|
Edited on Wed Jan-02-08 08:39 AM by eridani
Fixing a major political blunder—it still isn’t too late to tell your Iowa precinct captains to follow their consciences
Just to make things clear, you still have my support even after doing a dumb thing like recommending that your Iowa caucusgoers support Obama in cases where you don’t meet the 15% threshold. I will always be for the undiluted full strength progressive agenda for which you are the current standard bearer. I’ll never stop asking for a pony, even if I eventually wind up settling for a kitten.
I’ve been doing enough phone banking to realize that in caucus states, though some have Obama as a second choice, most of your supporters have Edwards as a second choice. I’ve found that primary caucus strategies primarily come in three flavors; bandwagoneering (lining up big bucks behind a frontrunner early), best of the frontrunners (look at the highest polling candidates and pick the most progressive of the lot), and finally the keep asking for a pony even if you’ll accept a kitten stance. (I’m of course discounting the “wouldn’t it be neato keeno to have a black or female or Latino president” factor, as the people who pay enough attention to politics to be interested in caucusing tend not to be influenced as much by this and are far more issue-oriented.) People can agree on basic values and still be very hard to shake from their personal commitment to a particular strategy.
In my caucus state, Edwards is the choice of the majority of the type two strategists, even though Obama has some support from that contingent as well. If you were serious in 2004 when you said that you stayed in the race until the end because you wanted to move the Democratic Party in your direction, why the slap in the face when Edwards actually takes your advice? That’s how Edwards supporters are going to perceive it at any rate. Obama was closer to you in 2004 than he is now (what with slamming liberal “special interests,” having a homophobic nutjob headline one of his concerts and spouting Republican talking points on Social Security), but Edwards has moved closer—a LOT closer.
If I were in your position, of course, I’d be really ticked off that the media labels Edwards the “anti-corporate” candidate when you were there first and have been for years ever since facing down the Cleveland banking establishment, just as in 2004 they labeled Dean the “antiwar” candidate when you were the one that actually organized enough opposition to the IWR to get a majority of House Democrats to vote against it. And I’d probably be really mad at Edwards for having an informal chat with Clinton about eliminating “second tier” candidates from further debates as well—especially if I’d overheard it.
You got a lot of your supporters angry in 2004 by recommending caucusing with Edwards instead of Dean (who was closer to them on the war issue), but whatever the emotional roots of that decision it at least made strategic sense. Edwards was polling in single digits at the time, and it made the most sense for candidates below the 15% threshold to do deals with each other rather than with frontrunners. This year, Obama as a strategic second choice is sheer strategic idiocy. Your best chance, as you have to know, is with a brokered convention. (And believe me, most supporters of any of the candidates who want to be national delegates would be absolutely delighted to have real power for a change instead of being bit players in a preordained Kabuki theater act.) Nationally Edwards is running a sometimes distant third to Obama and Clinton, and the way to make things more even would have been to recommend Edwards as a second choice in Iowa.
That said, recommending Edwards instead of Obama was actually just the second-best option for you. Your first choice should have been to tell your Iowa supporters to follow their consciences. Guess what? That’s what they are going to do anyway! I heard about your very emotional meeting with your national delegates in 2004 second hand, but you were there. I remember it—why don’t you? Despite the pressure from Kerry, you wisely concluded that trying to herd cats was a futile endeavor. In the end, some switched to Kerry but others held firm.
Understand that your supporters are not only cat-like in their independence, but that we are also more inclined to be feral than domestic. Feral as in “Cross me on my issue and I’ll claw your face to shreds. And don’t even think about bothering me with that ‘Heeerre kitty kitty kitty’ nonsense during election years either.” Your supporters are extremely passionate about at least several of the issues that you advocate for—peace, economic justice, real universal health care, restoring the Constitution, impeachment and many others. They will support as second choice whatever candidate appears to them to be the next best on whatever matters the most to them. I really hope that you will consider going with the flow here and reverse your initial recommendation. I think that your 2004 National Convention decision should be a model here.
Dennis, you have a huge heart and a sharp brain, but sometimes you could do with a little extra ice water in the veins. Please get used to the notion that if you truly are a real visionary, it is inevitable that others will water down your visions and claim them for their own, and you will get credit late in the game if ever. It certainly took the Cleveland City Council long enough, and most of the time you aren’t even going to get that much. You must know that from knowing human history. Keep going anyway.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
