From wsj.com By JON KELLER
May 3, 2008; Page A9:
"Sen. Obama and I are long-time friends and allies. We often share ideas about politics, policy and language."
-- Deval Patrick
There may not be two politicians on the national stage more alike than Barack Obama and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. Both went to Harvard Law, are African-American politicians with mass appeal, and use soaring rhetoric to promise a bold new postpartisan politics.
But the two men differ in one critical area: Mr. Patrick has an executive record. And, unfortunately for the senator from Illinois, it reveals that the Patrick-Obama brand of politics isn't really new. It is, in fact, something akin to the failed liberalism of old, in a new vessel.
Mr. Patrick, 52, was swept into office in a landslide in 2006. He won because Democrats were energized to capture the governor's mansion and because he presented himself as an historic candidate. Having never held elective office before – though he was assistant attorney general for the civil rights division in the Clinton administration – it was easy for him to claim that he wouldn't be beholden to special interests or outmoded orthodoxies. Baby boomers, eager to make a permanent mark on the political landscape, also found the idea of electing the state's first black governor appealing.
What the Bay State got, however, is a pedestrian liberal governor who is remarkably quick to retreat in the face of pressure from the status quo.
Mr. Patrick's first cave-in came just weeks after he was elected, and before he was even sworn into office. On the campaign trail he promised to cut $735 million in wasteful spending from the state budget. But when the Democratic Senate president rebuked him for it, the governor-elect backpedalled. The Boston Globe summed it up this way: "Patrick backed off and said he didn't really mean it."
Another retreat came on a common sense issue that likely might have marked him as a true reformer had he made even a losing fight of it. Massachusetts is the only state that mandates that cops, not flagmen, direct traffic at road-construction sites. Earlier this spring, Mr. Patrick proposed loosening the requirement as a way to save taxpayers millions, but quickly recanted when the police union flooded the capitol with lobbyists. Within days, Mr. Patrick told listeners of his monthly radio show "the more I think about this, the less certain I am that we can fix this top down."
Education may be the one area where Mr. Patrick could have done the most to demonstrate that he is indeed a new man of the left. Fifteen years ago, the state enacted strict testing requirements for both teachers and students and passed reforms that encourage the creation of charter schools. The result: Massachusetts consistently places among the top performers on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Sticking by these bipartisan reforms – or even expanding them to help minority children in poor areas – would seem to be an easy call.
But to the delight of education unions, Mr. Patrick instead appears to be laying the groundwork to dismantle these reforms. He appointed antitesting zealot Ruth Kaplan to the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, where she repaid his confidence recently by disparaging the college preparation emphasis of some charter schools. She said these schools set "some kids up for failure . . . Their families don't always know what's best for their children."
S. Paul Reville, chairman of the education board, has also drawn attention for his willingness to water down certification testing requirements for aspiring teachers. Under the guise of trying to overcome a teacher shortage, the administration wants to allow applicants who have failed the test three times to teach anyway. When pressed on the issue, Mr. Reville said publicly that the certification test "isn't necessarily the best venue for everybody to demonstrate their competency."
One characteristic of the Obama-Patrick brand of politics is the assertion that they can personally persuade disparate political leaders to reach a consensus. Mr. Patrick's biggest test of this claim came this year when he proposed bringing jobs to the state by allowing casino gambling in Massachusetts. The proposal angered an odd alliance of liberals and social conservatives because gambling is a highly regressive (if voluntary) tax. And it ended in defeat for the governor.
Rather than use the bully pulpit to create public pressure in favor of his proposal – Mr. Patrick told me in late March "I don't think that the way to advance most of our agenda is to do it through the media" – he lobbied lawmakers behind closed doors, using data that proved flimsy and skewed. In the end, his bill went down to a crushing defeat and, on the day of the legislature's vote, he skipped town to ink a $1.35 million book deal at a Manhattan publishing house.
What should trouble Mr. Obama the most is that the stirring rhetoric of Mr. Patrick's 2006 campaign, now being recycled by the Illinois senator (at times, word for word), is no longer connecting with Massachusetts voters. A mid-April poll found that 56% of the state's voters disapprove of the governor's performance. Even among left-leaning Democrats, more than four in 10 disapprove of Mr. Patrick.
Voters in Massachusetts had hoped Mr. Patrick's reformist promises and appealing style would mean a makeover for a tired political culture that has long since stopped producing satisfactory results. Instead, they, along with voters in southern New Hampshire and northern Rhode Island (which receive Boston news), now seem wary of the Obama-Patrick connection. These areas turned out heavily for Hillary Clinton in the presidential primaries and helped her carry all three states.
Mr. Obama has self-servingly said of himself and Mr. Patrick, "We are the change we've been waiting for." But what Mr. Patrick has demonstrated in office is that once the initial rush of making history has waned, these fresh faces seem to offer little change beyond the rhetoric."
Showing posts with label Obama and Deval Patrick. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama and Deval Patrick. Show all posts
Monday, May 5, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
ABC News: Deval Patrick's Timeline Doesn't Mesh With Reality
From Jake Tapper's Political Punc blog on abcnews: February 19, 2008 11:42 AM
Speaking to the New York Times Sunday, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick attempted to excuse his friend Sen. Barack Obama's lifting of part of his October 2006 "Just words" speech.
