rdf, I don't think you quite understand what Ganz is saying here.

This is not about the King/Johnson flap. Johnson did what Kennedy would not do for a variety of reasons, including his personal experiences on the wrong side of wealth and power. Johnson would not have done the right thing absent a popular political movement that made civil rights impossible to ignore. We can agree on how that went down, and pass out pats on the back all around.

But the real point Ganz makes here is about the difference between power over and power with. For Clinton, public policy is a specialists game, and the outcome is dictated by a triangulation of analysis and the current political state of play. For Obama, public policy is dictated by active engagement with a constituency, and the outcome is dictated by analysis and changing the political state of play. For Clinton, leadership is an executive function - power over. For Obama, leadership is a channeling function - power with.

Full disclosure: Personally, as a policy wonk, Clinton's stated positions often appeal to me more than Obama's. But as someone who spent a considerable part of my professional career in public policy getting hosed by Bill Clinton's frequent triangulations, I have zero interest in repeating the experience with Hillary. That said, the point of Ganz's comment is important, wherever you come down on the Clinton/Obama continuum. The key question in choosing between Clinton and Obama is how they would lead, and Ganz has identified a critical difference.

Posted at January 21, 2008 2:24 PM in response to Clinton, Obama, MLK: Leadership for Change?