Hillary Clinton: She is not the frontrunner. Sure, she dominates in national polls, is in a statistical dead heat to win in Texas in the general right now, dominates Florida, has more available cash and dominates every early state not called Iowa, and has been running for president longer than some opponents have been in federal government.
But she is not the front-runner, because her supporters are not heavy on the blogs. She doesn’t win online polls, or get recommended diaries.
The party line: Her support is an inch deep, and as people get to know the other candidates, her support will evaporate.
Words to use: Triangulate, DLC, centrist, Iraq, war, appease, will never vote for.
John Edwards / Barack Obama Positive: Blogger, you are to choose this narrative for which of these candidates you like more, and reserve the following narrative for the other.
This guy is bringing a breath of fresh air to politics, and is an inspirational entry to the field. His humble and unique beginning among common folks around the country are one reason why this uplifting speaker is attracting such large crowds this early in the process. Heavy blog presence means that this man is “for real” and brings into play demographics who would not be interested in Hillary.
The party line: This candidate’s energy is our ticket to victory. He will win over people not interested in voting for Hillary, and his common touch with the everyday voter overwhelms big money every time.
Words to use: Inspiration, energy, ideas, motivation, upbeat, fresh air, new.
John Edwards / Barack Obama Negative: For the candidate of these two you did NOT choose, use the following line.
What do people see in him? Sure, he’s got a great speech, and he’s been impressive in the past. Lately though, he’s lost his fire. His campaign is making the kinds of decisions that prove that he’s just not ready for prime time. And why should he be? Look at the paucity of experience — having won a single Senate election. Big deal. Inspiration is great, but we need something more — real plans, real ideaas, not bromides.
Once people see how little there is there, they will have less interest in him. His support has likely peaked and will be going toward other candidates soon. Many of his online supporters are jerks, too.
The party line: He’s an interesting flash-in-the-pan, but this is not his moment. He needs to strengthen his message and focus his ideas.
Words to use: Inexperience, flat, shallow, vague, boring, will never vote for, new.
Bill Richardson: Since he won’t go away, you may on occasion have to include Richardson in your analysis. As with Clinton, the important thing is not to let facts interfere with your analysis. His experience and resume are impressive, but that isn’t what matter to voters.
Richardson is boring and ineffective. Though his are the only poll numbers still growing, that fact is best left ignored, or explained away due to a couple of advertisements. Richardson stumbles all the time, and every interview and debate performance is bad, regardless of what viewers say. Wait for him to go away.
The party line: His fake candidacy — he’s running for vice president — is sinking fast, no matter what the polls say.
Words to use: Centrist, gaffe, stumble, debate, mistake, disappointing.
In extreme cases, you may choose to do a larger summary including candidates who don’t get air time on CNN. In such an event, use these guidelines:
Chris Dodd: He has big eyebrows, and is not under any circumstances to be taken seriously. Most likely to be the first candidate to pull out. Anyway, he’s from Connecticut, and we all know how Connecticut Democrats are. Eh?
The party line: He has big eyebrows, and is not under any circumstances to be taken seriously.
Words to use: Eyebrows, Lieberman.
Joe Biden: He’s surprisingly effective in debates, and has impressive foreign policy experience. But experience doesn’t matter, particularly because he is not a serious candidate. Plus, he’s from Delaware, the Corporate State.
The party line: He’s surprisingly effective in debates, but he is not a serious candidate.
Words to use: Surprising, not serious.
Dennis Kucinich: He’s a wacky guy with another hopeless run for president. Mike Gravel is proving what a fringe candidate should do, and Dennis is not. Give it up already, you wacky scamp!
The party line: He’s not a serious contender, not a serious pretender. He’s a wsate of time.
Words to use: Hopeless, elf.
Mike Gravel: Gruff and effective as a fringe candidate. Not to be taken seriously, but good entertainment potential. Injecting some godo ideas into debate, and some crazy ones — like official English. Plus hey did you check out those surrealist ads?
The party line: Kind of interesting, but a little scary and very weird.
Words to use: Hopeless, old.
In extreme cases, to pad out word counts, use the following:
Al Gore: Salvation in the wings. He is to the 2008 Democratic nomination what Sergei Bubka was to the pole vault. He is the rightful 2000 winner and is the bestest possible candidate ever — even though he doesn’t have a campiagn or money, and you didn’t like half of what he did in 2000. It’ll be different this time, I swear!
The party line: He probably won’t run, but if he does, there will be lemonade springs and the bars will all have free lunches.
Words to use: Savior, begging.
I’d love to see your guidlines on the Republican side as well.
It was reported late this afternoon that former Democrat Bloomberg, currently NYC mayor, will become a former Republican, and go to the independent ranks. Maybe on an indpendent ticket. And he can afford to fund his own race.
<
p>
On the subject matter of the post.
<
p>
Clinton is a snake oil saleslady. Just as her husband was a snake oil salesman.
