Contractor Clinton vs. Architect Obama (To Win the Working Class, Obama Must Speak Their Language)

Earlier in the campaign, I used an analogy to illustrate the difference between Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama each see a car for the very first time. Hillary opens the hood and asks “how does it work?” Barack gets in the driver’s seat and muses “where can we go with it?”

The analogy was meant to describe their divergent approaches to government: Hillary the policy wonk vs. Barack the big-picture reformer. But as Senator Obama struggles to wrest the fiercely loyal blue collar vote from Senator Clinton, the analogy takes on new meaning.

Beyond the Clichés
For all the clichés of identity politics – the racial divide, the generation gap, the culture wars – the pundits have missed a more fundamental distinction. Call it forest/trees, process/product or left brain/right brain – these are the true differences between the two candidates, and they’re reflected to a T by their supporters.

Demographers are fond of pointing out that Obama is a hit with college-educated populations, while Clinton retains her base of union workers (despite Obama’s near-monopoly on union endorsements) – and the quick translation into economic terms seems like a no-brainer. But “Bittergate” notwithstanding, the causal relationship has been overstated: people don’t support Obama because they’re rich and no one pulls the lever for Hillary simply because they're poor.

There is no logical, policy-based reason for “down-market” Democrats to prefer Sen. Clinton to Obama any more than there is for gun owners to. Hillary’s personal narrative contains little class struggle and her policies are certainly no friendlier to the working man. (In fact, Hillary’s reticence to move the cap on Social Security tax suggests more sympathy for the upper middle class.) The difference between the two lies in how they draw their conclusions and, more importantly, communicate them to voters. Some people respond viscerally to broad calls for sweeping change. Others demand specific, concrete, policy-oriented solutions: what does it mean for me?

While the blue collar/white collar distinction provides a convenient shorthand, it rings true in a manner that goes well beyond income level. By and large, blue collar jobs are tactical jobs. They’re focused on the individual elements that make up a whole: building, assembling, diagnosing, repairing. People who devote their lives to these pursuits are tactical thinkers, they break a mission down to its inherent steps and proceed incrementally.

Architects vs. Contractors
Nowhere is this distinction more apparent than in the construction industry. Architects, famous for their lofty plans drawn up in air-conditioned offices, face a disconnect when trying to communicate with contractors. Unless the architect comes to the table armed with a comprehensive understanding of materials, man-hours and job specs, the architect and contractor quickly arrive at an impasse. The artist’s rendering may be beautiful, but without a sound tactical plan, it’s meaningless.

Similarly, Barack Obama’s rendering of a new American architecture sounds gorgeous, but until it’s translated into a concrete roadmap of steps that directly affect Americans it’s, well, just words. Taking on special interests sounds nice, but how does that fill our tanks with gas? Sure, we’re in favor of bringing our country together, but we also want to bring our kids to college.

So, while Obama shows off his working-class bona fides by recounting his days organizing steel workers or reliving his modest single-parent upbringing, he misses a golden opportunity. These voters aren’t interested in whether he is rich or poor (voters tend to assume candidates are rich, regardless); they may not even want to know whether he can relate to their problems. All they want to know is how he will solve them. He’s already won over the architects, now it’s time to work on the contractors.

The Electability Fallacy

Watching the returns roll in last night and suffering through the months-old analysis, it struck me that everyone is spreading the same premise. Promulgated and disseminated by the Clinton camp, this premise maintains that, if Barack Obama loses a constituency to Hillary Clinton in the primary, he’s bound to lose that constituency to John McCain in November. The premise is so prima facie faulty that it’s embarrassing to see intelligent, studied people support it and spout it as their own. Obvious in its short-sightedness and comical in its leaps of logic, it’s still pervasive.

I call this the Electability Fallacy. It devalues entire blocs of Democratic loyalists, overlooks Sen. Clinton’s revered status in the Democratic Party and completely discounts the power and ferocity of the Clinton political machine.

Fallacy 1: Clinton Voters = McCain Voters
Senator Clinton’s rightward veers notwithstanding (furtive trade agreements, threats of war with Iran, attacks on Senator Obama’s patriotism), this Democratic primary remains just that. Both candidates have captured reliable Democratic constituencies, and their supporters are to be commended in their enthusiasm and devotion. But to suggest that Sen. Clinton’s voters will defect to the Republican Party, should Obama win the nomination – voting against generations of tradition and their own self-interest, prolonging a deeply unpopular war and extending disastrous economic policies – is nothing if not hyperbolic.

We’ve seen “down-market” voters opt for much haughtier candidates than Barack Obama, and a young Bill Clinton captured the senior vote against a much older George Bush in 1992. It’s a wonder her supporters don’t cry foul at the insinuation that a Clinton voter in the primary is simply a McCain voter in the general.

Fallacy 2: It’s Easier to Convert Clinton Voters than McCain Voters
Clinton voters are rabid and loyal. As loaded with negatives as she may be (or “baggage,” in her own words), Hillary Clinton is beloved among Democrats. Moreover, Bill Clinton remains the most popular living ex-President and, of all politicians in either party, no one is more revered among Party faithful than the Clintons. No one, perhaps, but Barack Obama. As any political observer will attest, the Clintons do not part with their voters easily.

