The Different Operations

by Matt Stoller, Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:59:25 AM EST

I don't really know how important a political operation really is in a Presidential campaign.  I have a sense that it matters, that the ability of a campaign to do the little things right adds up to a sense that the person can run the country.  I'm not sure, though.  I've only seen one contest up close.  

Here's my sense of where the campaigns are.  I'm no fan, but Hillary Clinton's announcement has been handled perfectly.  The blog outreach was well-done, and it seems that calls went out to the right people at the right time.  I have a well-placed friend today, a state operative not in a primary state, who got a call from a top Clinton strategist to tell him that Senator Clinton was going to call him in the next few days.  Meanwhile, he can't get a call returned from either the Edwards or the Dodd camp despite having closer ties with both.  This is consistent with what I know of the various operations.

Though I'd probably back Edwards if you forced me to pick someone, the Edwards team is just not competent.  They don't return calls.  Despite being very good listeners, they don't play well with others, they are quite ineffective at coalition work, they are very top-down, and they are slow.  On announcement day, their Plus Three website was down for at least part of the time, and they accidentally slipped up and released it early.  You can smell that the progressive position Edwards is taking isn't quite real - he's trying, but he's not generating a crop of activists, the way Dean or Clark did in 2004.  He could, but there's no sense of empowerment - it's all about Edwards, and there are two other superior quality narcissists in the race.

I don't have a sense of the Obama team.  I know his fundraising operation is very strong, and that top stars all over the country want to be in his camp.  If anyone is generating a new crop of activists, it's Obama, and except for the college organizing, it's pretty pale and not particularly creative.  Clinton's operation is extremely top-down and very good.  I'm no fan of her governance by checklist or her screw the base mindset, and I think she'll be a bad President.  But she is meticulous and it shows.  Clinton is a very strong candidate and no one has the chops to take her down right now.  

Anyway, I'm trying to think of a way to describe the Dean and Draft Clark movements.  What made them special is how they created the space for a new crop of leaders to emerge and take power outside of the traditional campaign structure.  That's not happening in 2008, as both the environment differs and the campaigns are smothering supporters instead of nurturing them.  Leadership is going elsewhere, and perhaps that's a good thing.  Enough of this imperial Presidency.

Update: The Edwards folks are really missing the point - criticism is meant to help diagnose and address problems, not to hurt a candidate. The defensiveness is not only unnecessary, it is counterproductive. My favorite comment is the one asserting that the web site problems were a clever ploy.

Update again: Jerome and Joe Trippi are having an interesting back and forth in the comments about when and how Dean broke out in 2003. Online, Dean was breaking out in January, though he didn't gain wider traction among activists until a month or two after that.




Tags: Hillary Clinton, John Edwards (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 153 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: The Different Operations (none / 0)

What campaign would recognize and react to the best idea ever?


Bob Brigham Blog
by Bob Brigham on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:06:18 AM EST

Re: The Different Operations (none / 0)

Don't jump to conclusions yet; it's early.  Look where the "special" campaigns ended up in 2004.  I agree that the netroots people are a big part of the equation now, but not the only part.  I still think that, for now, Edwards has the winning message.  A lot can change in the next two years, however.


Joe
by joetalarico on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:10:05 AM EST

Re: The Different Operations (none / 0)

I hope they get it into gear.


by Matt Stoller on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:21:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Get it in gear? If any team has shown... (3.00 / 1)

...competence in the pre-campaign, it has been Edwards 2008. He has become the labor candidate (AFL-CIO Paul Wellstone Award), the anti-war candidate (McCain Doctrine), the netroots candidate (leading in last two Daily Kos polls), the populist candidate (champion of minimum wage measures). This is incompetence?

The proof is in the pudding.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 03:14:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Get it in gear? If any team has shown... (none / 0)

All respect to Edwards, but he's really been the only one running a real campaign for a while. Warner was working on it until he droppped, but Edwards has been running hard for a couple of years now. So it's hard to tell if his effective positioning work will really play out when others are running against him.

I think he's done well positioning himself with traditional labor and with the netroots, but I think he's really vulnerable on the war and foreign policy, which will be vital in the months ahead.

Edwards/Obama ... I don't see how there's room for the two of them. Which is a better platform to build from: labor/netroots infrastructure or massive media buzz? That's what I see as the question there. I honestly don't know the answer to that.


by BriVT on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 06:55:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What the media giveth... (3.00 / 1)

...the media can (and usually does) taketh away.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 05:13:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Get it in gear? If any team has shown... (3.00 / 0)

I think what Matt is talking about is more "operations" than "positioning".

John Edwards messaging and positioning has been strong. His operational support need to pull up their socks a bit.

Of course, part of that may be that in trying to build a movement as much as a "sell the soap" marketing and promotion campaign, they are adopting a strategy that is more demanding of the operations side.

And John Edwards did run his PAC as a very lean operation to fund getting him out to support candidates on the trail, where Hillary ran a Senate campaign as an exercise in learning how to spend a lot of money in a hurry, so John Edwards also probably has more ramping up to do on the operational side.


*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog
by BruceMcF on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 06:47:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think your sniffer is on the blink. (3.00 / 1)

You can smell that the progressive position Edwards is taking isn't quite real - he's trying, but he's not generating a crop of activists, the way Dean or Clark did in 2004.  He could, but there's no sense of empowerment - it's all about Edwards, and there are two other superior quality narcissists in the race.

If you are going to be mad with Edwards, or disappointed, be disappointed that he played the standard politician up until this point.  It is obvious to anyone who followed him in 2003/04 and who has talked with him, or seen him in person recently, that this is the real Edwards.  He has admitted that in 2004 he worried too much about what kind of candidate he was, which is the status quo for politicians.  

What I smell is a politician who is finally willing to be himself, and to speak in plain terms, like "univesal health care" and "public financing of elections", no matter the cost.  

As for your other critique:

Meanwhile, he can't get a call returned from either the Edwards or the Dodd camp despite having closer ties with both.  This is consistent with what I know of the various operations.

