Hillary, Barack And Us

CBS' Dick Meyer Puts Voters On the Couch

(CBS)  This commentary was written by CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer.

---

I’ve made as much fun of pop psychology as any jaded, wiseacre column desperate for opinions. But I’m sorry: A whole lot of Democrats and journalists who feel it is their business to give Democrats’ free advice need some serious virtual couch time.

So tell me how you're feeling about Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. Because I think you are in denial about some very important issues your fellow citizens have in their relationships with these two potential parent figures.

I sense most voters who don't have books by Herbert Marcuse, Michael Moore and Al Franken on their shelves feel profoundly conflicted about choosing either Hillary or Barack to be president.

Enjoying the voyeuristic thrill of watching family psychodramas unfold in public is traditional American form of public therapy. For patients who vote, however, this is not an optimal process for selecting a president. Sen. Clinton's psychological quest is just too obvious and determinative for most us. What exactly drives her we cannot know, which itself is frustrating. Is it redemption? Or resurrection? Would being leader of the free world erase the public indignities she suffered due to her husband? Does she have a messianic thing going on? Did she ever have a desire to completely escape public scrutiny and dissection altogether?

I'm agnostic on these therapeutic queries. But the sense people have that Sen. Clinton's drive is overly determined by her emotional issues is, I suggest, fatal. This is not sexist. Al Gore has a similar problem. Richard Nixon had that problem; he didn't solve it — but George Wallace solved it for him. There is a balance between ambition, drive, earned confidence and reluctance that voters are comfortable with. For many voters, Sen. Clinton doesn't have that balance.

Sen. Clinton is also emotionally inscrutable. That adds a layer to the question of "what makes her tick?" that is very uncomfortable. In public, she's a robot. No compelling and satisfying account of her private side exists. In every election since 1972, the presidential candidate who gave the appearance of being the most emotionally available won. Sen. Clinton will never be that candidate.

Sen. Obama is a Rorschach test. I see hope! I see brains! I see a whole new kind of politician! I see an amazing life story! I see an orator! I see a natural! I see a hero!

Well, real people aren't Rorschach tests. They aren't blank slates. And by January 2008, Senator Blank Slate, D-Ill., will be a messy chalkboard. He may well be a fabulous chalkboard with cool stuff all over it. But more likely, he'll be pretty much like an American politician, though perhaps one who is a great guy, with a big brain and a powerful voice.

In the 19th century, blank slates became president all the time. Party titans would lock antlers and fight to the death, and then the party would tap an unknown Sometimes it worked out pretty well, as with Abraham Lincoln. Sometimes not so well, as with Franklin Pierce.

Television has killed blank slates. Jimmy Carter came the closest, but he filled in the blanks pretty aggressively by doing things like telling us about the "lust in his heart."

These days, candidates with maverick window dressing and hero worshippers in tow break hearts: Bill Bradley and John McCain in 2000, Howard Dean in 2004. Obama's fate is not preordained, but it will be determined by more than the emotional projections of voters looking for a new significant other.

Americans also have race issues, though it's not clear exactly how they play out. The last potential candidate to really break the national heart was Colin Powell. Is that a coincidence? Does the national political press have a soft spot for African-American political superstars? Or is it that Americans really do have an enduring and serious wish to make a huge change in race relations in this country by electing a black president? Or is Harold Ford's defeat in the Tennessee Senate race this year a bad omen? I'm not at all convinced that all this has been worked through yet.

I think this used to be called Reality Therapy.

---

Dick Meyer is the editorial director of CBSNews.com, based in Washington.

E-mail questions, comments, complaints, arguments and ideas to
Against the Grain. We will publish some of the interesting (and civil) ones, sometimes in edited form.

[tibu987]

Condeleeza Rice, "W's" ineffective shill came from Academia and to academia she should return.
Never an effective voice for the U.S. dealing with foreign government officials who neither listen to a woman and less to a American black woman.
Rice should exit the political world and return to academia.
'Nuff said,

[catt42701]

I read in a comment the other day Clinton NO Rice YES. I am the opposite. Rice a resounding no because she has been Bush's yes person. She echoed what he has said from the beginning and we see where that got us. Clinton yes, Obama yes with either one for president and the other for vice president. I think they would compliment each other in that situation. Clinton with her hard knocks experience and Obama with his idealism and, I think, honest desire to do good for this country and bring us back from the brink.

