Why Xerox Matters

Hillary Clinton’s charge that Barack Obama offers "change that you can Xerox" has been dismissed as a desperate attack by a losing candidate.  Of course, every criticism and contrast that Senator Clinton lays out for voters will be met with that response by the Obama campaign and its supporters and much of the MSM.

But the authenticity of any candidate’s message is important.  When the message is the basis of the campaign, it is even more important the message be scrutinized.  Hillary Clinton’s campaign is based on her record and her experience.  Barack Obama’s campaign is based on his message and ability to inspire people with his words.  If the authenticity of Hillary Clinton’s experience and her history of partisan warfare matter, then so do the authenticity of Barack Obama’s message and his record of inspiring people.  If (and I emphasize if) Barack Obama’s candidacy is based on a message that is not his own, a message that his been manufactured and adapted by his campaign team to fit a man with the right oratory skills, then we are voting for another George Bush, a charming man, but an empty suit.

When a politician instructs voters to look at his/her record, you can do that.  You can examine a politician’s record and see if rhetoric matches reality.  Hillary Clinton’s claims that she has 35 years of experience and that record has been scrutinized over and over again.  I believe that this experience has prepared her for the challenges facing America and that she will be a better president than any other candidate in either party.  The overwhelming majority of the people reading this diary do not.  I disagree with that assessment, it is perfectly reasonable and fair.

What do you with a politician whose campaign is about the message?  You scrutinize the message.

Barack Obama is selling himself on his ability to bring people together, to create a new governing coalition.  He says that we need to move past the bitter partisanship of the Clinton-Bush years and says that he is the only candidate that could do that, pointing to Hillary Clinton’s high negatives and poor relationship with the GOP during her husband’s presidency.  

I hope it sounds familiar, because we have heard this before.

In 2000, neoconservatives found a candidate with executive experience, a famous name, and a charming personality.  He sold himself as a compassionate conservative, a conservative who was not angry and did not want to punish people.  He sold himself as a "uniter, not a divider".  He said that we needed to change Washington, DC.  He said that he wanted to move America past the Clinton years of bitter partisan warfare and pointed to his ability to effectively work with the Democrats who controlled the Texas State Legislature.

George Bush turned out to be a giant fraud.  Once he tasted power, he governed from the right, used his post-9/11 popularity to silence critics and punish those who did not stay silent.  He intimidated the Democrats, MSM, and moderates in his own party.  His strategy was to govern to his base, keep them excited, keep them making campaign contributions, and keep them voting.  And it worked.  Over the last seven years, it has never been made clear how much he controls the levers of power and to what degree his advisors and his vice-president manipulate him and dictate operation of the executive branch.  

I am not arguing that Barack Obama is the second coming of George Bush.  I believe that Senator Obama is more intelligent, has a stronger sense of self, and is authentic in his desire to move America forward.  In fact, I believe that his message is authentic, that he speaks from the heart, and that he seriously believes everything that he says.  If he is the nominee, I will vote for him.  The point I am trying to make is that voters were facing the same choices in 2000 and got burned for the decision they made.

In 2000, voters had to choose between change and experience.  They had to choose between charm and substance.  They had to choose between a message and a record.  They choose the former, because the latter was imperfect.  The message turned out to be slick marketing campaign masking a far-right agenda that voters would have soundly rejected.  In 2008, voters may be skeptical about making the same mistake twice.  Barack Obama and his message are going to be scrutinized in a way that they have not been scrutinized thus far.

This scrutiny needs to happen now, before the nomination is settled.  Just as Democrats have questioned whether Hillary Clinton’s high negatives make her unelectable and her history of partisan warfare during her husbands presidency make it difficult to pursue a progressive agenda, Democrats must scrutinize the authenticity of Barack Obama’s message.  The Democratic Party cannot afford to pin their White House hopes on a slick marketing campaign that Republicans can easily discredit in November.  Before you dismiss my arguments as the irrational ramblings of a bitter Clintonista, consider the words of Barack Obama, who said on November 15, 2007, that "what the American people are looking for right now is straight answers to tough questions."  We cannot afford to provide answers that are not credible and authentic.