John Edwards, An Early Favorite

Time to take a second look at John Edwards…

An NBC/WSJ poll finds that at this very early stage McCain leads Hillary and Obama, but McCain trails Edwards:

In some head-to-head match ups, McCain leads Clinton by four points (47 to 43 percent) and Obama by five points (43 percent to 38 percent). But — in an interesting twist — the Arizona senator trails Edwards by two points (43 percent to 41 percent).

Edwards, at this very early stage, also leads in Iowa:

Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina and the winner of the 2004 caucuses, was picked as the early preference of 36 percent of likely caucusgoers in the survey.

Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York came in second with 16 percent.

Third was Sen. Barack Obama with 13 percent, and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack trailed in fourth place at 9 percent.

Again, it’s very early, which is why the article notes the following:

Some elements of the race have changed since the poll was completed. Vilsack has formally announced his entry, Clinton has begun reaching out to Iowans, and Obama last weekend traveled to New Hampshire.

I think that Senator Edwards has it right, via PoliticalWire.com:

"Running before makes you focus on something different. Instead of focusing on how crowds respond to you and what everybody seems to love of you. That’s not the test for being president. The test for being president is are you the best person to occupy the Oval Office and be the leader of the free world? Because literally the future of the world is at stake here. This is not about popularity and excitement."

— John Edwards, on Hardball

Obama The Triangulator

Yes, The Triangulator. Obama has proven himself a rudderless politician, willing to sell out supporters as "part of a larger strategy":

Hispanic leaders say he has betrayed the trust of the people who always gave him their votes.

"He’s lost his vision; he’s lost his feet on the ground," said Hispanic leader Carmen Velasquez.

Obama is being criticized after siding with Republicans in the Senate to approve a 700-mile wall across the Mexican border. The vote happened almost two months ago.

But CBS 2 News has learned exclusively that Obama has met privately with Hispanic leaders in an effort to convince them that his vote is part of a larger strategy.

Hat tip to VivirLatino.com for the lead.

“Sistah Souljah” Still Haunts Dems

Digby has an important post on how some Democrats (read Barak Obama) erroneously continue to triangulate, and how Bill Clinton’s "Sistah Souljah" moment still casts a long shadow over the Democratic party:

Chris Bowers wrote a very poignant post about Barack Obama that expresses the bewildered dismay I think I lot of us feel when we read or hear our leaders still using us as a foil to distance themselves from their own base. It’s so disheartening to see someone we hope will be a brilliant leader make the mistake of running against the Party just when it is finding a new sense of unity — and the other side is having an identity crisis.

It’s worth recalling where these "Sistah Souljah" impulses came from and look at whether they make any sense in today’s politics. The term applies to Bill Clinton’s repudiation of some hot rhetoric after the LA riots, which happened smack in the middle of the presidential campaign. Souljah, a political activist and writer/rapper, had been widely quoted (out of context) in the mainstream media as saying, "if Black people kill Black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?" Clinton responded to that comment with "If you took the words ‘white’ and ‘black’ and you reversed them, you might think David Duke was giving that speech."

[...]

Now, fifteen years later, it’s become a tic, a reflexive point that is no longer used for any specific purpose but rather serves as a political ritual designed to assure the conservative political establishment that the candidate does not associate himself or herself with undesirable liberals. The members of the base who have been used for a decade and a half as the human sacrifices to the pundit Gods of the beltway are starting, quite naturally, to rebel. It’s not, however, just because they are sick of being scapegoated; it’s because it’s become part of the predictable "braindead politics" of Washington that Clinton so rightly ran against in the first place.

I don’t blame Bill Clinton for doing what he did. Indeed, I give him credit for having the guts to point to a specific act instead of adopting the modern mealy mouthed rhetoric ("some on the left need to stop …") which at least allowed for an honest debate about something identifiable and real. And, in the wake of the riots, as part of a serious national debate about "law and order" and race in the middle of a presidential campaign, it made sense for a Democrat to try to thread that needle.

[...]

So my problem with Democrats these days is not what they did back in the 90′s. That’s water under the bridge. It’s that they are failing to seize the moment right now. The most recent (imperfect) analogy I can think of is 1980. The Republicans seized that moment of national "malaise" and discontent to go mainstream. After that election it became a matter of faith among millions of Americans that "they didn’t leave the Democratic party, the Democratic party left them."

[...]

