Politics

What Are Clinton and Obama Fighting For?

By Matt Cooper

There's a certain banality to the Democratic race. I have an article in the new issue of Conde Nast Portfolio about the economic plans of the candidates and how they amount to the naricissism of small differences. This is not a new point. (Well, it was newer when the article first went to print.) On the big issues, Clinton and Obama agree. Paul Krugman and others have tried to make a big deal about the fact that the Clinton health care plan includes a mandate and the Obama one doesn't. But this is not the difference between hope and the status quo or between being ready on day one and being inexperienced. It's a policy variation that can and will likely change should either of these senators become president. It's not that there's no differences between them. I like theat Obama's team is a little younger and a tad edgier. I like the Austan Goolsbee approach to behavioral economics. But this is not a big deal. And so in the absence of real issues the race is now about such earthshaking topics as whether Obama gave due credit to Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick for using his lines. (I thought 9/11 was supposed to rid our lives of this trivia.) Guess what? All politicians who use speeches written by others are plagiarists. Is it more authentic if it comes from a paid staff of ghostwriters? Given all the unlucky and, I think, often unfair things said about Clinton and her camp--of which my spouse is a prominent member--I don't blame them for using what they've got. Their campaign has been unfairly lampooned as race baiting and ugly. But if there's actually a voter who will change their minds over who mimicked Deval Patrick then I'll be surprised. If it's intended to raise larger issues of character, it's equally absurd. But this is what you get when the policy differences between candidates are so very small.

Full post as published by Portfolio.com: Capital on February 19, 2008 (boomark / email).