This month in, “Remind why I don’t subcribe to the Atlantic again?”

This post-mortem on the Clinton campaign is fascinating.

The impressions I took away: the first, and obvious one, is that running a campaign is hard work. More and more, it seems to me that it’s fair to draw analogies between how campaigns are run and how that candidate would govern. I used to think this was media reductionism, but the more I think about it, the more fair it seems to draw these extrapolations. For example, Bush-Cheney were a ruthlessly effective team, but they also arguably relied on a cynical view of voters: the old 49.5+1 equation that sought a simple majority but not necessarily a wider base from which to govern.

The other thought I have is that these long, protracted campaigns can also explain the negative aspects of recent administrations. The Clintons were notoriously paranoid – and it’s hard not to see this as an unfortunate downside of the lovable “War Room” mentality that was so well-captured in the documentary of the same name. Ditto the Bush-Cheney team, who have governed as if they are on a permanent campaign. So, campaigns can showcase effective managerial styles – but they can create intellectual ruts that extend into the actual administration once the campaign is over. Sen. Clinton’s campaign seems to have suffered from a number of organizational problems, but the net result of the article humanizes her in a flattering way (to me, at least.) I think it’s a must-read for anyone curious about the election/campaign process (and yes, I know it’s old news by now, but I don’t do topical, ok?)

Next, this brilliant and surprising argument that an Obama presidency would actually not move us past the age of partisanship, since it would likely also mean that the Dems would have more than 60 votes in the Senate and a comfortable majority in the House – and that we would see fewer moderate Republicans in both Houses of Congress – likely the Republicans that Obama would be most likely to work with. The resulting one-party rule would do very little to encourage moderate bi-partisanship, the author argues.

The flipside is that a McCain presidency would still involve a Democratic majority in both Houses – a slim majority, but an undeniable one. McCain would need to reach out to the Democrats and would, arguably, represent a more post-partisan style of governing (out of pragmatic need) than Obama’s would.

As a reminder, the Abstract Citizen is not expressing any political leanings, nor does the AC make it a habit of speak on sensitive issues concerning American politics. Rather, these are presented in an agnostic manner as interesting (to me, at least) insights into the political process.