Branding the Candidates

posted by Katha Pollitt on 01/06/2008 @ 1:42pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (47)

Subscribe Now

The election is almost a year away, and already it's come down to branding. In Saturday night's Democratic debate the candidates discussed in considerable detail muclear terrorism, health care, carbon emissions and other substantive issues. But what really got them excited were the vague competing mantras of "change" and ‘experience." Obama says he stands for change. Edwards, siding with Obama against Clinton for some strategic reason too subtle for me to understand, says he stands for change too. Hillary Clinton, who casts herself as the candidate of experience but actually uttered the word "change" more often than the other candidates, dismissed her rivals as fancy talkers. She said she has 35 years of experience ( which means she's counting everything she's done since getting out of law school) and knows how to make change happen. She points out, quite correctly, that electing a woman president would be a very big change, but nobody seemed too interested in that. After all, electing a black president would be a big change too.

Hillary Clinton was fiery and funny and bore no resemblance to the candidate relentless attacked in the media as rigid, incompetent, Machiavellian and screechy. You can understand her obvious frustration with the ongoing lovefest for Obama: At one point she even compared his "likeability' to that of George W. Bush. In real life, Obama has made the same sort of compromises she herself has made. As she pointed out, he said he'd vote against the Patriot Act, and then he voted for it. He casts himself as the candidate who'd repair our bellicose relations with the world, and then talks about bombing Pakistan. He talks about putting Republicans in his cabinet, as Bill Clinton did. His health-care plan, as Paul Krugman points out every day on the New York Times op-ed page, is weaker than Clinton's or Edwards'. I'm sure Hillary Clinton must be wondering what the difference is between "triangulation" and Obama's calls for unity.

Somehow Hillary Clinton is stuck as the candidate who simultaneously represents excessive compromise and excessive partisanship. For various reasons, John Edwards, who actually represents the most substantive hope for change, seems in some ways a throwback to the old-fashioned class-based politics of the 1930s. Poor Richardson, who actually has the most experience of any candidate in either party, can't get any traction at all. Obama, the black candidate who never mentions his race, gets to smile his mile-wide smile and be a rock star. Somehow he has made himself a great big humongous hope object. People can project on him what they want him to be.

It may not be fair, but then, that's show business.

Comments (47)

Katha, it is "a lot" more than branding.

Democrats, independents, and many Republicans, are tired of Washington politics as usual, and Hillary represents the Washington establishment. What kind of change was Hillary thinking about when she opposed the disclosure of the source and recipient of pork-barrel earmarks? What is she trying to hide from the American people, and how does hiding the influence of special interest groups like defense contractors represent change?

Your distortion of Obama's record shows that you haven't studied his record very much and are just repeating what some pundits in the mainstream press are saying. DO SOME ORIGINAL RESEARCH, Katha!!!

You said he voted for the Patriot Act, when we all know he was not in the US Senate when the Patriot Act was enacted in the aftermath of 9/11. And more to the point, Obama led the fight to curb the civil rights abuses of the Patriot Act. But don't take my word for it, read Obama's statement on the Senate floor on this issue:

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060216-floor_statement_2/

And on Pakistan, in turns out that Obama was correct, and far from calling Obama naive this time around for his position on Pakistan, in the new Hampshire debate Hillary AGREED with Obama!

And the call to unity is about a new progressive majority of Democrats, independents, and Republicans who AGREE with our progressive agenda.

And that "not too subtle" Edwards backing of Obama as the real agent of change that you say you don't quite understand is about getting a "real" progressive in the White House. I am sure you have probably figured out by now that Obama's voters + Edwards voters = the end of Hillary's candidacy for president!

Posted by Metteyya at 01/06/2008 @ 3:18pm
........It may not be fair, but then, that's show business.

Thanks, Katha :-)

For someone like myself who's pretty analytical in demeanor, it has been an interesting circus thus far to put it mildly.

But there does seem to be a "hope" wave hitting, and the best thing about it in my opinion is that it appears to vividly unmask what has been happening for about seven years now. The media keeps painting the people as perhaps a bit discontent, but they'll get over it.