“In a telephone interview on Sunday, Mr. Patrick said that he and Mr. Obama first talked about the attacks from their respective rivals last summer, when Mrs. Clinton was raising questions about Mr. Obama’s experience, and that they discussed them again last week," the Times' Jeff Zeleny wrote. "Patrick said he told Mr. Obama that he should respond to the criticism, and he shared language from his campaign with Mr. Obama's speechwriters.”
But Obama was quoted using Patrick's language before the Summer of 2007.
"'We hold these truths to be self-evident, all men are created equal.’ Those are just words," Obama was quoted as saying in a March 19, 2007 New Republic story. " ‘I have a dream.’ Just words.”
So....the claim that Patrick an Obama "first" discussed this last Summer does not make sense.
It should also be noted that in addition to the "Yes We Can" slogan that Obama used in 2004, Patrick used in 2006, and Obama uses today, other language from the two clients of political guru David Axelrod has come from both men's mouths.
To wit:
Patrick in June 2006, at the Massachusetts Democratic party convention: "I am not asking anybody to take a chance on me. I am asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations."
Obama one year later, as quoted in USA Today: "I am not asking anyone to take a chance on me. I am asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations."
Just words?
- jpt
UPDATE: Some folks have pointed out that when Obama borrowed the line on voting your aspirations in Portsmouth, NH, on December 21, 2007, he footnoted Patrick, saying, "Don't vote your fears, I'm stealing this line from my buddy, Deval Patrick, who stole a bunch of lines from me when he ran for the governorship, but it`s the right one. Don`t vote your fears, vote your aspirations."
But in my original post, I wasn't referring to that quote.
I was referring to a month before, in November 2007, when Obama according to news coverage stood on the steps of the Clarendon County Courthouse in Manning, S.C., and, according to USA Today, said:
"Now, I've heard that some folks aren't sure America is ready for an African-American president, so let me be clear," he told his mostly black audience. "I never would have begun this campaign if I weren't confident I could win. But you see, I am not asking anyone to take a chance on me. I am asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations."
Don't believe me OR USA Today? Fine.
Check out the Obama website where they have the speech posted -- no credit to Deval Patrick is given:
"Now, I've heard that some folks aren't sure America is ready for an African-American president, so let me be clear: I never would have begun this campaign if I weren't confident I could win. But you see, I am not asking anyone to take a chance on me. I am asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations."
Speaking to the New York Times Sunday, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick attempted to excuse his friend Sen. Barack Obama's lifting of part of his October 2006 "Just words" speech.
“In a telephone interview on Sunday, Mr. Patrick said that he and Mr. Obama first talked about the attacks from their respective rivals last summer, when Mrs. Clinton was raising questions about Mr. Obama’s experience, and that they discussed them again last week," the Times' Jeff Zeleny wrote. "Patrick said he told Mr. Obama that he should respond to the criticism, and he shared language from his campaign with Mr. Obama's speechwriters.”
But Obama was quoted using Patrick's language before the Summer of 2007.
"'We hold these truths to be self-evident, all men are created equal.’ Those are just words," Obama was quoted as saying in a March 19, 2007 New Republic story. " ‘I have a dream.’ Just words.”
So....the claim that Patrick an Obama "first" discussed this last Summer does not make sense.
It should also be noted that in addition to the "Yes We Can" slogan that Obama used in 2004, Patrick used in 2006, and Obama uses today, other language from the two clients of political guru David Axelrod has come from both men's mouths.
To wit:
Patrick in June 2006, at the Massachusetts Democratic party convention: "I am not asking anybody to take a chance on me. I am asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations."
Obama one year later, as quoted in USA Today: "I am not asking anyone to take a chance on me. I am asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations."
Just words?
- jpt
UPDATE: Some folks have pointed out that when Obama borrowed the line on voting your aspirations in Portsmouth, NH, on December 21, 2007, he footnoted Patrick, saying, "Don't vote your fears, I'm stealing this line from my buddy, Deval Patrick, who stole a bunch of lines from me when he ran for the governorship, but it`s the right one. Don`t vote your fears, vote your aspirations."
But in my original post, I wasn't referring to that quote.
I was referring to a month before, in November 2007, when Obama according to news coverage stood on the steps of the Clarendon County Courthouse in Manning, S.C., and, according to USA Today, said:
"Now, I've heard that some folks aren't sure America is ready for an African-American president, so let me be clear," he told his mostly black audience. "I never would have begun this campaign if I weren't confident I could win. But you see, I am not asking anyone to take a chance on me. I am asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations."
Don't believe me OR USA Today? Fine.
Check out the Obama website where they have the speech posted -- no credit to Deval Patrick is given:
"Now, I've heard that some folks aren't sure America is ready for an African-American president, so let me be clear: I never would have begun this campaign if I weren't confident I could win. But you see, I am not asking anyone to take a chance on me. I am asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations."
Monday, February 18, 2008
Obama's Friend Pleads to Voters, "Don't Give Up on Me"
This is what happens when voters elect an inexperienced "hope" candidate. From the Washington Post on March 18, 2007: "BOSTON -- Only a few months ago, Deval Patrick was being hailed by his party as a savior, becoming Massachusetts's first Democratic governor in 16 years and only the second African American to lead a state since Reconstruction.
But circumstances have changed quickly for Patrick, as they have often in a life that saw him plucked from the South Side of Chicago at 14 and awarded a scholarship to a prestigious prep school in the Boston suburbs. He was recently forced to plead, "Don't give up on me," to state residents, and at a news conference Friday he found himself repeatedly sidestepping questions about a staff shake-up that included the resignation of a controversial aide.