[kailumego1]

Zopa108, I would like to challenge your argument, do we ever get the "private person" from the talking head of any politician, I mean after all this is politics, in which, like a telemarketer or new/used car salesman, his/her job is to say what ever it takes to appeal to his/her constituents, to get elected.

And our job as voters is to ensure those candidates we endorse make it their mission to address our concerns, be it health care, the environment [conservation and preservation], alternative fuel [less foreign oil dependent], pollution [tighter restrictions and regulations, along with stiffer fines on businesses that don%u2019t comply], the economy, etc. We as voters have a responsibility and duty to expect more from our government, particularly, those whom we elect, and it doesn%u2019t matter if it%u2019s Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

And that%u2019s pretty trivial to not endorse a candidate because of his name, I would think the American voter would have greater concerns than, a candidate%u2019s name being too %u201Cethnic%u201D, how small-minded and petty.

[kailumego1]

I%u2019m interested in where does either Barack or Hillary stand on the issues, such as, health care, alternative fuel, environmental degradation, air pollution and groundwater, outsourcing jobs overseas, and building a bridge to foreign diplomacy, as oppose to his given name.

As far as his personal views, is he a moderate Democrat, does he supports gay rights, women%u2019s rights [abortion, the morning after pill, giving more funding to breast, ovarian, and cervical cancer research], stem cell research, getting rid of that bogus %u201CNo-Child-Left-Behind%u201D nonsense and allowing the teachers greater autonomy in deciding the curriculum, allotting more funding to education and ensuring the Social Security program will be around for future generations, cutting back on military spending and having more %u201Coversight%u201D over the Pentagon, and devising policies that would address criminal behavior, greater enforcement not only on index crimes but %u201Cwhite-collar%u201D crimes as well.

[kailumego1]

The misconception that most whites have about a black candidate is %u201CAffirmative Action%u201D, he or she is going to create policies that would benefit blacks; likewise, he or she would change to social/political/economical paradigm of this country allowing more blacks autonomy, through creating more social welfare programs.

Now that%u2019s stereotyping, furthermore, what it implies, whites have surreptitiously created this %u201Cillegitimacy%u201D, through purposeful and malicious exclusion of blacks from the social/political/economical sphere, and are threaten that a black candidate will come along and %u201Ceven out the playing field%u201D, by asserting blacks more power, thereby weakening white hegemonic rule.

Because for no other reason than, %u201Cwhite paranoia%u201D, a black candidate would have the identical concerns as whites, the major issues %u201Cfront and center%u201D.

[pablojaramil]

Barck and Powell are blacks...this is a racist society remember !
The article itself BAD : To much words to end say nothing !

[bluestardad]

who cares it is too early this is a distraction.

Political horse handicapping is an addiction as strong as crack cocaine. It isn't 60 days after the last major election, the new people elected haven't had a chance to even get started to work, and the media buzz is about Hillary and Obama running in 2008!

Sigh.

Okay, if we must, then the real difference between them is captured in the fact that we are inclined to call Senator Clinton "Hillary", and, so far, I can't conceive of any circumstances where we would call Senator Obama "Barrack" without intending to belittle or offend.

There is a combination of private reserve and public dignity in his media appearances that is partially cultural [many prominent Black men in public life have it--Colin Powell is a case in point] but also seems to be in Obama's character as well as his culture.

Do we ever get the private person from the talking head? Maybe. But if I were to remark on anything at all in the contrast, it is how easily we seem to get a talking head of Obama, and how hard it appears to be to get a talking head of Hillary. I do not know if this is due to simple caginess by Hillary herself or to media producers who shy away from appearing to boost her candidacy.

But I strongly suspect that you do know the answer to this question. Maybe you could tell us.

[barbarast59]

I would be proud to have either Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton representing me as president. I have always admired Mrs. Clinton and Mr Obama provideded a very new, very fresh, very honest face. We have had poor leadership for 8 years now and I am ready for a new direction. Either one of these possible candidates could provide that.

[madeleine9]

Please. Do we have to hear another tirade against women displaced to Hillary Clinton?

Do I need to remind you of the King Oedipus and you know what?

And talk about drive overly determined by emotional issues, can we hear yours?