That's odd, because I know dozens of people who email the campaign regularly and get feedback, they are very approachable.  I've seen campaign staff give out their cell phone numbers to random volunteers at a number of events.  Obviously, I can't say anything about how well they are keeping in contact with each activist in each state around the country.  And, I OF COURSE wouldn't make any grand exaggeration about the strength or weakness of their campaign based on that limited set of personal observations, or on the word of a dozen activists.  

I think it would be irresponsible to make such grand generalizations based on such small evidence.


BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics
by Robert P on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:56:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think your sniffer is on the blink. (none / 0)

I'm not making generalizations.  It's consistent with other reports I've heard.


by Matt Stoller on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 08:28:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think your sniffer is on the blink. (none / 0)

Oh, making generalizations is precisely what you are doing ... of course, in the words of the Seinfeld show, not that there is anything wrong with that ... if we never generalize, then everything is just a sea of details.

But the substance of your response would seem to be that they have a wider base than just the examples given.


*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog
by BruceMcF on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 06:50:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

returning calls (none / 0)

i got no dog is this fight. hillary's people said they would call in a few days. not that they would be taking calls. who knows. i guess you will have call and find out.


by bob reid on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:19:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Different Operations (3.00 / 1)

[quote]A lot can change in the next two years, however.[/quote]

They don't have two years, they have a little over a year...the campaign will be all over but the shouting by about March 1.  The field is going to be damn small after New Hampshire/Iowa/Nevada/South Carolina/California.  Money dries up, supporters become de-energized and some defect, ditto staff.  Every campaign has its cadre of to-the-end true believers...don't pay any attention to that, doesn't mean a damned thing.

I don't have a horse in this race (yet).  I see weaknesses to each of the candidates, both in the primaries and in the general.   As Matt's OP indicates, Hillary's is the top-of-the-line traditional campaign.  Against most of her opponents, she'll be like the Wehrmacht going through Poland only her tanks are end-of-the-war models, not Pz I and Pz II's.  

Against her, my gut feel is that only a brilliant non-traditional campaign that makes very few mistakes wins.  Only one candidate can pull this off:  Obama.  

Obama's major weakness as a candidate is a mighty thin resume.

Remember, he's never been battle-tested in the big leagues and had to bear up to the scrutiny of a national campaign 24/7.   In contrast, Hillary has taken every punch thrown her direction from both Right and Left and still keeps on ticking.  John Edwards, I think, gets ground down between the two and gets the second runner-up ribbon which is worth approximately the value of one latte at Starbucks.

I'll bet $50 to the DNC right now that the rest of the field don't take a single state in the primary  (assuming Gore doesn't run, which I don't believe he will).  Biden, Richardson, Clark (who I like a lot)...no tickets to cash.

I find myself asking, if I had one candidate's hand or cards to play, which would I choose.  I don't know.  Each time I reach for Hillary's, I think of Obama's strengths and vice-versa.

As a general response to Matt's OP, I believe good staff work matters.  A lot.  But then I'm an ex low-level staffer from two unsuccessful campaigns, LOL. But I've seen mistakes up close enough to understand them.


by InigoMontoya on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:55:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's a bet. (none / 0)

I'll take that bet, purely because if New Mexico moves up to Feb 5th, Richardson will win his homestate.  That day is going to be so crowded that folks will be looking for places NOT to spend money, and excuses why they are NOT spending money there.

Richardson provides that excuse.


BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics
by Robert P on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:58:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a bet. (none / 0)

He's in, but won't win -

Expect MSM to quickly pick this up:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/...

and this to:

http://tinyurl.com/...

You all know well who the MSM will compare him to.


by pia on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 04:12:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The problem is, John Edwards is not ... (none / 0)

... fighting on the terrain that lies between Hillary and Obama, so its hard for him to get ground down between the two of them.

If Al Gore does not get into the race ... and it could be that is less likely now, if both Edwards and Richardson are championing sustainable energy independence ... then it can easily become a three person race.

And if I am recalling 1988 correctly, the last one of those that went deep into the primary season was the last one with a strong run by a black candidate.


*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog
by BruceMcF on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 06:57:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Different Operations (3.00 / 2)

Political operations do matter in the long run...and Clinton certainly did it right in every respect, but as you point out political operations are not the end all and be all and they should not be taken as a sign of governance. George Bush had probably the most outstanding political operation in history in 2000 and 2004 and just look at how he turned out.

Running a campaign and running a government are extremely different things.


by need some wood on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:10:58 AM EST

Re: The Different Operations (none / 0)

I agree with this comment.  Campaigns and governance are very different.


by Matt Stoller on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:19:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Different Operations (none / 0)

Do you find it interesting that eveyrone in the mainstream media is giving her such attention for posting her annoucement online?  There was some report yesterday that she was the "first" ever to do such a thing.  Can't remember where I saw or heard that.  

THAT is the number one obstacle that other candidates face.


BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics
by Robert P on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:59:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you can smell it? (3.00 / 2)

Sorry, Matt, I don't agree that Edwards' progressive position is not real. To cite just one example, he has been working his butt off to help unionize service-sector workers. Sure, there may be some self-interest involved (he wants union endorsements), but so does everyone else, and what have they done to help grow the labor movement?

I think that Edwards is a true southern liberal.

If anyone had a progressive position that didn't pass the smell test, it was Howard Dean. I should add that I love what Dean has been doing at the DNC, but this does not change the fact that he was not nearly as liberal as people thought in 2003.

It was Dean who generated an image as far more progressive than he actually was (according to his record as governor--my brother-in-law lived in Vermont for most of Dean's tenure there). Dean governed as quite the centrist on fiscal and social issues (he never led on gay rights, contrary to his image). He flip-flopped on issues such as the death penalty, contrary to his image as someone who was steadfast in his principles.

A large chuck of Democratic activists broke off from the party in Vermont while Dean was governor because they were so pissed off about his lack of leadership on environmental and other issues.

