No one who followed the campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination seriously -- a sub-group that, unfortunately, excludes virtually the entire broadcast and cable press corps -- will be surprised that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have begun appearing jointly and comfortably with one another.

People forget that, back in November, 2006, before this race even got started, MSNBC political commentator Tom Curry headlined an assessment of the candidates: "Clinton versus Obama: Is there any difference?"

As Curry noted then, there was "a remarkable concurrence" between the contenders.

Obama and Clinton come from the same rigidly pragmatic and consistently cautious wing of the Democratic party. For the most part, they got along well with one another during the long campaign for a nomination that each coveted for their own reasons -- as opposed to a desire to deny it to the other, or to advance an agenda. They spoke regularly on their mobile phones, complimented one another in debates and dialed down disputes with carefully chosen statements that were constructed to press the "pause" button on media-generated "controversies." They distanced themselves from troubling surrogates and denied the hotter heads on their respective campaign teams permission to "go nuclear."

While Bill Clinton and Terry McAuliffe blew up now and again, and while some of Obama's backers may have gone overboard at times, the candidates themselves never allowed tensions on the trail to get anywhere near as intense as what developed between George McGovern and Hubert Humphrey in 1972, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan in 1976, Walter Mondale and Gary Hart in 1984, George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole in 1988, George H.W. Bush and Pat Buchanan in 1992, George W. Bush and John McCain in 2000 or John McCain and Mitt Romney in 2008.

This year's Democratic race may have looked edgy. But that was because the talking heads needed something to talk about in front of the cameras that never shut off. The truth is that the Obama-Clinton contest was a throwback to the cozy, insider competitions of old between eyes-on-the-prize pols like Earl Warren and Tom Dewey for the 1948 Republican nod or John Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey in the 1960 Democratic primaries.

In other words, the notion that Obama and Clinton were in a battle to the death was always a theatrical rather than a realistic one. It helped to keep the troops energized during what was, for all practical purposes, a non-ideological exercise in political positioning. The drama was in the fact that a nominee would make history -- either as the first person of color or the first woman to lead a national party ticket. The drama was not in the fact of particular differences on principle.

It was always the case that one candidate would win and the other would lose. And it was always the case that, when this happened, the two of them would follow the traditional pattern of merging their big-donor lists, plotting a joint convention and fall campaign strategy and appearing together at stage-managed events like Friday's photo opportunity in the aptly-named New Hampshire community of Unity.

It was a perfectly stage-managed event. Obama's tie even matched Clinton's pantsuit. (Both chose "blue." Get it?) Obama spoke of his former foe's "grace and aplomb." Clinton spoke about "when" Obama is president. ANd, of course, she observed that, "Senator McCain and President Bush are like two side of the same coin that doesn't add up to a whole lot of change."

What she did not say, but what is certainly true, is that the senator from New York and the senator from Illinois are, themselves, two sides of the same coin.

Of course, their joint appearances will renew speculation about whether Democrats might want to bet that coin on an Obama-Clinton "dream ticket." That's an unlikely prospect because everyone recognizes that it would be difficult to find a place for the increasingly-difficult Bill Clinton in or around an Obama White House. But if Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton did resolve to form a ticket, the personal dynamics between them would be fine. They are, after all, what they have always been: relatively conventional politicians who share that "remarkable concurrence."

Comments (22)

1. "Obama and Clinton come from the same rigidly pragmatic and consistently cautious wing of the Democratic party"

   Oh, but along will come Metteyya and some others who will protest that Obama really is different from HRC and will usher in the progressive era.

   On another view: for someone on the left like Nichols, these two appear as pragmatic centrists; for conservatives they are to the left of traditional liberalism but still to the right of those with views like the Nation or most of it's leftist or left leaning bloggers.

   Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/27/2008 @ 07:43am

2. lvliberty1

   that's right.

   obama and hrc are two ADM subsidizing, war in iraqing, telecom kissing, lefto commo pinkos.

   obviously.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 06/27/2008 @ 08:04am

3. obama and hrc are two ADM subsidizing, war in iraqing, telecom kissing, lefto commo pinkos.

   obviously.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 06/27/2008 @ 08:04am

   You completely misread my post FZ. I said they are traditional liberals but not to the left like bloggers such as yourself and the Nation mag.

