Who Is The Stronger Democratic Candidate, Obama or Clinton? If Our Collective Paradigm Has Shifted, It's Obama; If Not, It's Clinton

Much attention has focused of late on the Pennsylvania Democratic primary (to be held tomorrow, April 22, 2008), and, given the tight nature of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, that is perhaps rightfully the case.  (It should be pointed out, however, that a lot of us could do without the twenty-four hour Pennsylvania exhaustion-fest offered up by cable news programs.  It seems to be affecting the folks who bring us the news, as well--the normally goofy-yet-somehow-ingratiating Pennsylvanian Chris Matthews, for instance, seems to be spinning out of orbit in front of our very eyes due to what he obviously views as the "excitement."  I suppose that is why even news junkies enjoy having other television options....)

Yes, the all-important Pennsylvania primary will indeed be interesting for those who like this sort of stuff to assimilate, though the race will most likely go on to the all-important Indiana and North Carolina races, and from there perhaps on to other all-important races, as well--perhaps ending in the all-important Montana and South Dakota races on June 3...or even going on from there in a "Democratic Summer of Our Discontent" manner.  (If that happens, we may lose Matthews and a few other long-standing pundits to the political stratosphere before the convention.)

Yet getting caught-up in the individual races, and even in the overall delegate count, tends to blur what ought to be one of the real areas of constant and sharp focus for Democrats, Independents, and other interested, politically-minded people--that area of focus being whether Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is the stronger candidate to take on Senator McCain in November of this year.  That should, after all, be a major factor regarding why people vote in the caucuses and primaries the way they do (and the others factors, such as political experience, particular policy stances, and issues of character, naturally filter into the "who is stronger" debate, anyway).

I suspect that this issue is not examined, at least at a consistent level, as much as it might be due largely to the fact that both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are very strong candidates; to have survived and even thrived in a Democratic field that included such initially strong candidates (in the areas of experience, policy, and character) as Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, as well as Governor Bill Richardson, is proof positive of that.  And both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama represent particular paradigm-shifts--she would be the first ever female presidential nominee; he would be the first ever African-American presidential nominee.  So it's quite naturally the case that the two remaining candidates, neither of whose intelligence can be called into question, have been examined by many elements of the media, and many voters, from rather non-traditional angles.

Yet there is a huge difference between them that I think gives us insight into which one is the "most electable" come November, and, at a more general level, where our country is in terms of mindset, both at a national and international level.  The difference is far more complex than any one blog-post (such as this one) could suggest, but it basically comes down to this:  if our national paradigm has shifted--that is, if we have sociologically and culturally shifted our mindset as it applies to both domestic and foreign affairs--Barack Obama is the stronger of the two candidates.  If, on the other hand, our paradigm has essentially remained the same as it has been since the end of the Cold War (and perhaps well before then), Hillary Clinton is the stronger of the two candidates.

We have heard an endless parade of "Change" chants since November of 2006 (the presidential campaign really began after the mid-term election results were reported that month), to the point where the three remaining candidates (including John McCain) are still hammering away at the theme in a consistent manner.  (This is probably as it should be, given the various failures of the Bush II White House.)  From the McCain camp, the message is clear:  You're frustrated with the president, and so are we (our guy doesn't even really like him, and feels as though he should have been the Republican nominee in 2000, anyway), so we'll change things in that we'll patch up the leaky ship and carry on like the good conservatives, with occasional maverick streaks, we are.  There will be no major paradigm shift; there will be no major overhauls.  There will be small changes that will represent the "correct" way--as opposed to the rather confused Bush's "incorrect" way--to steer a conservative ship through national and international waters.

Yet the message is not immediately as clear from the Democrats, which is most likely due to the fact that they want to have it both ways:  they want to project the notion that America is ready to "Change" things with a capital "C" in that we are ready to embark on a new national unifying cause or series of unifying causes that affect us as well as people throughout the world in positive ways, but they also want to project the notion that America needs to "change" with a small "c" in that we should work within our existing system(s) to tweak, fix, etc., things in a more comprehensive and aggressive manner than McCain is proposing--so that it benefits all Americans more equally--but in a somewhat similar, traditional mindset to that which McCain is channeling.

"Change" with a big "C" suggests that we shift how we view the very nature of American power and leadership; "change" with a small "c" is a more conservative set of ideas that suggests that we can restore ourselves to the rightful "balance" we held prior to the Bush years without having to re-align our world view.  Whereas in many ways they agree on policy, this "Change"/"change" duality is what most separates Senators Obama and Clinton, as well as the majority (though certainly not all) of their supporters.