I spent much of 2003 arguing with Dean supporters, telling them that Kerry's record was much, much more progressive. Dean's opposition to the war, which I give him full credit for, was the single issue that earned him the support of many progressives.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:19:11 AM EST

Re: you can smell it? (3.00 / 1)

Dean grew as a political figure in the 2004 campaign, and activists emerged as a result of that.  Edwards might be a true liberal (it's impossible to really know), but he's NOT generating the leadership to suggest that his campaign is genuinely transformative.  At this time in the race, Dean was already doing that.


by Matt Stoller on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:21:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you can smell it? (none / 0)

At this time in the race, Dean was a storefront in Burlington and not much else. He didn't really take off until March or April.


by craverguy on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 02:43:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you can smell it? (none / 0)

That's not true.  The campaign was taking off among supporters, and that was important.


by Matt Stoller on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 08:28:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you can smell it? (3.00 / 1)

Can you quantify that?  I was heavily involved with Dean starting in late February 2003 . . . There was some meetup groups forming at this poing, but not much . . . not like there would be after the March Meetup in NYC.

And how do you compare that to Edwards's 800 or so OneCorps chapters, or his presence on FaceBook and MySpace?


Youth to Power
by Mike Connery on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 10:29:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Dean the Centrist in January 2003 (none / 0)

I think Desmoinesdem and Mike are historically correct.  

Dean's record as governor of Vermont was one of being a centrist...dare I say it...a triangulator.  OMG!

It is also historically true that in January 2003, the Dean campaign was nowhere nationally.  The Dean "he's against the war!" wildfire was not lit until March.  (In particular, the March 15, 2003 speech at the California convention is often pointed to as the beginning of the national Dean phenom.)  

By comparison, Edwards is WAY ahead of where Dean was.  

Those are the facts...  


by Demo37 on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:08:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean the Centrist in January 2003 (3.00 / 1)

Demo37 is correct -- except that the California Dem Convention Speech was the second time Howard delivered that speech -- the first time it was delivered and the real first spark in the campaign was at the DNC Winter meeting a few weeks prior to the California Convention.


by JoeTrippi on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:12:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean the Centrist in January 2003 (none / 0)

I should do a blog post on this though, because Dean had broken out on the net already at this point in 2003:

On January 15th 2003, an American Research Group (ARG) poll came out of New Hampshire showing Kerry at 27% and Dean in second at 15%, the first real sign that Dean had grassroots strength and name recognition in one of the early states.  Now, the potential that Dean might break out seemed inevitable. However, the online portion of the campaign was still unorganized in it's outreach efforts...

The website Democrats.com had been doing a weekly online presidential preference poll of its community, and after Al Gore dropped out in December, John Kerry led for a couple of weeks, but beginning with January 2003, Dean lead in the Democrats.com straw vote poll for the Democratic nominee, outpolling John Kerry by a nearly 2:1 margin by January 23rd.

(that's from the essay in an upcoming book) Both MyDD, DKos, and DemUnderground forum posts were pushing people to participate in the Democrats.com straw poll vote, and it was the de facto temperature of the netroots at the time.

It just wasnt't anywhere near the same type of numbers though, as the netroots  four years ago was much smaller. I agree that Dean didn't really break out into a larger arena of awareness (beyond us junkies) until March.

And Joe, as an aside, it was four years ago today that I was calling you nightly about Meetup, and you were banging your head against the campaigns wall to get the Meetup graphic onto the official website:)


by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 08:10:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean the Centrist in January 2003 (none / 0)

And MYDD was my favorite blog then (Dean Nation a close second) and it still is so today.


by JoeTrippi on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 08:50:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean the Centrist in January 2003 (3.00 / 0)

This qualifies as an "interesting back and forth"? Looks like a mutual admiration society to me.


by Texas Nate on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 03:49:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you can smell it? (none / 0)

Is it possible that Dean's campaign was "transformative" because it needed to be to gain traction and that the current top-of-the-crop aren't because they don't need to be at this point?


by Rox Populi on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 02:46:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you can smell it? (none / 0)

No


by Matt Stoller on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 08:29:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you can smell it? (none / 0)

Why not? (To play Devil's Advocate . . . not sure what I think as of yet)


Youth to Power
by Mike Connery on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 10:30:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Because Dean's campaign was about more (none / 0)

than just himself. He didn't come up with "You have the power" out of thin air. And he stayed consistent with that vision long after he had to drop from the race. Hence DFA and Dean's decision to take over the DNC specifically in order to devolve Party power to the states and grassroots activists within the state Party operations.

Matt is absolutely right that Edwards has shown no interest in creating a movement that is larger than getting himself elected. Think of all the people Dean inspired to run for office themselves. That's not to say that Edwards wouldn't govern progressively (although his current positions don't look anything like his Senate record); its just to say that his is not the kind of revolutionary campaign that Dean's was. But it is early and Edwards's campaign may evolve -- possibly out of necessity to have any chance of overtaking Hill and Barack.

The big dark horse in this is Gore. If he should choose to run (which is still a longshot), I believe he would run a people-powered campaign since that is what he admired so much about Dean's effort (and it will probably take a people-powered Draft movement to get Gore in, in the first place).


"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean
by Jim in Chicago on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 02:10:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you can smell it? (none / 0)

This seems right to me. Hillary and Edwards can't really be defined by their volunteers - they're already really well branded. Obama, who has the vaguest stance right now, has some of that ability - if colleges drive his campaign it will be the youth campaign in a way that Hillary's wouldn't be even if she had the youth vote.

This matches my memories of 2004, too. Clark was certainly an unknown quantity - he'd never run for office and wasn't in the race yet. And I always felt a big divide between old Dean and 2004 Dean, driven I thought by the need for activists to define the campaign. Ezra Klein has a great article about the process (I don't agree with his thesis, but some of his analysis is great)

Seems to me like a fully branded candidate - from Kucinich to Kerry to Edwards - will by nature be less transformative.


by CT student on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:35:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you can smell it? (none / 0)

Also we're talking an entirely different dynamic than 2004. No incumbent. Widely unpopular Republican war. Domestic problems aplenty.


by Rox Populi on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 02:50:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you can smell it? (3.00 / 1)

Edwards has over 500 One Corps chapters, in every state in the nation.  If you look at his site, there are over 62 meetups already set for the next couple days.   And, it is just beginning.  Unless you think that the 500 One Corps are going to sit back and not do anything?