   Maybe you need more protein in your diet.

   Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/27/2008 @ 08:09am

4. Politicians trash each other in public and then get their families together for weekend outings.It's part of the game.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 06/27/2008 @ 08:24am

5. >>>The drama was not in the fact of particular differences on principle.<<<

   John Nichols,

   You really never understood the Obama campaign at all, and your article here today demonstrates that quite clearly. While both Obama and Clinton may have a practical streak, there are meaningful differences between them other than their sex and race.

   Obama, as a former community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, is VERY comfortable with grassroots politics and governing from the bottom-up. Hillary, on the other hand, who spent 15 years as a corporate lawyer at the Rose law firm in Arkansas and as a board member at Walmart is the typical "elitist" corporate lawyer who thinks those of privilege have all of the answers and everyone else must simply do what they are told to do from top-down.

   The other remarkable difference is their approach to special interest politics. Clinton, while bucking the establishment in '92 with her failed healthcare initiative, decided that "lobbyist were good" after all and became the biggest recipient of HMO and drug company campaign contributions. She was dubbed "the queen of earmarks" for her record number of "secret" earmarks (hundreds of millions of dollars) on behalf of defense contractors in New York. Essentially, Hillary decided that the "pay-to-play" culture in Washington is OK, so if she wanted political power she would master this culture to rise politically.

   Barack was ALWAYS uncomfortable with the special interest lobbying game, and while he attempted to befriend some of these lobbyist in Illinois with late night poker games, he learned that they really were the problem, not the solution. He learned that some may have legitimate business before government, but that they didn't have the right to crowd out every other voice that had a stake in the issue.

   Hillary is a DLC Democrat just like her husband, while Barack has strong disagreements with many of the policies of the DLC and has made these disagreements public.

   In short, Obama is a pragmatic progressive who often "sounds" like a centrist for political advantage, whereas Hillary REALLY IS a centrist. I would have thought by now, John Nichols, after 16 months of campaigning that you could discern this difference.

   Posted by Metteyya at 06/27/2008 @ 08:31am

6. More on the Obama move to the Center as noted in Time Mag.

   Obama's Supreme Move to the Center

   Thursday, Jun. 26, 2008

   On Wednesday, after the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional in cases of child rape, Obama surprised some observers by siding with the hardline minority of Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito.

   Then Thursday, after Justice Scalia released his majority opinion knocking down the city of Washington's ban on handguns, Obama said in a statement, "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view."

   A top legal adviser to Obama says both cases are consistent with his previous positions. "I don't see him as moving in his statements on the death penalty or the gun case," says Cass Sunstein, a former colleague of Obama's at the University of Chicago. Sunstein says Obama is "not easily characterized" on social issues, and says the Senator's support for allowing government use of the Ten Commandments in public, in some cases, is another example of his unpredictability on such issues.

   But Obama's sudden social centrism would sound more convincing in a different context. Since he wrapped up the primary earlier this month and began to concentrate on the independent and moderate swing voters so key in a general election, Obama has consistently moved to the middle. He hired centrist economist Jason Furman, known for defending the benefits of globalization and private social security accounts, to the displeasure of liberal economists. On Father's Day, Obama gave a speech about the problem of absentee fathers and the negative effects it has on society, in particular scolding some fathers for failing to "realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child -- it's the courage to raise one." Last week, after the House passed a compromise bill on domestic spying that enraged liberals and civil libertarians, Obama announced that though he was against other eavesdropping compromises in the past, this time he was going to vote for it.

   http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1818334,00.html

   I wonder what Metteyya and some other Obama Kool-Ade drinkers will do with this?

   Or where will many of you who are obviously more to the left of Obama go if he maintains this trend?

   Do you hold your nose or do you vote 3rd party?

   Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/27/2008 @ 08:32am

7. What is to the left of Luvvy?

   Most of America.

