the next howard dean?
I recently brought an issue of the New Republic because it featured a cover story I couldn't resist: "The Hillary Slayer: How Russell Feingold Could Topple Clinton in '08." Inside, the headline asked "Will Iraq make Russell Feingold the new Howard Dean?" (Writer Michael Crowley did not seem to realize that the two headlines were contradictory...at this point, Howard Dean has to be associated with his failures rather than his successes (whether or not this is fair is debateable) and Hillary is really 2008's John Kerry, so I'm not sure how the Dean remark makes sense).
Anyways. Nothing (and I mean nothing) in politics makes me more excited than the idea of Russ Feingold running for President. Feingold is my favorite senator (yes, I have one) and probably my favorite person in Congress.* I think he's very progressive and even when I don't entirely agree with him, I at least still believe that he believes in what he's voting for, which is a compliment I would make about maybe five senators. I think he's brilliant and often right and I don't care if he's apparently kind of personally unlikeable. If he runs, I will drop everything to work for him.
The article harps a lot about Feingold's potential to tap into the Dean bloc. And that's all well and good, but what he needs to remember is that, as much as the Deaniacs were vaunted and as much buzz as Dean got**, he didn't win anything. Feingold needs to remember the lessons, good and bad, of the Dean campaign.
The Bad:
1) Control. Dean was, in many ways, a terrible candidate. And I say this as someone who liked him, at least originally. He was unmanageable. Just when things were going well and he was on an anti-Iraq roll and everybody liked him, he'd go and say something about wanting to bring people with Confederate flags on their windows into the Democratic Party. Dean didn't know when to shut his damn mouth. Listen. No candidate wants to look as though everything they say has been focus-grouped, but in this day and age, a candidate needs to be...manageable. Dean wasn't, and I think that's why his appeal never reached too far beyond that initial group of Deaniacs, who were willing to forgive him his inconsistencies. Feingold has positions that could be seen as either inconsistent or based on integrity. His challenge, if he runs, will be to develop a cohesive narrative for those positions and, perhaps more difficultly, to trust his handlers to help him do so.
2) Tone. Howard Dean always looked smug. Even when I thought he was right (which was really most of the time!), I sort of wanted to disagree with him because he had that pissy look on his face. Remember the debate where Al Sharpton and John Edwards tried to make him apologize for the Confederate flag report and Edwards asked if he wasn't wrong to say it and Dean pissily snapped "No I wasn't, John Edwards."? Dean always looked and acted like he knew better than you, which is exactly the criticism Republicans make of Democrats. "Democrats think they know what to do with your money better than you!" The New Republic article about Feingold mentions these tendencies in him: Feingold won't let his aides eat or drink at trade association receptions and he tried to ban senators from using business-accrued frequent-flier miles for personal use. I think those are both perfectly fair policies, but he needs to make sure that he comes off as humbly virtuous, rather than smugly holier-than thou.
The Good:
1) The Internet. For all its challenges and its ultimate failure, the Dean campaign has a phenomenally important legacy. It absolutely revolutionized the way campaigns use the Internet. The most amazing thing about the Dean campaign (and the reason, I think, that it electrified so many people) is that it was interactive. On the official Dean blog, people could use the commments feature (uncensored!) to post everything from testimonials to campaign strategy suggestions to recipes that Dean might enjoy (no joke). The Dean campaign's use of the Internet also revolutionized fundraising. Dean had an unbelievable war chest, especially given where he started from and that was due to the way he encouraged micro-donations through his website. Once Dean was out of the race, the other candidates aped his tactics, but they were watered down: not as interactive and not as compelling. Feingold should hire Joe Trippi (whose book about the Dean campaign, incidentally, is totally brilliant) as his chief Internet strategist.
Man. I love the silent campaign season.
*: Bernie Sanders notwithstanding
**: Hey, remember when Rove issued that leak saying that the Bush camp was operating under the assumption that Dean was going to be his challenger? Isn't that hilarious in retrospect?
Anyways. Nothing (and I mean nothing) in politics makes me more excited than the idea of Russ Feingold running for President. Feingold is my favorite senator (yes, I have one) and probably my favorite person in Congress.* I think he's very progressive and even when I don't entirely agree with him, I at least still believe that he believes in what he's voting for, which is a compliment I would make about maybe five senators. I think he's brilliant and often right and I don't care if he's apparently kind of personally unlikeable. If he runs, I will drop everything to work for him.
The article harps a lot about Feingold's potential to tap into the Dean bloc. And that's all well and good, but what he needs to remember is that, as much as the Deaniacs were vaunted and as much buzz as Dean got**, he didn't win anything. Feingold needs to remember the lessons, good and bad, of the Dean campaign.
The Bad:
1) Control. Dean was, in many ways, a terrible candidate. And I say this as someone who liked him, at least originally. He was unmanageable. Just when things were going well and he was on an anti-Iraq roll and everybody liked him, he'd go and say something about wanting to bring people with Confederate flags on their windows into the Democratic Party. Dean didn't know when to shut his damn mouth. Listen. No candidate wants to look as though everything they say has been focus-grouped, but in this day and age, a candidate needs to be...manageable. Dean wasn't, and I think that's why his appeal never reached too far beyond that initial group of Deaniacs, who were willing to forgive him his inconsistencies. Feingold has positions that could be seen as either inconsistent or based on integrity. His challenge, if he runs, will be to develop a cohesive narrative for those positions and, perhaps more difficultly, to trust his handlers to help him do so.
2) Tone. Howard Dean always looked smug. Even when I thought he was right (which was really most of the time!), I sort of wanted to disagree with him because he had that pissy look on his face. Remember the debate where Al Sharpton and John Edwards tried to make him apologize for the Confederate flag report and Edwards asked if he wasn't wrong to say it and Dean pissily snapped "No I wasn't, John Edwards."? Dean always looked and acted like he knew better than you, which is exactly the criticism Republicans make of Democrats. "Democrats think they know what to do with your money better than you!" The New Republic article about Feingold mentions these tendencies in him: Feingold won't let his aides eat or drink at trade association receptions and he tried to ban senators from using business-accrued frequent-flier miles for personal use. I think those are both perfectly fair policies, but he needs to make sure that he comes off as humbly virtuous, rather than smugly holier-than thou.
The Good:
1) The Internet. For all its challenges and its ultimate failure, the Dean campaign has a phenomenally important legacy. It absolutely revolutionized the way campaigns use the Internet. The most amazing thing about the Dean campaign (and the reason, I think, that it electrified so many people) is that it was interactive. On the official Dean blog, people could use the commments feature (uncensored!) to post everything from testimonials to campaign strategy suggestions to recipes that Dean might enjoy (no joke). The Dean campaign's use of the Internet also revolutionized fundraising. Dean had an unbelievable war chest, especially given where he started from and that was due to the way he encouraged micro-donations through his website. Once Dean was out of the race, the other candidates aped his tactics, but they were watered down: not as interactive and not as compelling. Feingold should hire Joe Trippi (whose book about the Dean campaign, incidentally, is totally brilliant) as his chief Internet strategist.
Man. I love the silent campaign season.
*: Bernie Sanders notwithstanding
**: Hey, remember when Rove issued that leak saying that the Bush camp was operating under the assumption that Dean was going to be his challenger? Isn't that hilarious in retrospect?
posted by Leila at 4:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home