Today, it’s the Republicans who are seen as captives of their own worst impulses which is why it is so out of sync and dissonant for Obama and others to still be triangulating against their own base. It feels odd — discordant. The Democratic rank and file are no different than millions of average people in this country who are feeling uncomfortable with the radicalism, incompetence, hubris and corruption of the Republican party after six years of one party rule — and a quarter century of conservative consensus. And the activist base from which these politicians are trying to distance themselves is where the energy and future of this new majority party rsides. Why would you run from them just when the other side’s consensus is starting to fray? It’s far more politically useful to present them to the public as the average people they really are. We’re all just like you — regular everyday citizens who believe that the country needs a new direction.

As we have seen, triangulating can sometimes be the politically smart thing to do. But not right now. This is the political moment for the Democrats to seize the mantle of the mainstream — to argue that we are the big tent, where people of conscience from all over the political spectrum are coming together, concerned about our nation, ready to work in common cause. The Republican party has abandoned the concerns of the American people. The Democratic party is the party that will secure the future.

We’re All Sistah Souljah Now

“We’re all Sistah Souljah now.” This is how back in the 90s then candidate Bill Clinton re-branded himself as a different kind of Democrat — a New Centrist Democrat, critical of the apparent corruption of popular culture and not afraid to speak against it, even at the expense of calculatingly "alienating" a core Democratic voting block, African-Americans (at least that was the calculus):

Many will recall Sistah Souljah, a relatively obscure political rapper who was propelled into national fame by then-candidate Bill Clinton’s condemnation of her in 1992. It was a quick way for Clinton to position himself as a "New Democrat" who was mainstream, moderate, and "just like you and me" in his values (that is, of course, if "you and I" are suburban and middle-class.)

The centrist approach worked for Bill Clinton in ’92, but things were different then (including a three-candidate race).

[...]

In addition, Clinton picked a marginal figure in attacking Sistah Souljah.

This is how RJ Eskow introduces us to his thesis, Running Against the Base – Hillary, Obama, and the Democrats’ High-Risk Strategy:

"We’re all Sistah Souljah now." At least, those committed people who form the base of the Democratic Party might be forgiven for thinking that. The Party’s leading Presidential and Vice-Presidential contenders seem committed to running against the interests and values of their core constituents. It’s a very risky strategy – for them, and for their party.

Unfortunately, it is patently obvious that RJ Eskow has it right. The conventional wisdom in DC, in spite of the utter failure of conservatism as a governing force, is that to win national elections Dems must tack to the Right. This is how one can explain Hillary Clinton’s attempt to criminalize flag burning, and Barack Obama’s thumbing his nose at the activist base of the party by endorsing Joe Liberman, while the grassroots rallies around Ned Lamont (Liberman’s challenger in the primaries). And, of course, there was Senator Obama’s post at DailyKos.com where he, more or less, scolded the vocal base and urged that cooler heads and civility must prevail — now, of course, it’s hard to argue against that… I mean, who would prefer the opposite, right?

As RJ Eskow explains, aside from appearing cynical, opportunistic and unprincipled, treating the Dem base as Sistah Souljahs is risky:

There are number of risks for the party here. One is the fact that Presidential elections are decided far more on the basis of character and trust than are other elections. Like most voters, I’m more comfortable with a politician who sincerely disagrees with me about an issue (even a critical one like Iraq) than I am with one who appears calculating and cynical in the pursuit of my vote.

Another concern is having an energized base. The Democratic base may not perceive a "clear and present danger" in ’08 the way they did in ’04.

Now, in a fair and rational world one could easily respond to being treated like this by one’s representatives by simply saying, Fine, I’ll just take my vote elsewhere — to another party. Unfortunately, we live in a two-party winner-take-all system; thus, given practical realities, all we’ve got are the Dems — for better or for worse. It is because of this that Matt Stoller’s suggestion, which basically calls for progressives/liberals to assert ourselves in the Dem party, must be taken seriously. As Matt suggests, not now, but progressives/liberals must start to challenge the entrenched establishment/centrist interests during the primaries and, too, we must build a competing infrastructure within the party if progressives are to control the Democratic policy apparatus.

Sure, going after Sistah Souljah may have had some short-term pay off for Bill Clinton. However, over time, his system of triangulation, proved to be nothing more than a political Band-Aid; because, as we know, while Bill Clinton governed successfully, his tenure in office did not help nurture the progressive movement/grassroots, which is what would’ve been necessary to build a long-term governing coalition to challenge the then ascending Republican coalition. Rather, Bill Clinton chose to side with the corporatist of the DLC and, too, put all his eggs in the new-economy-workforce basket to be the new base of the Democratic Party.

In 2008 we’ll see just how far to the right some opportunist politicians are willing to go. In the meantime, I hope that we, progressives, take Matt’s suggestion to heart and begin to elbow our way to the table — it’s the only that party insiders will begin to pay any attention to us.