Missteps involving the use of state funds and a series of gaffes have transformed a budding star who was swept into office running as an outsider into something the rough-and-tumble arena of Massachusetts politics is more familiar with: an embattled pol.
"People felt that Deval was really going to come into office with a ball of fire and change things," said Mary Ann Marsh, a Democratic political strategist in the state. "Some of these things seem to be more about doing favors than fixing problems. They seem to be the antithesis of the campaign trail."
When Patrick, 50, entered office, he decided to lease a 2007 Cadillac DTS as his official state car, replacing the Ford Crown Victoria his predecessor used; it cost the state an additional $543 each month, but he explained to reporters that the old car had a lot of miles on it and a broken heater. The move might have caused minor grumbling, but critics saw it as just another decision of a series in his brief tenure that embraced the very political elitism he ran against during his campaign, a list that includes the purchase of $12,000 drapes as part of a $27,000 renovation of the governor's office at taxpayer expense, the hiring of a chief of staff for his wife, and attempts to help a controversial mortgage company that has been accused of predatory lending.
Now he must recover his public support while dealing with a major trauma in his personal life. Patrick's office announced more than a week ago that the governor's wife, Diane, was suffering from depression and exhaustion, and Patrick says he will cut down the number of nights and weekends that he works.
"The rest of it pales in relation to what's going on at home," Patrick said in an interview in his statehouse office in Boston.
Looking to get beyond the controversies, Patrick has admitted that "we screwed up on spending." He agreed to pay the difference between the monthly lease cost of the Cadillac and the Crown Victoria and the cost of the new drapes and furniture in his office. His wife's chief of staff, whose position had not existed in recent gubernatorial administrations, resigned as part of the changes unveiled Thursday.
Patrick said he thought he was being targeted for a bit of "hazing" by the Massachusetts political elite, but on the advice of prominent Democrats, he added two veterans of Beacon Hill politics to his staff, reflecting the view among many in the state that mistakes have stemmed from the inexperience of Patrick and his team. One of the new staffers will run his press operation.
That inexperience has been made more daunting by the fact that Patrick, who had never run for elective office before his gubernatorial campaign, is having to learn politics on the job in an atmosphere in which newspapers are ready to pounce and the Democrats who control the legislature are wary of any moves to cut them out of the political process.
The controversies have served as the first major detour for Patrick, who seemed to be the kind of political star who thrived despite a minimum of seasoning. The Chicago native, who grew up sharing a room in his grandmother's house with his mother and sister, spent much of his life as a civil rights and corporate lawyer outside government and politics, except for three years when he headed the civil rights division at the Justice Department in the Clinton administration.
His campaign rhetoric that was focused on getting people in Massachusetts to "believe again" and his emphasis on hope and optimism, illustrated by his own story, captivated voters in the Bay State. He defeated two prominent opponents in the Democratic primary and won with a 21-point margin in the general election.
"Deval's campaign captured a lot of imagination and public support, so the expectations are high," said former presidential nominee Michael S. Dukakis, the last Democrat to hold the governor's office in the state.
Patrick, according to people who have talked to him, expected he could stop paying close attention to politics after he got elected. "He's a policy guy and he doesn't want to get dragged down by politics," said Rep. Michael E. Capuano (D-Mass.), who was an early supporter of Patrick and talks to him regularly.
That attitude was reflected in each of these controversies, which all followed a pattern: Patrick would call a flap trivial, dismiss it for a few days and then apologize after criticism escalated. When talk about the Cadillac began, the governor at first made light of the matter, telling an Associated Press reporter he should take a ride in the $46,000 car.
Even Patrick's supports criticize his call last month on behalf of ACC Capital Holdings to Robert E. Rubin, the former Treasury secretary and an executive at Citigroup, a call Patrick said that he made as a private citizen. Patrick was formerly on the board of ACC, the struggling company that owns Ameriquest Mortgage, which has long been accused of predatory lending. ACC wanted financial help from Citigroup, and Patrick knew Rubin from their days in the Clinton administration.
Critics said the distinction Patrick tried to draw between his private and public roles did not exist when the governor of Massachusetts was calling an executive at Citigroup, a financial giant with significant business interests in the state, a point Patrick later conceded.
"That was a mistake in judgment, not just cosmetics," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.).
Patrick said he now realizes he needs to focus more on his image. "What I'm not interested in, but I have to get more interested in, is government by photo-op," he said.
Just a day earlier he was displaying his commitment to that idea, making an appearance Thursday in Revere, a small town outside Boston, where he read "The Very Busy Spider" to kindergarteners at a school while more than a half-dozen reporters looked on. When one child asked, "Why do we have cameras here?" the governor smiled.
Patrick advisers said that they expect the governor to bounce back as voters start learning more about his accomplishments in office. Health-care advocates have praised his work in implementing the state's landmark insurance law, passed last year, which requires all residents to have health insurance by July 1. The governor personally called several major insurance companies in the state to negotiate cheaper prices for individuals who do not have insurance and earn too much to receive government subsidies.
The governor's team is also trying to get Patrick out of the statehouse more, so that Massachusetts residents will remember what they liked about him when they voted for him. With a slender build and soft voice, Patrick lacks the commanding presence of some politicians, but his quick wit and inspirational rhetoric can warm people to him.
At a St. Patrick's Day lunch in Lawrence Friday, he joked that, as part of his staff changes, he planned to hire Martha Stewart to decorate his office, and added, "I do have to tell you, parking is a problem. It's hard to find room for both the helicopter and the Cadillac," referring to criticism about his use of state helicopters earlier in his term, which Patrick has defended.
