphB]

Help me out here. Please tell me the big inspiring idea you get from Obama. I see empty rhetoric and a cult of personality which is approaching Scientological BS from supporters.

[MPeter]

Right-on Stacy! Now how can anyone not like that kind of analysis? I whole heartedly agree. With HRC, it is about I want, I want, Me, me, me, me. Obama talks about us, Americans, the world, the planet and restoring empathy. Now that is human! Good piece Stacy.