People who think Obama is all style and no substance should read
this, and look at
this comparison of the legislation-proposal records of the three leading candidates over the most recent two US Senate terms (the ones during which all three major candidates can be compared). The argument I'd make is not that he's more substantial than Clinton or McCain, but that they probably don't differ significantly in that regard.
Where does the perception of Clinton's greater substance come from? I have two suspicions.
1. Many people have an unstated and unrecognized assumption that oratory and managerial skills are in a trading relation to one another, where in order to have high marks on one, you must have low marks on the other -- as if rhetoric and competence were a zero-sum game. (Maybe this is related to the strongly negative connotation the word "rhetoric" has in America?) But in fact, good communication skills
are part of competence for a major leadership role like the Presidency. Perhaps you can be a decent president despite being a poor communicator -- recent history shows that such a person can at the very least get reelected -- but other things being equal, better communication skills will make you a better president.
2. Ah, you say, but other things are
not equal in this case, because Clinton has more experience. I've been puzzling over the "Clinton is more experienced" meme (which I believed myself until I gave it some thought) -- it is not true, or at least not decisively true given Obama's eleven years of legislative experience to her seven, and in point of fact the two of them are two of the *least* experienced politicians
a who ran for the Democratic slot this year, which tells us something about what political experience will buy you! I think I've found the answer:
the recognition heuristic. Clinton
seems more experienced, because her name has been in the national news for sixteen years to Obama's four (and I'm betting most people didn't notice his name until much more recently). But her eight years of being, bluntly, a President's wife either should not count, if she was not substantially involved in the President's duties (since when does being married to a CEO count as a relevant qualification for becoming one?), or should count against her, if she was (see my earlier post about dynasties).
(a) Major political experience of failed Democratic contenders, according to Wikipedia:
Joe Biden: 36 years (US Senate: 36)
Chris Dodd: 34 years (US House: 6, US Senate: 28)
John Edwards: 10 years (US Senate: 10)
Mike Gravel: 16 years (AK House: 4, US House: 12)
Dennis Kucinich: 15 years (CLE mayor: 3, US House: 12)
Bill Richardson: 24 years (US House: 14, UN ambassador: 1, US Sec'y of Energy: 3, NM governor: 6)