The Action Days pretty much guarantee that won't happen, that the members will be reaching out to others in their community abour progressive causes:  energy, health care, the war.


BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics
by Robert P on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 08:04:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you can smell it? (none / 0)

Unless you think that the 500 One Corps are going to sit back and not do anything?

Yup, that's pretty much what I think will happen.  We'll see.


by Matt Stoller on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 08:29:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you can smell it? (none / 0)

I can already guarantee that you're wrong about that.


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 08:35:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you can smell it? (none / 0)

Good.  I want to be wrong.


by Matt Stoller on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 09:28:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you can smell it? (none / 0)

Dang, those twenty friend emails I sent from the site yesterday, the meetup I am planning with Chapel Hill/UNC/Duke members is all going to amount to nothing.

Drat.  And, here I thought we were forming a core of door knockers, phone callers, and all-around activists.

Shoot, your overwhelming argument has showed me otherwise.  The power of your facts and figures shame me into quitting.


BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics
by Robert P on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 09:01:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you can smell it? (none / 0)

Prove me wrong.  We're not opponents here.


by Matt Stoller on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 09:29:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I just did. (3.00 / 1)

It is unreasonable to say that 500 One Corps chapters, and a whole bin of meetups this week alone will simply fizzle.  This isn't Obama, who no one really knows (not on the issues at least), this is someone everybody knows.  If they are jumping in the race this early, it is because they know him and will support him.

There will be no fizzle.

How will the race look in 6 months?  Everyone will have a strong netroots and grassroots organization.  Everyone who stands a chance of winning.

But, Edwards has a head start, both online and on the ground in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.  Some of those people might defect, but if so, then they are just as likely to re-defect.

I hope we are on the same side, we'll see.  Certainly 18 months from now I'll be happy to stand side by side with you singing kumbaya to the Dem nominee.


BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics
by Robert P on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 09:34:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

To clarify on the Obama comment... (none / 0)

I know that everyone here online seems to know and accept his stances and votes, but that the public at large is not as well informed.  The general public probably feels, even if it isn't true, that they know Edwards because of the 04 primary run and the 04 VP run.


BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics
by Robert P on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 09:56:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I just did. (none / 0)

In my experience, activists always tend to overestimate how well their campaign is going and how effective the pieces they've put in place will perform.  

Somebody is bound to be most correct but often it's the person/campaign who was most guarded in their assessment.

If thing went as those working in campaigns thought, the first four contests would have nine first-place winners.


by InigoMontoya on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 02:50:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The flip-side (none / 0)

is that other campaigns tend to denigrate how well you are doing.  So, for instance, someone who has said over and over that the Obama camp is tops on internet originality might also decry what a state of disarray the Edwards campaign is in.


BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics
by Robert P on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 03:09:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I just did. (none / 0)

This isn't Obama, who no one really knows (not on the issues at least), this is someone everybody knows.

I had two classes from him in law school; does that count?

Indeed, I think people know where Obama stands on the key issues; they're just not sure if they like it.  On Edwards, people know where he stands now and where he stood in 2002, which is helpful.  


by Adam B on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 03:31:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I just did. (none / 0)

One down, 110 Million to go.


BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics
by Robert P on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 03:41:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I just did. (none / 0)

We're all on the same team here.  Edwards would be a great nominee.


by Adam B on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 03:45:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I just did. (none / 0)

"same team" seems to be the new meme, was there an Obama listserve email I missed?  
: )

As I have said a billion times, if Edwards loses I'll pull for the nominee as hard as possible.  I want a Democrat in the White House more than I want any single candidate in the White House.


BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics
by Robert P on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 04:04:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I just did. (none / 0)

Same here.  I have my preferences, but ultimately, whatever the party decides, I'm down with.


by Adam B on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 04:09:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I just did. (3.00 / 0)

Where does he stand on universal health care and card check unionization?

I know that all of you beltway politics aficionados may know where he stands, but I've mostly heard that he stands for hope.

Mind you, this is not an invidious distinction ... if I was not watching or listening to Edwards speeches and talks over the past year on various podcasts and vlogs, I would have a much less clear idea of where he stands on a range of issues.


*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog
by BruceMcF on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:02:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I just did. (none / 0)

Universal health care: supports.

Card-check: supports.  There are a few links out there, but none are exact.  


by Adam B on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 11:27:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I just did. (none / 0)

That's encouraging ... the only substantial coverage I saw of Obama on the issue of universal health coverage was a speech he gave in NH that applauded it as a goal but did not actually propose it. If he's moved toward the position of setting out universal coverage as a minimum condition of whatever plan he proposes, that will contribute to moving the field away from Hillary's position (that link is especially good for the sideswipe at one of the reasons I am so dissappointed by Saint Hillary)


*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog
by BruceMcF on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 09:11:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I just did. (none / 0)

It's a long year.  Can't roll out everything on day one.


by Adam B on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 09:39:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I just did. (none / 0)

If this was December 2007 the questions might be a bit more aggressive! At this stage ... just asking.


*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog
by BruceMcF on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 07:45:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My apologies, I was wrong. (3.00 / 1)

There are now over 800 One Corps groups, there were 500 last time I checked.


BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics
by Robert P on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:32:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Emirical evidence? (none / 0)

Matt,

What evidence, empirical or anecdotal, do you have that leads you to that conclusion?

And how do you square it with this?

I agree that us Edwards supporters shouldn't be too defensive.  Some of what you say is undoubtedly true, and criticism is good if it is followed by actual learning and improvement.  But you are also positing a thesis here with very little data to back you up.  The burden of proof is on you, as is the responsibility to respond to legitimate criticism of your writing.


Youth to Power
by Mike Connery on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 03:40:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Emirical evidence? (none / 0)

To clarify,

I'm sure that what you are saying about Plus Three is probably true.  It seems to be a nightmare scenario and the major obstacle to some truly great online to offline work by the Edwards campaign and, more importantly, their supporters.   I've written about this before with regards to OneCorps' functionality, and these problems seem to be spreading into the Edwards '08 website.

