For Democrats, Obama is the Candidate of Confidence, Clinton the Candidate of Fear

As Democrats debate on this campaign and on the future of our party, the tone among Clinton supporters has come to differ sharply from that of Obama supporters. While Obama supporters exude confidence, excitement, and the will to win, Clinton supporters seem increasingly defensive; increasingly gripped by the fear that, in debating as we are now, we are fragmenting the party and playing into the hands of the Republicans. Clinton supporters cast Obama as a dangerous interloper who threatens to rip the Democratic Party apart, as an irresponsible dreamer, as a pied piper who is leading the children away to certain disaster. His supporters are cast as misguided idealists, as starry-eyed adolescents who need to give up their "false hopes" of something better than politics as usual and face dull, mediocre "reality." Surely our unruly behavior is already putting the Democratic campaign at serious risk. Surely even now the Republicans must be watching and grinning as we divide so that they can conquer. "Shhhh...," we are told by Clintonistas, "Be careful what you say.... The Republicans are licking their lips right now."

I say if they're licking their lips now they'll be eating crow come November. For any Republican who might be tempted to put tongue to lip, think again: I and other Obama supporters will vote for Hillary Clinton in November if she wins the Democratic nomination, as I should expect Clinton supporters will do in kind if Obama is the nominee, because we intend to win. The United States and the world can't stand another four-to-eight years of Republican insanity. Hillary Clinton is not my first choice among Democrats, but she beats any Republican by far. In the meantime, let the debate continue: Debate is, after all, the essence of that clever little Greek idea for which our party is named. We have the advantage; we can afford a healthy debate. With a field of candidates such as ours compared to the assortment of flawed specimens running for the Republican nomination, and with our enthusiasm compared to the mood of bitterness and gloom among Republicans, I'd say it is we Democrats who should be licking our lips.

For Democrats, Obama is the Candidate of Confidence, Clinton the Candidate of Fear

As Democrats debate on this campaign and on the future of our party, the tone among Clinton supporters has come to differ sharply from that of Obama supporters. While Obama supporters exude confidence, excitement, and the will to win, Clinton supporters seem increasingly defensive; increasingly gripped by the fear that, in debating as we are now, we are fragmenting the party and playing into the hands of the Republicans. Clinton supporters cast Obama as a dangerous interloper who threatens to rip the Democratic Party apart, as an irresponsible dreamer, as a pied piper who is leading the children away to certain disaster. His supporters are cast as misguided idealists, as starry-eyed adolescents who need to give up their "false hopes" of something better than politics as usual and face dull, mediocre "reality." Surely our unruly behavior is already putting the Democratic campaign at serious risk. Surely even now the Republicans must be watching and grinning as we divide so that they can conquer. "Shhhh...," we are told by Clintonistas, "Be careful what you say.... The Republicans are licking their lips right now."

I say if they're licking their lips now they'll be eating crow come November. For any Republican who might be tempted to put tongue to lip, think again: I and other Obama supporters will vote for Hillary Clinton in November if she wins the Democratic nomination, as I should expect Clinton supporters will do in kind if Obama is the nominee, because we intend to win. The United States and the world can't stand another four-to-eight years of Republican insanity. Hillary Clinton is not my first choice among Democrats, but she beats any Republican by far. In the meantime, let the debate continue: Debate is, after all, the essence of that clever little Greek idea for which our party is named. We have the advantage; we can afford a healthy debate. With a field of candidates such as ours compared to the assortment of flawed specimens running for the Republican nomination, and with our enthusiasm compared to the mood of bitterness and gloom among Republicans, I'd say it is we Democrats who should be licking our lips.