   Who would be closer to his political views?

   The Taliban, Saudi Arabia, Mugtada- al sadr. YEs, I know, you don't want a theocracy, just your religious views reflected in policy.

   Posted by crabwalk at 06/27/2008 @ 09:11am

8. from a previous thread:

   [Mett,

   You perhaps are unaware that many if not most HMOs are nonprofit organizations including Kaiser, the largest HMO in the US? HIP, the largest in the NYC area is a nonprofit. Blue Cross and Blue Shield depending on the state are often nonprofit. Allina in Minn, is their largest HMO insuring nearly 25% of the people in Minn. It is a nonprofit. Healthplus in Mich, is the main HMO and a nonprofit for Union workers (especially auto) in Mich.

   There is much more, but I think you get the picture.

   Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/27/2008 @ 07:59am ]

   {BC/BS Michigan, a "non-profit"

   [In his second year as chief executive officer at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Daniel Loepp earned $1,657,555, a 67% raise over his $999,351 salary and compensation in 2006, the company's 2007 financial records show.

   Both figures are well above the national average for insurance CEOs.

   Blue Cross also gave large retirement and buyout packages to seven of its top 10 executives in a year of higher-than-usual turnover at the company.

   ...Critics, including (republican-crab)Attorney General Mike Cox, say Blue Cross spends too much on administrative costs such as salaries. Cox said the average compensation for Blue Cross' top 10 executives rose 42% between 2004 and 2006.

   Other large increases last year at Blue Cross went to George Francis III, the company's former senior vice president, who received an 83% raise, bringing his compensation to $1,380,322, and Kathy Elston, former vice president for employee services, with a 155% raise, from $383,453 to $979,434 in 2007. Helen Stojic, Blue Cross spokeswoman, said retirements in 2006 drove up average compensation, but fell by 8.4% in 2007, after the departure in 2006 of CEO Richard Whitmer.

   Whitmer, who spent 17 years as Blue Cross' CEO, earned $4.2 million in 2006 and drew an additional $877,853 in deferred compensation in 2007, the organization's financial records show.]

   In 2007 Bc/BS Michigan had $2,7000,000,000 in reserve, and asked for premium hikes.

   Cry me a river.}

   Posted by crabwalk at 06/27/2008 @ 09:13am

9. Posted by crabwalk at 06/27/2008 @ 09:13am

   You have a comma or a zero out of place on your final figure.

   Posted by Benchrest at 06/27/2008 @ 09:48am

10. Yep, the Barack O'Clinton chimera is what I was calling them back about oh, November-December or so.

    You know, right around the time The Nation decided to endorse Barack Obama.

    Not lookin' so good at the moment, unfortunately.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/27/2008 @ 10:10am

11. You have a comma or a zero out of place on your final figure.

    Posted by Benchrest at 06/27/2008 @ 09:48am

    thank you.

    $2,700,000,000 in reserve.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/27/2008 @ 10:14am

12. I will probably vote for Obama not because he will oversee a new era of progressive domestic programs, but because I think he will be an excellent messenger for us abroad and may be able to heal some of the damage done by Chimpco here and abroad.

    I have known for some time that he is a DLC man, that his economic policies are co-written by his underwriters, Goldman Sachs and crowd.

    He comes without Clintons baggage and McCains mistakes on the failed wars in the ME., and those are plusses too.

    But, Nader is always there as an out, and should be a concern to any democrat that wants to be a RINO, like Hillary and maybe even Obama.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/27/2008 @ 10:21am

13. By the way Nationheads, Chuck Spinney --remember him? a national hero who appeared on the cover of Time mag in the early 80's as a Pentagon whistle blower-- has an outstanding must read today as the lead piece at Counterpunch.

    It reinforces the strong and growing perception that Obama is in way over his head already.

    It's enough to have me wishing that I could call in an arty strike "on my pos, again, on my pos.... over".

