By
Russ Wung
April 7, 2008
Daniel Henninger’s description of the epic battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in The Wall Street Journal is at once gleeful and resigned: “The Democratic primary is starting to look like World War I. The origins of the dispute are forgotten.”
John Derbyshire’s words in the National Review, though written about something completely different, aptly describe the plight of an Obama or Clinton partisan: “Blimey, it ’appened just like the old sweats said it would. The barrage lifts, the editor blows ’is whistle, we scrambles up out of the trench an’ starts walkin’… and didn’t get 10 yards before the enemy machine guns started up.”
This is metaphorical trench warfare — characterized by dirt-digging and endless long-range sniping, and punctuated by occasional cries of “over the top” followed by reckless charges into a hail of one-liners and inane blog comments. The casualties of these periodic charges are well-known, shot up by the opposing campaign while entangled on some string of political barbed wire, be it race, gender or Monica’s dress.
And yet somewhere amid the piles of political corpses strewn all over this electoral Verdun, we find ourselves closer to the truth. The campaigns have illuminated each other through the rockets’ red glare, and what we see may teach us something.
Forced by the exigencies of battle to progress beyond mind-numbing platitudes about unity, hope and change, Obama is no longer the flawless transcendental messiah come to redeem white guilt by being elected president. He is, perhaps, something more real and more genuine: a smart novice politician with numerous pros but also numerous cons to match. Obama’s supporters need to take some serious time in the next few weeks to watch how he behaves and reconsider why they support him. Those who remain in his camp should be in a stronger position to argue dispassionately in favor of an Obama presidency in the general election should he prevail, while those who desert him for Clinton or McCain after reasoned consideration will have been disabused of their emotive illusions.
Obama’s speech on race relations is a good start as far as character clues go. The discussion of race is exquisitely well written and intelligent, even brilliant at times in its survey of the tensions that characterize matters of race; it courageously acknowledges and amplifies many truths about race relations that most politicians have ignored for decades in favor of useless “diversity-speak.” Several portions also show a decent understanding of the serious damage that guilt-slinging, affirmative action and forced integration through busing has done to America’s valiant but halting quest toward a color-blind society.
But the speech’s denouement disappointingly and falsely depicts an America in tatters, wracked by endemic problems in need of ambitious fixes. This bleak section is dangerous not only because it amounts to making lemons out of lemonade, but also because its cynical, antibusiness tone bolsters its implicit calls for government intervention.
All this clichéd invective flies at us without any hint of a proper understanding of the damage that the heavy hands of government can and will do to our cyclical but resilient and vibrant capitalist economy, all while attempting to “fix” it. Obama’s hyper-ambitious quest to “rescue” the United States from its supposed greedy oppressors can only end badly, because governments, even “governments of the people,” do not generate prosperity — private citizens do — and the more the government moves wealth away from its originators, the less wealth there will be for Americans in trailer parks and gated mansions alike.
However you choose to interpret it, the speech proves useful as raw material for serious examination of Obama’s candidacy. It would be to the benefit of all voters if the Clinton-Obama conflagration continues to inject more badly needed fuel into the debate from both candidates and from John McCain as well.
[Reach columnist Russ Wung at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.]
30 Comments
#1 Deward Bowles
on April 6, 2008 at 7:41 p.m.(Houston, TX | Unverified Name)
Perhaps it is time you examined your own motives rather than suggesting others examine theirs.
I will humor you however.
McCain is trying to sell me a car I already own. It is falling apart at the seams.
Clinton is trying to sell me a car I owned a few years ago. It was great but I really don't want to own it again.
Obama is trying to sell me a concept car I have always dreamed about. A car of the future that is not in production yet.
Which one do you want to test drive? I know which one I want to try.
#2 Darlene
on April 6, 2008 at 8:03 p.m.(Chicago, IL | Unverified Name)
Thank You Bowles - - - very well said! Those who are not ready for the 'concept car' only want the same old car, with has the same old problems.
