Obama’s case is a strong one, that can’t easily be disputed unless Clinton can put some brake on his momentum. And what is most visible about her campaign at the moment? (But sheesh, Adam Nagourney, can’t you or your editors demonstrate you’re not mindless Bush-bots by using a descriptor without a ’surge’ in it?)

The departure of Mike Henry, deputy campaign manager for Hillary Clinton, appears to be the completion of a management transition that was described in extraordinary detail by Joshua Green in The Atlantic yesterday. Chris Cizzilla of The Fix broke the news of Henry’s departure without the breadth of analysis Green provided.

(Note: I urge readers to be prepared for extra reading here, as several of the links provided contain a huge amount of information I consider critical, especially the links I provide to two articles by Green. Please, read them through.)

After reading Green’s detail on the dismissal of Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle and reading several accounts elsewhere that several Latino-American politicians were angered by her firing (which Doyle gamely denied as professionals must do to remain viable employment-wise), I wondered who Green was and whether he had any particular axe to grind against Clinton.

Here’s his Atlantic bio:

Joshua Green is a senior editor of The Atlantic who has covered politics since joining the magazine in 2003. He has also written for The New Yorker, Esquire, Rolling Stone, and other publications. Previously, he was an editor at The Washington Monthly. He began his career as an editor at the satirical weekly, The Onion (back at a time when that failed to impress anyone). Recently he was named one of Columbia Journalism Review’s ten young writers on the rise and was a finalist for the Livingston Award. His writing has been anthologized in books ranging from The Best American Political Writing 2005 to The Bob Marley Reader.

And I discovered another article he’d written about Hillary just before the November 2006 election, just as she was gearing up for the presidential campaign. That’s the super long read I warned about, but it’s extraordinarily revealing. Not just because it describes how Hillary’s rebuilt her power to become a force within the political establishment, but for the thorough look it provides of that establishment itself.

I was reminded of something I heard from a very wise man with a Master’s in Public Policy and Government Planning. Commenting on the common conservative complaint that ‘government should be run more efficiently, like businesses are’, he told me: “the most important aim of government should never be cost efficiency but effectiveness.”

I had to mull that over a bit, as I’ve sen firsthand the inefficiencies of bureaucracies and I’m knee-jerk opposed to waste. But I’ve also seen how free market business ideology has allowed multiples of middlemen to cut themselves into a profit stream, multiplying the cost to the retail consumer. The way that insurance companies have interposed themselves into the healthcare system is a perfect case in point. And from what I’ve seen of the conservative mantra to deregulate business and privatize government agencies, any cost savings has been minimal and temporary while ineffectiveness has grown.

So I ultimately concluded the wise man was right. Government should put its principle efforts into effectiveness and learn to pare waste equally effectively, without sacrificing performance. I don’t consider that liberal or conservative ideology, but pragmatism. Idealism is a great and necessary motivational but if it lacks the temper of pragmatism, disappointment and failure can quickly create a cynic where an idealist once stood.

That’s a good trait in a legislator, and Hillary has a great deal of it, as Green’s 2006 article displays. After all, the reality of our Congress is it parallels the British Parliament. The House is the House of Commons and the Senate’s the House of Lords. Commonly called ‘The Millionaire’s Club’, the Senate has a long record of ego and uppityness, it prides itself on comity, formality, deference to seniority and quaint customs of respectful deference to other members, political opponents or not. It’s the ultimate in old-boyism and a monument to patriarchy.

It is the epitome of the clubbish Village mentality that people like Digby rail against, as well she should. Any rebel who enters its ranks will never achieve parity and the effectiveness constituents require without learning the art of compromise. It would take a longterm struggle by a conspiratorial team of patient rebels to change its ways towards maximum efficiency. The strongest leaders seeking real change for the country quickly recognize it as a springboard towards executive power, a way station where necessary political alliances can be built. Others with great ambition and patience learn to manipulate it for incremental gains over a longer period of time, and though nearly 2000 people have served as Senators in our nation’s history, only a couple of dozen have demonstrated the capacity to advance a substantial progressive agenda that stands out in its 220 year history.