Back in his office, he said he is trying to reduce the blunders but sought to put the controversies in context. "When I ran, I said I would make some mistakes," Patrick said Friday. "I didn't run for saint. None of them are fatal."
But circumstances have changed quickly for Patrick, as they have often in a life that saw him plucked from the South Side of Chicago at 14 and awarded a scholarship to a prestigious prep school in the Boston suburbs. He was recently forced to plead, "Don't give up on me," to state residents, and at a news conference Friday he found himself repeatedly sidestepping questions about a staff shake-up that included the resignation of a controversial aide.
Missteps involving the use of state funds and a series of gaffes have transformed a budding star who was swept into office running as an outsider into something the rough-and-tumble arena of Massachusetts politics is more familiar with: an embattled pol.
"People felt that Deval was really going to come into office with a ball of fire and change things," said Mary Ann Marsh, a Democratic political strategist in the state. "Some of these things seem to be more about doing favors than fixing problems. They seem to be the antithesis of the campaign trail."
When Patrick, 50, entered office, he decided to lease a 2007 Cadillac DTS as his official state car, replacing the Ford Crown Victoria his predecessor used; it cost the state an additional $543 each month, but he explained to reporters that the old car had a lot of miles on it and a broken heater. The move might have caused minor grumbling, but critics saw it as just another decision of a series in his brief tenure that embraced the very political elitism he ran against during his campaign, a list that includes the purchase of $12,000 drapes as part of a $27,000 renovation of the governor's office at taxpayer expense, the hiring of a chief of staff for his wife, and attempts to help a controversial mortgage company that has been accused of predatory lending.
Now he must recover his public support while dealing with a major trauma in his personal life. Patrick's office announced more than a week ago that the governor's wife, Diane, was suffering from depression and exhaustion, and Patrick says he will cut down the number of nights and weekends that he works.
"The rest of it pales in relation to what's going on at home," Patrick said in an interview in his statehouse office in Boston.
Looking to get beyond the controversies, Patrick has admitted that "we screwed up on spending." He agreed to pay the difference between the monthly lease cost of the Cadillac and the Crown Victoria and the cost of the new drapes and furniture in his office. His wife's chief of staff, whose position had not existed in recent gubernatorial administrations, resigned as part of the changes unveiled Thursday.
Patrick said he thought he was being targeted for a bit of "hazing" by the Massachusetts political elite, but on the advice of prominent Democrats, he added two veterans of Beacon Hill politics to his staff, reflecting the view among many in the state that mistakes have stemmed from the inexperience of Patrick and his team. One of the new staffers will run his press operation.
That inexperience has been made more daunting by the fact that Patrick, who had never run for elective office before his gubernatorial campaign, is having to learn politics on the job in an atmosphere in which newspapers are ready to pounce and the Democrats who control the legislature are wary of any moves to cut them out of the political process.
The controversies have served as the first major detour for Patrick, who seemed to be the kind of political star who thrived despite a minimum of seasoning. The Chicago native, who grew up sharing a room in his grandmother's house with his mother and sister, spent much of his life as a civil rights and corporate lawyer outside government and politics, except for three years when he headed the civil rights division at the Justice Department in the Clinton administration.
His campaign rhetoric that was focused on getting people in Massachusetts to "believe again" and his emphasis on hope and optimism, illustrated by his own story, captivated voters in the Bay State. He defeated two prominent opponents in the Democratic primary and won with a 21-point margin in the general election.
"Deval's campaign captured a lot of imagination and public support, so the expectations are high," said former presidential nominee Michael S. Dukakis, the last Democrat to hold the governor's office in the state.
Patrick, according to people who have talked to him, expected he could stop paying close attention to politics after he got elected. "He's a policy guy and he doesn't want to get dragged down by politics," said Rep. Michael E. Capuano (D-Mass.), who was an early supporter of Patrick and talks to him regularly.
That attitude was reflected in each of these controversies, which all followed a pattern: Patrick would call a flap trivial, dismiss it for a few days and then apologize after criticism escalated. When talk about the Cadillac began, the governor at first made light of the matter, telling an Associated Press reporter he should take a ride in the $46,000 car.
Even Patrick's supports criticize his call last month on behalf of ACC Capital Holdings to Robert E. Rubin, the former Treasury secretary and an executive at Citigroup, a call Patrick said that he made as a private citizen. Patrick was formerly on the board of ACC, the struggling company that owns Ameriquest Mortgage, which has long been accused of predatory lending. ACC wanted financial help from Citigroup, and Patrick knew Rubin from their days in the Clinton administration.
Critics said the distinction Patrick tried to draw between his private and public roles did not exist when the governor of Massachusetts was calling an executive at Citigroup, a financial giant with significant business interests in the state, a point Patrick later conceded.
"That was a mistake in judgment, not just cosmetics," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.).
Patrick said he now realizes he needs to focus more on his image. "What I'm not interested in, but I have to get more interested in, is government by photo-op," he said.
Just a day earlier he was displaying his commitment to that idea, making an appearance Thursday in Revere, a small town outside Boston, where he read "The Very Busy Spider" to kindergarteners at a school while more than a half-dozen reporters looked on. When one child asked, "Why do we have cameras here?" the governor smiled.
