To make an observational point on the establishment support for Clinton and Obama, one of the fascinating things was watching the major think tanks empty out as talented wonks and communication types signed onto campaigns. The Center for American Progress, the mainstream liberal group, was originally considered a holding pen for Clinton aides, but folks were shocked by how many went to Obama. Similarly, Brookings, and in particular, the Hamilton Project, saw migration to both campaigns. But of the actually liberal think tanks, the ones a bit more on the edge of the conversation, there was almost no recruitment. I don't know of anyone yanked out of the Economic Policy Institute, or the Center for Economic and Policy Research, or Labor's policy departments. This is a subtheme of my article on Clinton and Obama. The reason I ended up focusing on management styles was that, on matters of policy, I just couldn't detect much disagreement. That's not to say some policies aren't marginally different, but broadly speaking, there weren't large-scale ideological arguments (on domestic policy), and this was reflected in the fact that they both culled staffers from the same sources.