The support for Hillary Clinton among the Democratic base is much stronger than McCain’s among the Republican base, and to erode her support by 15 percentage points in two weeks in a state as stacked in Sen. Clinton’s favor as Pennsylvania is nothing to scoff at.

Fallacy 3: A Tight Race with Sen. Clinton is a Sign of Weakness
The suggestion that “if Obama can’t beat Hillary Clinton, he can’t possibly beat John McCain and the Republican Attack Machine” is simply naïve, if not disingenuous. We’ve heard it repeated ad nauseam, even by Dr. Evil, Karl Rove himself. In any other primary, this would certainly be a valid – and fearsome – argument. Their bag of tricks is vast and well-documented. An ordinary politician in an ordinary primary might stop short of such tactics, but no one ever accused a Clinton of being an ordinary politician.

As esteemed commentators have pointed out, the Clintons are not afraid to tear their Party down to get back to the White House. The Clintons have never been stellar Democrats, from triangulating on policy to intra-party quarrels and behind-the-scenes back-biting. To believe that Hillary Clinton will abdicate a place she considers home – 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue – without a bitter, mean-spirited and, yes, dirty fight is not to know Hillary Clinton at all. There is no better opposition research team than Clinton's and no strategist more comfortable in the muck than Mark Penn (whose strategies still guide the campaign posthumously). Beating Hillary Clinton is no easy task, and the fact that Barack Obama has done so and continues to do so is an unassailable testament to his toughness, his poise and the clarity of his own message.

The question of lasting damage to the Democratic Party is one to consider, and there is a strong argument to be made that a protracted, bitter primary will dampen what would otherwise be a favorable landscape for Democrats. But to further the Clinton spin that this race between Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton somehow casts doubt upon Obama’s ability to “close the deal” or “win Democratic constituents” in a general election against John McCain is short-sighted. At best.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY v. CONVENTIONAL WISDOM

It’s bound to go down as the persistent narrative of this campaign: time and time again, the Conventional Wisdom has been proven wrong by the efforts of the candidates and will of the voters.

The current Conventional Wisdom holds that the longer the Democratic primary continues, the worse it is for the Democratic Party. But this “Wisdom” may be as faulty as Hillary’s “inevitability” argument or the post-mortems that streamed in after Iowa. In fact, this battle royale could prove beneficial for the Party as well as the eventual nominee, thanks to the abundance of free media, favorable focus on Democratic policy issues and training effect this extended race will have on the eventual winner.

It may sound like a stretch, but improbable scenarios are the hallmark of the 2008 Democratic primary.

De facto incumbents
A common concern is that Democratic fundraisers will face dry coffers in the general election, having tapped every resource during the primary. But here’s where the Fourth Estate comes into play: free press.

Our national obsession with this primary has made Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama the most common images on news desks from coast to coast. If ever two campaigns didn’t need free press, it’s these two –record-breaking fundraisers with seemingly endless reservoirs of cash. But this year the press is free and copious. The Democrats monopolized pre-Super Tuesday coverage: even a certain spouse garnered twice as much airtime as the top Republican newsmakers, and Sen. Obama alone won more coverage than all Republicans combined.

In this incumbentless election, Democrats’ dominance of news broadcasts makes them the most familiar faces in America – de facto incumbents, if you will – which gives them a clear advantage.

Re-framing the discussion
Even the politically-averse can’t avoid being bombarded by Democratic talking points or ad-nauseam dissection of minute policy differences. With the Republican race effectively concluded, coverage of Republicans – and therefore Republican ideas – is secondary.

When the main event features two senators of converse personalities but nearly identical voting records, minor policy differences are magnified – and the gap between them becomes the middle. To the extent that voters adjust to this new politics, they, too, tend to move in that direction.

The result is an inadvertent reversal of something master political strategists such as Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove spent years to create as they endeavored to frame the discourse in such a way that Democratic ideas seemed unviable and irrelevant. But as we agonize over which healthcare plan is truly “universal” or which candidate will most zealously punish corporations, over tax hikes for the rich or bailouts for the working class, and over who will remove forces from Iraq the fastest, these ideas get mainstreamed.

Buoyed by a near-complete collapse of the Neo-Conservative agenda, Democratic policies are emerging from the shadows. From the environment to the economy to foreign policy, American voters are giving progressive ideas a good, hard listen.

The wild card phenomenon
Finally, no exercise in handicapping would be complete without a sports analogy. It’s no secret that a political campaign is a lot like a football game, won with an impenetrable defense, a brutal ground game and incremental advances into an opponent’s territory, ultimately building that all-important momentum.

Sports fans will attest that teams emerging from hard-fought contests often perform better in their next round than teams that have rested or coasted to victory. As dramatically witnessed in last month’s Super Bowl, where a wild card emerged victorious over the most successful team ever, it turns out that rest & relaxation are no match for consistency, precision and stamina cultivated by ongoing competition. And few campaigns demonstrate more clearly the importance of timing and momentum than this 2008 Democratic primary.