Patrick advisers said that they expect the governor to bounce back as voters start learning more about his accomplishments in office. Health-care advocates have praised his work in implementing the state's landmark insurance law, passed last year, which requires all residents to have health insurance by July 1. The governor personally called several major insurance companies in the state to negotiate cheaper prices for individuals who do not have insurance and earn too much to receive government subsidies.
The governor's team is also trying to get Patrick out of the statehouse more, so that Massachusetts residents will remember what they liked about him when they voted for him. With a slender build and soft voice, Patrick lacks the commanding presence of some politicians, but his quick wit and inspirational rhetoric can warm people to him.
At a St. Patrick's Day lunch in Lawrence Friday, he joked that, as part of his staff changes, he planned to hire Martha Stewart to decorate his office, and added, "I do have to tell you, parking is a problem. It's hard to find room for both the helicopter and the Cadillac," referring to criticism about his use of state helicopters earlier in his term, which Patrick has defended.
Back in his office, he said he is trying to reduce the blunders but sought to put the controversies in context. "When I ran, I said I would make some mistakes," Patrick said Friday. "I didn't run for saint. None of them are fatal."
Boston Globe: Patrick, Obama Campaigns Share Language of "hope"
From Boston.com By Scott Helman, Globe Staff | April 16, 2007
"Of all the things Deval Patrick's Republican opponent threw at him in last year's governor's race, one charge that stuck in his craw was that his speeches were more fluff than substance -- that they were, in Patrick's telling, "just words." So he devised an artful response.
" 'We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal' -- just words," Patrick said at a rally in Roxbury right before Election Day. " 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' -- just words. . . . 'I have a dream' -- just words. They're all just words."
The crowd erupted as it got Patrick's point about the power of language. But perhaps no one at the rally understood the point better than Barack Obama, who had joined him on stage that night.
Not five months later, Obama, his presidential campaign gaining steam, had this to say about legendary Chicago organizer Saul Alinsky in The New Republic: "Sometimes the tendency in community organizing of the sort done by Alinsky was to downplay the power of words and of ideas when in fact ideas and words are pretty powerful. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, all men are created equal.' Those are just words. 'I have a dream.' Just words."
In the midst of his improbable run for office, Obama and his advisers have evidently studied Patrick's up-from-nowhere victory in Massachusetts and are borrowing themes, messages, and even specific lines for the presidential campaign.
It's the latest chapter in a symbiotic friendship between Obama and Patrick that continues to shape their political careers, according to admirers, observers, and associates of the two men.
The similarities between Patrick and Obama, who have known each other for more than a decade, are obvious: Both are idealistic African-American leaders who came of age after the Civil Rights movement. Both have Chicago roots, a Harvard Law degree, and a gift for appealing to both blacks and whites.
Their political likeness runs deeper. Both believe that people long for a new dawn of postpartisan, hopeful, and optimistic public leadership. Both staked their fates on grass-roots activism and fund-raising. Both campaign on supplanting cynicism with citizenship.
It was Obama who first tested the approach during his Senate victory in Illinois in 2004. Patrick improved on it last year. Now Obama is building on both of those successes as he makes his historic run for the White House.
When a delegation of Massachusetts Democrats heard Obama speak at the Democratic National Committee's winter meeting in Washington in February, they could trace the thread, said state Democratic Party chairman Philip W. Johnston.
"We all said that we could have closed our eyes when Obama spoke [and] it could have been Deval," Johnston said. "To us it was a similar kind of message. It's a message that transcends partisan politics."
The man who has honed that message for both candidates is veteran Chicago political strategist David Axelrod, who guided Obama's Senate campaign and Patrick's gubernatorial bid and is now a top strategist on Obama's presidential effort.
Axelrod said Obama was the first person he called when Patrick's campaign approached him to work on the governor's race, and that Obama was "effusive" about Patrick.
Since then, Axelrod said, he's seen a kinship in their message, in their "shared belief in the power of aspirations." While Patrick's campaign was not a "petri dish" for Obama's presidential campaign, Axelrod said, "it was a wonderful model for a change-oriented challenge to entrenched politics."
"It's not happenstance that there's a similar feel to the [Obama] campaign," he said. "Both of these guys have a sense that the sort of politics as it's evolved has not lived up to the challenges that we face. And the only way to really change it is to get citizens involved, to make them the engine of the campaign. I am attracted to both those guys because I feel that way, too."
Aides to Obama and Patrick said they weren't available to comment on their relationship.
At another rally with Obama last year, at the Hynes Convention Center in June, Patrick told supporters that the gubernatorial election was not about him, encouraging them to "take a chance not on me but on your own hopes and aspirations."
Two days later, at the state Democratic Convention, he said, "Our cause succeeds only if you see this not as my campaign, but as ours -- not as my chance to be governor, but your chance to rebuild your community."
It's a theme Obama revisited on a frigid February day in Springfield, Ill., as he launched his presidential bid.
"That is why this campaign can't only be about me," he said. "It must be about us -- it must be about what we can do together. This campaign must be the occasion, the vehicle, of your hopes, and your dreams. . . . This campaign has to be about reclaiming the meaning of citizenship, restoring our sense of common purpose, and realizing that few obstacles can withstand the power of millions of voices calling for change."
To be sure, Obama and Patrick are hardly the first politicians to have built campaigns around hope and change. Johnston said their rhetoric reminded him of Robert F. Kennedy, whose 1968 presidential effort he worked on.
Others said they hear echoes of President Clinton, or even John Edwards, former North Carolina senator, the 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, and a candidate for president in 2008.
"They're good learners, obviously," said Debra Kozikowski, a member of the Massachusetts Democratic Committee.