Impeachment? Don't be ridiculous, there are no grounds for such an extreme act.

So now, the guy from Illinois with the electrifying smile and smooth cadences can step into the picture, say and do very little except pose as a glamorous reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln, and walk into the White House.

Perhaps he really is the miraculous coming of the messiah.

If so, I hope he takes the "Rebel Jesus" form. I can't bear the thought of him becoming like a lamb to the slaughter.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/06/2008 @ 3:21pm
It could hardly be more appropriate that "John the Baptist" shows up right before my post.

Thanks for the comic relief, Metteyya ;-)

Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/06/2008 @ 3:24pm
Metteya, Obama campaigned against renewing the Patriot Act in 2004, then voted for it in 2005.

http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/051216-the_patriot_act/index.php

Posted by Katha Pollitt at 01/06/2008 @ 3:30pm
Posted by KATHA POLLITT 01/06/2008 @ 3:30pm

Katha, did you READ Obama's Senate floor statement in my above post?

He explains clearly what he prefers and why, and how he thinks he is going to get those improvements into the Act. Here is an excerpt:

Now, at times this issue has tended to degenerate into an "either-or" type of debate. Either we protect our people from terror or we protect our most cherished principles. But that is a false choice. It asks too little of us and assumes too little about America.

Fortunately, last year, the Senate recognized that this was a false choice. We put patriotism before partisanship and engaged in a real, open, and substantive debate about how to fix the PATRIOT Act. And Republicans and Democrats came together to propose sensible improvements to the Act. Unfortunately, the House was resistant to these changes, and that's why we're voting on the compromise before us.

Let me be clear: this compromise is not as good as the Senate version of the bill, nor is it as good as the SAFE Act that I have cosponsored. I suspect the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. But, it's still better than what the House originally proposed.

This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe. In this compromise:

* We strengthened judicial review of both National Security Letters, the administrative subpoenas used by the FBI, and Section 215 orders, which can be used to obtain medical, financial and other personal records.

* We established hard time limits on sneak-and-peak searches and limits on roving wiretaps.

* We protected most libraries from being subject to National Security Letters.

* We preserved an individual's right to seek counsel and hire an attorney without fearing the FBI's wrath.

* And we allowed judicial review of the gag orders that accompany Section 215 searches.

The compromise is far from perfect. I would have liked to see stronger judicial review of National Security Letters and shorter time limits on sneak and peak searches, among other things.

Sen. Feingold has proposed several sensible amendments - that I support - to address these issues. Unfortunately, the Majority Leader is preventing Sen. Feingold from offering these amendments through procedural tactics. That is regrettable because it flies in the face of the bipartisan cooperation that allowed the Senate to pass unanimously its version of the Patriot Act - a version that balanced security and civil liberties, partisanship and patriotism.

The Majority Leader's tactics are even more troubling because we will need to work on a bipartisan basis to address national security challenges in the weeks and months to come. In particular, members on both sides of the aisle will need to take a careful look at President Bush's use of warrantless wiretaps and determine the right balance between protecting our security and safeguarding our civil liberties. This is a complex issue. But only by working together and avoiding election-year politicking will we be able to give our government the necessary tools to wage the war on terror without sacrificing the rule of law.

So, I will be supporting the Patriot Act compromise. But I urge my colleagues to continue working on ways to improve the civil liberties protections in the Patriot Act after it is reauthorized.

I thank the chair and yield the floor.

Posted by Metteyya at 01/06/2008 @ 3:38pm
Get 'em Katha!

Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/06/2008 @ 3:39pm
Now, Katha, when you say "[Obama] said he'd vote against the Patriot Act, and then he voted for it", without any further qualification, don't you think that is QUITE a distortion of Obama's record in light of the Senate floor statement above?

The other thing you forgot to mention is that Hillary voted FOR the original Patriot Act that took away our civil liberties!!!

Posted by Metteyya at 01/06/2008 @ 3:45pm
Metteyya,

I ask you to please drop the rhetoric, and relax in the glow of your preferred candidates success thus far.

