Interesting summary of the 2008 dem frontrunners

[whometense]

by Harold Meyerson: http://www.prospect.org/web/view-web.ww?id=12442

...All of which is to say that, because of the absurdly early start of the 2008 presidential campaign, we have already reached that point where the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates' messages are becoming apparent. Beyond question, Edwards is the best positioned to ride the populist wave that is finally and rightly hitting our shores. By his willingness to repeal tax cuts for the rich to pay for universal health care, he is wagering that Americans will favor fairness and functionality over the anti-tax ideology of recent decades.

But Edwards risks sounding like the tribune for a smaller, more marginal group of Americans than he may intend to. Defending unions, he said it was time for Democrats to stand with workers who spent their "whole lives in factories, who worked in the mills." True enough, but Democrats also have to stand with workers who spend their whole lives at their keyboards. The father of Democratic populism, William Jennings Bryan, never made it to the White House, in part because he could never add the backing of industrial workers to his support among farmers. Edwards will do well among industrial workers; it's the post-industrial workers he needs to win over.

For her part, Clinton stressed that engineers as well as mill hands face outsourcing. She articulates the scope of globalization's problems more broadly than Edwards does, even if Edwards is more likely to confront those problems with more aggressively fair-trade proposals. Clinton's grasp of the breadth of our dilemmas is offset by the incrementalism of her solutions -- a disjuncture that may disturb Democrats who feel the time is ripe for bigger things.

And Obama? His broad indictment of contemporary politics has great appeal, I suspect, to young voters in particular. But the cynicism about government that he rightly condemns didn't waft in from nowhere. It's been a tool that the right has used to undermine the bargain Clinton spelled out, creating the desperate Americans Edwards talked about, to the end of distributing more wealth to the rich. The hope Obama personifies can be a powerful force -- but not when he counterposes it to specifics or to political struggle.

Early midcourse recalibrations, anyone?

[karynnj]

1. Interesting

It almost makes me wish that Kerry would have delayed leaving at least until the DNC forum.

Any of his speeches (Grinell, American University etc) would have blown these 3 away. Kerry was, on this issue in the perfect place. Less incremetal than Hillary and not a William Jennings Bryant poulist - somewhat detcahed from economic reality.

[whometense]

2. I agree.

I thought his comments were really perceptive, and pinpointed impressions I've had that I hadn't yet formulated into words.

[Mass]

3. Thanks - I listened to Edwards's speech from beginning to end, and what he said about

factory workers struck me too, may be because I am one of these people who have seen a chance of having a job I could be competent at disappear with globalisation.

...
But Edwards risks sounding like the tribune for a smaller, more marginal group of Americans than he may intend to. Defending unions, he said it was time for Democrats to stand with workers who spent their "whole lives in factories, who worked in the mills." True enough, but Democrats also have to stand with workers who spend their whole lives at their keyboards.
...

It may be one of the reasons why Edwards does not connect with me. He seems to ignore a whole part of the population. The opposition between white collars and blue collars seems to show a total disconnect with a modern country. It will be interesting to see how it reverbates with people.

[whometense]

5. I feel exactly the same way,

but until I read that article I hadn't quite realized why. I don't feel that he's speaking to me, either. And while I respect the fact that he's speaking up for people who really need a voice, there are a lot of others he's leaving out. It seems like he hasn't really stepped out of his "son of a millworker" mindset at all. For me, as someone who saw him as having way too limited a focus in 2004, that is a very big problem.

[beachmom]

4. I think the analysis of Edwards was particularly insightful

We all want to help others, but can't help but want to see ourselves in the message. Edwards does not speak to me. At all. And probably for the reasons mentioned -- union industrial work is not a world I am familar with. Yet there are plenty of people who "sit in front of computers" who are getting squeezed and worried about their future for which Edwards doesn't speak to. I guess we're "too rich" for him. I always felt like Kerry spoke to everyone, short of the ideological Right. There was something for everyone to take from what he said. Edwards strikes me as more of an advocate for the downtrodden, which is admirable, but not enough for the larger electorate.

The problem of Obama was well said, too. That catering to the Daily Show set (for which I am not part of that cynical crowd), who are cynical, will only get you so far. Eventually, you're going to have to fight for something which will put you at odds with someone on the other side of the aisle.

Hillary being "incremental" is being overly complimentary.

[whometense]

6. "Incremental"

Yeah, that word struck me, too. I agree - a more appropriate description would be glacial.

[Mass]

7. I have a lot of difficulties defining Obama. Sometimes, I really like him.

He seems to me like a younger Kerry, thoughful and intelligent.

