You can call Bill Clinton many things, but boring is not one of them. The bimbo eruptions of 1992 were an early indicator of how Bill Clinton would govern: selfish, occasionally brilliant tactically, always one scandal away from total self-destruction. So we can understand Sen. Clinton's belief that Obama could also flame out.
Except Obama is a completely different personality. He has suffered from a couple of `whacko eruptions'. But since they are not about his own conduct, he has survived them. Michele Obama did not have to go on `Sixty Minutes' and vouch for her man. In fact, Obama has been so much a straight arrow that some Clinton supporters are using it to ridicule him. For them, a man who doesn't cheat on his wife is somehow not enough of a man:
Which brings me back to Obama's irksome, wholesome, certain fidelity. It's actually not the fidelity that bothers me. I know that's a good thing. It's that shrinkage factor that has me worried. I think if it weren't for Axelrod, the Karl Rove of the Democratic Party, Obama may indeed be out there quietly making his case that nice guys really, really, really can finish first.
WTF? This is really the best attack on Obama that you can come up with?
The most risque thing Obama did so far is to call a reporter `sweetie'. They tried to beat him over the head with a sexism charge for that, but didn't really get very far even with the bat-shit crazies on the Clinton side. What has stuck more with them is the image of Obama as Obambi, the innocent motherless baby deer. That from time to time Obama tears McCain and Bush into pieces escapes them, because they are too busy measuring the drapes of the Whitehouse for Day One of the Hillary Clinton Administration.
See here for an example of how tough Obama can be. HT to Common Raven.
But it is this very lack of drama that has been Obama's greatest strength. He does not have a hundred surrogates who go on TV offering analysis. There is no Obama equivalent of the delegate hub, where the master plan of how Hillary Clinton will take over the Democratic Party is revealed to the world. He quietly rolls out a few superdelegates a day, the same way he racked up twelve straight victories back in February. As Roger Simon of Politico.com notes,
Whenever things get dull, whenever things settle down and people begin to concentrate on how Clinton is a serious candidate with a serious message, championing serious issues, she manages to heat things up.
I have argued elsewhere that the apparent flare ups of the Clinton campaign are a deliberate strategy; a way to take attention away from Obama and to make the Democratic Party look more divided than it actually is. It is part of a bizarre and deliberate attempt to paint Obama as somehow weaker because he is more in control of his destiny.
Except it is not working. As Simon notes,
There are all kinds of categories in which Obama leads Clinton in the race for the Democratic nomination: pledged delegates, superdelegates, states won, etc.
But he definitely trails her badly on drama. He is regional theater to her Broadway.
And that is because he is just so ... predictable.
What does he talk about day in and day out? McCain ... change ... the war ... change ... the economy ... change.
Yada, yada.
By keeping his operation out of the limelight in Chicago, Obama avoids having many taking heads appear on TV mouthing his talking points. Perhaps he loses some from this. But he also avoids the following kind of mishap:
This week, on the same day that Clinton sent an 11-page letter to every Democratic superdelegate, carefully, painstakingly (and nearly endlessly) outlining why she should be the nominee of the party, one of her chief supporters, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, went on Bloomberg Television and said it is “very unlikely” that Clinton is going to win.
“I’m a realist, and I think most likely the superdelegates will give Sen. Obama the votes he needs,” Rendell said.
And what is an 11-page letter compared to that?
This also extends to the very different approaches the campaigns have taken to the upcoming Rules and Byelaws committee. You can try to pressure them, as the Clinton camp is trying, with noisy, telegenic demonstrations. Or persuade them using (surprise!) Rules and Byelaws. Contrast the words of David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager:
We don’t think it’s a helpful dynamic to create chaos. In the interest of party unity, we’re encouraging our supporters not to protest.
with those of Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton campaign chairman,
I like excitement! Let’s show passion!
Which do you think is likely to work with the serious political professionals in the committee?
I am publicizing this Roger Simon article now because I know what we will hear next week: that the RBC ruled against Sen. Clinton because of some latent sexism. That she is being hounded out of the Primary unfairly. I can almost predict what Bill Clinton will say:
She is getting no respect.
True. But has she, or he for that matter, earned respect by their conduct?
Simon continues, about the Obama campaign:
Every week I get a flood of e-mails from them. Very dry. Very undramatic. Here is the last one I got. It came Wednesday evening, and it was only 26 words long:
Today, Oregon superdelegate Wayne Kinney endorsed Barack Obama. Kinney is the 321.5th superdelegate to endorse Obama, who is 45 delegates away from capturing the Democratic nomination.
Is there really any need to say more if you can say this? Why quote polls when you can say you just got the 321.5th superdelegate? ( The geek in me especially liked that .5th delegate!).
So this is how Obama will govern. No late night bull shit sessions in the Whitehouse. No extra curricular activities with interns. No rambling strategy documents or analysis. No Press secretaries peddling memoirs with amazing revelations such as The Iraq war was sold as Propaganda! No Sec Def rambling on about known unknowns and unknown knowns.
Just a slow grind, cleaning up the messes created by his two predecessors. Working methodically by creating legislation and policy while fending off adversaries with a carefully thought out plan, well executed by a few trusted lieutenants. He will govern as he has campaigned. Responsibly, and without going bankrupt.
Now that is the kind of boredom I want to live with.
May you live in interesting times
is an old Chinese curse. We have had sixteen years of interesting times: eight years of prosperity marred by personal scandals. Followed by eight years of death, war and economic distress. I want some years of something completely different.
We are not the first country to have suffered from an undisciplined ruler; or a Prince who goes to war to prove that he is better than than his father. What are the attributes of an ideal leader? Here is a list, from the Artha Sastra, an ancient Indian text on Political Science:
- Has mastery over his organs
- Has an attitude that he is ‘the servant of the people’
- Surrenders everything for the happiness of his people
- Transparency in administration
- Has the attitude that ‘I am the trustee of the wealth of the people’
- Balanced behaviour in prosperous and adverse times
- Like a parent to his people
- Undertakes spiritual practice
Interesting what they chose to place as quality number one. We may not care much for the last two items in our times; and number three sounds a bit too much. But the rest sound quite reasonable twenty-four centuries after this list was written. Number six is about drama, or lack of it, I think.
I am not saying that Obama embodies all of these qualities. We will have to continue to hold his feet to the fire when he departs from what he promises to be now. But Obama comes closer than anyone has in recent times. What do you think?