What is it about the difference between the two that gives Obama the edge in caucuses and Clinton the advantage in the primaries?
Without reading the NYTimes piece, I would guess that the Obama supporters are able to persuade/convert others to their way of thinking in the caucus, while primary voters are left to their own thought processes. My guess is that Obama’s candidacy inspires more people and allows him to attract more votes at a caucus than a primary. He’s all about hope and optimism, something we sorely need.
On it’s face, that looks like the idea of a woman president, even one with the negatives Hillary brings with her, is more appealing than what Obama has to offer, absent the gentle arm-twisting of the caucus environment. I’m outsourcing the comparisons of the two, as they appear today, to Professor Delong.
Can voters ignore their memories of the past to vote for Hillary? Regardless of how they feel about her, she will attract so much obstructionist nonsense, so much hate and division, it might be a waste of a Democratic Administration.
On the whole, I feel more confident about Obama’s unknown future than Hillary’s known past, regardless of how blameless she might be.