Here's some perspective to sober us all up to what must be addressed ASAP --the Iraq debacle.

An American Soldiers Opinion on The War

The video is 9&1/2 minutes in length, but I ask readers to please give the guy just 6&1/2 minutes to lay his heart on the line.

After all, how many times have the actual boots on the ground in Iraq been asked what they think and feel?

Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/06/2008 @ 4:24pm
METTE...

DID Obama get those "improvements" he wanted? If not, why did he vote for it anyway?

Posted by Mask at 01/06/2008 @ 4:51pm
B_KOOL...

Obama says he'll work for "change with unity"...Edwards says he'll "fight the power".

You disbelieve one and claim he'll fold. You believe the other and claim he'll stay solid.

Say Obama is full of hot air....why can't Edwards be too?

Posted by Mask at 01/06/2008 @ 4:54pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/06/2008 @ 4:24pm

No rhetoric, BKool, just the facts!

When editors like Katha start distoring Obama's record and hiding Hillary's record, it makes my blood boil because I know Katha is smarter than than that, and has probably got caught up in the Hillary distortion machine.

These sort of distortions do not represent change, as they are more of the same Karl Rove slash, burn, and divide politics that was rejected in Iowa!.

Posted by Metteyya at 01/06/2008 @ 4:57pm
"Somehow Hillary Clinton is stuck as the candidate who simultaneously represents excessive compromise and excessive partisanship."

You know, its got me wondering too, I mean other than the flag burning thingy, Iraq, Kyle/Lieberman (which is kinda like Iraq, twice ...) Iran, and being the only democrat against retroactive parity (which if it gets out into the wilderness would kill her senate career, too) in drug sentencing. I have no clue how she could be considered (euphemistically speaking) excessive, in regards to compromise, and partisanship ‘n stuff.

The nerve of some people, hunh.

Posted by V at 01/06/2008 @ 6:10pm
You disbelieve one and claim he'll fold. You believe the other and claim he'll stay solid.

Say Obama is full of hot air....why can't Edwards be too?

~Maskot @ 4:54pm

There you go again, Maskot.

Ridiculously mischaracterize a person's views in stupid snippets, and then endlessly gnaw on the straw man you've just constructed.

I didn't say Obama is "full of hot air", but that he refuses to clearly state his policy goals.

And here's my summation on Edwards:

The counter argument that John Edwards is a phony who will capitulate as soon as he's elected is a tough sell. A major retraction is made difficult when the rhetoric has been so hot. At a certain point the only way out of a burning building is forward not backward. It seems evident to me that John Edwards has put himself out that far. I think it's tragic for our dangerously burning nation that we haven't backed him up.

Please go after someone else's pantleg. You've chewed on mine enough lately.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/06/2008 @ 6:27pm
A major retraction is made difficult when the rhetoric has been so hot.----Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/06/2008 @ 6:27pm

You mean like "Read my lips...no new taxes!"....or Reagan promising to reduce abortions....or Clinton to pass a universal health care plan?

Posted by Mask at 01/06/2008 @ 7:30pm
Obama is a fraud. Now he's stealing John's talking points. See the Boston Globe for today.

This guy is talking change but he's status quo: nuclear power, non universal health insurance, "free" trade, merit pay, etc. We've tried all that stuff!

Posted by weacman at 01/06/2008 @ 7:51pm
Good post. Clinton is not my candidate for the primaries (nor is she yours, from what I've read) but it is important and interesting to note the way each of them get labeled, and the way this is often a distortion of the reality of their political records.

I wonder, what is wrong with a little projection? I don't say this rhetorically -- I'm still unsure about Obama myself. But what I found exciting about Iowa was the hordes of young people who showed up for Obama (not to mention voted for a black candidate. In Iowa.). The challenge will be channeling that energy into action even when Obama turns out not to be the big change his supporters are hoping for. If the Obama campaign can bring in young people, keep them inspired AND doing political work after the election, then I would happily support Obama as a leader whose politics and record is a little shakier than I would like.