Heading into the general election, many predict that rest and wagon-circling will do Republicans good. But Democrats would be wise to consider the 2007 NFL season and the triumph of the wild card.

American voters, rabid sports fans that we are, love a good upset – especially if it means overturning the Conventional Wisdom. After all, the only thing we know is how much we don’t know; the only constant is change. And isn’t change what Democrats seek in 2008?

Of course, as we approach “Mini-Tuesday” on March 4, Conventional Wisdom maintains that the race is nearing its end. Which, according to the narrative of this primary, may bode well for Sen. Clinton. And, more importantly, for the Democratic Party.

BARACK OBAMA, YOUR REASONS

That first post was long and filled with the platitudes you've heard ad nauseam over the course of the primary campaign, and I can tell by the look on your face that you're not convinced. You want to know what he's done.

Let's get to it. His time as a community organizer in Chicago is not to be scoffed at. Having spent four years as a community organizer on the none-too-mean streets of Olympia, WA, I can say that it's real work. At times, it's not work at all, it's (to borrow a term) a fight. It's not easy, glamorous or self-serving – especially for an Ivy League grad who would go on to be President of Harvard Law Review.

Barack has run more political campaigns and held elected office for longer than Hillary. He has taken tough political stands that bucked the establishment and special interests. In notoriously corrupt Chicago, he passed ethics reform; he authored and passed a law monitoring racial profiling and videotaping interrogations… and still won the Police endorsement. As a result of his bill, the Washington Post named Illinois "one of the best states in the nation on campaign finance disclosure."

In the Senate, he has passed 19 bills, to Hillary's 10. When he stormed in, trailed by Hosannas, the Senate leadership tried to put Obama in his place by saddling him with a veritable minefield: ethics reform. He authored a law requiring lawmakers to disclose the names of lobbyists who bundle for them. His bills have championed economic reforms, consumer safety, energy and the environment. This post is a very level-headed look (it's titled "I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype") at Clinton and Obama's Senate records, side-by-side. It's long, but enlightening.

Lastly (and I'm sorry, again, if you're tired of hearing this), what's most important and telling is what he didn't do: support the Iraq war or vote to support Bush's preparation for war with Iran. The most crucial quality a President has is judgment. Whoever is elected President will face issues that he or she has never faced before, that no amount of time on either end of PA Ave. can prepare them for. There will be intelligence, there will be advisors, there will be demands of every type of action, but ultimately, the President will exercise judgment.

Every Presidential victory and misstep that we can name through our history – from the LA purchase to recovering from the Depression to every one of our wars and scandals – have boiled down to judgment. I believe the judgment Obama has exhibited to this point, along with his international appeal and progressive post-boomer perspective, are just what we need to restored the United States to a position of leadership.

OK, I've said enough. I hope I didn't overwhelm you or come off as preachy! Now it's back to integrated digital marketing solutions...

BARACK OBAMA, MY REASONS

OK, so. Let's kick this thing off.

Barack Obama. Let me start by saying that there seem to be two schools of thought about the Presidency: the President as leader and the President as chief executive. I think this cuts to the heart of the debate in the Democratic Party right now, and illuminates the utter disbelief that seems to be coursing through Clinton camps these days (even though Bill was more former than latter).

I recently told a friend that if Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama saw a car for the first time, Hillary would say "how does it work?" Barack would say "where can we take it?" And my decision this election is based on my deep concern about where we're being taken.

Let me say that there is no doubt as to Hillary's immense ability as a lawmaker and politician. She's clearly gifted and brilliant and I don't think anyone - even those on the Right - will disagree. But she's also terribly divisive. Forget for a moment the numerous questions about shady backroom deals. Forget the more practical consideration that Hillary Clinton seems to be the only thing that can get Republicans to polls this November, and think about the broader picture. Can we really afford another 51/49 electorate leading to 8+ more years of culture wars? We are at a crucial juncture in our history, and the only way to move forward on the environment, restore our standing in the global community and comprehensively overhaul domestic institutions like Social Security, education and (currently non-existent) healthcare is through a broad coalition, working together with common goals. There's nothing starry-eyed about that, it's pure practicality. We need these people on our side, behind our nominee.

But back to the starry eyes. To be an Obama supporter is to believe that the majority of Americans do share these common goals, and the way to bring about change is to work together to solve them. To be an Obama supporter is also to believe that the hard work ultimately falls more to the citizenry than the government, and inspiring people to take an active role in their government is the best thing any leader can do. As such, to be an Obama supporter is to be proactively engaged.

I find it baffling (and, sure, a bit maddening) when people say with such pride that Hillary is a "fighter." A fighter she may be (putting aside, for a moment, instances where she declined to fight for labor unions or a 12 year-old rape victim), but what if all of us fought these battles? Over 1 million people have donated to Obama's campaign. 10,20,30,000 people show up to hear him speak, many inspired for the first time by a politician.

While Hillary may be a fighter, Obama is creating new fighters. This new wave of civic pride and engagement is, quite frankly, the only thing that can save the United States from the brink of irreparable decline.