Over at the New York Times, columnist Frank Rich’s “The Audacity of Hopelessness” is an interesting, if premature, postmortem on the “remarkable implosion of the Hillary Clinton campaign.”

Given that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama offer marginally different policy prescriptions—laid out in voluminous detail by both, by the way, on their Web sites—it’s not clear what her added-value message is. The “experience” mantra has been compromised not only by her failure on the signal issue of Iraq but also by the deadening lingua franca of her particular experience, Washingtonese….

As for countering what she sees as the empty Obama brand of hope, she offers only a chilly void: Abandon hope all ye who enter here. This must be the first presidential candidate in history to devote so much energy to preaching against optimism, against inspiring language and—talk about bizarre—against democracy itself. No sooner does Mrs. Clinton lose a state than her campaign belittles its voters as unrepresentative of the country.

And over at The New Republic, Noam Scheiber’s got a similarly titled essay, “The Audacity of Data,” that analyzes the different mentalities behind the campaigns.

The real difference between the Obama campaign and, say, Hillary Clinton’s, is twofold. First, while many of the Obamanauts had previously served in the Clinton administration, they tended to be younger or less influential than the officials who signed on with Hillary. Clinton advisers like former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke tend to be “more invested in justifying or glorifying” the Clinton record, says one Obama foreign policy hand, whereas the Obamanauts don’t have the same “permanent need to fight for the legacy of your time in government.”

The second difference is that the Obama hands tend to feel less hemmed in by establishment opinion. As one Obama adviser puts it, “Democrats want to be just a little bit different from Republicans, but not so different that they get attacked for being weak.” Like Hamilton, the Obamanauts generally reject this calculus—not because they favor some radical alternative, but because clinging to received foreign policy wisdom can preclude highly practical courses of action.

They’ve both solid pieces. That said, every time I try to think about them, I just get distracted by the awesomeness of the term “Obamanauts.” That’s just… amazing. If I ever run for office, I want my supporters and advisers to be called something similarly badass. Like “Henrikgladiators” or “Erikninjas” or “Henrikassassinswho’llkillanyandallopponentsilentlybutbrutally.” That’s how you win these things.