First of all, Harrogate thought this parenthetical funny, given the context of Ruffini's discussion: "the hope of the sun rising [or, Republicans, is it setting?]"
Overall, Harrogate finds the piece fairly persuasive. As many have pointed out, candidates for the Party out of Power have been running on "Change" for a long, long time, and then of course there was the whole "Hope is on the Way" stuff that went on last time with Kerry/Edwards.
But, Obama's appropriation and marketing of these terms has been masterful. Harrogate ventures that one of the many things which sunk Romney, for all his Presidential Ethos and gold-lined war chest, was his ersatz effort to Talk about himself as a candidate of Change, months after Obama had locked the term up for good. 'Ole Romney's hollowness was really exemplified, there. As a foil, he made Huckabee appear more genuine than he would otherwise have appeared, and he made McCain look, as he still looks to the Media, like a "Straight Talker" who won't be Rhetorically manipulated by them there Democrats.
Certainly, moreover, Obama's campaign has a corporate feel to it. Among a great many, his "brand" has mountains pf positive connotations of the scope advertisers droolingly fantasize about. That is, Obama comes off not as the greedy, grasping, corporate icon: but rather the streamlined, sleek corporate hero. Square jawed, he markets a bit like Superman, or Batman if you want to spin his former drug use as part of a complex past: or many other big shots from the smooth, laminated world of D.C. Comics.
Harrogate must rush to defend his candidate's honor in this quadrant: her message did not "change" out of deference to focus groups, but rather she has, as it were, danced with this electorate. The dance routine, though, has been pretty damned consistent since she declared her candidacy. Every bit as much so as Obama.
Neither have pandered to the extent of McCain, whose opposition to torture and the Bush tax cuts, and his loathing for the Dobsonian bigotries freighting the GOP base, were evidently never cemented by a pinky promise.
Anyway, Harrogate brings to the floor, the propriety of Edwards resisting the urge to endorse. Of the three of them, he was and is the least vulnerable to the charge of being a corporate candidate.
Really, both Clinton and Obama need to be leaving Edwards alone at this point anyway. Carolina basketball is in the homestretch run to March Madness: given the passions they are experiencing on that front, why should he and Elizabeth be bothered to pretend to distinguish betwixt two candidates that they obviously don't think are all that different from one another?
If Edwards endorsement is to possess meaning, then he should endorse Clinton, who could use the lift before Texas and Ohio.
Of course, Edwards, like others, want to be sure that the person he picks will win, for if not, he loses what credibility he has left. And he will not know who will win until one breaks away, which means his voice does not matter.
Or, he will try to work to broker a deal, giving his voice more power, which downplays the notion that his voice has any power.
And, further, he would be a terrible choice for a VP, since he could not win a state while running or win a state in the general election.
5 comments:
First of all, Harrogate thought this parenthetical funny, given the context of Ruffini's discussion: "the hope of the sun rising [or, Republicans, is it setting?]"
Overall, Harrogate finds the piece fairly persuasive. As many have pointed out, candidates for the Party out of Power have been running on "Change" for a long, long time, and then of course there was the whole "Hope is on the Way" stuff that went on last time with Kerry/Edwards.
But, Obama's appropriation and marketing of these terms has been masterful. Harrogate ventures that one of the many things which sunk Romney, for all his Presidential Ethos and gold-lined war chest, was his ersatz effort to Talk about himself as a candidate of Change, months after Obama had locked the term up for good. 'Ole Romney's hollowness was really exemplified, there. As a foil, he made Huckabee appear more genuine than he would otherwise have appeared, and he made McCain look, as he still looks to the Media, like a "Straight Talker" who won't be Rhetorically manipulated by them there Democrats.
Certainly, moreover, Obama's campaign has a corporate feel to it. Among a great many, his "brand" has mountains pf positive connotations of the scope advertisers droolingly fantasize about. That is, Obama comes off not as the greedy, grasping, corporate icon: but rather the streamlined, sleek corporate hero. Square jawed, he markets a bit like Superman, or Batman if you want to spin his former drug use as part of a complex past: or many other big shots from the smooth, laminated world of D.C. Comics.
It reminds me of an episode of Entourage, where Vinny wants a new agent and everyone tries to market him as a product.
But, I think this article deflects away from the real corporate candidate on the Democratic side.
You know, the one whose message changes based on focus groups.
ZING!!! and hmmmmmmm....
Harrogate must rush to defend his candidate's honor in this quadrant: her message did not "change" out of deference to focus groups, but rather she has, as it were, danced with this electorate. The dance routine, though, has been pretty damned consistent since she declared her candidacy. Every bit as much so as Obama.
Neither have pandered to the extent of McCain, whose opposition to torture and the Bush tax cuts, and his loathing for the Dobsonian bigotries freighting the GOP base, were evidently never cemented by a pinky promise.
Anyway, Harrogate brings to the floor, the propriety of Edwards resisting the urge to endorse. Of the three of them, he was and is the least vulnerable to the charge of being a corporate candidate.
Really, both Clinton and Obama need to be leaving Edwards alone at this point anyway. Carolina basketball is in the homestretch run to March Madness: given the passions they are experiencing on that front, why should he and Elizabeth be bothered to pretend to distinguish betwixt two candidates that they obviously don't think are all that different from one another?
Shantih. Shantih. Shantih.
If Edwards endorsement is to possess meaning, then he should endorse Clinton, who could use the lift before Texas and Ohio.
Of course, Edwards, like others, want to be sure that the person he picks will win, for if not, he loses what credibility he has left. And he will not know who will win until one breaks away, which means his voice does not matter.
Or, he will try to work to broker a deal, giving his voice more power, which downplays the notion that his voice has any power.
And, further, he would be a terrible choice for a VP, since he could not win a state while running or win a state in the general election.
Post a Comment