Sen. Clinton has long argued that she is the right choice for President because of her longer experience in Washington and her supposed advantage as a doer. She tries to use this as a contrast with Sen. Obama's offer of hope and vision. Sen. Clinton really pressed the point before the New Hampshire primary, when she said:
Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964… It took a president to get it done.
She elaborated:
[King] led a movement. . . . He was jailed. And he gave a speech that was one of the most beautifully, profoundly important speeches ever written in America . . . [T]hen he worked with President Johnson to get the civil rights laws passed . . . .
So far, she has demonstrated that both MLK, the leader of a movement, the purveyor of hope and LBJ, the politician and legislative master were both needed to pass civil rights legislation. And we do need both the revolutionaries who convince people about the need for change, who bring big ideas to the table, and evolutionaries who can work the system to pass legislation. The problem with Sen. Clinton's argument is one of supply and demand. We already have a healthy supply of evolutionaries. What we have a need for and an unfulfilled demand for are the revolutionaries who inspire and who can create the public pressure that allows the insiders to implement the vision. That is why Sen. Obama is the one who should be the Democratic nominee for President.