But Obama and Patrick have been learning from and feeding off each other, those who know them say.
A Patrick adviser recalled how the future governor observed Obama's grass-roots fund-raising methods in 2005 and applied the small-donor concept to his own campaign.
At the same time, Patrick's and Obama's campaigns have been sensitive about mirroring each other too closely.
Obama, in his Senate race, used the well-worn phrase "Yes, we can!" as a rallying cry.
After Patrick employed the same phrase at a state Democratic Convention in 2005, a reporter alerted the campaign that it was Obama's signature line, and they went back to the drawing board, said Dan Payne, a Democratic strategist working for Patrick at the time. (Patrick would adopt "together we can" instead.)
"We definitely didn't want to copy him," Payne said. "Deval takes pride in his words and he wants to use them uniquely."
And Alan Solomont, who heads Obama's New England fund-raising, said what links the two men as politicians is a desire for change among the electorate, not a conscious effort to mimic one another.
"They are very similar, but I don't think it's a studied similarity," said Solomont, who supported Patrick after the primary last year. "They're both speaking to the same longing that voters have."
If the plaudits for Obama and Patrick as campaigners are similar, so are the criticisms. Obama is facing the same charge Patrick did last year: that he's long on atmospherics and short on specifics. Patrick overcame that critique, but Obama, given the unprecedented media scrutiny of a presidential campaign, won't have it so easy, Payne said.
"I think there's a lesson . . . for Obama that things you may be able to get away with in a statewide campaign, let's say, you're not going to get away with in a national campaign," he said.
Still, those who know and support both men say that if their messages weren't resonating, one wouldn't be governor of Massachusetts and the other wouldn't have a shot at winning the presidency.
"I see them as similar kinds of fresh voices," said Abner J. Mikva, a former US representative from Illinois and US Appeals Court judge who is credited with introducing Patrick and Obama.
"They're not radicals, they're not bomb-throwers. But they have a way of making clear that they haven't bought into the old politics. . . . They're prepared to carve out their own path, and both of them have."
"Of all the things Deval Patrick's Republican opponent threw at him in last year's governor's race, one charge that stuck in his craw was that his speeches were more fluff than substance -- that they were, in Patrick's telling, "just words." So he devised an artful response.
" 'We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal' -- just words," Patrick said at a rally in Roxbury right before Election Day. " 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' -- just words. . . . 'I have a dream' -- just words. They're all just words."
The crowd erupted as it got Patrick's point about the power of language. But perhaps no one at the rally understood the point better than Barack Obama, who had joined him on stage that night.
Not five months later, Obama, his presidential campaign gaining steam, had this to say about legendary Chicago organizer Saul Alinsky in The New Republic: "Sometimes the tendency in community organizing of the sort done by Alinsky was to downplay the power of words and of ideas when in fact ideas and words are pretty powerful. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, all men are created equal.' Those are just words. 'I have a dream.' Just words."
In the midst of his improbable run for office, Obama and his advisers have evidently studied Patrick's up-from-nowhere victory in Massachusetts and are borrowing themes, messages, and even specific lines for the presidential campaign.
It's the latest chapter in a symbiotic friendship between Obama and Patrick that continues to shape their political careers, according to admirers, observers, and associates of the two men.
The similarities between Patrick and Obama, who have known each other for more than a decade, are obvious: Both are idealistic African-American leaders who came of age after the Civil Rights movement. Both have Chicago roots, a Harvard Law degree, and a gift for appealing to both blacks and whites.
Their political likeness runs deeper. Both believe that people long for a new dawn of postpartisan, hopeful, and optimistic public leadership. Both staked their fates on grass-roots activism and fund-raising. Both campaign on supplanting cynicism with citizenship.
It was Obama who first tested the approach during his Senate victory in Illinois in 2004. Patrick improved on it last year. Now Obama is building on both of those successes as he makes his historic run for the White House.
When a delegation of Massachusetts Democrats heard Obama speak at the Democratic National Committee's winter meeting in Washington in February, they could trace the thread, said state Democratic Party chairman Philip W. Johnston.
"We all said that we could have closed our eyes when Obama spoke [and] it could have been Deval," Johnston said. "To us it was a similar kind of message. It's a message that transcends partisan politics."
The man who has honed that message for both candidates is veteran Chicago political strategist David Axelrod, who guided Obama's Senate campaign and Patrick's gubernatorial bid and is now a top strategist on Obama's presidential effort.
Axelrod said Obama was the first person he called when Patrick's campaign approached him to work on the governor's race, and that Obama was "effusive" about Patrick.
Since then, Axelrod said, he's seen a kinship in their message, in their "shared belief in the power of aspirations." While Patrick's campaign was not a "petri dish" for Obama's presidential campaign, Axelrod said, "it was a wonderful model for a change-oriented challenge to entrenched politics."
"It's not happenstance that there's a similar feel to the [Obama] campaign," he said. "Both of these guys have a sense that the sort of politics as it's evolved has not lived up to the challenges that we face. And the only way to really change it is to get citizens involved, to make them the engine of the campaign. I am attracted to both those guys because I feel that way, too."
Aides to Obama and Patrick said they weren't available to comment on their relationship.
At another rally with Obama last year, at the Hynes Convention Center in June, Patrick told supporters that the gubernatorial election was not about him, encouraging them to "take a chance not on me but on your own hopes and aspirations."
Two days later, at the state Democratic Convention, he said, "Our cause succeeds only if you see this not as my campaign, but as ours -- not as my chance to be governor, but your chance to rebuild your community."
