« What Robin Said | Main | Deep Thought »
Primary Colors
By Jeff Fecke | July 14, 2009
It’s easy to forget, a year later, just how difficult 2008 was on Democrats. From mid-March to mid-June, the party was fractured almost exactly down the middle between boosters of Hillary Clinton and devotees of Barack Obama. The snarling and back-biting was intense, viscious, mean-spirited, and brutal. Along the way, all sorts of dirt was dug up and flung with real intent to destroy. Anyone looking at the Democrats in late-May saw a party that was coming apart at the seams.
But a funny thing happened on the way to disaster. Both candidates — Clinton and Obama — became better candidates for the experience of the battle. Damaging information about Obama — the Wright kerfuffle chief among it — came up and was disposed of. Obama was forced to defend himself from withering attacks, and so was Clinton. Whichever candidate survived the marathon was in far better shape to take on John McCain, and when the dust settled, Barack Obama handled the Republican easily, cruising to victory in November.
Obama did this not in spite of the bruising primary battle, but because of a bruising primary battle.
Imagine, if you will, that Hillary Clinton had taken everyone’s advice and dropped out after Texas and Ohio. There’s no Wright controversy, no rumors of the “whitey” tape, no Hillary Clinton pressuring Obama to stay on his toes, to bring his top game. Just a bunch of Democrats sitting around, singing “Kumbaya.”
Until September, when John McCain would have selected a boring governor like Tim Pawlenty to be his running mate, since there was no reason to think that picking a woman would pull in disaffected Clinton supporters. Until October, when the Wright tapes dropped, right into the middle of the election cycle. Until November, when Obama may well have lost, because he had not yet been tested by the Clinton machine, not yet been seasoned by the tremendous battle Hillary Clinton brought to him.
Obama may well have won anyhow; he is a man of considerable political talent, and given the state of the country, he might well have still fended off McCain. But the race would have been closer. And Clinton supporters would have spent the election wondering what would have happened if Hillary had stayed in and fought, and whether Obama might have folded in the onslaught. And that doesn’t even get into all the other things that wouldn’t have happened, especially the massive influx of energy and money into the Democratic Party, energy and money that has most certainly translated into the 60 seats Democrats hold in the Senate; if not for the massive switch of moderates from the Republican to Democratic side, Arlen Specter would have stayed on the right side of the aisle. And you can’t tell me the primary boost wasn’t good for at least 313 votes for Al Franken.
Contested nomination processes are a good thing. Even in Minnesota, where the primary elections are held a good three months later than they should be. The more we look over our candidates, test them, force them to prove themselves, the better they will do against the best the Republicans can offer.
That’s one of the main reason why I’ve been so disheartened to see so many supporters of Matt Entenza shouting at me and others to shut up, sit down, and accept that Entenza is the nominee, despite the fact that the primary election isn’t for another fourteen months, and that at there are two major potential candidates — the Mayor of Minneapolis and the Mayor of St. Paul — who will not be able to announce their intentions about the governor’s seat until December at the earliest.
I may be totally wrong about Matt Entenza, though the frenzied reaction to my post, including overt threats sent to people who had the temerity to support me, makes me think that if anything I’ve been too soft on him. But if I’m wrong, the only way we’re going to find out is for Entenza to steer boldly into the barrage of criticism and prove his critics wrong.
I won’t be supporting Entenza regardless of how things turn out, so I guess that makes me a PUMA in this parallel to 2008. But most of the DFLers expressing concerns about Entenza are not so implacable as I am. Most of them will be happy to support him if he can overcome the sense that he’s crooked, beholden to special interests, mean-spirited, and self-absorbed. But he’s going to actually have to overcome that — just as John Marty will have to overcome the taint of 1994, just as Steve Kelley will have to overcome the three-time loser vibe, just as Mark Dayton will have to overcome the sense that he’s a bit odd, just as Susan Gaertner will have to demonstrate her DFL bona fides, just as Tom Bakk will have to prove he can play in the metro, just as Rybak and/or Coleman will have to prove they can play outstate, just as Anderson Kelliher and Thissen and Rukavina will have to prove that they haven’t been damaged by last session’s meltdown. All of the DFL candidates have causes for concern, and all of them (yes, even Entenza) have points in their favor.
But we can only find out who has the best balance of points to demerits if we study the candidates closely, if we ask hard questions and demand direct answers, if we are willing to fight as hard as Clinton and Obama supporters fought in 2008. That shouldn’t be ancient history to Democrats. It should be a lesson that we learn, and embrace. Because if we don’t, we’ll end up yet again with a mediocre, partially-vetted candidate with a huge, fatal flaw. It’s happened every year since 1990. I don’t want to wait until 2014 to get it right. I’d like my daughter to have a Democrat as governor sometime before she’s 12. After all, I haven’t known one since I was 16.
Topics: Chris Coleman, Election 2010, John Marty, MN-GOV, Mark Dayton, Matt Entenza, Paul Thissen, R.T. Rybak | 16 Comments »
July 14th, 2009 at 4:08 am
This is the kind of thinking that astounds me about politicos. Any parent wants the best for their kids. But to wish upon our kids a politician? Who cares whether it’s a Democrat or Republican? What difference will that make to your daughter? Why do you attempt to sanctify politics and the endless swing of the pendulum, by invoking the love you have for your daughter?