Other times, he totally irritates me with his smugness, his certitude to be right, and by his absence of program.

Among the three frontrunners, he is the one I prefer, but I really would like to hear more concrete proposals from him next week-end. Hope is great, but it is not enough. I need to know hope in what!

As for Clinton, triangulation bothers me. It means I cannot trust she will do the right thing when time comes.

[cadmium]

11. Thanks you saved me time. I agree n/t

[Inuca]

13. About Obama as a younger Kerry

I thought of that, I might have even written it here at some point, I do not remember... I just watched his pre-announcement on his web site. Very low key, much about inviting people to use the site to get organized, etc., very relaxed and easy going. There is something about the guy that is truly endearing. I think it goes beyond charisma, whatever that exactly means. It's a sense of authenticity and seriousness of purpose, and that's the similarity with Kerry. Whether it is true, or only a facade, I obviously have no way of knowing, and the fact that he considers himself worthy of being president at this point does not speak in his favor. But maybe he looked around as so many of us did, and so mostly more of the same, and maybe he indeed has it in him to be different. We shall see... I still hope that Dodd will gain traction, I trust him more, though he is less inspirational, and I am considering signing some "draft Gore" petition, for what is worth... But among the 3 "front runners", I think that Obama is by far the best bet. The more I hear about H's inevitability, the more upset I get. As for Edwards, he gives me (and always did) the very opposite sense of what I said above about Obama, NOT authentic, and no depth.

[Mass]

15. I do not know, but I am listening to his announcement speech, and it is definitively the best I have

heard this year. This is really a great speech and I connect with it totally. A modern and inclusive vision for America.

[Inuca]

16. I caught just the last part

shortly before he started talking about Iraq. The end was truly stiring. I liked it when he said "improbable quest" or something similar... Maybe there is hope after all...

[karynnj]

17. I agree

Not to diminish Obama's uniqueness - there were many themes that we saw as potentially Kerry's. He has to be one of the few to ever mention ethics reform - which he apparently did in IL as well as in the Senate. Some of Kerry's comments on working together with everyone (especially in the answer to one Pepperdine Q&A) were like Obama's. In a way, the division of 2004, would have made it very hard for Kerry to be seen this way - even though it is fair from his past.

[MarjorieG]

8. How much of this is Edwards broad strokes for primary red meat.

People have been saying populist for a while now, not identifying what this means for cross appeals. Are they thinking new voters, assuming we'll get all previously voting Democrat. Others say people don't vote populist, or on poverty, giving to others, Edwards perhaps increasing later to extend to redefine poverty.

Agree, would like to have seen Kerry on the DNC stage, but a little voice says they would not have allowed him to be seen as we do, or fairly. The steamrollers will not be denied.

[politicasista]

9. And interesting here:

(shameless kick :))

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x124558

[whometense]

18. Here are two more

somewhat skeptical (or at least not halo-kissing) Obama articles:

http://www.thenewsblog.net/2007/02/if-you-dont-understand-black-politics.html

and

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/02/12/obama_natural/

Edited to add that I am finding this whole debate (about whether Obama is "black enough") really fascinating, and absolutely parallel to the "will women vote for Hillary" question.

[ProSense]

10. Very interesting article. Thanks n/t

[whometense]

12. More, from

Political Wire.

The Second Tier

Craig Crawford: "As the presidential contenders from both parties start being placed by conventional wisdom into two camps, top tier and second tier, the Republican and Democratic front-runners seem most notable these days for what they all have in common: Each of them has at least one glaring flaw, and that presents plenty of opportunities for the others to move up from also-rans in the most wide-open race for the White House in eight decades."

and Political Insider.

Best of the Second-Tier

National Journal asked its insiders: Which long-shot 2008 presidential candidate has the most potential to emerge as a serious contender for your party's nod? The results were as follows:

Democrats:
Bill Richardson: 46%
Tom Vilsack: 25%
Chris Dodd: 23%
Wesley Clark: 4%
Joe Biden: 2%
Mike Gravel: ---
Dennis Kucinich: ---

Republicans:
Newt Gingrich: 48%
Mike Huckabee: 20%
Sam Brownback: 12%
Chuck Hagel: 9%
No one: 5%
Jim Gilmore: 2%
Tommy Thompson: 2%
George Pataki: 1%
Duncan Hunter: ---
Tom Tancredo: ---

[whometense]

14. shameless blogwhoring alert

http://toughenough.org/2007/02/i-am-not-sheep.html