A truly weird article in Boston Magazine

Adam Reilly points us to a very strange article by John Gonzalez in the latest Boston Magazine.  The article, entitled “A confederacy of Donkeys,” is supposedly about how the Dems are about to repeat the same mistake they’ve been making for 16 years, namely, running a candidate who doesn’t understand that (in Gonzalez’s view) politics – especially at the statewide level – is mostly razzle-dazzle.

Politics, especially campaign politics, is largely theater…. The Dems may have the edge on policy around here, but when it comes to image, they’ve been dismal…. In the gubernatorial race, because of the media scrutiny it invites, everything is magnified—and, in the case of the Dems, what becomes blatantly obvious is their inability to engage voters.

Early in the article, Gonzalez says that this year is no different from past years:

Judging by the candidates’ performances so far, this year’s election looks like a rerun. Like their predecessors, the latest batch of Democratic gubernatorial hopefuls—Attorney General Tom Reilly, former Clinton staffer Deval Patrick, and zany millionaire Chris Gabrieli—have often approached the level of slapstick.

But as you read on, you get a very different message.  Yes, Gonzalez thinks that neither Gabrieli nor Reilly has what it takes.  On Gabs:

On his bus, Gabrieli was so animated, I thought he was on something…. The performance was disorienting and, ultimately, disappointing—like sitting down at one of those new multimedia slot machines with the lights and bells and whistles, the ones that clatter like you’ve hit the jackpot when they pay out 37 cents.  A short time in Gabrieli’s presence revealed that he had little to say—or, rather, quite a lot to say with little effect…. It quickly became apparent that Gabrieli was reliant on his aides, not just to provide him with talking points (if not a few synonyms), but to keep up the appearance that he was a viable candidate.

And on Reilly:

Tom Reilly seems intent on setting new records for campaign-related disasters. At the beginning of the year, the then frontrunner made mistake after glaring mistake. The poor bastard couldn’t get out of his own way…. In part, Reilly’s blunders can be attributed to his notorious independent streak—the fact that he refuses to listen to those who do understand campaigns…. “He just doesn’t get it,” says one longtime party player, adding that Reilly doesn’t have the excuse of inexperience to fall back on.

But Gonzalez seems to concede, almost in spite of himself, that Patrick actually might have what it takes to win:

Although he had never before run for office, Patrick performed markedly better [at the convention] than the other two Democratic gubernatorial candidates. His speeches invariably had rhythm and pitch, and the audiences all but held up lighters in response…. What [voters] do give a shit about is finding a candidate who can inspire them—or, at least, a candidate who doesn’t make their eyes glaze over.

If Patrick does win the primary, it will be due in part to the fact that, more than all the Democratic candidates over the past 16 years, he understands this; Patrick appreciates the value of style as well as substance. He appreciates packaging, even though he claims to hate packaging (which, yes, is a part of his packaging).

In July, as Patrick worked the room at an Elks lodge in Everett, an older woman came over to say hello. Her name was Patricia, and she had a big tuft of silver hair and friendly eyes. She was thrilled to be so close to the candidate and told him so, told him that he had her vote, told him that she had heard him speak and had fallen in love with what he had to say.

“Tell me,” Patrick said, touching her arm, “what was it you liked so much?”

The woman thought for a second, then, with a mostly toothless smile, said: “You know, I don’t really remember. I just liked the way you said it.”

That’s how the article ends.  And, as Adam correctly notes, the article therefore ends up looking like a big ol’ endorsement of Patrick by Gonzalez – even though Gonzalez just got finished saying that none of the candidates is any good.

Weird.  Anyway, as y’all know, I’m for Patrick, and I think a fair bit of what Gonzalez says in the article is right – style does matter, especially in a statewide race; Patrick has it; and it’s not too hard to explain the last 16 years in purely theatrical terms, as I attempted to do way back in the early days of BMG.  Anyway, the article is a pretty good read even if you disagree with its major premises – the stuff about riding on the Gabrieli bus is funny even if you’re a Gabrielite; he floats the popular-on-BMG theory that Sal & Trav wouldn’t be crushed to see Kerry Healey win; and his write-up of the convention in Worcester is quite entertaining.  Also, there’s a nice shout-out to Andy at MassRevNow – who, by the way, has recently converted his site to soapblox.  Congrats, Andy!

UPDATE: John Gonzalez responds:

First, thanks for the plug. Nice of you. Truly. I would, though, like to clarify a few things.

The two specific sections of my story you posted, looked at side by side, do seem contradictory: 1) that the Dems are no good at political theater, and 2) that Deval Patrick “appreciates the value of style as well as substance.” Importantly, though, in the actual article there are 3,247 words separating these two observations, during which I noted that Patrick took part in some laughably tame debates, and that his staff made awkward comments regarding trying to run his campaign like a Dean/Kerry hybrid. I also made it clear that whatever strengths the candidates have are too often undercut by the blunders of the party apparatus here: “Fact is, you could have JFK and FDR rolled into one-if the party machinery is missing a few springs, then the best of candidates will end up looking bad.”

I don’t think it contradicts the thesis to that state that, should he win, Patrick will still owe his victory, in part, to the fact that he was better at the packaging than most of his Democratic peers. Some things, after all, are relative. Patrick was, at times, guilty by association (as opposed to Gabrieli and Reilly, who frequently jammed their feet into their mouths), but he emerged from the slapstick somewhat unscathed.

The idea that I’m endorsing Patrick in the article is also incorrect. Patrick seemed, to me, to be better at this particular brand of politics than the rest. I don’t think there’s anything wrongheaded or obsequious with pointing out the fact that he who bumbles least has an advantage.

We report, you decide!