Obama and Clinton — Real Differences in Tone and Honesty?
March 14th, 2008 Posted in Of InterestNYC weboy writes (in reponse to this):
There’s an awful lot going on here, and a lot of conclusions about what I might mean, at least by implication, in saying “toughen up” (I can’t speak for Wolcott, nor would I try). Just to be clear, I think you can find people on both sides to complain that the treatment their candidate gets is “intellectually dishonest” and done by “petty liars”. I don’t have a strong opinion one way or another. I think we’ve had some low shots all around, some less than stellar commentary, and some things, on both sides, that probably were regrettable. I don’t see a need to give chapter and/or verse.
What I do mean, and what I did say, is that if we want politics to be more than that, and better, then what we need to do is do it. Be more civil. Argue the issues. Take the high road. My problem with Barack Obama has to do with a lack of specifics from him on the issues, not some litany of ugly charges that some people think are floating out there about him. I think he’d make a fine candidate for President (and have said as much, repeatedly). I simply support the other person in the primaries. And I think we can have a primary process, even one that gets rough, and still come together at the end. That’s because I’m a Democrat, and the most important thing, it seems to me, is electing one. Because, despite what you suggest, all of those issues you mention matter to me. And I know the person who will make them worst, most, is John McCain. Let’s not lose sight of that. And let’s all work to elect a Democrat. Whoever he or she may be.
I disagree on a) the comparative level of the honesty and tone of the Clinton campaigns respectively b) the question of whether or not Obama is offering specifics. (a) could be caused by mere partisanship, the fact that I’ve taken a side and will tend to minimize the sins of my candidate and exaggerate those of the other. On the other hand, I was a long time Clinton supporter, and leaned towards Clinton at the beginning of the primaries. And I think there’s plenty of evidence to show that there is a clear difference. With regard to (b), I’ve tried to do some analysis of speeches and debates and I think that it shows this is clearly a myth (for one instance see the end of this). Clinton consistently veers towards vagueness and petty cheap shots (which by their nature are not only vague and misleading, but lead the conversation away from specifics); and Obama is consistently more detailed. If I had the time I’d try to do a more comprehensive analysis. Both candidates have large staffs and policy wonks who have created detailed policy papers; so I think the “details” charge is often without substance (as is another standard political riff, the “flip-flopper” charge).
