I’m always ripping on Washington Post reporters but I really like Dan Balz. He did a very good job of covering John Edwards’ announcement speech from this morning in the 9th Ward of New Orleans.
Edwards is emerging, by his own design, as the netroots candidate of 2008. This can be seen in a variety of ways. First, his announcement today was accompanied by a big netroots ad buy (including at this site), a major multimedia rollout, and even a brief diary at Daily Kos. Second, he is directly emphasizing the biggest issue of concern to the netroots: the war. This morning he said (again) that his vote for the war was a mistake, that there was no military solution, and that far from escalating we should immediately pull out 40-50 thousand troops. Third, he is emphasizing progressive issues, including rolling back Bush’s tax cuts, dramatically increasing taxes on oil companies, expanding health care, and tackling poverty.
In doing these things, he is hoping to gain the early support of the netroots and prevent Obama from catching fire.
Obama’s positioning has been somewhat different. He has not ignored the netroots, but he has neither pandered to us, nor has he crafted a message that fits nicely with our ethos. The netroots is stridently partisan and uncompormising. We were born in an era where we had no power and no voice, and where the Democratic leadership was lacking spine and the media was overtly hostile to war doubters and traditional liberals. In that environment, we instinctly rejected any signs of bipartisanship, seeing it (usually correctly) as nothing short of appeasement. Obama’s strategy involves an appeal for the nation to break this paradigm, to move beyond the era of anger and recriminations. At it’s base, Obama’s movement looks to make partisan blogging irrelevant, or something of the past. So, even while he reaches out to us with one hand, he pushes us away with the other.
Edwards and Obama are both looking to change the face of the Democratic Party, and they both offer a sunny and optimistic vision of what is possible in America. The difference is, so far, that Obama seeks to move beyond ideology, while Edwards seeks to move beyond a race for centrist voters. Edwards is going for the progressive activists and the disenfranchised (those who traditionally don’t vote), and his appeal is to the heartstrings of the center. ‘Look at the ninth ward. Is this the best we can do?’
Obama offers a kind of transcendental politics. It’s a politics that fits in with the multicultural, culturally tolerant, tech-savvy, young professional ethos of twenty and early thirty-somethings. He offers a break with the past, but it’s an appeal to feelings, to style, to new possibilities. I think he has a powerful message. But the message is more the man, than any specific policies.
In some ways, Obama is this year’s Edwards from 2004. He is heavy on the good looks, charm, and freshness, and light on the resume and foreign policy experience. Edwards still suffers from those same deficiencies, but he has one Presidential campaign under his belt, he has sat on the Council of Foreign Relations, and, as a result, his experience is a little more fleshed out.
And then there is Hillary. Hillary and her supporters are actually happy to be at odds with the netroots. As long as she is being attacked by the left she can blunt any suggestion that she is too liberal, or that she is a radical that is out of step with mainstream America. The right-wing worked tirelessly to paint Hillary as a big government femi-nazi and it has taken a lot of work, and a lot of centrist voting and posturing, to blunt that image. Being a Senator from liberal New York makes it even more imperative for her to run away from the left. But, in pursuing this entirely rational strategy, the political ground has shifted under her feet. The netroots has emerged as a force within national politics. It is not a force that can be intentionally alienated without consequences.
She has succeeded in becoming the consensus front-runner of the mainstream media, which means that she is now considered a wholly acceptable President by the Establishment. But the Establishment has never been in more ill repute with both the nation and the activists within the Democratic Party.
The mere fact that she is a woman will make her candidacy exciting. Never before have we had a woman running for President that began in such a strong position. The prospect of a First Hubby, Bill Clinton, also makes her candidacy exciting. But, the pitch for her candidacy is going to be a return to competency and centrist government. When matched up against the bloodless partisanship of a Dennis Kucinich, this will have real appeal. But I don’t think it can compete effectively with the charismatic campaigns of Obama and Edwards.
It’s possible that someone else will emerge to compete with these three candidates, but I can’t see it happening right now. Old fuddy-duddies like Biden and Dodd just seem out of step with the times and the party. Vilsack doesn’t have the funding or the star-power or the base of support.
It looks like a real three-way race, and much too hard to predict at this early stage.
