Two ways of looking at the world? Posted by Shadi Hamid

A very interesting point. Someone should do a study on this. I wonder if candidate preference really does correlate with certain personality traits, but it's a plausible hypothesis:

The battle between Hillary and Barack has produced plenty of heat, with more to come, no doubt. But it has also generated considerable light, clarifying for many of us that the choice we'll be making on February 5 isn't mainly between two sets of policies or even two individuals. It's between two different ways of looking at the world.                                

If you find yourself drawn to the Clinton candidacy, you likely believe that politics is politics, that partisanship isn't transmutable, that Republicans are for the most part irredeemable. You suspect that talk of transcendence amounts to humming "Kumbaya" past the graveyard. You believe that progress comes only with a fight, and that Clinton is better equipped than Obama (or maybe anyone) to succeed in the poisonous, fractious environment that Washington is now and ever shall be. You ponder the image of Bill as First Laddie and find yourself smiling, not sighing or shrieking.                               

If you find yourself swept up in Obamamania, on the other hand, you regard this assessment as sad, defeatist, as a kind of capitulation. You're perfectly aware that politics is often a dirty business. But you believe it could be a bit cleaner, a bit nobler, a bit more sustaining. You think that paradigm shifts can happen, that the system can be rebooted. Most of all, an attraction to Obama indicates you are, on some level, a romantic. You never had your JFK, your MLK, and you desperately crave one: What you want is to fall in love."

Comments

[Peace]

I don't know why any progressive would believe that Hillary Clinton would be best at fighting for progressive issuses since she has voted for the Iraq War,the bankruptcy bill, and the flag burning amendment. Hillary Clinton and those in the DLC believe that the best way to acheive power is by going against liberal members in Congress. Obama, on the other hand, has stated that he opposed the Iraq War in 2002, and has voted against the bankruptcy bill. Obama would listen to those on the progressive side instead of going against them for political gain.

[Dan Kervick]

Well, maybe. But these observations read a bit more like a horoscope or Cosmopolitan personality test than serious analysis. I suspect there are a number of other factors involved quite apart from one's feelings about clean vs. unclean politics - including electability, political allies, the US reputation abroad, a preference for particular styles of problem-solving and the candidates' general outlook on the global future.

A big part of my own motivation has been an intense desire to hold Hillary Clinton responsible for her Iraq vote, her subsequent Iran hawkishness, her participation at the fanatical anti-UN rally during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war and her vote for Lieberman-Kyl. Despite her subsequent campaign attempts to rewrite history and cover all this stuff up, she is of all the Democratic candidates the one who has advocated the most Bush-like of Middle East policies. If such a candidate were to win the Democratic nomination anyway, then what the hell was the point of the past five years of Democratic angst about Bush's Middle East hell?

[Dan Kervick]

As Peace suggests, the idea that Hillary Clinton - one of the leading lights of the DLC - would be the more vigorous fighter for progressive causes is a product of campaign claptrap. Clinton, like any other run-of-the-mill pol is temporary running to the left for the purposes of the primary campaign, and if nominated will scurry right back to the center.

What she and Bill are mainly good at fighting for are their own personal ambitions, as John Kerry learned in 2004.

[Davinci]

You might also be a pragmatist that understands the largest generation of Americans is coming of age now since the Boomers... That voting young and party ID hold at above 70%.. That Generational shifts are very important and something the party as a whole might fail to see unless it is shown to them...

[Simmons]

Not true for me personally. I like Clinton because I believe she would be stronger on foreign policy issues.