#3 tammyfromca
on April 6, 2008 at 8:08 p.m.(Los Angeles, CA | Unverified Name)
My sentiments exactly!!!!!!!!! What in the heck do you know about anything Russ Wong???, let me guess you probably think Obama is an empty suit, right?
Get a clue and examined "YOUR" motives for this unnecessary article written, for what?
#4 Sally
on April 6, 2008 at 8:16 p.m.(Braintree, MA | Unverified Name)
ooooh my God, this speech was weeks ago, get over it- do you seriously have nothing else to talk about?! Here's one- chief strategist Mark Penn resigned today for lobbying for Columbian in an unfair trade deal.It seems like you're still harping on old news b/c you're in the tank for Clinton: you're a poor journalist.
#5 C Grant
on April 6, 2008 at 8:19 p.m.(Manassas, VA | Unverified Name)
Bowles - Very good comment. I could not have said it better.
#6 I. Joseph
on April 6, 2008 at 8:32 p.m.(Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia | Unverified Name)
If at all the above article raises any questions it would be about Mr Wung's own motives and indeed his future credibility.
#7 Walt
on April 6, 2008 at 8:38 p.m.(Cincinnati, OH | Unverified Name)
I don't think any of you understand the "real" Hillary Clinton. Two things shed light on her whole candidacy.
First, her tax returns. Second, Mark Penn's secret negotiations with the Colombian government.
The tax returns are relevant, not because of the $109 million in seven years, but the source of the income. Specifically the $15.3 million from Ron Burkle's "consulting" company. That company is partially financed by Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid al-Maktoum, the ruler of Dubai. Does anyone think the value of Bill's "consulting" would be anywhere near that amount if Hillary wasn't running for president?
The Mark Penn Colombian connection is more straightforward. It is obvious that this was a blatant attempt to influence a presumed future president, and obtain favorable trade status.
Why does Hillary lie? Primarily because she knows that in order for her to preserve that $109 million income, she is going to have to sell favors to foreign governments. So she will do whatever it takes to win the white house; if that means lie, or underhanded trade negotiations with Colombia, so be it. She will preserve access to that income at all costs.
After all, what else would they have to sell if they could not sell access to the Presidency. It gives a whole new meaning to the Lincoln bedroom guests/contributors.
More "fuel" for you to think about Russ.
#8 UnnamedSpirit
on April 6, 2008 at 8:49 p.m.(Redwood City, CA | Unverified Name)
Deward Bowles, thanks for reducing this election into such a simplistic analogy. I honestly couldn't have thought of a better way of phrasing it and I'll definitely be using your analogy to explain where I stand to others. I found your comments much more useful than the original article (which, for starters, is a few weeks late).
#9 Gina
on April 6, 2008 at 8:51 p.m.(Cary, NC | Unverified Name)
Interesting. And scary. I suggest you take a look at your own biases. I am pretty sure the American people just bailed out yet another a multi-billion dollar company whose unregulated, unsustainable, and unethical "business dealings" (read: "reckless gambling") have sent record numbers of Americans into foreclosure and spun the global economy into a downward slide that nobody can see to the bottom of. Want to know why? It’s because these types of investments were completely deregulated by an insidious rider to a bill in congress that was never openly discussed. It is so far outside the scope of government regulations that nobody, even the Fed and experts of the investment community, can tell us how many of these land mines there are out there and how many more billions we'll have to spend to stave off disaster.
Is this the freedom from governmental meddling you rely on to sort out our economic problems? Because, hey, if you don't want any governmental interference I am sure the taxpayers would be glad to have those billions back, not to mention the millions the poor beleaguered CEO got in severance. This is the Washington you don't think needs changing, where big business - so determined to maximize their earning potential all out of proportion with reality - slide their unethical bills under the noses of our law makers and then come running back when their recklessness backfires on them.
