This last week the Democratic nomination race has reminded me a bit of the gubernatorial race last year in Massachusetts. Now that Obama has got the "O-mentum", I think its interesting to ask what we might learn from the Deval Patrick experience in Massachusetts.
(more below)
The Massachusetts Democratic gubernatorial primary race featured three main candidates:
- A very wealthy businessman who positioned himself as a voice of the average guy (Chris Gabrieli)
- A burned out politico hack with mountains of baggage (Tom Reilly)
- A fresh-faced newcomer with limited political experience, but an inspiring vision of moving beyond the politics of division (Deval Patrick)
Metaphorically, Gabrieli would be Edwards, and Reilly would be Clinton.
Most of my progressive friends lined up behind Patrick early, mainly on the basis of his enthusiasm and charisma – "he can really work a room: attend one event and you’ll be hooked." Patrick’s seat on the board of reputed predatory lender Ameriquest (the subject of the first story I ever heard about Patrick) made me queasy, but I decided to keep an open mind.
As it turned out, Reilly completely imploded and Gabrieli ruled himself out (in my book, anyway) with an anti-immigrant tirade in an interview. (The idea to write this diary actually occurred to me when I heard Edwards bashing foreigners – reminding me of Gabrieli – in the last Democratic debate).
Patrick’s campaign themes that came across to me were:
- focusing on the needs of towns
- focusing more on education and infrastructure
- undoing Romneyism, generally.
Sounded good. So I voted for Patrick in the primary, and in the general election, with some optimism.
So what has the state of Massachusetts gotten? This would be my summary recap of Patrick’s first year.
- By general consensus (even among the early supporters I mentioned earlier) he launched into his new job with a series of novice mis-steps that sapped his momentum.
- He announced that, because of the budget mess left by his predecessor, he couldn’t really pursue the progressive-sounding education and infrastructure stuff the way he would have liked. Bummer, guys.
- Nevertheless, he had a big press conference to unveil an expensive commuter rail plan – a plan that no one expects to go anywhere.
- Over the summer, he helped win a huge package of tax breaks and incentives for the pharmaceutical industry, rolled out to much industry fanfare at the BIO 2007 convention in Boston
All this leading up to the initiative in which he seems to be investing the most political capital, and for which he has gotten the most attention, so far:
- Expansion of casino gambling as a major economic development strategy
Let me rephrase that:
Expansion of casino gambling as a major economic development strategy?!?!?!?!?
Just when did Democrats in the state of Massachusetts sign up for that?
I forgot to mention the big trade junket to China last week -- non-stop flights from Boston to Beijing by 2009. Oh boy!
Which brings me back to Obama.
Patrick and Obama have a lot in common. They share similar rhetoric and positioning hooks – humility, hope, and forward-looking pragmatism. Moreover, Patrick has now signed on with the Obama campaign and has worked hard to mobilize the remnants of his organization in support of Obama in New Hampshire (reportedly campaigning door-to-door himself).
I first thought of Obama as a 2007 answer to Gary Hart ("New Ideas!"). Then I came to worry that he was something more sinister -- a guy who was a bit too ready to adopt Republican framing when convenient -– first on Social Security, and then on health care (the idiocy about mandates). I thought Krugman dismantled him, justly and effectively, for this.
Today I learn Obama is a guy who’s "ready to move beyond the culture wars."
Like Joe Lieberman?
Describing Obama’s readiness to "move beyond the culture wars" is just a subtle way of reminding everyone how much baggage Hillary Clinton carries from the vicious attacks Republicans launched on the Clintons in the late 90s (disclosure: I think nominating Hillary Clinton would be an unmitigated disaster; the opportunity to instigate dread in the electorate of having to relive all that crap is what Republicans are praying for).
Many question whether Obama could win a general election. Its convenient for Obama that legions of Democrats, Deaniacs at the forefront, insist the electability question is illegitimate because it is thought to have somehow led to John Kerry -- an argument I still don't get (who ever thought that John Kerry was electable?).
I think there are legitimate concerns about whether Obama can win a general election. In Massachusetts, Deval Patrick faced about the limpest noodle of an opponent I’ve ever seen in a general election. Would Obama be so lucky?
Frank Rich’s protestation that, in 2007, we’re beyond racism in electoral politics makes me wonder if he lives on the same planet I live on. (Perhaps Steven Colbert could introduce Rich to his black friend so that he could conduct a focus group.)
I’ve known plenty of racist "Clinton Democrats" and racism was a fricken’ key characteristic of "Reagan Democrats" (hence Reagan’s endless repetition of fabricated stories about welfare queens). And that's just Democrats. If Obama were to win the nomination and lose the general election, there's no question in my mind that the margin of difference in the latter would be attributable to racism.
But my major point is to question how much it will matter if Obama wins. That is, what it is we would really get with Obama, anyway, if he pulled it all off?
Someone earlier today pointed out the irony that Obama actually reminded her of Clinton -- Bill Clinton –- with all the pluses (charismatic guy who actually won) and minuses (almost zero progressive accomplishments) that come with the comparison.
For what its worth, in Massachusetts, our pragmatic, charistmatic, new-politics guy has turned out to be somewhat less than the catalyst of progressive change I might have hoped for coming out of a cakewalk election, on the heels of four awful years of Romney (and a long run of Republican mis-rule before that), and complemented by two Democratic chambers in the legislature.
Why should we expect much different when the same show opens in Washington?