<
p>
Edwards/Obama should not be mentioned in the same paragraph. Edwards was a one term senator, with, as far as I can tell, no previous exposure to any electorate. Obama is a partial term senator, but at least he had some previous exposure to at least some electorate. Irrespective of those issues, it is unclear that either of them currently have the background to become president. Now. Maybe later.
<
p>
Richardson. Maybe boring. But maybe that’s what the US needs at this time. The US might have needed an imperial president during the cold war, but it is far from clear that it needs one now–particularly an imperial president of the Bush II stripe. I, for one, would prefer a manager, one with extensive background in national, local and foreign affairs. Someone who just might be able to determine when his underlings are–pardon my French–BSing him.
<
p>
Gore. ~sigh~ The problem with a Gore presidential candidacy at this point in time is that he is too identified with one issue and one issue only–the environment. That isn’t to say that the issue isn’t important–or that it shouldn’t be important to those who have kids and grandkids (we don’t). It’s obvious that Gore is a serious man–Love Canal, the Internet (no, I’m not parotting the right wing media–he really did help to gather political support for US government financial support for the Internet), and AGW (anthropogenic global warming). But I’m not sure that that’s enough excitement or diversity to gain him the presidency.
<
p>
I see nobody on the Republican side who are anything other than what Sen. Paul Tsongas referred to as PanderBears.
Sure he was a snake oil salesman. But I liked the oil that Bill sold. If I could find a candidate selling that oil who could, you know, keep the zipper zipped, that would be just great. Know anyone?
…”snake oil salesman” is a reflection of the idea that snakes don’t produce oil.
<
p>
I don’t know whether or not it is true that snakes don’t actually produce oil, but that’s irrelevant to the analogy. Apparently, you aren’t from the South.
Frankly, this post, while amusing, is what bothers me most about liberal Democrats.
<
p>
We have an abundance of riches in the Democratic race for President: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden…they are all excellent candidates, in my opinion.
<
p>
Sure, I don’t agree with any of them on everything, but if that were my litmus test for choosing a candidate, then I would only be able to vote for myself.
<
p>
I would be happy with any of these candidates, especially Clinton, Edwards or Obama…I agree with each of them at least 90% of the time, and I think any of them would have a darn good shot at taking back the White House from the Republicans. And for me, that is what this race is all about.
<
p>
I want a Democratic candidate who can win in ’08. This country cannot survive another 4 or 8 years of a Republican administration.
<
p>
I wish that liberal Democrats would stop attacking one another and taking potshots at good candidates…why not focus on what we have in common? The real enemy, for me anyway, is the GOP.
Try changing the batteries and running the post through a second time. You might get a different reading.
I ignored Kucinich’s speech today. Ugh. I guess I’m a bad person.
He’s not a serious contender, not even a serious pretender. Mike Gravel is showing what a fringe candidate can really do.
Mostly for the Sergei Bubka reference. Saw him crush the field at the Millrose Games in ’87 or ’88.
<
p>
Seriously, thanks for these. You are educating me early about the candidates, even though I would not ordinarily be inlcined to pay close attention until the Red Sox season is over, and perhaps the Pats too.
our candidates, but bluetoo has a point. It does get really tiresome to hear Dems slam dems — A lot of Republicans or libertarian pose as irate liberal/progressives on blogs to sow dissention.
<
p>
No question that these are the memes you hear a lot of on blogs and radio. Here is another one all but the big 3 are frequently ignored. I have heard the names of candidates listed a couple times on Thom Hartmann — leaving out Dodd totally. When he does mention Dodd it is always with the tagline – “but he doesnt have a chance”
<
p>
When the big 3 are pictured together– it is always Hillary in the middle with Edwards on one side and Obama on the other—like two jacks and a queen.
You forgot to add the part where that same blogger then criticizes the MSM for paying too much attention to the horse race.
<
p>
And thanks for the “meme” take down, I have always hated that particular piece of blog-jargon.
as it sounds — is there a better word? I always liked the term “media narrative”
<
p>
Meme is shorter so easier to say, but sounds a little too cute.
…it was coined by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins a few decades ago. I tend to consider it something like an “underlying theme picked up and spread by a number of people” which continue if they prove to be useful, but die out if they don’t. Hence the evolution reference–Darwin’s natural selection.
Dawkins explored the notion of a meme, a word he coined, in his 1976 The Selfish Gene, and the concept has no roots whatsoever in internet culture. There are several schools of thought on the function of memes evolutionarily speaking, but basically your distillation is the most common. Daniel Dennett from Tufts has done most of the heavy lifting in this area after Dawkins identified the idea.
it just sound so cute. It doesnt sound like common language related to the concept it describes. When someone says “talking points” or “media narrative” you get the general idea. If someone says “meme” to someone who hasnt heard it defined before it sounds meaningless.
Was hoping someone would get the “Big Rock Candy Mountain” reference in the Gore description…