The campaign should act quickly to correct that.

But I think you're making some overly broad claims when you doubt Edwards's progressive cred, or the vibrancy of the grassroots support he has at this point - particularly when you make your comparisons to Dean.

If you're going to make those claims, then you should be able to back them up more with some direct, apples to apples comparisons.


Youth to Power
by Mike Connery on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 05:57:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Edwards campaign. (3.00 / 1)

I appreciate the criticism. I hope they get it together, if indeed they need to.

However I will provide two caveats

1. It's still very very early

2. People wrote off Sherrod Brown's campaign early last year as well as poorly run, unresponsive, with a poor candidate. But either Sherrod'd message got out and that brought out the activists, his campaign shaped up and they got their message out, or both. And we ended up with a huge progressive win. Don't underestimate the power of the message to drive people to a campaign. Most pundits and people didn't give Sherrod a chance. But surprise surprise, a strongly progressive message actually resonates with people!

So I think you will see a lot more activism generated once more people actually take a look at Edwards. You said that the Dean camp was already generating activists and leadership at this point in the '04 race. Well, if that's the case then that means that Dean did NOT rely on the already existing state-party activist structure. So I would think at this point it's not a big deal if Edwards doesn't have a huge activist network or whatever. He'll generate his own activists the more people look at him at see that he's really the only electable progressive in the race.

The one thing I worry about though is the cult of personality. You get a lot of people supporting Obama just because it's like supporting a movie start and you get a lot of people supporting Clinton because, well, she's a Clinton. Once those loyalties firm up it's very hard to get people to take a second look at someone else, even if their message is head-and-shoulders above the rest.

I worry about that.


by adamterando on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 09:36:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you can smell it? (none / 0)

I think you nailed it this time.


by MNPundit on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 10:43:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are both right and wrong (none / 0)

about Dean at the same time.

Dean was a centrist in Vermont (I am a native Vermont).  In fact, in the early 90's he might have been a member of the DLC.  

But the issues that dominate now are not the issues at play in the 90's.  Gay rights and opposition to Iraq go much farther in defining liberal vs moderate in the Democratic Party than they did in the 90's.  In that sense it's not so much that he moved left, but that the very definition of core liberal beliefs changed.

.


by fladem on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 09:06:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

at that time Dean was not playing to win (3.00 / 1)

Big difference. At this point in the campaign, in early 2003, Dean was playing the insurgent role. He was trying to shake things up and broaden the discussion of Iraq and other issues in the primaries.

I do not think he seriously entertained the notion that he could be the nominee until the summer of 2003. He was just trying to make a difference in the campaign.

Edwards knows he's a serious contender.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:24:05 AM EST

Re: at that time Dean was not playing to win (3.00 / 2)

He was trying to shake things up and broaden the discussion of Iraq and other issues in the primaries.

I think that as the year progresses, Edwards will increasingly play this role.  He's talking about trade policy and poverty, not telling people to hope that things get better.  I see Edwards and One Corps out there building something that looks like a party organization.  

Something not myopically focused on November of 2008, but about building an agenda for change and doing what we can now.  Many One Corps chapters are working on plans to distribute CFL light bulbs that take something like 10% of the power of a normal bulb in low-income neighborhoods.  This means more money in the pockets of people who need it through conservation.

I think that Edwards has recieved a lot of hostility because he's building a campaign around working class issues, and that's a discussion that the media and too damn many in the blogosphere (the netroots survey having shown participant income substantially higher than the US average) because they don't want to talk about problems facing working people, they want to talk about their pet issue.

And that's the thing, the blogosphere for all the good it can do is seriously disconnected from the real world.  


by ManfromMiddletown on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 03:01:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: at that time Dean was not playing to win (3.00 / 2)

I think the coolness to Edwards is mostly a trust issue.  Look at how far he's moved across the political spectrum in what, four years?  Edwards02 and Edwards07 are almost as different as Romney94 and Romney07, and McCain00 and McCain07.  

Oddly, Gore doesn't take any heat for his movement from Gore00 to Gore06, but then Gore's not ostentatiously trying to seduce us.  He's saying what he thinks and, um, not running for president.  Edwards is running around saying "I want to start a movement."  How beautiful, and self-serving.

Also, I think the coolness to Edwards online should not be overstated.  And, Edwards has the same inexperience problem that Obama has.  

Obama is running as a vague and mysterious cypher; Edwards is running with a very clear position that is at odds with his previous very clear position.  I honestly am torn as to which I should support.  I'm hoping Obama will take a very clear position similar to and consistent with his prior very clear positions as State Senator, but I'm not holding my breath.  Still, I've got nothing better to hope for right now.  (And, it may be the only way Obama can dispatch Edwards, which he must do if he is to dispatch Hillary.  If Edwards forces Obama to move left in order to kill him off, that will be a great service to the world.)


by texas dem on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 08:02:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: at that time Dean was not playing to win (none / 0)

I should add that this "Edwards has shifted politically" thing may be much more about perception than reality.  His formal ideological positions may not have changed as much as I've suggested.  But I think the perception is that they have.  His campaign feels very different.  And even though the new campaign is pretty cool, there's a distinct "leopard changing his spots" kind of skepticism and distrust.


by texas dem on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 08:06:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: at that time Dean was not playing to win (none / 0)

I do think that Edwards has always been a pragmatist ... what changed more than his ideological position seems to have been getting over the DLC equation of pragmatism with careful little incremental policies.

Pragmatically, careful little incremental policies play into the hand of the radical right wing that has shifted the beltway discourse and MSM coverage fed by the same so far to the right that eight years of "incremental" change will still leave us somewhere to the right of Eisenhower.

So, pragmatically, we need to change the terms of the debate. And he started that with the issue of poverty, where the DLC/MSM conventional wisdom was, "well, that's nice and all, but it'll never play".

