Alinsky, Clinton, Obama


A reader writes:

The principal difference between Hillary and Obama is not race or gender at all, but Saul Alinsky.

I overstate the case, but it is worth noting that where Clinton wrote her thesis on Alinsky's organizational theory, Obama lived it. Where he rejected it as "quaint" and moved on to law school and hitched her wagon to Bill's star, Obama went to the church basements of Chicago; that experience brought him to prominence at Harvard. Hillary became a master of the knife fight, Obama guerilla warfare. Hillary's weapon is influence, Obama's is people.

(And, as an aside, part of why I once again believe he may win is that where his ability to marshal popular support is clear, his skill in the backroom politics is also becoming apparent; Hillary on the other hand seems to draw more support from popular appeals to pity and fear than to the sense of common purpose and individual stake in his success that Obama invokes.  Hillary is waking up to this but only vaguely understands it--she think she has a youth problem, as demonstrated by her almost obsessive use of the word youth in the Couric interview, and the theatre that was the rally in NH, where in fact she has an Alinsky problem.)

Both have considerable talents, both no doubt believe in the causes they espouse.  But there is a difference in the effect of their success--Hillary if she wins will prove Alinsky wrong, Obama will prove him right.  Hillary has invited the voters to install her in the White House because she can fix the country for them; Obama, on the other hand, is inviting voters to vote for him because, in doing so, they can demonstrate the power of people to fix the country for themselves.

So, you see, it has nothing to do with whether Hillary is really mean or nice, vulnerable or steely; it has nothing to do with whether Obama is ready, or holds his own in the debates.  The distinction has everything to do with how it repeats itself in the minds and voices of the electorate.

I heard a man on the radio this morning call in to say that America has lost its innocence already, that we will be in Iraq forever, and that what the voters really need is a "Reality Check"; not surprisingly, he urged other listeners to vote for Hillary.  I, as an Obama supporter, would argue that what America really needs right now is Americans--to get organized and get involved in whatever cause it is they may believe in, even if I don't happen to agree with it.  Which one of is right?  I don't know.  But I do believe that a country filled by citizens who believe that much can be accomplished if we work together would be a better place to live.  This is the genius of Obama's message and what he came to see from his days in Chicago:  it has nothing to do with him, it is about us.

Jump to comments

2006-2011 archives for The Daily Dish, featuring Andrew Sullivan

Get Today's Top Stories in Your Inbox (preview)

A Technicolor Time-Lapse of Alaska's Northern Lights

The beauty of aurora borealis, as seen from America's last frontier

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register. blog comments powered by Disqus


What Do You Wish You Learned in College?

Ivy League academics reveal their undergrad regrets


Famous Movies, Reimagined

From Apocalypse Now to The Lord of the Rings, this clever video puts a new spin on Hollywood's greatest hits.


What Is a City?

Cities are like nothing else on Earth.


CrossFit Versus Yoga: Choose a Side

How a workout becomes a social identity


In Online Dating, Everyone's a Little Bit Racist

The co-founder of OKCupid shares findings from his analysis of millions of users' data.