I don’t, therefore, belittle how Clinton has played the Senate game. Had she come in railing at the patriarchy, she would be powerless at this moment, delivering nothing to her constituents and unable to pursue the presidency. Her only alternate course would have been to seek a governorship, a more certain path to the presidency but with half as many seats obtainable. Pragmatism made the Senate the better course for her, just as it has for Barack Obama. Executive office, even at the state level, presents a substantial glass ceiling of its own to folks in marginalized demographic groups. Black governors are exceedingly rare. Female governors have been more abundant but often require a sojourn in lower state offices. Clinton entered public office of her own at an age that would make it difficult to work her way through a state system and pursue her ultimate ambition to reach the Presidency.

For both candidates, then, the Senate was the most sensible course to achievement of their goals, not just for themselves, but for the country. Even if Senate procedure and process is stuck in a time when royalism prevailed and it regularly triggers the gag reflex in normal people. It takes an extraordinarily dynamic and exceedingly rare Majority Leader to make it bark on command. Most of the time, the Senate’s content to woof a lot, lie on the couch, fart and lick its balls. And woe be unto the young pup that doesn’t circle appropriately and sniff the asses of its senior members.

It is, sadly, what it is.

Now Clinton has gained the trust of political opponents who once hated her, including members of her own Democratic party. There’s no doubt she’s done so to achieve effectiveness. But it’s also a valid concern for voters to wonder where the compromises end and where she intends to take a solid policy stand should she gain the Oval Office. One can become so bound by legislative habit to lose the capacity to use the bully pulpit effectively. And it’s important to recognize that as progressive as FDR was or as regressive as (this) Bush and Reagan were, each challenged the status quo brazenly and got what they wanted more often than not.

We progressives decry the overreach of executive power but would be less inclined to do so if the executive was advancing an effective progressive agenda. We also should decry executive underreach, for that represents wasted opportunity, all Constitutional arguments aside.

We don’t have similar articles that define Obama as studiously. Because of their age differences, there’s simply no way he can claim to match her for experience. But what does that really mean? No one in their right mind would compare a young Peyton Manning or Tom Brady to Joe Montana or Johnny Unitas. Nor would they say the same comparing Alex Rodriguez after 6 years to Babe Ruth. In any field of endeavor, the capabilities of the young and less experienced can only be measured over a longer period of time. But some will exceed the achievements of their champion predecessors. Talent and drive and some measure of luck deserve to be weighed because experience alone does not guarantee great results.

Now consider the endorsement that came yesterday from former Ambassador Joe Wilson:

Sen. Barack Obama’s promise of transformation and an end of partisan politics has its seductive appeal. The Bush-Cheney era, after all, has been punctuated by smear campaigns, character assassinations and ideological fervor.

Nobody dislikes such poisonous partisanship, especially in foreign policy, more than I do. I am one of very few Foreign Service officers to have served as ambassador in the administrations of both George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, yet I have spent the past four years fighting a concerted character assassination campaign orchestrated by the George W. Bush White House.

Sen. Hillary Clinton is one of the few who fully understood the stakes in that battle. Time and again, she reached out to my wife - outed CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson - and me to remind us that as painful as the attacks were, we simply could not allow ourselves to be driven from the public square by bullying. Mrs. Clinton knew from experience, having spent the better part of the past 20 years fighting the Republican attack machine. She is a fighter.

But will Mr. Obama fight? His brief time on the national scene gives little comfort. Consider a February 2006 exchange of letters with Mr. McCain on the subject of ethics reform. The wrathful Mr. McCain accused Mr. Obama of being “disingenuous,” to which Mr. Obama meekly replied, “The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you.”

Mr. McCain was insultingly dismissive but successful in intimidating his inexperienced colleague. Thus, in his one known face-to-face encounter with Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama failed to stand his ground.

What gives us confidence that Mr. Obama will be stronger the next time he faces Mr. McCain, a seasoned political fighter with extensive national security credentials? Even more important, what special disadvantages does Mr. Obama carry into this contest on questions of national security?