Senator Obama & a Great Day for Democracy

I first posted this as a series of comments in response to diarists dismayed at the welcoming that Senator Obama received from what’s been affectionately described as the “rabble” over at DailyKos .

I’ve been heartened by what I’ve witnessed in response to the Senator’s diary; because it’s been a great exercise in democracy, 21st century style.

Senator Obama has not been dismissed nor belittled in the more thoughtful responses/diaries; and, if he is truly interested in hearing what Americans — all Americans, not just what insiders consider “Average Americans” — have to say, than am sure that he and his staff appreciate much of the feedback earnestly submitted by this group of Americans. Moreover, Senator Obama’s main message, that we should act with “civility” and not-throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water over one vote, is hard to dismiss out of hand and to argue against — I mean, it’s just plain commonsense, though rather innocuous and lacking substance. And, while the Senator’s advice and gesture are appreciated, at this point, it simply is much too little and much too late. In stead, this group of Americans demand and need more from their elected representatives. Here’s what I believe the “rabble,” Americans all, is looking for — at least this is what I want: I want my elected Democratic representatives to more stridently advocate Progressive principles and to provide affirmative/concrete leadership in crafting a Democratic brand/message that we can rally behind. It’s that simple.

Now, in the marketplace of ideas, competing brands/messages arise frequently and, eventually, one vision wins out. However, for this to occur, there must be enterprising salesmen/political leaders aggressively presenting their competing visions, and the public then decides which brand/message obtains their support. However, because the marketplace of ideas is often saturated with products, salesman/political leaders must be assertive and aggressive in presenting their product. It is in this last part of the process that we, Americans, feel the Democratic sales force has failed on. The Democratic party sales team is, it appears, content in picking up the scraps from the failures of the dominant Republican brand — even as that brand is showing clear signs of overexposure, unsatisfactory customer support and an incapacity to meet the American public’s demand for real leadership. And yet, rather than mounting an aggressive and glossy ad campaign to attract customers and to invigorate the Democratic brand, the Democratic sales force is content with mediocre gains at the margins. To illustrate, look at what Apple did when it was on the brink of extinction: it innovated, brought new products/ideas to market, presented an integrated marketing strategy for its entire line of products (from the iMac to iTunes to the iPod), and it aggressively saturated the market place with vibrant glossy ads and well honed message — going so far as to open stores, something a lot people criticized — presenting Apple products as the alternative to the bland Windows beige PCs. (By the way, am a Windows user.) Today Apple enjoys economic success, has seen its market share rise and it continues to drive innovation and ideas in the PC industry, often setting the standard — even as Windows based systems collectively have market dominance.

Again, I urge understanding, the response to Senator Obama has little to do with partisan purity or orthodoxy… it is more simple than that… it’s as basic as expecting our elected Dems to stand up to the bully and to give voice to our frustration. Am sure we all understand and appreciate how the vast majority of the grassroots — my self included — are simply tired of hearing about comity and so-called moderation when we (Democrats and Progressives collectively) have been taking it on the gut since the Gingrich Revolution, through the Clinton Presidency, the post-2000 elections, the charges against our patriotism during the 2002-midterm elections, the Iraq debacle and the Swift boating of John Kerry. And, yes, this list doesn’t even begin to record the grievances against the Republican party… not by a long shot. Remember, recent polls confirm that we, Progressives and America at large, want and expect the Democrats to stand up to the Republican party. And, as to the charge of “obstructionist,” you know that it — and worse — will be made, because that’s what Republicans do, have done and will do… so let’s not be surprised when they react exactly as expected.

Moreover, a lot of the responses to Senator Obama have been extremely thoughtful, and if he and his staff have any sense — which am sure they do –, they’ll find a lot themes to adopt and messages to fine tune. The DailyKos community has done the Senator a service, which am sure he appreciates — it is, after all, a two way street… he “spoke,” and we responded — democracy at work.

Remember, it is the role of elected officials to hear their constituents and to represent them. Now, this is how it’s supposed to work in theory, I understand. In the real world, the people are supposed defer to authority… at least that’s how it works. Well, I say, why not let theory win out for once… why not let OUR elected representative hear how it really is… how we feel… and how WE want more than innocuous calls for “civility” and to not-throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water. After all, it’s supposed to be By the People, For the People; and not, From Elected Officials, For Elected Officials. We, here at DailyKos and across America, We are the people… today we’ve seen democracy in action… we’ve gathered in the 21st century version of a democratic forum and aired our concerns and aspirations to an elected Democratic official that honored us by opening dialogue. The people, hopefully, will have been heard and OUR representative and OUR democracy will be the better for it.