Obama Makes Dems Feel Good About Politics

There is an interesting column in the Washington Post by E.J. Dionne in which he argues that since there are little policy differences between Obama and Clinton, Democrats are supporting Obama because he appeals to them emotionally. Here is a quote from the article:

Barack Obama has surged to rough parity with Hillary Clinton in the national polls not because Democrats reject her carefully thought-out solutions to the central public problems but because he has created in the party's rank and file a feeling of liberation -- from intimidation by Republicans, from old divisions, from history itself.

If you look at the criticisms of Clinton from the left on the political blogs, it is seldom over policies, and often over personalities. The one exception is the war in Iraq. Her vote on the Resolution for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force is repeatedly cited as the one fundamental policy difference between her and Obama.
Yet, even regarding the war, the difference is largely over her past record and not over the difference between her present position and Obama's present position. Given that fact, why then are so many Democrats so drawn to Obama?

One big difference between Obama and Clinton seems to be how each of them regards the practice of politics. Clinton gives the impression that she regards politics as constant confrontation with Republicans. Given her husband's history, and her history, with the Republicans, this makes sense. Yet, most of us, even rabid Democratic partisans, grow tired of conflict and yearn for a more concilatory atmosphere. Obama gives the hope that such a atmosphere could exist, Clinton does not.

Democrats tend to favor candidates who connect with them emotionally. Think Bill Clinton over Paul Tsongas or, for that matter, Jack Kennedy over Hubert Humphrey. They favor candidates who seem to offer hope. Between Obama and Clinton, Obama is the candidate who seems warmer and seems more hopeful.

Such an appeal should not be underestimated. In the long run it is easier to maintain a campaign based on hope than one based on anger, a campaign based on appeals to the heart than on appeals to the brain.

Is There a Unwritten Rule for Media that "Liberal" Commentators Must See Both Sides While "Conservative" Commentators Are Allowed to See Only One?

You have seen it time and time again with "talking heads" on cable and broadcast shows. The conservative on the show is rude, totally fixated on getting his or her points across, while the show's token liberal is some person who is quick to see "both sides" of an issue. So you get commentatory from the conservative how great Bush is while the liberal says things like "well, I can see why you think he is great, and he has done some good things, but, all in all, I think he is not as great as you think" or some other bs like that. Which leads us to this question: is it because of the personalities involved or is it a intentional choice made by the producers of the show?

And you don't just see this in TV shows. You see it in print media, too. Take the Washington Post. Their two liberals, Richard Cohen and E.J. Dionne, aren't nearly as partisan as Robert Novak by himself. Robert Novack has never seen a Republican do a bad thing in his life, unless it is to try and reach out to Democrats or, heaven forbid, suggest that income tax cuts aren't needed. Meanwhile, Cohen and Dionne are bending over backwards to show how fair they are to Republicans.

We want to know why TV shows and papers can't have fire-breathing liberals on to balance the fire-breathing conservatives. Surely there are liberals and progressives who can match the intensity of people like Novak. So why aren't they getting airtime? Is it "them", TV producers and publishers, or is it "us", liberals and progressives?