...or is he setting the bar of expectations higher than any elected official can achieve?
I wondered why the Kennedy and Kerry endorsements didn't win over Massachusetts' voters whereas Teddy campaigned strongly in Maine, which did go Obama. One Mass. voter suggested it was a case of unrealistic expectations running into the hard reality of governance. Given the choice between another Axelrod candidate of "hope" versus experience, the electorate knew to choose experience.
Two recent articles address the parallels between the Patrick and Obama campaigns, both masterminded by David Axelrod. Candidate Patrick's theme was the "politics of aspiration," starting with "Yes, we can" and advancing to "Together we can." Patrick on the campaign trail:
It’s time to put our cynicism down. Put it down. Stand with me and take that leap of faith. Because I’m not asking you to take a chance on me. I’m asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations. Take a chance on hope.”
Patrick was an assistant attorney general in the Clinton administration who lacked Massachusetts political experience.
From Deval Patrick a Cautionary Tale
http://www.thecjpoliticalreport.com/...
Neither man can/could claim a mountain of legislative experience prior to their runs, although Patrick’s credentials were far more impressive than those of Senator Obama’s.
And, much like Senator Obama is doing, Patrick campaigned under little if any scrutiny, the electorate jumping on his soaring train of roaring rhetoric and inspiring message of hope for a better tomorrow, exactly the same style grassroots campaign that Senator Obama is mounting today.
Another article on the same topic:
Bay State Voters Know Their Limits
http://www.boston.com/...
Except that when it comes to the actual substance of issues, there's no special agenda attached to the politics of hope. Both Patrick in 2006 and Obama this year have websites full of positions on the issues, but they're not easily distinguishable from those of other Democrats. The issues tend to get lost in the language of hope, perhaps because they sound and feel routine, and don't strike an inspirational chord.
Instead, the candidates talk about creating a mandate for change that will supersede all the petty disputes that clog up government. Then, presumably, a lot of shared priorities will get through.
But as Patrick has shown, without an agenda that stands out from those of other candidates, it's hard to show whether real changes have occurred. It's not that most people think Patrick has been an unusually ineffective governor; it's that he's been precisely the usual kind of governor, and that's his problem.
"Hope" can be whatever you want it to be:
In the eyes of many voters, Patrick's biggest initiative - the thing he is really fighting for - is a plan to raise revenues by building three casinos. This has given hope to those who love slot machines and blackjack, or are unusually focused on the state revenue picture. But it has given absolutely no hope to those who suffer from gambling addictions, worry about traffic, or think casinos are tawdry.
So Patrick's record has been a mixed bag. But the usual ups and downs can be devastating to someone who has staked everything on bringing about change. Whether posited by a candidate for governor or for president, the politics of hope invites disappointment, simply because hope means something different to every person.
Last week, people in Massachusetts had a second chance for hope - and took a pass.
...and an interesting bit from "The Charisma Mandate" in last Sunday's New York Times.
Accounts of the campaign’s “Camp Obama” sessions, to train volunteers, have a revivalist flavor. Volunteers are urged to avoid talking about policy to potential voters, and instead tell of how they “came” to Mr. Obama.