Posted by tsharpe at 01/06/2008 @ 8:04pm
Posted by WEACMAN 01/06/2008 @ 7:51pm

If Obama is a fraud, then you obviously are not paying close attention. Go look at his record in the Illinois Senate and tell me how fraudulent that sounds to you?

Posted by Metteyya at 01/06/2008 @ 8:09pm
USA Today/Gallup (January 4-6)

Obama 41

Clinton 28

Edwards 19

Richardson 6

McCain 34

Romney 30

Huckabee 13

Paul 8

Giuliani 8

Thompson ~3

Hunter ~3

Link [tinyurl.com]

Posted by V at 01/06/2008 @ 8:37pm
Obama appeals to entrepreneurs, to an electorate disposed to configuring a mandate. People waiting to be served like mommy did, in cutting up dinner into bite sized pieces, then holding the spoon for them, are not going to get (his) the message. No matter how many times he says it.

Ships passing in the night.

Posted by V at 01/06/2008 @ 8:45pm
brand |brand|

verb [ trans. ]

1 mark (an animal, formerly a criminal or slave) with a branding iron.

• mark indelibly : an ointment that branded her with unsightly violet-colored splotches.

• describe (someone or something) as something bad or shameful : the media was intent on branding us as communists | [ trans. ] she was branded a liar.

you know, in the past i suggested that the candidates wear jackets like NASCAR drivers that show the brands that sponsor them.

but come to think of it,

THEY SHOULD BE BRANDED. SHEEEEEEEESHSH. MMMMMMMMMMM'M, SMELL THEM BURNING POLS!

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/06/2008 @ 9:26pm
Posted by V 01/06/2008 @ 8:37pm

Even if you take the low number (Reuters/Zogby has them within the margin of error), that poll plus Rasmussen (Obama 39% Clinton 27%) and the CNN (Obama 39% Clinton 29%) are some pretty hard numbers for Her Majesty to overcome in 2 days.

Say she splits his lead in half....she still loses by +5%, which means two losses in a row and she goes into South Carolina with Obama now being able to convince the Clinton's segment of the African-American vote that "He may be The One" and they can abandon her.

Throw in "the kids" from USC, College of Charleston...and a fair number of women and maybe even some guys.....he wins SC and she's finished.

She can't lose 3 in a row to somebody with the same money and the "Big Mo" (as 41 used to call it).

Posted by Mask at 01/06/2008 @ 9:28pm
...he wins SC and she's finished.

She can't lose 3 in a row to somebody with the same money and the "Big Mo" (as 41 used to call it).

Posted by MASK 01/06/2008 @ 9:28pm

I disagree, relative to the degree of `certainty' you hold!

Bear in mind, more than a year ago, I pegged HRC w/no better than a 50/50 shot as the Nominee.....figuring somebody will pierce her so-called `experience'....which is actually her handicap. Though I can't claim to have equated that somebody as Obama.

The first really big test will come in Florida which even Rudy recognizes......but I'll grant you that HRC probably did count on South Carolina.....at least up until last Thursday when Magic was in the air.

As much as I'm HAPPY for, and called his win in Iowa, he has NOT been scrutinized!

Posted by Happy at 01/06/2008 @ 11:37pm
Problem is if Hillary starts scrutinizing him now Happy it will look defensive which will hurt her not help her.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/07/2008 @ 12:05am
METTEYYA, so in other words Pollitt is right and he did vote for the Patriot Act, but he gave a pretty speech explaining what he "hoped" to get into it. But he didn't get those things into it, so his "hope" might have been audacious, but it was futile.

Stop trying to twist it. He said he wouldn't vote for it, he did vote for it, period. You sound like one of his staffers.

And her blog has nothing to do with Hillary. What is the Hillary obsession? Some of us support Edwards. He's still running you know. I know that Obama and Hillary staffers, in cahoots with the media want to pretend otherwise.

Posted by JennyTraynor at 01/07/2008 @ 09:03am
Posted by JENNYTRAYNOR 01/07/2008 @ 09:03am

Sorry, JENNY. Unless a TRUE miracle happens, John Edwards isn't going to win the NH primary (He's polling as much as 25 points down from Obama, and third after Hillary in most).