And the OneCorps chapters are going to be a growing part of changing the terms of the debate. I don't think that all 800 current chapters are going to be active and thriving ... but the pressure to actually participate in a national day of action every month is going to make sure that many of them do get established as actual, functioning, groups on the ground, and will help drive the process of replacing those that are not active with others that are able to get moving.


*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog
by BruceMcF on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:14:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: at that time Dean was not playing to win (3.00 / 1)

I think the difference is he sounds authentic to me now rather than a smooth politician. I think he would agree with that assessment as well.

Why are people so afraid of jumping on board with the only electable progressive? He's staked out his positions clearly. You think he's going to blatantly lie and go back on them if elected president? If Obama belived in universal health care why doesn't he say it in every speech (like Edwards basically does) instead of the mealy-mouthed DLC phrases "affordable access to quality health care". I mean, Edwards actually calls out Democrats who use this weasel phrase and he calls it a weasel phrase!

People may be suspicious of his intentions but holy fuck, come on! We have the best chance since the day before Robert F. Kennedy died in 1968 to elect a hard-core progressive Democrat to the office of President of the United States. These chances come around once a generation if that. If we stick with triangulation and caution, then there's a good chance the republicans will win and then we'lll just be dealing with the same problems again, except that this time John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsberg will have retired and global warming will continue to sink us.

Even if we do elect a centrist Democrat, then we won't get any real progress in this country. We'll get debates on school uniforms again and potentially legislation to reduce the rate of growth of CO2 emissions without reducing CO2 emissions. And forget about universal health care.

I honestly don't understand the self-deafting attitudes towards Edwards. The man has staked out his turf. It is our turf.


by adamterando on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 09:47:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Distrust of Edwards (3.00 / 1)

This is the same guy who, right before the Iowa Caucuses professed to be "shocked, shocked" that Howard Dean was saying something about wanting the votes of guys in the South with Confederate flag decals on their pickup trucks -- a line Dean had been using for about 10 months at that point.

Interestingly, Dean initially used that line in front of primarily African-American audiences, who loved it. Dean's comment was that those Confederate-flag loving folks should be voting "with us" because they need health insurance and their kids need good schools too -- exactly the kind of thing Edwards is saying today (albeit more smoothly).

It's this kind of hypocrisy and opportunism that makes me have trouble believing Edwards's sincerity.


"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean
by Jim in Chicago on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 02:20:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Distrust of Edwards (3.00 / 0)

Once again, that was in 2004. I was not an Edwards supporter in 2004.

So instead of someone who is doing a GOOD job at promoting a populist message and actually has a chance at advancing said agenda, you'd rather support someone who at this point has no intention of promoting a populist agenda, because, well, at least they've been totally authentic their entire political career when it comes to not promoting a populist agenda?

I don't get it.


by adamterando on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 04:14:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I didn't say that (3.00 / 1)

I just told you why I was suspicious about Edwards. That doesn't mean I won't end up voting for him in the primary (if Gore doesn't get in).

As for Dean, he supports something far more important in the long run than a populist agenda: he supports a populist PROCESS (as do I).


"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean
by Jim in Chicago on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 08:35:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: at that time Dean was not playing to win (none / 0)

And that's the thing, the blogosphere for all the good it can do is seriously disconnected from the real world.  

There is no such thing as 'the real world.'


by Matt Stoller on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 08:31:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Iraq War Did Not Take Place! (none / 0)

I never figured you for a fan of Baudrillard fan. Post-modernism/structuralism is soooo 1990s.


Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 11:59:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: at that time Dean was not playing to win (3.00 / 1)

Sawicky was right.

And clearly you didn't comprehend what Sawicky said.

The netroots have no political economy, except to join the blather about the unbalanced budget and the national debt. It did a fine job opposing Bush's Social Security privatization, but will it support Democratic efforts to fix a program that is not broke? By contrast, the direct action forces have been mobilizing against the emergent neo-liberal/free trade economic dogma for a decade.

This is going to be the year that either makes or breaks the Democratic party.

Fast Track comes up for vote this year, and there's going to be a hell of a fight on that.  

There's a fight between the people who want populist economics like the Economic Policy Institute who want a moratorium on labor and environmental standards in trade agreements, and the Hamilton Project led up by Robert Rubin that has a slightly kinder, gentler version of the neo-liberal bull that's killing America.

Had your pay cut by two/thirds and lost your pension (thank god for the PBGC, litle protection it does give) because the company took the profits made in this country overseas to bankrupt the US company and break your union?

Too bad the Rubinites say, that's creative destruction.

I'm sick of this, and if it weren't for the response of the freshman Dems I'd be seriously reconsidering my allegiance to the Democratic party.  I've been a Democrat my entire life, but this isn't about identity to me it's about interest.  And if the Democratic party won't stand up for the interests of working people, they don't deserve the support of working people.

This is real life, this's reality.  It's all the single moms trying to make it on $7.50 an hour with three kids.  That's $2.12 an hour short of the federal poverty level.  

It's about all the guys working the line worried about getting Delphi'd, pay cut by 2/3rds, pension by half, and the company makes out with all the money they made. And the company says to be glad they're not moving the plant to Vietnam

That's the real world, and it's what you don't seem to get.


by ManfromMiddletown on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 05:13:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards himself said this was a fight for the soul (3.00 / 1)

of the party in his Press Club speech.  Like you, I just don't get it.  A real fighter for the working poor and middle class comes along.  He has at the center of his campaign highly unpopular issues with the press and the powerful like single payer health care and public financing.  He has always attacked lousy trade agreements and has always talked about poverty.   How many candidates talk about our first class prison system and our second class school system? He has been brave enough to call out Halliburton and the other contractors in Iraq.  
For 2 years Edwards has been smarty and morally working on the 50% of the population who have given up and stopped voting.  He's wicked smart.  And he grows before your eyes.  He's the best trial lawyer since Lincoln.  I just don't get it. I just can't get behind timid politics anymore. We need a revolution.  And we need a winner.  Someone who can win.  He's the best hope we have for a different kind of politics.  Politics with working class grit.  And no, I don't care about "getting along". Obama's advice to the freshmen congress gritters was "to be nice."    Like the Dixie Chicks, "I'm not ready to make nice."  Respectful, yes.  "Nice" i.e. don't rock the status quo?  NO.  As Jesse Jackson said this past week ""Choose Coalition over co-existence."
John Edwards can talk(simply, thank God, walk and chew gum at the same time.  
Join the Feral Cats of Freedom Coughing Up Hairballs of Truth in the Montana Underbrush
by Feral Cat on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 06:08:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards himself said this was a fight (none / 0)

