Nearby, writer Honor Moore was looking mildly stricken. The Clinton supporter said that she had been "nervous for a week" about reports of Clinton's foundering campaign, in part because she knows so many Obama converts. "They are a lot of writers and young people, a certain kind of '60s liberal, who just love him," she said. When asked what kind of '60s liberal she was describing, Moore gave an explanation simultaneously oblique and damning. "I think things are so complicated and unpleasant that the idea of an inspiring leader who can erase all these conflicts, rather than go through and deal with them, is very appealing," she said. "It's a way of blanking all the problems out. It's a wonderful idea, but it just doesn't work."
So in other words, Hillary supporters see her as the "can-do" candidate while Obama is the visionary orator but doesn't really have what it takes yet to implement those visions.
Another Clinton-vs.-Obama analysis was cited on ElectoralVote.com over the weekend. NY Times columnist David Brooks argues that the choice is akin to Safeway vs. Whole Foods, PC vs. Mac, Walgreens vs. The Body Shop, etc. -- that Obama attracts more educated voters who seek a "zero-carbon footprint, locally grown, community-enhancing experience" as opposed to your basic good value for money. I think polls bear him out about the education level of voters but his metaphors make Obama fans sound rather elitist and foofy. Comments?