I find it interesting that Edwards and Clinton, in last night's New Hampshire debates, are so interested in drawing the difference between change and experience -- in particular, with Clinton's assertion that her as-yet-uncontested claim of "35 years of experience" makes her the most qualified candidate in the field.
But the top three Dem candidates actually have very similar resumes, despite Clinton's familiarity with the White House from having lived in it. All three are lawyers who have folded activism in some form into their legal careers. If you're looking at their careers as elected officials, Obama actually has the edge, having spent a decade in either the U.S. Senate or the Illinois legislature, whereas Clinton is on her seventh year as a U.S. Senator (with no prior eleced office) and Edwards served one six-year term.
Obviously, the media, and even the candidates to a certain degree, find simple storylines to be easier to manage in drawing distinctions -- particularly when the real distinctions in this election have to do with vision. Edwards's vision is fighting corporations, Clinton's vision is built around the notion of doing hard work, and Obama's vision is around a new era of collaboration that brings American people back into the process and attempts to rise above the partisanship that neither Edwards nor Clinton have proven themselves to have been able to dismantle.
Indeed, Clinton's rise to the nomination would trigger a new, emboldened wave of partisanship that would derail any initiatives she might want to advance as President. Think back to the "experience" she accumulated while trying to put forth a health care plan in the '90s, and you'll have an idea of what change under a Clinton presidency would look like. With experience being relatively similar among the three candidates, the real question for me is, "Who can inspire Americans to work together at a time in which we need to right the wrongs of the Bush administration?" For me, Obama is the clear and resounding answer.
Cross posted on my blog (pinata.livejournal.com):
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/01/03/obama.ia.victory.cnn" target=new window>Here</a> is the Obama victory speech from last night. I am very curious to see what kind of bump he gets from this going into New Hampshire, what the media does with it to cultivate the storylines, and what it begins to do to the numbers heading into February 5 and its 23 primaries. 23. Is that number right? That's unheard of. Those of you who read me know I've had a mancrush on Obama for several years now -- I wanted him as a presidential candidate when he entered the national spotlight at the 2004 DNC. I'm grateful that he challenged now. I do want a woman president, of course, but watching Hillary this go-around has been a valuable lesson in hubris. I know she was trying to rally her New Hampshire people in her "concession" speech last night, but there's an arrogance in asserting she's the only one who is "ready from day one" to take over the Presidency when she can't even <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7685.html" target=new window>decide on a campaign slogan that works</a>. Obama is a substantive candidate who writes books. He can assemble a smart team around him, and he has vision in a way that none of the other candidates do. Last night, his speech was passionate and felt like it came from a president ready to inspire in a way that Bill Clinton did. Edwards' speech sounded like someone tired and ready to broker a deal with Obama. (I thought he'd already brokered a deal with Clinton two months ago, but maybe not.) The Clinton camp looked tired and wounded and feeling the end of an era. On the Republican side, I'm not really all that sure we're one step closer to President Cooter. I think Romney will squeak out a victory in NH, but I'm wondering if they'll have to decide on a candidate at the convention. That'd be amazing. I just don't think anyone is emerging on their side. The fundies love Huckabee, the mavericks want McCain, the social liberals/fiscal conservatives want Guiliani, and big business and the secret underwear set probably wants Romney. But no one's coalescing around a single candidate. Oh, and I didn't mention Fred Thompson. And my favorite laugh line of last night is when Huckabee was talking in his speech about those standing behind him, and Keith Olbermann said, "In his case, that'd be Chuck Norris." BWAAAAAA!
