“Clinton is the Democrats’ candidate of preparation. The foundation of her argument is that she has the experience, skills and toughness to deliver the change that Democratic voters demand. Her greatest strength may be the confidence among Democrats that, in a complex domestic and international environment, she would be prepared to serve as president from Day One. In a recent Pew Research Center survey, she led Obama and Edwards by 8 to 1 when Democratic voters were asked which candidate is best prepared for the presidency.”

“Obama is the Democratic candidate of inspiration. His strength is his ability to rouse audiences with his vision of a national reconciliation that bridges today’s partisan divides — a promise he seems as much to embody (through his experience straddling boundaries as a man of mixed racial heritage) as to articulate. As one of Clinton’s senior political advisors puts it: “We start with strong, leader and smart as advantages. He has fresh, new and inspiring as his advantages.” Two South Carolina marketing companies succinctly captured the dynamic when they observed in a recent study that, in the Democratic race, Obama is “Apple to Hillary’s Microsoft.”

“Edwards, meanwhile, is betting on aspiration. He sells himself as the candidate with the most ambitious agenda at home and abroad. “I’m proud of the fact that I have a very specific universal healthcare plan, which I think is different than some others,” Edwards said at the debate. Specificity may prove a wasting asset as his rivals unveil their own ideas, but Edwards is still likely to insist that his proposals represent the field’s boldest change. And given his initial offerings on such issues as health and energy, he could have a strong case.”

Brownstein wrote this a few weeks ago, after the first debates. Personally, Obama has peaked with me. I need more substance than a guy who can give a good speech and who can make nice with people whose opinions and judgements have proven to be disastrous if not immoral. I’m not crazy about Edwards, but of the three, I like him the best.

Interestingly, Brownstein sees the Republican top tier candidates arranged in a similar, if weaker configuration:

“McCain…is the Republican emphasizing preparation. He stresses his experience in the military and in Washington. “I may not be the youngest candidate in this race,” he declared at the debate, “but I am the most prepared.”

“Giuliani is the Republican relying most on inspiration. “What we can borrow from Ronald Reagan,” Giuliani said at the debate, “is [his] … great sense of optimism.” Romney is the Republican candidate of aspiration, selling himself as the man with a policy plan for change. “I can’t wait to get my hands on Washington’s budget,” he said.”

I had an interesting conversation with a right wing friend yesterday.
He says he likes Ron Paul, which to me is strange, because my friend bought into the “troops will be greeted with flowers and sweets” bullshit, and he is the poster boy for xenophobia, being terrified of little brown guys taking American jobs, and those Islamofasicsts hiding under his bed. He told me he is not so sure anymore about the U.S. military being the world’s police force, but wants a strong military.
I told him that if we continue to allow our health care system and our schools to go into the crapper, along with the plunder of our treasury my the military/industrial monster, we won’t need to fear any outside force, we will simply implode. Our arsenal can kill everything on the planet many times over already. If the Islamofascist threat is so great, why doesn’t our government give us all gas masks, full auto weapons, combat training, and first aid instruction? The answer to that is easy…..
Get off your ass and go shopping! Master Card and Visa are the magic bullets against the invasion of the Islamofascists!

Meanwhile, somewhere in the depths off the east coast of Florida, a new threat is emerging…..
Elasmofascism! killer sharks with turbans await vacationing plump white evangelicals……
Film at 11………

And I think that’s the fair general criticism of Obama. Obama talks a good game, but whenever you get down to specifics – well, he wants to hire 96K more troops, has a healthcare plan that isn’t universal, wouldn’t say he was voting against the supplemental till the last moment; has a foreign policy document that buys into the war on terror.

Would he be better than George Bush? Yeah. Of course, the ham sandwich I just made would be a better President than George Bush. It’s not a high bar to pass.

Would he be better than Clinton. Bleh. Yeah, marginally.

Edwards – well, Edwards has been coming out with positions much more progressive than Obamas. Rejected the war on terror, won’t increase the army’s size, has a healthcare plan that while overcomplicated is actually universal.

Richardson – better foreign policy by far. Has a good energy plan.

Dodd – superior in every way, though he probably can’t win the nomination.

Obama gives a good speech. He was right on the war, but hasn’t done much to try and end it. As far as I can tell, that’s about the extent of his appeal – he doesn’t have the best healthcare plan; hasn’t done the most to try and end the war; has a very status quo foreign policy.

I don’t see the appeal. People are getting taken, yet again.

The naivete of Hillary then remains my principal objection to her today (coupled with her continued kowtowing to similar corporate power since).

So if Obama’s trying to impress me with policy prescriptions, he’s instead displaying the political maturity of a minor league player called up to ‘The Show’ who’s yet to deliver one hit a third of the way through the season.

“…I was assigned a 40 plus year old, poverty stricken mother of several children. I think she was unmarried but I am not sure of that now. This care-worn mother-of-several had a large abdominal mass that I rapidly determined to be a well advanced pregnancy. I asked my resident to come and break the news to this woman; it was very obvious to me that she was not going to be happy about the news of another pregnancy. When told that she – already unable to adequately feed and clothe her family – was again pregnant, she looked up at me and the resident. There we stood, two white males, well clothed, well fed young men with superior educations. We were, in her eyes, stunningly blessed and obviously going places in the world. She began to weep silently. She must have assumed, for good reason, that there was no way that we would understand her problems; she knew also that there was nothing that we could or would do to relieve her lacerating misery.”

“Oh God, doctor,” she said quietly, “I was hoping it was cancer.”

Comment 12, my God you can write. You’ve got it nailed. I think it was Loudon Wainwright, who, years ago put it to song:

Love me,
Touch me,
Hug me –

- I’m a liberal.

The “come hither” look. The conversation with inuendo. The closeness and the light touch. The kiss and light caress. The passionate pressing of the hips and heavy breathing. The excuse. The “I gotta go.” The Democrats.

Maha, you said something like this before, and I wouldn’t mind you elaborating on that point, inasmuch as —I too have never actually met a ‘big Hillary supporter’. My sister initially [January] said she was glad Hillary was running, while I was then and have been ever since, solidly glad of Obama running. Other than my sister, no one I know or have met is a Hillary camper.

For me, there exists a puzzle about Hillary’s candidancy that makes me sort of wander into ’smoke and mirrors’conjectures, about ‘planned’ media coverage, and ‘planned’ blog commenters who love to stress ‘inevitability’ and who follow and fall back on, not only talking points, but also subtle attacks on the motivations of anyone who resists the ‘wave of inevitability’.

Oh lordy, D.R., that would be grand. I hope you are right.