He loses NH...he goes into "near-home state" South Carolina trailing badly (He has never done well there and needed Iowa and NH wins to pull it to within striking distance).

Best case scenario for him...he comes in second, beating Hillary. But then that's 3 in a row that HE's lost (not to mention her) and he doesn't have the money to compete on Super Tuesday (Feb 5th).

Waste of time at that point...so smart thing? Quit after SC.

Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 09:46am
Posted by HAPPY 01/06/2008 @ 11:37pm

The Guiliani Gambit is the wildest strategy in primary history....hold off...let Huckabee, McCain, and Romney pick up a few small states...then "win big" in Florida and Super Tuesday.

Supposedly RG is strong in Florida, but I've been hearing that it's mostly concentrated in the "snow bird/New Yorker ex-patriate" south...and he doesn't score well in the REST of Florida (Orlando/Tampa and north), which are Republican strongholds in FL.

I didn't think McCain could do it, but...if he wins in NH and beats Huckabee in South Carolina....the "Straight Talk Express" might just pull it out and "Maverick John" might win.

Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 09:50am
I just read that the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism study shows that Obama has had the most positive press coverage of all candidates.

But why does he get a pass because of race, while she gets skewered, even though having a woman candidate is just as historic, and sexism is as ugly racism. Yeah, I know the answer to my own question--journalists don't care whether they appear sexist--hell, it's so ingrained (Matthews constant comments on Hillary's outfits; the "can a woman be tough enough" harangue etc.), that they don't even realize how disrespectful they are.

But they don't want to appear racist, so they won't criticize Obama on anything, even if his policies, votes or statements well deserve criticisms. It's just total bull.

Andrea Mitchell said yesterday that Bloomberg would probably not enter the race if Obama is the candidate but he would if Hillary does. So, he wouldn't want to steal (my word) the election from an African-American (her implication--she said something to the effect of "for obvious reasons"), but stealing it from the woman is OK?

I'll vote for the Democrat who wins, but I hope it will be Hillary. Obama's mask came off when he said, "You're likeable...enough, Hillary." He didn't even look at her when he said it, and it seemed to pain him to give her that little of a "compliment", if you can call it that. He was dissing her, and anyone who can't see that plain fact is delusional. But the only person to reference it was George Stephanopoulos right after the debate. He said that Obama came off "peevish and small"--his exact words.

Why isn't the press pouncing on him? Because the bottom line is that they enjoy seeing a woman get smacked down, and they don't care if the man doing it is black or white, as long as he's doing it.

Posted by marisadef at 01/07/2008 @ 10:18am
Posted by JENNYTRAYNOR 01/07/2008 @ 09:03am

Jenny,

Both you and Katha are simply not reading Barack's floor statement. Here is what Barack got into the "re-authorized" Patriot Act:

* We strengthened judicial review of both National Security Letters, the administrative subpoenas used by the FBI, and Section 215 orders, which can be used to obtain medical, financial and other personal records.

* We established hard time limits on sneak-and-peak searches and limits on roving wiretaps.

* We protected most libraries from being subject to National Security Letters.

* We preserved an individual's right to seek counsel and hire an attorney without fearing the FBI's wrath.

* And we allowed judicial review of the gag orders that accompany Section 215 searches.

As he said, he wants to get even more protections into the Act and got assurances from the Majority Leader that he will get a shot at doing just that as they continue to work on amending the Act.

Failing to mention "any" of this as Katha did in her article is QUITE a distortion, particularly since Hillary (and Edwards) voted for the ORIGINAL Patriot Ace AS IS, without "any" protection for our civil liberties.

And, NO, I am not on Barack's staff.