Senator Obama more often than not represents "Change" with a big "C," and Senator Clinton often represents "change" with a small "c."  Many of Senator Obama's supporters see his candidacy as the chance for a necessary shift away from what they view as the existing, antiquated paradigm of the United States being a bit of an isolated island-republic (albeit on a continent), apart from the rest of the world, living a rather insular and provincial existence.  Senator Obama's policy ideas bear this out:  whereas Senator Clinton would not negotiate with leaders from such countries as Iran and Venezuela because she "...will not be used for propaganda purposes....," Senator Obama is far more open to the idea of doing so; he seems less concerned with losing a little presidential luster in the short term than he is with American public relations in what he views as a radically changing world in the long term.

Whereas Senator Clinton takes the older, more traditional view (which is not necessarily a bad thing) that one must "earn" the right to speak to the most powerful person (and leader of the most powerful country) in the world--which makes the process one in which the balance of the onus is on the party wishing to engage the United States--Senator Obama takes the view that America is ready to lead in a different, more collegial way.  He suggests that the U.S. should more often take the initiative in extending a hand to potential adversaries throughout the world, which is a sign that we are willing to engage with just about anyone--and for a president or Secretary of State to meet with controversial leaders will prove that we are willing to do so--if those the president or Secretary of State meets with are similarly willing to reciprocate in such a way that they are serious about ditching their current untenable stances for ones that better parallel other successful countries.  Senator Clinton's more traditional stance is one that includes more rules for engagement, whereas Senator Obama's more (might he call it "modern," "post-modern"?) stance is one that calls for America to be more initially disarming in its sudden shift in paradigm, which may lead to surprisingly positive results.

Obviously, both candidates are a mixture of these two "Change" and "change" viewpoints at the foreign level, and they both are far less conservative and insular than is President George W. Bush, but these are the trend lines, and it should come as no surprise that their advocates are often (if not always) of the same mindsets.  For just a couple of examples, look to rather conservative-Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana, a potential Clinton V.P. or cabinet pick with both domestic and foreign credentials who is a strong advocate of many of the "restrained and cautious" methods of reestablishing American legitimacy abroad, which he views as stemming from Senator Clinton's political experience and subsequent vision of the world; and look to New Mexico Governor (and former U.N. Ambassador) Bill Richardson, a potential Obama V.P. or Secretary of State pick, who advocates full-on diplomatic engagement with Iran, the end result of which might be (according to Richardson) a partnership in which the U.S. helps build Iran a civilian nuclear power base and thereby creates heretofore non-existent ties with Iran, establishes a cooperative partnership at the civilian and government levels with Iran, and because of economic benefits to both countries, eventually diffuses potential armed-nuclear tensions.  (Is it any wonder why Senator Clinton, who voted to name the Iranian Guard a "terrorist" organization, and Bill Richardson, a huge critic of that vote, fell out with each other?)

The same goes for the domestic agenda.  Senator Clinton is appealing to people in more micro-manners (people who are struggling with child care crises and who are struggling with the high price of gas relative to what it was a few years ago are largely gravitating toward her), and her pointed and specific proposals, when taken as a whole, would do surprisingly little to change the overall operating structure of the government.  She suggests that she is a good enough manager to tweak the system where it needs to be tweaked, and she is probably right.  Whether those tweaks are sustainable over a twenty- or thirty-year period is what might be called into question, but many of her supporters are presently more focused on the short-term.

Senator Obama, on the other hand, while well-versed on individual issues and willing to tweak where the system needs it, is often less explicit regarding certain precise domestic policies than his opponent.  He is instead far more focused on the overall mindset of the country; his is the view that systems and conditions alter positively only when Americans come to the conclusion that we need to take on a more thoughtful view of ourselves and the world, which includes a shift away from a provincial-focused mindset that nonetheless does not totally disregard what was good in the old mindset so much as incorporates it with what is necessary to know about the world as a whole.  It's a more multi-level, long-term approach to...just about everything, really...and it should therefore come as no surprise that his supporters have a tendency to be more academically educated and more economically affluent than Senator Clinton's supporters.  He seems more interested in change at the macro-level.

The question we are left with, then, is where are American voters, when taken as a whole, at present?  I don't know.  Based on recent caucuses and primaries in potential swing-states, if Ohio, for instance, is indicative of where we are, then Senator Clinton's world-view might be the stronger one on which to run in November, and she would be the stronger candidate.  But if the Upper Midwest (Minnesota; Wisconsin) is indicative, then the opposite would be true and Barack Obama would be the stronger candidate.  If Florida is any indication, almost every recent poll suggests that Senator Clinton is far stronger than Senator Obama.  But if Virginia is more indicative of the overall mindset of the country, Senator Obama should be the nominee.

Only time will tell where we are, both at the domestic and geo-political levels.  Meanwhile, two very strong candidates continue to slug it out with one another in a very close race.  That this is still a competitive race, even after all this time, may be the most telling indication of where we are as a country:  standing at a three-pronged fork in the road (when Senator McCain is factored in), presently torn regarding which path to take.