But I also felt lucky that I was not a reporter covering her. Where I would have known exactly how to translate Obama’s message, Clinton’s was much more difficult to distill. If I had to, I might use the same words as the Times used in its endorsement:
Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America’s big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.
These qualities are not so easy to write about.
This is not an endorsement—though I realize it might read like one. As George Packer wrote this week in The New Yorker, the country might very well value a president who inspires over one who is ready to delve into the nitty gritty of policy. It’s not for me to say. But what was immediately obvious from seeing both of the Democratic frontrunners live here in South Carolina, as opposed to experiencing them through the filter of the news, is that there seemed to be two very different leadership styles on offer (the endorsement captured this). One candidate is easy for the press to digest, and one is considerably less so. And I can’t help but wonder whether this reality is obscuring our ability to assess what these two candidates might do as president.
- 1
- 2
Thanks so much for this piece. It's exactly what I'm hearing more and more from disillusioned Obama fans. He is, as we feared, all talk and no substance. Even if the talk is electrifying, even if he sounds more and more like MLK every day, even if he appears--and is--young and bright and well, NICE, he eventually has to sound like the candidate who is the perfect antidote to the destructive Bush years.
In another time, when the country wasn't in such terrible trouble, his message might have resounded, and he might have had a chance. But reality strikes, and our uneasiness comes from the realization that, while we talk a good game about not wanting another Washington insider, we just may need such a person to get us out of this.
Barack is untested. He flinches when he should jab, and flails around for the upper cut that he’s too inexperienced to administer. He gets his feelings hurt and whines, and instead of rising above it with just the facts, he falls into the victim trap.
I had to laugh at the idea of Candy Crowley busy on her Blackberry. Candy is a Bush Girl, through and through. She must have done something really bad to have been thrown to the Dems on the campaign trail. This is her penance, and it shows.
Posted by monicalee![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
on Sat 26 Jan 2008 at 11:58 AM
Why Gal, are you blushing? You certainly should be after yet another “Gal hearts Hillary” suck up piece. Whatever will you do when her campaign melts down? Mabey start a non-competitive dodgeball league like you had at Adat Ari El Day School?
Posted by TDC![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
on Sat 26 Jan 2008 at 10:27 PM
Ms. Beckerman must have been confused. Obama was giving a stump speech to inspire potential supporters and energize his base.
He wasn't addressing the Council on Foreign Relations or some other group of "serious inside-the-beltway thinkers."
His speech has evolved, also. He's including a more specifics but giving a wonkish lecture to a campaign rally is a waste.
Want to know specifics and positions? Go to his website. Want to see how the candidate relates to you? Go to a campaign rally.
Maybe Ms. Beckerman will be lucky and get a sophomore poli sci prof who can explain the process in more depth.
Posted by CarolinaLiberal![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
on Mon 28 Jan 2008 at 07:34 PM
This is a disappointing article. Like a previous post mentioned, a rally is NOT the place to get policy. Anyone interested enough to complain about not knowing his specifics should check out his website. This piece really was a waste of time to write or read. I only hope it does not turn anyone way from learning more about the most exceptional candidate we have had an opportunity to elect in my (long) lifetime. Put me in the category with those who have not been this impressed with anyone since John Kennedy.
Posted by JDS![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
on Mon 28 Jan 2008 at 11:56 PM
I was just barely of voting age when JFK came along, and I voted for him. Yes, he was a breath of fresh air, saying all the right things and looking GOOD while he said them. We Democrats were thrilled to have him representing us, and I've never regretted my vote.
But times were different then. We are in desperate trouble now, from all fronts. Everything has fallen apart and we are in such a mess, I don't see how we can ever get out of it without much wiser heads prevailing. We're in a protracted war that is draining us. We're in a recession that is fast becoming a depression. We're falling behind in wages, in health care, in infrastructure, in our stature in the world.
Our morale needs strengthening, to be sure, and that's the button Obama is pushing. We feel better when we hear him speak, often forgetting that he is merely mortal. He is untried, untested, and cannot possibly do it on his own. The jackals in Washington will do everything they can to tear him to shreds, and my fear is that they will succeed.
JFK faced nothing even close to what we're facing today. We could afford to indulge our need to bring in fresh, good looking blood. It was fun, let's face it.
I've said before that my own choice today would be the populist candidate, John Edwards, but that has gone by the wayside. He is, in fact, the most like JFK.
I like Obama--or I should say, I like the IDEA of Obama. But if Hillary is the candidate, I have to believe she'll bring the brightest minds back into the fold. Those same bright minds that gave us eight years of relative prosperity when her husband was in office. I have to believe that her toughness is what is scaring the bejeesus out of her enemies. Granted, Bill is doing nothing to endear her to the hearts and minds of American people, but her toughness, her resilience, her intelligence cannot be denied.
That said, I'll support the candidate my party ultimately chooses. I'm not sure that either Hillary or Obama can survive the Republican hate machine. It's obvious from the numbers the media hate mongers still draw that making nice is not on anyone's agenda.
I think our chances are just slightly better with Hillary, simply because they've tried so desperately to bring her down and so far she's still standing.
Posted by monicalee![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
on Tue 29 Jan 2008 at 08:18 AM
Rather than affirming or elucidating the misguided NYTimes endorsement, perhaps Gal Beckerman ought to pay more attention to the candidates. Instead of fostering the creation of an artificial image
of experience that Hillary Clinton cultivates, Beckerman would benefit us in refraining from engaging in overly simplistic characterizations of thoughtful, public performance. Suffice to say that although I
found an Obama rally wanting policy detail, I did not immediately conclude that Hillary Clinton lacks substance. Such easy remarks may be better suited within the confines of a personal blog.
Posted by TGM![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
on Tue 29 Jan 2008 at 01:32 PM
It seems that some of the commenters have missed my point. I was not, in fact, trying to offer reasons for supporting either Obama or Clinton. I went down to South Carolina so that I could get an unfiltered view of the candidates. I'm not personally inclined towards one or the other. I just wanted to see how they presented themselves in the flesh and not after being spun by TV pundits or in newspaper columns. What I recorded above were my impressions and not--as I tried to make clear--an endorsement.
Posted by GalBeckerman![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cjr.org/nav-commenters.gif)
on Tue 29 Jan 2008 at 04:01 PM