It's time to let go of the candidate myths

Over the last few months, candidate advocates – in the improbable quest to prove that their candidate is the only true Democrat – have created narratives about the other front-runners.  I summarize them as follows:

CLINTON is a Republican-lite, Murdoch-loving DLC corporatist establishment insider.

EDWARDS is a former war-mongering hedge-fund lover who only discovered his progressive side out of electoral expedience.

OBAMA is a mushy, centrist, High Broderite who wants to make nice with Republicans and give away our strong bargaining position against a ruthless enemy.

Each of these myths has sprouted from seeds of plausibility.  In assembling a case against their non-preferred candidate, advocates have been able to cease upon actual statements and factoids to make their case.  But in the broader sense, as a holistic description of the candidates’ philosophies and a prediction of their likely governing style and policy outcomes, each of these myths fails the most basic test of logic and veracity.  I won’t rehash the specific flaws in each myth (it's all been covered ably by candidate advocates) – but I will point out the following:

-ALL of our (top three) candidates seek to move the country in a progressive direction.

-ALL of our candidates would work to undo Bush’s damage to the Constitution, the rule of law, and to our place in the world.

-ALL of our candidates would work to make America’s healthcare system more fair and inclusive.

-ALL of our candidates would work to end the Iraq War as quickly as possible, within the confines of the untenable position in which Bush has left us.

-ALL of our candidates would replace John Paul Stevens with a justice who will protect a woman’s right to choose.

-ALL of our candidates would likely be the most GLBT friendly president in American history.

-ALL of our candidates are electable.

-ALL of our candidates are electable (in case you missed it the first time).

-ALL of our candidates are charismatic and skillful enough to parlay an electoral mandate into real change.

-Finally, ALL of our candidates’ aggregate policy positions are far closer to a typical progressive than are those of any potential Republican nominee.  And yes, I feel silly even having to point that out.

I’m compelled to make this argument today – in the last hours of being behind the veil of ignorance – before we know whose supporters must begin to grapple with supporting a non-preferred candidate.  After tomorrow, it will be harder to separate such arguments from "ha ha, your guy lost!"  For now, though, we can all toy with this idea together.  

Y’all have done good work in the service of advocating for your excellent candidates, and I congratulate you for your passion and activism.  But many of you, whether intentionally or not, have also contributed to the myth making.  I humbly urge you to consider a very basic point: the sooner you disabuse yourself of the myths, the easier it will be to rally behind our nominee in the quest to bring the presidency back to the Democratic Party.

Good luck to your candidate.

•  Tips

  for the best Democratic field of my lifetime.

  by cardinal on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 10:54:28 AM PDT

•  All good....only one quibble

  -ALL of our (top three) candidates seek to move the country in a progressive direction.

  I think most of the candidates seek to move the country ~ more than the top three. And no I won't say which want status quo.

  by SallyCat on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 10:57:49 AM PDT

  •  Indeed

    My restriction of the argument to the top three was merely to keep it simple.  Our bottom three could probably beat any Republican (well, two of them at least).

    by cardinal on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:00:50 AM PDT

•  Good luck to your candidate.

  And I know that he or she is the best person for the Job.

  by langerdang on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 10:58:02 AM PDT

  •  You are SO right

    ;-)

    by funluvn1 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:00:04 AM PDT

•  All of our candidates may be electable.

  Some are harder than others.

  I would prefer a landslide to a squeaker.

  A landslide can create the mandate for change we need.  A Squeaker?  Not so much.

  by rick on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:15:28 AM PDT

  •  Exactly

    If one were to accept the theory (and I'm not saying I do, necessarily) that Clinton, Edwards, and Obama would each desire to push the country in the same progressive manner, and would be equally "good" Presidents all things considered, then what on earth is the justification for supporting a candidate who can, at best, barely squeak by a victory, over a candidate who can, at best, win a landslide victory?  

    by cartwrightdale on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:45:19 AM PDT

    •  I agree with

      both of you on that point.

      But I'm not willing to make any predictions as to which candidate would be more likely to bring about a landslide.  There are simply too many variables.  Of all the candidates, Obama's advocates seem to make this argument most frequently.  And, on paper, I agree that he holds the potential to bring a landslide.  On the other hand, depending on national conditions and the type of campaign the Republican nominee runs, I could see the election being every bit as polarizing as a Clinton run (I'm reminded that, in 1992, Bill Clinton ran as a positive, unifying, "change" candidate -- and we know how well that worked out).

      by cardinal on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:56:17 AM PDT

      •  I think

        The reason you hear "landslide" described with Obama (more than Hillary or Edwards) is that Obama has the lowest negatives, and the highest percentage of Americans who would consider voting for him.  In fact, Obama is the only Democratic candidate to beat some Republican candidates among Republican choices.  Obviously that's not to say he WOULD win in a landslide, just that he has the potential to.  Hillary Clinton doesn't, simply because half the country has vowed never to vote for her under any circumstances, so she could still win -- just, she'd have to get every person who COULD vote for her TO vote for her.  

        If, however, there's a successful terrorist strike in the U.S. in the next year, or other nations tumble into chaos between now and November, Obama's weak foreign policy credentials and perceived lack of experience could really hurt him against someone like McCain, or even (for some reason) Giuliani.

        by cartwrightdale on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 12:37:49 PM PDT

•  I think those are

  fair descriptions of the criticisms of each candidates. I agree that we have the best field in a long time and that they are all essentially wedded to the same basic democratic progressive platform.

  May the best one win!

  by pragprogress on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 12:57:24 PM PDT