Please don't even tell me to be grateful for the jobs these corporations create, because it is the monster corporations that are the quickest to slash their work forces by the thousands before risking their stockholder's dividends. Not regulating business is a lovely dream of capitalism, but it is a failed experiment. Businesses can't be trusted to regulate themselves. Instead of allowing competition to weed out the bad seeds, we are forced to keep the worst in business at our own expense again and again. If business were regulated enough to keep companies from growing beyond their own ability to manage, then we would have just as many jobs, a far more sane distribution of wealth, faith that our employers are following standards of business practice that we can rely on, international faith that America is financially stable, and very probably a far more realistic model of capitalism in which competition actually works.
You can go on living in your dream that America is not flawed in any way, but those of us with our eyes open see that she is in need of some shoring up both at home and abroad. That is what makes me shake my head in wonder. The opposition thinks Obama voters are blinded by optimism when it is the opposition that is hypnotized by their own programmed rhetoric. Optimism and a hopeful philosophy are not indicators of Naivete, they are the very qualities shared by the past leaders of this country we all agree that we admire most and who guided our country through the most positive change and prosperity.
#10 Deward Bowles
on April 6, 2008 at 8:57 p.m.(Houston, TX | Unverified Name)
Gina.
Hope is the thing with feathers.
Not a crumb from me it has ask.
#11 Gina
on April 6, 2008 at 9:04 p.m.(Cary, NC | Unverified Name)
Deward Bowles,
Yes Indeed! And great car analogy by the way.
#12 lemon
on April 6, 2008 at 9:31 p.m.(Tacoma, WA | Unverified Name)
I got a 'concept' car and it turned out to be a lemon. I was sucked in by the bells and whistles and the hype. I paid way too much money for something that was in the shop more than 30 days in its first year.
I'm going back to reliable, tested and experienced.
#13 Deward Bowles
on April 6, 2008 at 9:34 p.m.(Houston, TX | Unverified Name)
Lemon, let me quess. Was is it the Bush model?
#14 Deward Bowles
on April 6, 2008 at 9:44 p.m.(Houston, TX | Unverified Name)
Lemon.
Or was it the Clinton model that keeps getting recalled?
#15 MCJ
on April 6, 2008 at 9:45 p.m.(Skokie, IL | Unverified Name)
Wong you are wrong (betcha never heard that before, huh?). The denouement you decry was and is exactly the real problem.
Race has been used as a political wedge. The cloud cover it buys does allow business as usual to prosper in Washington. Companies do skew the rules to favor themselves and their influence in Washington is why average wages flatline, 45+ million people don't have insurance and yet we still pay more per capita than countries where everyone is covered. It is why big business looks the other way when the issue of immigration comes up and why that hasn't been solved for years (whenever there's a chance for cheap labor and capitalism is left to run amok, bad things happen (illegal immigration, child labor, slavery, and a heaping helping of crappy foreign and domestic policy, etc... it's all for the same reason, making a buck).
The reality is that you're one of those sold out to the machismo of the market folk who think tax cuts for multi-millionares and billionares will and ALWAYS right things. Well I got news for you the pendulum is swinging the other way. Oh and by the way, this is nothing new happens every few generations. It's time this country moves leftward and to me it looks like the one who wants to do it has his (not her) eyes wide open.
I'm loving the new concept car Obama's floating (Deward love that response!!)
#16 PulSamsara
on April 6, 2008 at 10:29 p.m.(Chicago, IL | Unverified Name)
Now, when will Hillary step down ? This is really becoming pathetic. Yes Clinton supporters... we all know that Hillary has every 'right' to stay on ... just NO good reason at all. What she is effectively saying Now is that she is willing to sacrifice the Democratic Party's chances in November to insure her leverage to petition for the VP slot. That's pretty Sleazy politicking Clinton supporters and you know damn well it is. What does that make YOU at this point?
#17 Wilson
on April 6, 2008 at 10:40 p.m.(Bothell, WA | Unverified Name)
Russ Wung,
Interesting read even though I disagree completely. This article has donkey blood all over it.
You're not fooling anyone until you can at least present both sides of an issue. Deception is easier when you can get me to smile.
