Clinton, Obama and Fear

[BeyondGeography]

This Andrew Sullivan diary from a few weeks ago is worth reviving in light of HRC's belief that another terrorist attack will benefit the Republicans politically. In reading this, Josh Marshall's remark yesterday on how we need a nominee who doesn't think like a loser truly resonate:

"One difference between Obama and Clinton does not seem to me to have been stressed enough. They are of different Democratic generations. Clinton is from the traumatized generation; Obama isn't. Clinton has internalized to her bones the 1990s sense that conservatism is ascendant, that what she really believes is unpopular, that the Republicans have structural, latent power of having a majority of Americans on their side. Hence the fact that she reeks of fear, of calculation, of focus groups, of triangulation. She might once have had ideals keenly felt; she might once have actually relished fighting for them and arguing in thier defense. But she has not been like that for a very long time. She has political post-traumatic stress disorder."

..."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.

In my view, the call is not a close one."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/07/clinton-obama-a.html

[Perry Logan]

1. It's funny to hear DUers--who talk like losers constantly--accusing HRC of the same thing.

[BeyondGeography]

2. Fighting the last war much?

Hillary is overly impressed with the Republican machine; this much is clear. She has made her supposed ability to defeat the VRWC a cornerstone of her campaign, but, peek under the hood, and what do we see with the Republicans? A field of candidates so weak that "none of the above" rates higher than the alternatives, a party that has 100% invested itself in the most unpopular president in modern times, and that has spent so much time debasing the notion of government that it has lost the ability to govern. In the face of this Potemkin village, Hillary concedes too much. Sullivan is right: She bears the scars of a time when the opposition was much stronger. Traumatized, if you will.