Get yourself out of that apartment, Jeff. Stop wasting your time on your little blog, buy a house with a big back yard, and get her a swing set.
July 14th, 2009 at 7:19 am
The best thing a parent can do is try to shape the world for their children, John. I think my daughter would benefit more from someone who doesn’t gut the school system, ruin the health care safety net and promote environmentally sound policies than from my buying her some toys.
July 14th, 2009 at 8:19 am
I have no problem with you criticizing Matt Entenza. You lose me when you criticize him, or other candidates, in a destructive, negative and non-professional fashion. That style is what I hate the most about the blogosphere.
This is not”we’re telling you to shut up and get in line” thing. You wrote a negative, one-sided, poorly-researched, poorly-written attack piece. Don’t act shocked when you get called out on it.
July 14th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Sean says–
You wrote a negative (that would be called criticism), one-sided (criticism is supposed to be even-handed?), poorly-researched (please cite specifics), poorly-written (your opinion, but as a professional writer, I think it was quite well written) attack piece (again, that would be called criticism).
That sure sounds a lot like “shut up and get in line,” Sean.
What is nonprofessional about calling a lying politician out for what he is? Entenza has been caught lying and acting unethically. Repeatedly. And he’s been fined for it. Heavily. And there’s no doubt more to come. Jeff and the rest of us will be doing the DFL a huge favor by educating the public about Entenza if it prevents his nomination or primary victory.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Karl,
An attack piece may be criticism, granted, but it’s not the right form of criticism for the situation. The intent of the article was not “I’m going to cite my concerns and criticism about Matt Entenza”, but rather “I am going to trash Matt Entenza, pretend none of his accomplishments ever happened, use any ad-hom possible, rock the post-hoc and hope some stick”. One is constructive (and, frankly, more professional) and credible, and one is not. Jeff can say whatever he wants about anyone he wants, but different styles evoke different responses from readers.
Now, in Defense of Jeff:
John: My guess Jeff wants a Democratic Governor so his daughter will go through through a functioning school system, have affordable health care and to not be burdened with debt. If politics makes his daughters life better off, then the two are intertwined. If you can’t understand that then there is no hope for you.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Sean, what are you trying to say?
Did Entenza lie?
Does he have repeated campaign finance violations?
Technically, he didn’t have to drop out of the race in 2006. He did because he was busted in a continuing lie. He lied to Hatch, the press, and the delegates.
Ethics is an issue for DFLers are much as support of policies. Matt, in your opinion, may be great on issues but, he also earned the critique of his character. That is a worthy and relevant discussion.
He’s a liar who has a record of ethical violations.
What’s wrong with that statement?
July 14th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Okay, Jeff. This is just one more damn well written post. One of many. You been eating your Wheaties?
July 14th, 2009 at 11:11 am
OK, Jeff. This is one more post without callin’ Entenza “a huge douchebag”, and no on else “a horrible human being”. You’re on a roll; try and keep it that way.
July 14th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Tommy, I don’t think you’re in any position to lecture anyone about name calling.
Sean Broom
July 14th, 2009 at 11:55 am
I disagree with the Entenza analysis, but this was a pretty well done post. Good job.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
David,
For every candidate, and I mean every candidate, that violates even the smallest campaign finance law, I will ask you to call them a liar and a cheat. Hopefully you will be consistent.
This counts everyone in the race now, Dave. If they have violated campaign finance laws (regardless of if they rectified it or not) sometime in their tenure, they must be a liar and a crook. We’ll also throw out anyone who has screwed up in the past, even if they have worked to make amends. Come on.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Sean, Entenza’s lying goes well beyond simply campaign violations–although Entenza’s violations are far larger than virtually anyone else’s save Pawlenty. He lied about the Hatch investigation. He lied about why he sacked a dozen DFL staffers (and lied under oath when Human Rights complaints were filed). And he’ll certainly lie again to achieve the position of power he so desperately seeks.
To my knowledge, he’s never worked to make amends on any of these (in fact, he took his campaign violation to court and got the fine reduced without ever admitting guilt).
July 14th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Jeff wins a Spotty for this post and the series that started last Friday. I’ll try to have the award ceremony this afternoon.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
I think the main reason Jeff is going after Entenza more than any other candidate (or exclusively) is twofold. One, Entenza and his supporters are the only campaign pushing the “inevitable” argument. And, two, Entenza has an incredibly shady past, much more so than any other candidate.
Something that isn’t discussed about him, and perhaps not very well known, is at least one past attempt to bribe a district into endorsing the state house candidate he wanted.
But as to the actual topic of this post, it is spot on, just like the previous posts in this same vein. Keep on speaking the truth, Jeff.
July 15th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Sean, Go (cheney) yourself. I call republiCons names, but only for the stuff they do. And that’s why Brodkorb has earned the new name “MudSlingerMike’ (webiste coming!!!). I really like that one; gives new meaning to the acronym republicons hate so much: “MSM”
Oh – I’ve also been known to be critical of hypocritical lefties, but: I don’t call ‘em douchebags. Not even you.
Your pal,
TPT
July 18th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Two Put Tommy sounds cranky. It must be nap time.