"this whole contest does feel very rote, much less exciting than the 2004 contest where so much more was up in the air. Perhaps that was all illusory, but Dean and Clark injected an atmosphere of growth and space into the process.
This contest is nothing like that, with identity playing a massive role. It's much more tribal and less innovation or idea based. There's a return to clear hierarchies of candidate-senior staff-staff-volunteer, though the surrounding ecosystem is much more progressive (swap out David Brooks for Atrios). Don't get me wrong, that's a much better place to be, politically speaking. It's just not producing a lot of innovation, and is allowing for nice predictable safe choices based on identity politics, known branding, and patronage, which is exactly what political machine people love."
1 comment:
Matt Stoller writes on Open Left:
"this whole contest does feel very rote, much less exciting than the 2004 contest where so much more was up in the air. Perhaps that was all illusory, but Dean and Clark injected an atmosphere of growth and space into the process.
This contest is nothing like that, with identity playing a massive role. It's much more tribal and less innovation or idea based. There's a return to clear hierarchies of candidate-senior staff-staff-volunteer, though the surrounding ecosystem is much more progressive (swap out David Brooks for Atrios). Don't get me wrong, that's a much better place to be, politically speaking. It's just not producing a lot of innovation, and is allowing for nice predictable safe choices based on identity politics, known branding, and patronage, which is exactly what political machine people love."
Post a Comment