[bill1fj]

It just seems like the same politicians will be running that didn't take care of business while they were in Congress. Iraq, 10 million illegal aliens, education, and health care. If they wouldn't do the job while in Congress what would make anyone think they would do it if higher up. We need some fresh faces and people that will do the job. Either win in Iraq or get out. Send the illegals home and fine anyone that hires them. Help to make education more effective and affordable for US citizens. Work on providing health care at a reasonable cost.
Throw the rascals out that haven't been doing the job they were elected to do.
Thank You

[fascistusa]

Interesting. Why are they trying to sell us a Candidate 2 years ahead of time?

2 years will bring a LOT OF CHANGES.

EVERYDAY more People realize AMERICA IS FASCIST.


Times They Are a Changing - Bob Dylan

[kailumego1]

ademeyer, you are absolutely correct the music is bad, more than bad, actually. And I hate rap music, find it deplorable without merit, what happened to "real talent", like Janis Joplin, Marvin Gaye, the Temptations, Antia Baker, Fleetwood Mac, etc. I find this new wave of music a disgrace to all those who struggled to make something really good.

[kailumego1]

This question is to Professor2 and ShamCedar, why is Barack bad for the country, will you both please state legitimate reasons, other than the obvious.

Do you feel his political agenda will be bad for the country, and why? He%u2019s the senator of Illinois, how has his policies negatively affected Illinoisans? What are some of his policies, I%u2019m curious to know, because from what I%u2019ve heard on both side%u2019s blacks and whites he would make an excellent candidate.

I am very interested in reading your legitimate reasons why he would be so awful. Now what are you basing your argument on, is it based on your own personal subjective idiosyncrasies, or has there been [is] substantiated proof of his incompetence?

[kailumego1]

? I would welcome your unbiased objective opinion. I%u2019ve read most of the post here and neither mentions anything concrete that would substantiate your arguments, as a matter of fact most have been simply personal malicious attacks, as oppose of contributing anything meaningful for debate.

As many of you profess to be intellectuals, where is you sound reasoning, behind these malicious attacks. Regarding Hillary, she made a bad decision supporting the Iraq War, however, as one poster mentioned her move to nation wide health care supersedes her obvious lack in judgment.

What would be of great concern to me is a) developing an alternative fuel program, b) addressing environmental degradation [air, water pollution etc, the continuing development and destroying of wild life habitats, c) bridging the income gap between blacks and whites through stimulating the economy, spearheading a program that gives incentives to minorities to become more self-sufficient, entrepreneurship, improving the public school system, embracing higher-education, and d) a president that can have better foreign policy relations with Middle-Eastern and Islamic countries, other than the tyrant we have in place, who has widen the gap.

[ademeyer]

Has anybody noticed how bad the music is nowadays? Fergie, Justin Timberlake, all that awful rap...where are today's Janis Joplins, Marvin Gayes, Nat King Coles, Elvises, Bing Crosbys, etc?
Popular music has certainly declined since the 80's, don't you think? This comment has nothing to do with the Democratic nomination for president, but I'm tired of complaining about politics...feel like complaining about music.

[sharncedar]

Barack is bad for the country because he takes buzz away from any legitimate candidate coming forward to challenge Frillery.

It's a gut check for our nation, if we allow the Democratic party system to shove Hillary down our gullets, who knows wht humiliation is next.

Whatever happened to Democracy.

[processor2]

Both Obama & Clinton are terrible for the Democrat Party...neither would win

The Democrat that I would definitely vote for is Joe Leiberman

............

[ronaldstark]

Hillary will not be the nomination!
I'm really frightened more by democrats willingness to allow muslims to continue to plot blowing us up...calling it their religous freedom but if we plot to kill them we are sent off to clean toilets. Democrats will RUIN the U.S. and hand it over to the NEW WORLD ORDER (Muslim Law) We need to expose these politicians who are being purchased by ARABS and hang every last one of em. I'm telling you. It's both parties that are corrupt. Can't trust anyone? Who can we trust?

[kaliveotin]

I lost interest in this column after just a few sentences. The writer talks alot but seems to say nothing. The voters like Obama but Hillary will easily get the democratic nomination. We love her. In spite of what the corporate media and talking heads are trying to do, there is no drama. We democrats will consider Obama in eight years, after he's proven himself and shown us a positive history, after Hillary has finished her second term. Her work on trying to get a national Health Care program alone earned her our support. The fact that the corporate medias
talking heads are so afraid of her should be a sign for most americans that she is the cure for what most dangereously ails this nation. Go Hillary. RUN HILLARY RUN.