:)
#18 Unabashed Boomer
on April 7, 2008 at 12:19 a.m.(Los Angeles, CA | Unverified Name)
Let me guess...
Someone thinks Ron Paul is a genius.
#19 Lee Nichols
on April 7, 2008 at 12:22 a.m.(Lavaur, France | Unverified Name)
Yet again a vicious, name calling attack. I do not understand why the Clinton people are so angry. Poor losers, I guess.
#20 ColinSF
on April 7, 2008 at 12:22 a.m.(Oakland, CA | Unverified Name)
Sum Tin Wong wid diz article
#21 David
on April 7, 2008 at 12:29 a.m.(Kissimmee, FL | Unverified Name)
The car analogy is completely ludacris, we are not voting for cars and if we were I would compare Obama to the Delorean! It was nice and shiny and new, and a lot of people got burned. Obama is nothing new, he just talks like he is and gullible people everywhere want "to believe" in him. Hey you know what, Ford has been in business for a long time, and those Fords aren't the same old thing and they aren't falling apart, Ford has a track record. Comparing a novice politician like Obama with no track record to Clinton and McCain is like comparing apples to oranges. Who in their right mind would hire some bulls..t artist like Obama to run some Fortune 500 company, having as little experience as Obama does? Our government needs an experienced chief executive like any big company does, not some rediculous experiment. Can you imagine what would happen to the stock price of a large company if it hired a new chief executive with little experience because the company wanted hope and change? Do you all realize how rediculous that would sound, and that the stock price would tank?
#22 OldtimeDem
on April 7, 2008 at 3:52 a.m.(None, None | Unverified Name)
I agree the concept car analogy is misplaced as regards Obama-Clinton. These are two candidates whose policy positions are very much alike. The cars may look different, but the performance expectations are not that different.
What Bowles, perhaps subconsciously, is reflecting is the enthusiasm of Obama voters for a candidate who is male, younger, slimmer, handsome and well-spoken vs. a woman who is older, heavier, not as attractive and not as good a public speaker as the man. This is a case-study in the "glass ceiling" phenomenon where a hard-working older woman gets passed over for promotion by the younger male, despite the fact that by objective criteria she is well-qualified.
I don't find it surprising that Obama is the choice of many because he is like a "concept car" that they always dreamed of. Many of us, particularly us older folks, recall that very many "concepts" never get off the drawing board, others crash and burn because they were released without proper testing, and others fail miserably in performance and end up in the shop. There is a logical reason why people reject "the concept" in favor of the known and tested, even if it doesn't have fins, chrome and a sunroof.
#23 Cheryl Wilson
on April 7, 2008 at 6:38 a.m.(Indianapolis, IN | Unverified Name)
I posted a message on this board and I should have been #18. Could it be that since I was a Pro-Hillary supporter that my reflection on this site (which had no racial or bad language of any kind) was removed?
Hillary 08
#24 Deward Bowles
on April 7, 2008 at 6:48 a.m.(Houston, TX | Unverified Name)
OldtimeDem
Perhaps you are too young to remember the last concept car, like this one, bought.
I remember it though, it was called the JFK model.
It was not perfect but all the cars since have incorporated it's features in their design.
Further this concept car is touted as not being perfect but they do promise that I will get a say in how it is fixed in the future. They tell me the manufacturers will no longer have the last and only word in fixing it's design.
#25 Unabashed Boomer
on April 7, 2008 at 9:12 a.m.(Los Angeles, CA | Unverified Name)
Has anyone ever taken the time to note how many times Hillary Clinton has said "I" in her speeches versus how many times Barack Obama has used the word "you?"
Right there is a glaring example of inclusion versus exclusion.
And as a side note to Cheryl Wilson:
Attempting to play the "victim card" is unbecoming of you.
Please try a different tactic.