Wow, Cat, that was eloquent.  While I don't agree with all of Edwards' positions on all the issues, he's the ONLY candidate putting a spotlight on the ones I think count the most on the domestic front.  Does Obama even know what a union is?  In my book, his "audacity" sounds just a tad too much like "Pull Yourself Up By Your Bootstraps" Reagan.  And we all know how that trickled down.  The corporations of America have had the White House on speed dial for the better part of a quarter-century.  Everything has been done according to their plan.  It's about time their wage-slaves got a voice.  How about tax cuts for people who need new shoes???


by jukesgrrl on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 12:48:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards said this was a fight for the soul (none / 0)

My husband the trial lawyer says he'd never support a very successful trial lawyer because the nature of the work is to persuade a jury of some scenario or its opposite, to the benefit of the trial lawyer. So he doesn't trust him to mean what he says.

And I don't entirely trust Edwards, or anyone else who bought the Bush bill of goods on invading Iraq. I bet Elizabeth wouldn't have voted for it.

Poverty issues are important to us; we've worked in homeless shelters, Habitat rehabs, and the like, and I appreciate that part of the Edwards message. But I'm not sold.

I'll keep watching Edwards and Obama and Dodd and not jump on any bandwagon just yet.


by joyful alternative on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 07:25:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Matt, be realistic here (3.00 / 2)

Are you going to measure the effectiveness of a campaign this early in the game?? Edwards announced less than a month ago. Obama less than a week.

Keep one thing in mind. Hillary Clinton has been in the public light for over 15 years. Obviously, she's going to have a strong calibre operation through the Clinton's network of friends. Not surprised here at all. But the true measure of a campaign is how they perform long-term.

And one thing you can't substitute is the quality of the candidate. Money can't buy that. This brings back memories of the Virginia senate primary race between Jim Webb and Harris Miller last year. By all indications, Miller had the best campaign operation but he still lost. Jim Webb was the quality candidate despite his campaigns' many handicaps and it wasn't a suprise that he won.  

Give each campaign time to oil up. It's way too early to make judgements.


by rosebowl on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:28:28 AM EST

Re: The Different Operations (none / 0)

I personally think it is too early to say. It is January 2007. As I recollect, not much was clear about the candidates in January 2003. There was some mention of Dean in the news. Had Gore even announced he would not run yet? I remember hoping he would drop out (my feelings about that are different now) so that it would open up the race. I was also hoping a maverick would step to the plate. If I remember correctly, it wasn't until about May or June 2003 that the Dean campaign really caught fire and took off. And with Clark, I remember quite a big discrepancy between the different Draft Clark operations and the actual Clark operation that came together when Clark stepped into the race.  


by Panhu on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:35:14 AM EST

Re: The Different Operations (3.00 / 1)

desmoinesdem wrote:
"It was Dean who generated an image as far more progressive than he actually was.."

This is so true.  One of the things that intrigues me about Hillary Clinton is that she does the opposite. She generates an image as far more conservative than she really is.  I read so many articles written by Republicans who caution against Hillary being the ultimate leftist Democrat. The Republicans know she is a poseur.  I have spent time researching Hillary's ratings and her voting record.  She is rated 100% Liberal. Yet the netroots and, I suppose, many of the grassroots Dems (who aren't online) portray her as traitorously Republican-lite and, well...you know all the adjectives.

She is playing a clever game to win, and while she has taken the risk of alienating the netroots in doing so, I think she will use the coming months to convince the doubters that she has not betrayed them - certainly not at the levels to which she is accused.  Hillary knows how to beat the Republicans.  She has been doing it for her entire political life.  She's a pro.  She and Bill Clinton are loved even by their once vicious enemies. Haven't heard too much scandalizing lately directed at Hillary have we?  No raging "Monica's Lover Wants to Take Over The Whitehouse Again" kinds of headlines.  Sure Rush and Coulter; Hannity and Falwell will continue the smears but Hillary is immune to the rightwing whackjob haters.  She laughs at them.   Unless Bill gets caught with his pants down; or unless Hillary slips up seriously, and I do not expect that to happen, she's the best we have for winning.

Given the results of the Nov. election and who voted Democratic (can we say 30% of White Evangelicals? and many many independents), she is doing what is necessary to win. And, in my view, even though I have some problems with Hillary, she has the best chance to win the Whitehouse for the Democrats. I am sorry to say that after long and horrid Republican rule, that is more important to me than electing the perfect Dem President.

If Hillary wins, and I do expect a groundswell of support for her once she and Bill hit the campaign trail, then we are on our way to ending the rightwing regime.  Her choice of VP, which I believe will be Bill Richardson, will be the coup de grace.  We will have Hillary as Pres; Bill as First Gentleman or First Ambassador; Bill Richardson as VP and, quite frankly, that ain't bad.

An interesting point about John Edwards and it underlines some of what matt has said in his article ... I was blogging on the Edwards' site back in December and I asked, what for me, was a serious question of John Edwards.  (I was on his personal blog).  It was a question about the deficit.  He replied "Not taking the bait."  It wasn't "bait". I was really disturbed that he didn't at least try to give me an answer.  I was very polite. I like John Edwards and he is either my first or second choice in the primaries.  
 


by marycontrary on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 02:34:24 AM EST

Hilary's Record (3.00 / 4)

I have spent time researching Hillary's ratings and her voting record.  She is rated 100% Liberal.
I spent about 2 seconds researching to refute this: Progressive Punch has her at 100% in just 2 out of 14 categories.  While she's in the 90s on 8 more categories, with a 91.43% overall--ranked 16th--on the single most important category of past 6 years--War & Peace--she scores 76.79, for a rank of 31 (out of 89).