[link]

Yes, Clinton does know how to fight. After her lost fight to get a healthcare plan passed when 65% of the country wanted one, she’s fought off the relentless GOP attack machine, regrouped, forged a new path through the Senate, winning respect and comity from former opponents. And is poised to capture the Presidency 14 years later.

However, it shouldn’t be overlooked that the bipartisan unity Obama has been preaching about is not so much a call to voters tired of polarity, but is more than a dogwhistle signal to the GOP and his Senate peers that he’s learned to observe the tired old rules of deference and comity that Clinton’s done. And he did so without undergoing a well-publicized strategic failure, in less than half the time that Clinton reached the same place. Does that make him less intelligent or less of a fighter? The respect he mouthed for McCain is no more an appeasement than Hillary pouring coffee or vodka shots. Both are the marks of fighters who’ve learned to play the inside game.

Yes, I know that in a patriarchal old-boy system, the young man remains preferred over the woman, so the system’s rigged to permit his faster advance. Such is the struggle women face in many fields of endeavor. It isn’t fair and will never be fair until, over many years, institutions change. But Obama didn’t create the system and we have no way to measure how he really feels about it. Should he be penalized for sharing her ambition, demonstrating a capacity to tolerate and adapt to the system just as she’s done, just because the system itself is unfair?

There’s plenty of bright and talented people who never advance anywhere close to the levels he’s achieved. Some of that is simply the luck of timing that he had no control over. But as a Black man with a number of advantages, can we really accept the idea that he never had to fight against discrimination, or against serious political opposition to reach this level? If he’s not a good fighter, how has he so successfully fought Clinton herself so far into the primary season?

George Foreman was a great fighter but Ali bested him with superior talent and smarter tactics. Doing so didn’t diminish Foreman’s own championship skills. I’m not using the analogy to say Obama’s definitely superior. I’m just trying to illustrate that he just might be.

Now let’s consider Clinton’s well telegraphed strategies. She’s now making little effort to pursue a win in Wisconsin. In doing so, she risks not just losing it but losing it by a wider margin, setting her further back in the delegate count. She’s making an Alamo-like stand in Texas and Ohio, touting experience, electability and ‘key issues voters are facing.’ Her husband keeps bringing up ’smoke and mirrors’ to indicate Obama’s got nothing beyond great oratory. Institutions like the NAACP keep up the fight in behalf of Clinton, while the post-boomer generation wonders whether the NAACP’s relevance has diminished in the current era and has gone the way of numerous organizations, putting its own survival first above a truly progressive or visionary agenda. And her advisors are playing word games to set the stage for a fight for superdelegates that she’s courted strenuously.

So what are these ‘key issues voters are facing?’ They’re getting the least press of all. Everything’s about the fight and the potential for November victory. Sure, the position papers are on websites andissues come out a little in interviews and debates. But is it supposed to be a motivator for voters to hear “I can fight and I can win?” Win what, exactly, that voters seek?

In her husband’s first term, I saw how shrewdly he could usurp an opponent’s position to score wins. I saw him start negotiations by staking out the middle most of the time, then compromising to the right. And in the rae instance where he began with a fairly progressive position, I saw the end result as so overcompromised that it often became parody instead of progress. Most of the constant conservative critique I heard against him was bogus and unfair. But that doesn’t set aside the substantive critiques I felt he deserved just because the GOP largely ignored them.

It’s in that where my ongoing uneasiness exists with Hillary. As Green’s article yesterday displayed, though Hillary takes approaches that differ from his modus operandi, she’s also displayed a capacity for campaign errors that get left too long unresolved.

And now one trusted lieutenant - a Black woman - replaces another, a Latina woman. Is the change meant to chip away at one of Obama’s core constituencies? Does it risk alienating one she’s had? I simply can’t quantify it or how it’ll play out. I have every reason to believe Mark Penn has the strongest hand in testing ideas before focus groups, so I believe Hillary’s run is not going to end quickly without a good fight.

But when I read about the FISA fight yesterday and her choice not to vote to strip telecom immunity from the FISA bill, followed later by a press release that supported the FISA changes while opposing telecom immunity, I couldn’t help but think it sounded so much like her husband, trying to take both sides of an issue, just to be over-cautious.