#26 Chani
on April 7, 2008 at 9:21 a.m.(Oakland, CA | Unverified Name)
Some of the people who accomplished the most for our country did not arrive on the scene with thick resumes. If experience is the most important criterion then Dick Cheney should be the runaway favorite - Defense Secretary, policy wonk, CEO of a multinational, Vice-President, etc. In looking back over the past 16 years I do not find spectacular achievements - nothing to speak of to attack poverty, race issues, healthcare, Social Security. Those with experience are too calculating, too timid even to attack tough issues because they fear gridlock will get them bogged down. A leader in the mold of JFK (age 44), FDR(age 51) or Lincoln (age 52) - young and perhaps a little inexperienced, but with clarity of purpose and integrity will serve us well. If Obama were to attack even one of these great challenges, perhaps in an unconventional manner, reminding of the greatness of space exploration (1960s), civil rights (1960s), the New Deal (1930s) or Lincoln's legacy of tackling slavery.
Do any of the "experienced" candidate inspire anyone with such promise? If so, then what kept them from speaking up on these issues the past 16 years? Why in the case of HRC is she wanting the credit for "experience" yet distancing herself from the bills that actually passed such as NAFTA? She squirms to get both sides of the play on so many issues - Iraq war, her failed healthcare reform effort, etc. In so doing she confirms her scheming mind. We need someone who will look us straight in the eye and say, "I was wrong" as Obama did with his speech in Philadelphia on Rev Wright.
#27 Sammy
on April 7, 2008 at 9:56 a.m.(Oakland, CA | Unverified Name)
To build on post #26 and rebut post #21 (David). Some of our best CEOs have been in the 20s or 30s (Michael Dell founded and managed a multibillion dollar company before age 30, Jerry Yang founded Yahoo before age 30 , Carly Fiona was only 45 when she became CEO of HP, prior to that at age 40 she became an EVP at Lucent, Bill Gates founded Microsoft when he was in his early 20s). A lot less qualified people than Obama have headed up companies, and surely with a lot less integrity (Does Ken Lay ring a bell?) We can choose smooth talking people like Ken Lay because "they have experience" or elect a new generation of brave leaders. This fight with Hillary is good for Obama, so he can show us what stuff he is made of. Hillary has already had to replace her manager (Patti Solis) and Chief Strategist (Mark Penn). That is what we will get in her administration too - poorly vetted appointees because of their loyalty - proving to be an embarrassment to teh administration. Same thing that got the current President into a ditch. By all measures Obama has run one of the best campaigns ever, he had to. As an African American the bar for him is higher - before this is all over he will repeatedly prove that he is up to the challenge.
#28 Russ Wung
on April 7, 2008 at 5:40 p.m.(Redmond, WA | Unverified Name)
I do believe this is the first time I've been accused of being a shill for Hillary. That's made my day! Ah, the joys of opinion writing. I love this job, absolutely love it.
Indeed, the progression of this discussion is a brilliant microcosm of the Democratic debate. Shouldn't you guys get back to piling on me instead of battling each other?
#29 pete
on April 7, 2008 at 11:18 p.m.(Redmond, WA | Unverified Name)
Yeah, few concepts cars made it to the production lines. They were either junked, or kept in the dream. Few companies dare to invest their entire future on a single concept car. Obama is much better than a concept car for what he presented will be remembered even if he doesn't make it to the presidency. So I agree that the concept car analogy is misplaced. Oh, JFK was not a great president at all. He was admired largely because he was young, rich and colorful, like a celebrity. And mostly, because he died young. I think if he lived to finish his term, history will show that he would make a lot of mistakes due to his inexperience. BTW, whether Bush and Cheney have done good or bad for the country remain to be seen, by the historian in the future--not now and not by us. I never doubt their patriotism however. And that is one character a president MUST have. As for Russ's view point, I did not pick up any hint that he is pro Hillary. Having opinions on Obama's polocies does not automatically make one pro the other camp. He did praise Obama for his nice speech and good points. So why don't we give him some credits for that.
#30 Britni
on April 8, 2008 at 2:21 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
good article Russ. Your hard work is mush appreciated
Post a comment