×
From a new Mark Penn memo, here's the Clinton spin:
Americans in the twenty-two states that voted on Super Tuesday strongly reaffirmed their desire for a serious, substantive candidate who hears their voices and will deliver solutions to the challenges facing the country, especially the deteriorating economy and the healthcare crisis.It's interesting largely for the contrasts it draws. You don't see the word "experience" in there, nor "tested." Instead, you get "serious" and "substantive," along with a mention of "solutions." So the new attack appears to be that Obama is a bit substance-less as compared to Clinton, that his rhetoric might seem nice, but he's not got the substance and the solutions that she does. This actually tracks rather nicely with my conclusions in this article. It's not that Obama doesn't have policies, of course, it's just that he doesn't tend to think, or at least communicate, in policy, while Clinton does. Ask Obama about a policy problem and he'll connect it to a broader theme in America life: Division, or the untrustworthiness of our leaders. Ask Clinton, and she'll give you a five-point plan on how to fix it. This was on particularly clear display in their speeches last night. She offered a basically themelss laundry list of problems and solutions, he offered a basically policy-free narrative inviting us t unify for change.I have to say, increasingly, the debate between Obama and Clinton is fixing on their actual differences. He's doubling down on his less militaristic foreign policy vision, she's emphasizing her wonkishness. It's all pretty accurate.