Posted by Metteyya at 01/07/2008 @ 10:24am
the idea of change is interesting. does anyone have a clue as to what will be different. the only component of change that i have heard about is this business of obama talking to friends and enemies. now that is change but is that the limit of this much vaunted program. Change i want to hear the details if they go beyond the above mentioned aspect

Posted by tnbreilly at 01/07/2008 @ 10:44am
Posted by TNBREILLY 01/07/2008

Change is bringing our government under control of its citizens rather than the special interests. Change is breaking our addiction to oil and using American innovation, technology and entrepreneurship to usher in a new green economy. Change is addressing the consequences of our "tough on crime" stance on families and women, and reserving our prisons for those violent offenders that we need protection from. Change is expanding education opportunities for all, where anyone in America can go to college and afford it. Change is ending the war in Iraq, and changing the dynamics of US leadership around the world from a "tough cowboy" stance to a "conflict resolver" stance. Change is addressing the root causes of international terrorism and understanding why Bin Laden says he would never attack Sweden. Change is leading the world in the elimination of nuclear weapons, where leading by example and enforcing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty "across the board" becomes the US position. Change is not only engaging our adversaries as well as our friends around the world, but changing the image of America from a powerful destructive force to a powerful constructive force to uplift the human condition of the world.

Barack Obama is the only candidate in this race that has fought for this kind of change his entire life, and will continue to do so as President of the United States.

Posted by Metteyya at 01/07/2008 @ 12:09pm
Sen. Obama's Patriot Act signing statement seems to me like a double-edged sword in this argument. Since Presidents mostly negotiate with Congress and foreigners, the number and kind of Democrats elected to the next Congress will make more difference than a new Democratic President's style and skill as a negotiator or even communicator over their heads.

Posted by MN8 at 01/07/2008 @ 12:11pm
MARISA -

I missed the part in the Pew Project Report where it concluded that the positive press coverage was because Obama is black. Could you point that out to me? Or is this just your wild unsubstantiated gut theory? I DID notice, however, that McCain had MORE negative stories than Clinton -- and Clinton and Giuliani were about equal. Nice try.

Posted by Hman23 at 01/07/2008 @ 12:31pm
Maybe anyone who actually engages the issues would be more effective working "on the outside as an activist" since the issues are irrelevant not that the bandwagon has left the station.

What's new under the sun?

One is left to wonder if we were left with the empty assurances of the Clinton name recognition and inevitability whether there would be any complaints about the issues....After all, she is a woman..

The underlying symbolism is a rejection of the Clinton brand.

Posted by Lil at 01/07/2008 @ 12:32pm
kinda sad (pathetic really) to see Pollitt moping so publicly about what attracts voters & the media in a campaign (who'd a thunk it? charisma actually wins over voters!) since "her girl" Hillary is such a complete and humiliating disgrace of a candidate. i guess she'll have to find another woman to back in the future (no doubt more of a Pelosi figure, than a Sheehan, e.g.).

Pollitt didn't show up to defend the conscious and manipulative exclusion of a candidate like Kucinich from the debating process (done right in front of everyone's eyes), who most likely offers more substantive "issues" that Pollitt would agree with than the combined stances on issues of all the other candidates. no, she didn't care a whit about that.

what she cares about is that the glass ceiling (for woman, anyway) won't be broken this time around. boo-hoo. next time she should back a real candidate (kucinich or maybe someone else) and actually reach & try to bring about something substantial in this world, rather than simply backing a human 'cause she has breasts & who knows what else. Pollitt should know better yet she doesn't. makes you wonder...

Posted by Scrub at 01/07/2008 @ 12:40pm
No doubt about it, Obama is running a highly successful "feel good" campaign that is short on substance. But the fact that an African-American can make people of all races feel hopeful about the future is nothing short of miraculous, IMO. Racism has been the the American curse since the day that Europeans first arrived on these shores. It would be terribly wrong to underestimate the significance of a black American President. Obama may not be the "rage against the machine" progressive that most of us want, but his election would nonetheless be a watershed event in American history.

Posted by robgo2 at 01/07/2008 @ 2:29pm
B_KOOL_66 The video's gone. Know where there's a copy?

Posted by haythorn at 01/07/2008 @ 2:43pm
Katha--

Amen!!!