For Democrats, Obama is the Candidate of Confidence, Clinton the Candidate of Fear

As Democrats debate on this campaign and on the future of our party, the tone among Clinton supporters has come to differ sharply from that of Obama supporters. While Obama supporters exude confidence, excitement, and the will to win, Clinton supporters seem increasingly defensive; increasingly gripped by the fear that, in debating as we are now, we are fragmenting the party and playing into the hands of the Republicans. Clinton supporters cast Obama as a dangerous interloper who threatens to rip the Democratic Party apart, as an irresponsible dreamer, as a pied piper who is leading the children away to certain disaster. His supporters are cast as misguided idealists, as starry-eyed adolescents who need to give up their "false hopes" of something better than politics as usual and face dull, mediocre "reality." Surely our unruly behavior is already putting the Democratic campaign at serious risk. Surely even now the Republicans must be watching and grinning as we divide so that they can conquer. "Shhhh...," we are told by Clintonistas, "Be careful what you say.... The Republicans are licking their lips right now."

I say if they're licking their lips now they'll be eating crow come November. For any Republican who might be tempted to put tongue to lip, think again: I and other Obama supporters will vote for Hillary Clinton in November if she wins the Democratic nomination, as I should expect Clinton supporters will do in kind if Obama is the nominee, because we intend to win. The United States and the world can't stand another four-to-eight years of Republican insanity. Hillary Clinton is not my first choice among Democrats, but she beats any Republican by far. In the meantime, let the debate continue: Debate is, after all, the essence of that clever little Greek idea for which our party is named. We have the advantage; we can afford a healthy debate. With a field of candidates such as ours compared to the assortment of flawed specimens running for the Republican nomination, and with our enthusiasm compared to the mood of bitterness and gloom among Republicans, I'd say it is we Democrats who should be licking our lips.

For Democrats, Obama is the Candidate of Confidence, Clinton the Candidate of Fear:

As Democrats debate on this campaign and on the future of our party, the tone among Clinton supporters has come to differ sharply from that of Obama supporters. While Obama supporters exude confidence, excitement, and the will to win, Clinton supporters seem increasingly defensive; increasingly gripped by the fear that, in debating as we are now, we are fragmenting the party and playing into the hands of the Republicans. Clinton supporters cast Obama as a dangerous interloper who threatens to rip the Democratic Party apart, as an irresponsible dreamer, as a pied piper who is leading the children away to certain disaster. His supporters are cast as misguided idealists, as starry-eyed adolescents who need to give up their "false hopes" of something better than politics as usual and face dull, mediocre "reality." Surely our unruly behavior is already putting the Democratic campaign at serious risk. Surely even now the Republicans must be watching and grinning as we divide so that they can conquer. "Shhhh...," we are told by Clintonistas, "Be careful what you say.... The Republicans are licking their lips right now."

I say if they're licking their lips now they'll be eating crow come November. For any Republican who might be tempted to put tongue to lip, think again: I and other Obama supporters will vote for Hillary Clinton in November if she wins the Democratic nomination, as I should expect Clinton supporters will do in kind if Obama is the nominee, because we intend to win. The United States and the world can't stand another four-to-eight years of Republican insanity. Hillary Clinton is not my first choice among Democrats, but she beats any Republican by far. In the meantime, let the debate continue: Debate is, after all, the essence of that clever little Greek idea for which our party is named. We have the advantage; we can afford a healthy debate. With a field of candidates such as ours compared to the assortment of flawed specimens running for the Republican nomination, and with our enthusiasm compared to the mood of bitterness and gloom among Republicans, I'd say it is we Democrats who should be licking our lips.

The judge's decision today to go ahead with the caucus as planned is great news. This lawsuit was a groundless waste of time, taxpayers money, and union members' dues: A last-minute attempt to change the rules so that the Clintons could have a better shot at winning. I hope they pay dearly for their arrogance and their insistent meddling. Go, Obama!

The judge's decision today to go ahead with the caucus as planned is great news. This lawsuit was a groundless waste of time, taxpayers money, and union members' dues: A last-minute attempt to change the rules so that the Clintons could have a better shot at winning. I hope they pay dearly for their arrogance and their insistent meddling. Go, Obama!