It's a theme Obama revisited on a frigid February day in Springfield, Ill., as he launched his presidential bid.
"That is why this campaign can't only be about me," he said. "It must be about us -- it must be about what we can do together. This campaign must be the occasion, the vehicle, of your hopes, and your dreams. . . . This campaign has to be about reclaiming the meaning of citizenship, restoring our sense of common purpose, and realizing that few obstacles can withstand the power of millions of voices calling for change."
To be sure, Obama and Patrick are hardly the first politicians to have built campaigns around hope and change. Johnston said their rhetoric reminded him of Robert F. Kennedy, whose 1968 presidential effort he worked on.
Others said they hear echoes of President Clinton, or even John Edwards, former North Carolina senator, the 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, and a candidate for president in 2008.
"They're good learners, obviously," said Debra Kozikowski, a member of the Massachusetts Democratic Committee.
But Obama and Patrick have been learning from and feeding off each other, those who know them say.
A Patrick adviser recalled how the future governor observed Obama's grass-roots fund-raising methods in 2005 and applied the small-donor concept to his own campaign.
At the same time, Patrick's and Obama's campaigns have been sensitive about mirroring each other too closely.
Obama, in his Senate race, used the well-worn phrase "Yes, we can!" as a rallying cry.
After Patrick employed the same phrase at a state Democratic Convention in 2005, a reporter alerted the campaign that it was Obama's signature line, and they went back to the drawing board, said Dan Payne, a Democratic strategist working for Patrick at the time. (Patrick would adopt "together we can" instead.)
"We definitely didn't want to copy him," Payne said. "Deval takes pride in his words and he wants to use them uniquely."
And Alan Solomont, who heads Obama's New England fund-raising, said what links the two men as politicians is a desire for change among the electorate, not a conscious effort to mimic one another.
"They are very similar, but I don't think it's a studied similarity," said Solomont, who supported Patrick after the primary last year. "They're both speaking to the same longing that voters have."
If the plaudits for Obama and Patrick as campaigners are similar, so are the criticisms. Obama is facing the same charge Patrick did last year: that he's long on atmospherics and short on specifics. Patrick overcame that critique, but Obama, given the unprecedented media scrutiny of a presidential campaign, won't have it so easy, Payne said.
"I think there's a lesson . . . for Obama that things you may be able to get away with in a statewide campaign, let's say, you're not going to get away with in a national campaign," he said.
Still, those who know and support both men say that if their messages weren't resonating, one wouldn't be governor of Massachusetts and the other wouldn't have a shot at winning the presidency.
"I see them as similar kinds of fresh voices," said Abner J. Mikva, a former US representative from Illinois and US Appeals Court judge who is credited with introducing Patrick and Obama.
"They're not radicals, they're not bomb-throwers. But they have a way of making clear that they haven't bought into the old politics. . . . They're prepared to carve out their own path, and both of them have."
NYT: Obama Refrain Bears Echoes of Governor's Speeches
From NYT on February 18, 2008: "CHICAGO — Senator Barack Obama adapted one of his signature arguments — that his oratory amounts to more than inspiring words — from speeches given by Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts during his 2006 campaign.
At a Democratic Party dinner Saturday in Wisconsin, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, responded to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who has criticized him for delivering smooth speeches but says they do not amount to solutions to the nation’s problems, by ticking through a string of historic references.
“Don’t tell me words don’t matter,” Mr. Obama said, to applause. “ ‘I have a dream’ — just words? ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal’ — just words? ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself’ — just words? Just speeches?”
Mr. Patrick employed similar language during his 2006 governor’s race when his Republican rival, Kerry Healey, criticized him as offering lofty rhetoric over specifics. Mr. Patrick has endorsed Mr. Obama, and the two men are close friends.
“ ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal’ — just words? Just words?” Mr. Patrick said one month before his election. “ ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself’ — just words? ‘Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.’ Just words? ‘I have a dream’ — just words?”
In a telephone interview on Sunday, Mr. Patrick said that he and Mr. Obama first talked about the attacks from their respective rivals last summer, when Mrs. Clinton was raising questions about Mr. Obama’s experience, and that they discussed them again last week.
Both men had anticipated that Mr. Obama’s rhetorical strength would provide a point of criticism. Mr. Patrick said he told Mr. Obama that he should respond to the criticism, and he shared language from his campaign with Mr. Obama’s speechwriters.
Mr. Patrick said he did not believe Mr. Obama should give him credit.
“Who knows who I am? The point is more important than whose argument it is,” said Mr. Patrick, who telephoned The New York Times at the request of the Obama campaign. “It’s a transcendent argument.”
David Axelrod, the chief strategist for Mr. Obama who also advised Mr. Patrick, said Sunday that Mr. Obama adapted the words from Mr. Patrick. Mr. Axelrod said that he did not write the words for either candidate.
“They often riff off one another. They share a world view,” Mr. Axelrod said. “Both of them are effective speakers whose words tend to get requoted and arguments tend to be embraced widely.”
The similarities from a passage of Mr. Obama’s speech on Saturday and in remarks that Mr. Patrick delivered on Oct. 15, 2006, were highlighted by a rival campaign that did not want to be identified. Clips of both speeches are archived on the Web site YouTube.com.
In their fight for the Democratic nomination, Mrs. Clinton has sought to turn one of Mr. Obama’s attributes — his oratory — against him by warning voters that his elevated language does not necessarily mean that he will deliver on his promises. “Speeches don’t put food on the table,” she told voters last week in Ohio, arguing that she offers solutions, not just rhetoric.