Thanks, Ben

Posted by Ben L-N at 01/07/2008 @ 3:42pm
Formerly any progressive candidate had to bend over backwards just to get people involved in politics. Now we are hungry.

Like many of the maligned progressive writers who have taken a beating against the big TV squawkers, you've missed the fact that people have taken it on to themselves to draw the issues out of what they've seen so far in alternate sources, word of mouth, the internet, ipods, cell phones and that pesky little lefty radio. Add to that you have the candidate Obama himself who understands better than anyone that the medium can be the message. When you hear him speak you seek to be reassured and when hits on your interest points he wins you over immediately....because of the trust factor.

Posted by hrayovac at 01/07/2008 @ 4:24pm
"She points out, quite correctly, that electing a woman president would be a very big change, but nobody seemed too interested in that." And how big a change was it from traditional Conservative policies when Britain elected a woman PM? You're just as prejudiced as those who wouldn't vote for someone because their gender is female. Obama left the Ivy League to work as a community organizer. Not exactly the road to political stardom. After tasting a re-election defeat, Bill and Hillary joined the other side, cozying up to Tyson and Walton. 35 years of fighting for change? Tell that to the Wal-Mart workers with no health care. And the sell-outs got worse the higher they went.

Posted by Steve1us at 01/07/2008 @ 4:47pm
I don't have much time to spend on the nation anymore, sadly, but some things will stir me to comment. Mett's blood is boiling because Pollitt distorts Obama's record and hides Clinton's.

Well Mett is not known for reading closely so this is no surprise

In real life, Obama has made the same sort of compromises she herself has made.

Since nothing she said about Obama's record is false, and the above quote clearly does not count as hiding Clinton's record, Mett, as usual, has no leg to stand on here.

And what happened to not taking candidates at their word Mett? So if a candidate says they had good reason for a bad vote, they get off the hook? But what about all your lists of Edwards' bad votes? Do we not get to see those anymore?

We have nothing but compromised candidates here. Concerns about honesty and authenticity can be raised about all of them, and they are concerns that cannot be definitively answered with the information a voter has at their disposal. (I think better and worse reasons to trust some candidates can be given, and I think that those have to do with where their campaign money is coming from, but in the end that is still speculation.)

So lets talk about issues folks. We might be tricked by all of them, so lets stop pretending we know who is honest. Edwards might be Bill Clinton redux, and so might Obama, and so will Hilary. All we can do is go by what they are advocating (and who funds their campaign, but since Obama supporters seem so scared of discussing that, and discussions like that don't really advance the 'progressive' cause, lets stick to issues.) It would have been different in Feingold had run, but he didn't so let's stop the pretense (you know, now that it is too late to do any good)

Is there any good reason not to have mandates for health care? Is there any good reason to leave troops in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda, rather than leaving them in Kuwait, Saudi and Turkey? Is there any reason to prefer non-proliferation of nukes to eradication of nuclear stockpiles? Is there any reason to support trade deals like the Peru FTA? Is there any reason not to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 and then index it to inflation? Maybe there are. Maybe we should have been talking about that. Maybe we should stop thinking we are telepathic and know what is going on in the minds of people we will never know.

Unfortunately I can only be a gadfly and cannot actually take part in an issues debate (too much work), but we are all replaceable, so no worries.

So thank you Katha Pollitt, this was a very useful piece.

Posted by dentedpat at 01/07/2008 @ 4:57pm
Posted by DENTEDPAT 01/07/2008 @ 4:57pm

Issue platforms can be faked (e.g., John Edwards), calls for change can be faked (e.g., Hillary Clinton) - but what cannot be faked is fighting for progressive change your entire life, and this is why Barack Obama will win the nomination and the presidency.

Posted by Metteyya at 01/07/2008 @ 5:25pm
Mett gives a typically weak and cultish response. She doesn't seem to realize that what she says of Obama is exactly what Edwards says of himself (and her response to that is that Edwards did not employ sound science as a trial lawyer. Sound familiar? The poor and weak don't have science on their side, but damn I cannot find the studies that show that!). So again we are asked to take only Obama's words at face value.

