Read Andrew Sullivan's post this morning on the differences between Obama and Hillary Clinton. They are from different Democratic generations, Sullivan says. Obama was not traumatized by the conservatives' ascent in the 1990s. Clinton, on the other hand "internalized to her bones the 1990s sense that conservatism is ascendant, that what she really believes is unpopular." Sullivan writes:
Obama is different. He wasn't mugged by the 1980s and 1990s as Clinton was. He doesn't carry within him the liberal self-hatred and self-doubt that Clinton does. The traumatized Democrats fear the majority of Americans are bigoted, know-nothing, racist rubes from whom they need to conceal their true feelings and views. The non-traumatized Democrats are able to say what they think, make their case to potential supporters and act, well, like Republicans acted in the 1980s and 1990s. The choice between Clinton and Obama is the choice between a defensive crouch and a confident engagement. It is the choice between someone who lost their beliefs in a welter of fear; and someone who has faith that his worldview can persuade a majority.
Obama does inspire unity and optimism. You can hear it when you talk to supporters and see it when you go to campaign events. We need someone who is comfortable saying what he thinks, and who can confidently engage and persuade a majority. Barack did it in the state Senate -- read the New York Times article from yesterday about it here. He's doing it in the U.S. Senate, and he can do it again as President.
Comments are closed for this post.