As someone who's looked at legislative scorecards for several decades, there's a good reason that Progressive Punch is a more reliable measure:  Scorecards are generally designed to measure "key votes", which generally are ones where the sides split fairly evenly.  This drives up the number of 0s and 100s.

The ultimate measure, however, comes from the DW-Nominate measure, developed by Kieth Poole and colleagues, which uses all roll-call votes with more than 0.5% in the minority (at least 1 vote in the Senate.)  Clinton's DW-Nominate ranking for the 109th Congress was 25th--meaning she was slightly more conservative than average among Dems.  Obama's rank of 21 made him slightly more liberal than average. Between them were Mikulski (22), Feinstein (23), and Schumer (24). These ranks can jump around from Congress to Congress, but Clinton has never strayed far from the center of the pack.  She was tied for 21st in the 108th Congress, and stood alone at 22nd in the 107th.
For for someone from such a blue, blue state, this is not indicative of being a strong liberal.  Heck, if either Nelson represented New York, they'd probably score somewhere close to where Hillary does.


by Paul Rosenberg on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 03:26:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hilary's Record (3.00 / 2)

That post sums-up why I don't trust Senator Clinton.  She talks a good game, perfectly suited to her audience, but she doesn't follow through with action.

And there is more ...

Bush has managed to pack the SC with right-wing buttheads and the next Democratic President is going to have to go to the mat with them to move this country to the left -- the direction, I feel safe in writing, anybody reading this wants to move.

The next Democratic President is going to have to face down the right wing propaganda machine.  Example, to establish Universal Health Care the president will fact a well orchestrated media campaign financed by the pharmaceutical companies, among others.  

To do counter both of the above, the person is going to need a strong committment to what they are doing, the underlying principles and reasons for that action, and the ability to communicate to the American people.  

Given Senator Clinton's history I don't see her having those qualities.


by ATinNM on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:06:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's called "clarity and conviction". (3.00 / 1)

You need strong convictions and then be able to communicate them simply and clearly.  You need to be able to bring the nation to your side.  Siding with corporations on NAFTA and the FCC did it for me with Clinton.  I don't want more of the same.  I don't want more Rubonomics called the Hamilton Project which Obama is interested in.  A gentler kinder form of corporate or fascist rule (Mussolini's defintion of facism was the merger of corporations and the state.).


Join the Feral Cats of Freedom Coughing Up Hairballs of Truth in the Montana Underbrush
by Feral Cat on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 06:19:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Different Operations (none / 0)

I'm guessing you're leaving something out of your conversation with Edwards because I know what his position on the deficit is. What was your question?

He's said many times that he will work hard to keep the deficit from getting worse, but to him, universal health care and global warming are far more important than a balanced budget at this time.

Sounds like a pretty progressive position to me.


by adamterando on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 09:51:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards did answer a question about the (none / 0)

deficit in Iowa City yesterday but he said we would not like the answer in that he thinks deficit reduction has a lower priority than
universal health care and global warming. He was right.

Eisenhower knew that if you drive up the deficit you will quickly find that the interest on the debt eats everyones lunch. We are already at that stage thanks to GWB and his gang of thieves.


by JSN on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 03:03:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not sure that the 'accidental' early launch... (none / 0)

...of Edwards' Web site was 'accidental' at all. It generated extra media coverage for one more cycle than he would have had otherwise.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 02:54:20 AM EST

Beat me to it... (3.00 / 1)

I was about to say the same thing.

A variation of the ol' "I didn't know the mic was on," thing.


by Reelpolitik on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 03:28:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Beat me to it... (none / 0)

agreed


by KickinIt on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 04:43:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Different Operations (none / 0)

I thought Clinton looked too rehersed and not natural.  A smiling robot.  ahhhhhhh!!!!
I do think that since Clinton has had this in the works since the 90s she should be better organized than the others.  She's had 10 years!
The others are probably working on the sites and everything.  Except for Edwards, the rest do have day jobs.  Though they have staff I'm sure they want to be involved in thier own sites.
I do know that Obama has some of the big heavy hitting people on staff.  I know they are trying to set up offices in Iowa and NH and are hiring for those so, the site may not be up to par for a few weeks.
by vwcat on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 03:12:48 AM EST

wait a bit, and cheer up (none / 0)

Remember that Dean was just a blip on the radar screen at this point. He was an asterisk.

So sit back, watch a bit, and then when you've made up your mind, say so. There is a new people-powered organizational institution, and it's not one person's campaign, it's the netroots.

It'd be easy to just wait for a new Howard Dean to roll in, but that doesn't seem to be happening, so you're going to have to make up your mind soon, help motivate the base (if there's anyone you have influence with, it's the base; in fact I'd say MyDD is the base of the base), and help them transition to helping the eventual nominee (like we had to do when Kerry won). Take it as a compliment and a credit to democracy (big or small D) that the people are more loyal to the people-powered movement than an impermanent campaign, and they're waiting to choose just like you are.


Progress is Personal | Connie Brennan | My opinions are mine alone
by msnook on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 03:42:20 AM EST

Re: The Different Operations (3.00 / 3)

If someone wants to take down Hillary, they only need to run a short TV ad showing a truck headed her way as she stands frozen in the middle of the road with a "deer in the headlights" look of fear and panic in her eyes. The truck can represent whatever you like: Iraq, abortion, gay marriage, health insurance, civil rights. On most if not all of the big issues of our time (flag burning and video games notwithstanding), she has failed to lead or take a stand.

And that is how I think she would run her presidency, without courage, conviction or direction, endlessly vacillating between one focus group-tested position and another, waiting for someone or something to show her the way (sorry, Roger Waters, it's such a good line), and then second-guessing herself and micromanaging and changing course once she's made a decision.

This has nothing to do with her being a woman or a "liberal", which are total red herrings, and everything to do with her political character--as in her lack of it. Absolutely nothing about her feels real and conviction-based anymore. We can hardly afford yet another one of those as president. Four in a row is enough.


by kovie on