As I watch Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail, I find them increasingly a study in contrasts, their differences evident not only in the things they say but in the fundamental nature of their respective campaigns. Hillary Clinton wants to be America's manager-in-chief, and her campaign shows it. Clinton '08 is a strictly managed affair from the top down, and that is how decisions are made: from the top down. Among Clinton's high profile backers is Martha Stewart, and Clinton '08 has all the earmarks of a Martha Stewart campaign, a campaign with not so much as a throw pillow out of place. In fact I should imagine that if one were to compare one of Clinton's speeches to a Martha Stewart address before a gathering of potential investors, one would find very little difference. Barack Obama, in contrast, wishes to lead by inspiring; and he has already demonstrated the ability to inspire many thousands across the United States and indeed around the world. If Hillary Clinton represents the market-model, managerial mentality of the 1990s, Obama seems to recall the political and social leaders of the 1960s, as many have observed - leaders who believed likewise that leadership was about more than just managing bureaucracy. None of America's greatest presidents are considered great because of their bureaucratic management skills. Abraham Lincoln's authorship of the Emancipation Proclamation was not an act of effective bureaucratic management, nor was JFK's dream to put a human on the moon by the end of his decade. If Barack Obama were not in possession of the basic skills required for the job he seeks, he would not have come as far as he has. Obama possesses far more, however, than the ability merely to be our chief pencil pusher.

Bill Clinton is an arrogant hypocrite who would do and say anything to get what what he wants. He is also developing the irritating habit of getting angry and defensive at anyone who dares question his and Hillary's entitlement to eight more years in the White House, sticking his finger in peoples' faces and lecturing them as though they were disobedient children. I had no problem with Bill Clinton during his presidency - in fact I voted for him twice - but as this campaign continues I have come increasingly to wish he would just go away.

As I watch Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail, I find them increasingly a study in contrasts, their differences evident not only in the things they say but in the fundamental nature of their respective campaigns. Hillary Clinton wants to be America's manager-in-chief, and her campaign shows it. Clinton '08 is a strictly managed affair from the top down, and that is how decisions are made: from the top down. Among Clinton's high profile backers is Martha Stewart, and Clinton '08 has all the earmarks of a Martha Stewart campaign, a campaign with not so much as a throw pillow out of place. In fact I should imagine that if one were to compare one of Clinton's speeches to a Martha Stewart address before a gathering of potential investors, one would find very little difference. Barack Obama, in contrast, wishes to lead by inspiring; and he has already demonstrated the ability to inspire many thousands across the United States and indeed around the world. If Hillary Clinton represents the market-model, managerial mentality of the 1990s, Obama seems to recall the political and social leaders of the 1960s, as many have observed - leaders who believed likewise that leadership was about more than just managing bureaucracy. None of America's greatest presidents are considered great because of their bureaucratic management skills. Abraham Lincoln's authorship of the Emancipation Proclamation was not an act of effective bureaucratic management, nor was JFK's dream to put a human on the moon by the end of his decade. If Barack Obama were not in possession of the basic skills required for the job he seeks, he would not have come as far as he has. Obama possesses far more, however, than the ability merely to be our chief pencil pusher.

As I watch Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail, I find them increasingly a study in contrasts, their differences evident not only in the things they say but in the fundamental nature of their respective campaigns. Hillary Clinton wants to be America's manager-in-chief, and her campaign shows it. Clinton '08 is a strictly managed affair from the top down, and that is how decisions are made: from the top down. Among Clinton's high profile backers is Martha Stewart, and Clinton '08 has all the earmarks of a Martha Stewart campaign, a campaign with not so much as a throw pillow out of place. In fact I should imagine that if one were to compare one of Clinton's speeches to a Martha Stewart address before a gathering of potential investors, one would find very little difference. Barack Obama, in contrast, wishes to lead by inspiring; and he has already demonstrated the ability to inspire many thousands across the United States and indeed around the world. If Hillary Clinton represents the market-model, managerial mentality of the 1990s, Obama seems to recall the political and social leaders of the 1960s, as many have observed - leaders who believed likewise that leadership was about more than just managing bureaucracy. None of America's greatest presidents are considered great because of their bureaucratic management skills. Abraham Lincoln's authorship of the Emancipation Proclamation was not an act of effective bureaucratic management, nor was JFK's dream to put a human on the moon by the end of his decade. If Barack Obama were not in possession of the basic skills required for the job he seeks, he would not have come as far as he has. Obama possesses far more, however, than the ability merely to be our chief pencil pusher.