Combat and Composure; Clinton and Obama

Not something I say often, but David Brooks has an interesting column today.

Here's the crux,

This contrast between combat and composure defines the Democratic race. The implicit Clinton argument is that politics is an inherently nasty business. Human nature, as she said Sunday, means that progress comes only through conquest. You’d better elect a leader who can intimidate. You’d better elect someone who has given herself permission to be brutal.

Obama’s campaign grows out of the longstanding reform tradition. His implicit argument is that politics doesn’t have to be this way. Dishonesty and brutality aren’t inevitable; they’re what gets in the way. Obama’s friend and supporter Cass Sunstein described the Obama ideal in The New Republic: “Obama believes that real change usually requires consensus, learning and accommodation.”

That’s regarded as naïve drivel in parts of Camp Clinton.

I have often expressed frustration with Democratic candidates', most recently Obama, inability or unwillingness to respond forcefully and even brutally when pushed. And yet, I was drawn to Obama by his desire to lead by educating the voters on issues, finding common ground, building the necessary consensus to allow real, meaningful change. A change in the tone of our process so that we build a lasting coalition of sensible policies and a tolerance for all Americans.

I started to warm again to Hillary after her appearance on O'Reilly's show, going toe to toe with that gasbag, all the while wearing a smile. Hillary's tenacity is breathtaking.

Then Hillary goes bonkers on the gas tax holiday in the most despicable and dishonest of ways and all I can think about is the fact that she is the epitome of the dishonest politician.

Hillary Clinton has no guiding principles other than her own hold on power. She voted to invade Iraq, attack Iran and promises to end OPEC for no reason other than her own political benefit. What won't she say to be elected and how can we criticize Republicans for such outlandish behavior while supporting her?

The Clintons are everything I despise in Republicans. And it's not surprising that conservatives are increasingly drawn to the Clintons, because the Clintons fight by there rules. Win or lose to the Clintons, nothing will change and the GOP will still be able to wedge race and hate and fear to political advantage.

But what happens in Obama becomes President and has an effective presidency? Everything changes. What does the GOP do if they are forced to actually run on issues? If they can't scare Americans with gays and blacks? Why would any working class or middle class voter ever vote republican on their economic positions?