Lessig on Obama · 8 February, 01:39 PM

I was thinking while watching the Super Tuesday returns: a commentator mentioned that Clinton supporters tended to be less educated than Obama supporters, and nearly in the same breath mentioned that Clinton wanted more debates because she was a better debater and had more policy specifics than Obama. This seemed like an odd juxtaposition: more educated people were apparently less interested in policy specifics. I would think it would be the opposite: the more education one has, the more you’d be interested in policy details. I have to say that at an emotional level, Obama seems more likable and inspirational, while the Clinton camp is clearly is more willing to talk policy specifics. I’m certainly uncomfortable with the unknown quantity in Obama, but I dislike Clinton for a number of reasons, most prominently that she represents what the GOP did with Bush: taking a well-known name who has a close connection to a previous administration.

I saw last night that Stefan Tilkov posted posted a link to Lawrence Lessig’s endorsement of Obama, and Lessig seemed to close that gap for me. He argues that Clinton has a history of favoring expedience over principle, and that in practice, there’s little difference between Clinton and Obama on policy. He argues that Clinton has shown a willingness to take on Rovian tactics by inaccurately representing her opponent’s positions. He argues that Washington needs to be rid of political insiders, not to continue the theme. And he argues that the most important thing for the next President is to publicly and forcefully renounce the policies of the Bush administration, specifically with respect to Mid-East policy.

Recently, Phil Windley argued that change always sells . This seems to be off base to me. The party in power never for change. Change doesn’t sell when times are good, like in 1988 or 1996. The GOP doesn’t seem to be embracing change; I’d bet a good amount of money that if you asked the people voting for Huckabee and Romney, they’d vote for Bush if a 3rd term was an option. The thing is that politics is spoken in code. “Change” seems to me to be the new code for “not Bush”, which nearly was a winning strategy in 2004. The GOP response has been interesting: to nominate a party member who’s historically been a maverick. It seems that the GOP is going for electability, which makes sense mostly for party insiders who want to keep their jobs. Mc Cain agrees with Bush on two substantial issues: Immigration and Iraq, the first of which is popular with employers but wildly unpopular with the conservative side of the party, and the second which is wildly popular with both the military and the large donors to the party. The gamble is that by throwing a bone to the Democrats, the GOP will get to win on the issue that’s much more important to them. Either way, the wealthy donors get what they want.

— Gordon Weakliem

---

Comment

Commenting is closed for this article.