I thought I would pass along this article [alternet.org]

This is what we get from DLC strategies. This is what centrism amounts to. This is what the Clintons still advocate, what Edwards once advocated but now explicitly rejects, and what Obama sounds dangerously like he is suggesting. This is the modern democratic party. You can either fight it or leave the party (assuming you don't like plutocracy). Which candidate is openly attacking these kinds of policies?

Obama's central message is completely Clintonian(overcoming old partisan divides. Sounds a bit like the third way doesn't it? Remember what the third way in Britian got us too). We have a chance to take the party back this year. Who thinks we will get another one?

And this time I really am done for the night.

Posted by dentedpat at 01/07/2008 @ 6:29pm
This is what we get from DLC strategies. This is what centrism amounts to. This is what the Clintons still advocate, what Edwards once advocated but now explicitly rejects

Who said Edwards has rejected his DLC views, Edwards? Since when? I only know of ONE issue he says was a mistake - his vote for the Iraq war. But what about all the other DLC issues he voted for in the Senate? Why hasn't said these votes were a mistake?:

1. Trade with China (Bill Number: HR 4444)

Edwards: Yes Feingold: No

2. Travel Ban to Cuba (Bill Number: S 1234)

Edwards: Yes Feingold: No

3. Religious Symbols in Public Schools (Bill Number: S 254)

Edwards: Yes Feingold: No

4. Strengthen Penalties Against Juveniles (Bill Number: S 254)

Edwards: Yes Feingold: No

5. Closure of Unnecessary Military Bases (Bill Number: S 1059)

Edwards: No Feingold: Yes

6. Bush's No Child Left Behind (Bill Number: HR 1)

Edwards: Yes Feingold: No

7. Prescription Drug Benefit for Medicare (Bill Number: S 1)

Edwards: No Feingold: Yes

8. Military Force in Iraq (Bill Number: H J Res 114)

Edwards: Yes Feingold: No

9. Patriot Act (USA Patriot Act of 2001)

Edwards: Yes Feingold: No

Posted by Metteyya at 01/07/2008 @ 6:42pm
"For various reasons, John Edwards, who actually represents the most substantive hope for change, seems in some ways a throwback to the old-fashioned class-based politics of the 1930s."

If that's the case, then why not bring up Kucinich, who is far more interested in class-issues (and how they are the core of race- and gender-issues) and who isn't a millionaire? The kind of change he promises is exceedingly more substantive and uncompromising, two requirements for any political program we can trust. For that reason, given their trend to neoliberalism in the last several decades, the Democrats are more afraid of Kucinich winning than the Republicans.

Posted by pdxbunny at 01/07/2008 @ 8:33pm
Bill Richartson is the only candidate that is not a lawyer, and we all know that lawyers will wheel and deal to make their point and money. Lets "not" vote in another lawyer who will sell the American people out and enforce our "laws". We need a person who will talk to our enemies, and attempt to smooth out differences. We do "not" need more wars, America has been involved in more wars than any other industrial nation. We need an understanding and diplomatic leader who the world will listen too and respect. Richardson is the only candidate who will talk with our enemies. One needs to contemplate just "why" they are our enemies and work toward a mutual understanding. One should realize that "all" countries really "need" a different kind of government to maintain order and peace in their country, or we'll have African style governments popping up everywhere. Also other countries have been turning their to trade deals with other countries because they don't care to deal with a government who has a loud mouth president at it's head.

Posted by Tiger1 at 01/07/2008 @ 10:01pm
Posted by PDXBUNNY 01/07/2008 @ 8:33pm

PDXBUNNY,

Even I like Dennis on the issues. But as Democrats we need to think a little deeper concerning HOW do we get these issues adopted by mainstream America. Dennis' confrontational approach doesn't work, Barack's trans-partisanship does.

That is the bottom line.

Posted by Metteyya at 01/08/2008 @ 12:53am
Whats so old fashioned about class based politics? That never goes out of style. Class is just as important now as it was in the 1930's.

Posted by SeanM at 01/08/2008 @ 01:53am