    We got "zips in the wire" so to speak, and no one is likely to fix this one folks.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/27/2008 @ 10:24am

14. i never really had any problems with most of clinton's policy statements, which indeed were remarkably close to obama's. it was her character and style.

    but now its time for obama to get about the business of winning the big prize, so its time for all ideologues to settle down and deal with obama's inevitable turn center...he wants to win.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/27/2008 @ 11:01am

15. In short, Obama is a pragmatic progressive who often "sounds" like a centrist for political advantage, whereas Hillary REALLY IS a centrist. I would have thought by now, John Nichols, after 16 months of campaigning that you could discern this difference.

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/27/2008 @ 08:31am

    Ah, you mean he is a politician who will say anything to be elected?

    Thus he is not change but just another politician whether you say Dem or Repub.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/27/2008 @ 11:24am

16. Mettaya

    You just have to look at Obama's advisors--

    There was his initial choice of Jim Johnson as the head of his VP vetting committee. Johnson is a long-term Washington insider tied in to such DC institutions as the Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission and the Brookings Institution (somewhere Rese's head is exploding). Johnson had to resign because of the confluence of his having received a loan from Countrywide and his having run FannieMae, but the fact is that Obama picked a DC establishment figure.

    There is his choice of Jacob Furman as his chief economic advisor. Furman is associated with Robert Rubin, the decidedly non-progressive Secretary of the Treasury during the Clinton administration. There is also his affiliation with the centrist Hamilton Project. Another Rubin associate, Michael Froman, is on Obama's team. Another centrist economist on his team is Austan Goolsbee.

    Anthony Lake, Clinton's NSA, is advising Obama on foreign policy.

    If you look at who he's surrounded himself with, it looks more and more like Mr. Clinton redux.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/27/2008 @ 12:06pm

17. Posted by brunowe at 06/27/2008 @ 12:06pm

    He did NOT pick Joe Jonhson to advise him on policy - just to do background checks on politicians, and as an insider he is uniquely qualified for that discrete task.

    Jason Furman has an absolutely brilliant mind when it comes to the US economy and the budget, and you really should read some of his NON-Walmart related writings to educate yourself on how he believes we can pay for a progressive agenda WITHOUT increasing the deficit.

    Pursuing a socially progressive agenda in a fiscally responsible way is CRITICAL to the success of the progressive movement.

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/27/2008 @ 12:41pm

18. Posted by brunowe at 06/27/2008 @ 12:06pm

    He did NOT pick Joe Johnson to advise him on policy - just to do background checks on politicians, and as an insider he is uniquely qualified for that discrete task.

    Jason Furman has an absolutely brilliant mind when it comes to the US economy and the budget, and you really should read some of his NON-Walmart related writings to educate yourself on how he believes we can pay for a progressive agenda WITHOUT increasing the deficit.

    Pursuing a socially progressive agenda in a fiscally responsible way is CRITICAL to the success of the progressive movement.

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/27/2008 @ 12:42pm

19. "Jason Furman has an absolutely brilliant mind when it comes to the US economy and the budget,...he believes we can pay for a progressive agenda WITHOUT increasing the deficit."

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/27/2008 @ 12:42pm

    How? Clinton try the same thing and all we got was a recession for our troubles.

    Posted by ACook at 06/27/2008 @ 2:13pm

20. Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/27/2008 @ 07:43am

    LIB...you think Sam Brownback is a "moderate".

    So you're hardly the best judge of "where the center is".

    Posted by Mask at 06/27/2008 @ 3:49pm

21. The only problem is that Furman did defend Wal-Mart as well as Social Security privatization.

    As to Jim Johnson, I don't by that the person doing the vetting has to be a Washington insider, certainly not for change your supposed to believe in.

    Face it, Obama is very likely just going to be a better disciplined Bill Clinton. That's still considerably better than McCain.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/27/2008 @ 4:13pm

22. I said they are traditional liberals but not to the left like bloggers such as yourself and the Nation mag.

    Maybe you need more protein in your diet.

    Posted by lvliberty1

    perhaps you need less in yours; it seems to be clogging your synapses.

    "traditional liberals" do not support colonial wars, corporate welfare and infringements on liberties.

    and these folks do.

    12:51

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/28/2008 @ 12:52pm