So my concerns about her remain: where are the issues she’ll champion and fight off compromises on? Likewise, my concerns about Obama are virtually identical.

I don’t believe he’ll prove weak on foreign policy or national defense as his advisers include some of Bill Clinton’s most able advisors, plus others with vast experience. He’s championed the fight against the genocide in Darfur more than any other major candidate that lasted past mid-January, which is exactly right to do, in my opinion.

In the domestic arena, I know Hillary’s healthcare plan has an edge on Obama’s, but I fully expect both to be changed from their initial design if either stands a chance of passage. And I do listen to my non-sctivist friends who cynically believe neither will succeed in getting a national healthcare plan passed. They may be wrong, but if that’s what they believe, where is there any other policy edge that will motivate them to vote for Clinton?

Obama’s message of hope and undefined change motivates and inspires people. I can’t say that there’s anything substantive behind that but I can’t say it’s ’smoke and mirrors’ either. Being vague is just another tactic in a campaign fight and both are using the tactic. Obama, however, is using his motivational skills better than Clinton is at the moment.

If she’s got a good counter for that, she’s rarely displayed it so far. Green’s 2006 article may contain some clues, though:

Clinton is one of perhaps three senators whose celebrity transcends the bounds of the capital and suffuses the broader culture. John McCain and Barack Obama are the other two, but neither man has suffered the kind of public humiliation that Clinton has endured, and that induces the sense of strong personal connection millions of regular people develop for celebrities with genuine problems.

And:

The somber occasion brought forth a side of Clinton rarely seen in Washington. It was the only time I saw her move a crowd. Clinton looked weary and spoke with haggard fixity about the “long-term struggles against the forces of darkness and nihilism,” the need to “constantly be standing on the side of life.” Then she looked up appraisingly at the gathering, which included some of the people with whom she has worked most closely during her six years in office. Her tone changed. She spoke about the fallen brother of one of the group’s organizers. His favorite movie had been It’s a Wonderful Life, and she quoted the angel Clarence: “‘Each man’s life touches so many other lives. When he isn’t around, he leaves an awful hole, doesn’t he?’ That hole can never be filled.” No one applauded when she was finished. The small nods and squeezed hands of those in the audience conveyed a deeper kind of thanks.

There is no doubt that when she lets her caution guard down and people get a glance of Hillary, the person, instead of the politician, they find a connection with her. I’m not one who believes she turns that on and off artificially. It’s just there, beneath the surface, possibly the best campaign asset she has: Hillary with her instinctive and oft-necessary defenses set aside.

Obama can’t be matched in oratory or the hope he inspires. But that can’t be countered by vague talk about experience, fights and wins, when there’s scant evidence of fights she’s won. The best guess I can make of her intents is to view her lifelong pursuits, most of her successes made between 18 and her tenure as Arkansas First Lady: improving the lot of children and women, including education.

Against that, I have to weigh her miscalculations on Iraq, her hawkishishness towards Middle East issues in general and her willingness to utilize conventional approaches habitually. Obama has signalled a willingness to venture outside the box, even though I suspect his advisers will keep him from any actions that could add risk to the country. That willingness to assume some political risk (aka, self-risk) is a positive, to me, because it suggests he’ll seek benefits for the nation even if his popularity takes a few hits. That’s opposite Bush, whose many calculations demonstrate he’ll risk the nation’s security and reputation to advance his political fortunes.

In short, I’ve yet to see either candidate provide the knockout punch, the argument so convincing to win my endorsement. Both remain positioned, delegate-wise, to win the nomination (pragmatically speaking). At the moment, Obama’s superior campaign approach has given him an edge he won’t voluntarily relinquish. I await some effective counter, yet to a certain degree, I remain mindful of the old Peggy Lee song, Is That All There Is?

So far, Clinton’s demonstrated a capacity to make more campaign gaffes, but neither has yet provided a very compelling reason to earn my trust that they’ll deliver any more than Being Better Than Bush. That’s such a low bar to hurdle that I need something more. And I believe there’s millions out there ready to fight alongside one of these candidates, once they’re clear what fights will occur and be sustained in the first year of either presidency, when their political capital will be good and strong.