Aim for the heart, not the head
John Cole isn't feeling the love for Obama, and even approvingly links to a story by Karl Rove, the point of which is that Obama's just too good at the rhetoric and doesn't bore us all to death explaining in excruciating detail what his policy positions are. After all, listening to boring policy speeches is how we should be making our decisions about who to elect.
And frankly, that's probably true, but I don't recall hearing any detailed policy speeches from any candidate. I'm sure all of them, including Obama, have made a few by now, but the simple truth is that few people pay too close of attention to such things. Detailed policy papers aren't the most riveting of reading, and listening to people drone on about them is a good way to ensure that most people just tune right out.
Via John Robb, Dave Winer posted just how these things get decided:
A lot of my friends on Twitter dismiss Huckabee, and to be clear, I could not vote for a Republican this year, no matter who their candidate is, but he is a fantastic American personality. Elections are all about feelings, not policies or positions or even records as the pundits insist. Who you vote for is a function of how you feel about the country and the world in relation to yourself. The candidate who comes closest to validating your feelings is the person you vote for.
Emotion drives elections. Huckabee is doing well in large part because he's likable and funny, regardless of the fact that he's a religious nut with the foreign policy understanding of my two-year old neice. Part of Hillary's "comeback" in NH is credited on her welling up and showing emotion. Appealing to emotion and sending out a message of hope is how that other Clinton became president. Bush beat Gore in part because he was, "the guy you wanted to have a beer with", and Kerry because the Democrats thought uninspiring substance and policy was the way to go.
Obama inspires people, and that can't be discounted. Hillary also inspires people, the problem is that it's mostly the Republicans who go all frothy-mouthed at the mere mention of the name, "Clinton". As Balloon Juice commenter Krista notes:
There are obviously people who have qualms or doubts about Obama. But when it really comes down to it, on election day, if Obama IS indeed the candidate, would those people stay home rather than vote for him? They might grumble, but I still think they’d much rather have Obama than any Republican.
My concern is that with Hillary, there are not just people on the Dem side who have reservations about her, there are people who actively loathe her, and who really WOULD stay home rather than vote for her on election day. Conversely, I fear that a Hillary nomination would bring out Republican voters in record numbers – they just hate her that much.
The most important thing is that a Democrat is elected president. Full stop. It’s time to clean house and make the Republicans clean out their house before they’re given the reins again.
Obama, Clinton, Edwards—any of them are capable, and any of them would do a better job than Bush (Hell, my 10-year-old nephew would do a better job than Bush. Kid’s got more money invested than I do.) The question is: who’s going to bring out the most voters on the Dem side?
