Thoughts of it all by a friend of a friend

This was sent to me by a friend who has another friend who has been involved with politics as of late. Her name is Hannah. These are her thoughts. I found them interesting.

"I've been a turbo politics junkie lately, and living in Seattle has only fueled the fire: the week before the caucuses, I went to see both Clinton and Obama speak, and then I got to caucus (for the first time in my life) where, of course, I talked a lot and ended up elected as a delegate (for Clinton) to the next round.

Frankly, I like both of them and would happily vote for and campaign for Obama if he gets the nomination, but Clinton's my top choice. There's something a little too "I'm charming, I'm good looking, I'm a golden boy" about Obama. I like Clinton's specifics, her practicality, and, despite popular opinion to the contrary, I think she'd stand a better chance against McCain. I think too much has been made of her polarizing effect--I actually think that, against McCain, Clinton would be able to convincingly cast herself as a centrist (thus appealing to independent, moderate voters), pushing McCain to the right. Against Obama, I think McCain will be able to take the centrist position, because all his campaign has to do is focus on Obama's "most liberal voting record in the Senate" title and the public will grasp onto their favorite L-word and brand Obama as a left-wing wacko. I don't know--it may not play out that way at all, but that's my theory. I also think that, for all of her so-called (and somewhat substantiated) "polarizing effect," she's also been thoroughly vetted in the media, by Republican campaigns, etc. There's not much more they can dig up on her. It makes me nervous, though, that Obama's been given pretty much a free pass--that won't last when he gets to the general.

The other thing that struck me, seeing both of them speak in Seattle, was the stark contrast between their rallies. Granted, some of this is because Clinton's campaign stop here was pretty much last-minute, but here's my take: Clinton's rally was in a Port of Seattle warehouse on a pier in the industrial district. 5000 people in attendance (more outside who couldn't get in), and very bare-bones. Just her on a stage speaking, some speakers set up so that those of us in the overflow room (with only a peek-a-boo view of her) could hear. Some crappy music playing softly through the speakers as we waited for her to take the stage. The next day, at Obama's rally, 20,000 people filled Key Arena (where the Sonics play), with another 3000 outside who couldn't get in. As we waited for Obama to arrive, there was loud music playing, all of which was campaign-themed ("Ain't No Mountain High Enough," etc.), and then, at pretty regular intervals, an Obama campaign video would play on the video screen. There was even a music video that had been made for Obama. I really felt like I was at one of those creepy evangelical youth revivals, where they pump up the young people for Jesus by playing Jesus-themed rock music, etc. I'd already made that comparison on my own, but a couple of days ago, I heard a funny joke about Obama on NPR (Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me!): "Critics say that his campaign is turning into a kind of cult, with his rallies seeming more like religious revival meetings. Supporters say that's ridiculous because religious revival meetings usually don't feature speeches by Jesus himself."

This was also funny: "The Obama camp is starting to talk like he's unstoppable. They cite wide-spread approval of his policy platforms, which include calling for hope, renewal, change, perkiness, and a 50% increase in our gross national positivity."

I realize that my comment about Obama's rally sounds snarky--I know that it wasn't really a religious revival meeting, and I am by no means using that as a reason for preferring Clinton. It just felt weird, especially after having seen Clinton the night before. The other (and much more important contrast) was that Clinton's speech focused primarily on solutions, i.e., she would briefly discuss a problem and then spend a lot of time detailing her specific solution. Obama, on the other hand, spent the first part of his speech talking about how awesome he is (okay, I'm paraphrasing), then spent the majority of the time talking about the problems in detail, then spent a much shorter amount of time discussing (somewhat vaguely, and sounding a lot like Clinton when he was specific) solutions, and then ended his speech by defending himself against claims that he's "too hopeful," "too inexperienced," etc. This seemed like an important difference in focus, substance, and style to me. "