As Mr. Obama responded last week, his voice rose several decibels.
“It’s true that speeches don’t solve all problems,” he said. “But what is also true if we cannot inspire the country to believe again, it doesn’t matter how many policies and plans we have.”
At a Democratic Party dinner Saturday in Wisconsin, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, responded to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who has criticized him for delivering smooth speeches but says they do not amount to solutions to the nation’s problems, by ticking through a string of historic references.
“Don’t tell me words don’t matter,” Mr. Obama said, to applause. “ ‘I have a dream’ — just words? ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal’ — just words? ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself’ — just words? Just speeches?”
Mr. Patrick employed similar language during his 2006 governor’s race when his Republican rival, Kerry Healey, criticized him as offering lofty rhetoric over specifics. Mr. Patrick has endorsed Mr. Obama, and the two men are close friends.
“ ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal’ — just words? Just words?” Mr. Patrick said one month before his election. “ ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself’ — just words? ‘Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.’ Just words? ‘I have a dream’ — just words?”
In a telephone interview on Sunday, Mr. Patrick said that he and Mr. Obama first talked about the attacks from their respective rivals last summer, when Mrs. Clinton was raising questions about Mr. Obama’s experience, and that they discussed them again last week.
Both men had anticipated that Mr. Obama’s rhetorical strength would provide a point of criticism. Mr. Patrick said he told Mr. Obama that he should respond to the criticism, and he shared language from his campaign with Mr. Obama’s speechwriters.
Mr. Patrick said he did not believe Mr. Obama should give him credit.
“Who knows who I am? The point is more important than whose argument it is,” said Mr. Patrick, who telephoned The New York Times at the request of the Obama campaign. “It’s a transcendent argument.”
David Axelrod, the chief strategist for Mr. Obama who also advised Mr. Patrick, said Sunday that Mr. Obama adapted the words from Mr. Patrick. Mr. Axelrod said that he did not write the words for either candidate.
“They often riff off one another. They share a world view,” Mr. Axelrod said. “Both of them are effective speakers whose words tend to get requoted and arguments tend to be embraced widely.”
The similarities from a passage of Mr. Obama’s speech on Saturday and in remarks that Mr. Patrick delivered on Oct. 15, 2006, were highlighted by a rival campaign that did not want to be identified. Clips of both speeches are archived on the Web site YouTube.com.
In their fight for the Democratic nomination, Mrs. Clinton has sought to turn one of Mr. Obama’s attributes — his oratory — against him by warning voters that his elevated language does not necessarily mean that he will deliver on his promises. “Speeches don’t put food on the table,” she told voters last week in Ohio, arguing that she offers solutions, not just rhetoric.
As Mr. Obama responded last week, his voice rose several decibels.
“It’s true that speeches don’t solve all problems,” he said. “But what is also true if we cannot inspire the country to believe again, it doesn’t matter how many policies and plans we have.”
Obama Campaign Very Similar to Mass. Gov (another David Axelrod client)
From Boston.com:
By Peter S. Canellos | February 12, 2008
"WASHINGTON - In 2006, Deval Patrick ran for governor of Massachusetts on what his consultant, David Axelrod, called "the politics of aspiration." Patrick talked about hope - a lot. And when people said they were just words, he quoted the Declaration of Independence to upbraid those who think words don't matter. He told voters "Yes, we can," and later, more broadly, "Together, we can."
These words had a lot of power, as it turned out, propelling Patrick to a landslide. They echoed words that had been used by Barack Obama - also advised by Axelrod - in his record-setting Senate race in Illinois in 2004.
Last week, many voters in Massachusetts heard some of those words again at a massive rally for Obama's presidential campaign, joined by Patrick and the state's two senators, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy. But the next day, the people of Massachusetts went out and voted for the candidate of experience.
While voters in much of the country were becoming enthralled by Obama, who continues to gain momentum, Massachusetts voters struck a discordant note. Hillary Clinton beat Obama by 15 points in the Bay State, almost as big a margin as in New York, which she has represented in the Senate for seven years.
The reason may well be in those 2006 ballots, and the sense of disappointment that some people feel about Patrick's administration. And the Massachusetts result may carry words of warning for candidate Obama or, perhaps, President Obama, about the limits of the politics of hope.
Deval Patrick and Barack Obama are not similar personalities. Patrick is friendly and approachable; he's a good listener with an unassuming manner. Obama, by contrast, is stately and imposing, with the posture of a Roman senator. He stands out in a crowd, while Patrick blends in.
But they have things in common as well, two black men with inspiring personal stories and unimpeachable academic credentials who are upbeat about America. And, as Axelrod discovered, there is great power in those stories and the hopes they engender. For some, it's a validation of the American dream. For others, it's a truly colorblind society. But for most, it's a rejection of the sordid compromises of political life - a chance to choose someone who, for so many reasons, does not represent "the system."
Except that when it comes to the actual substance of issues, there's no special agenda attached to the politics of hope. Both Patrick in 2006 and Obama this year have websites full of positions on the issues, but they're not easily distinguishable from those of other Democrats. The issues tend to get lost in the language of hope, perhaps because they sound and feel routine, and don't strike an inspirational chord.
Instead, the candidates talk about creating a mandate for change that will supersede all the petty disputes that clog up government. Then, presumably, a lot of shared priorities will get through.
But as Patrick has shown, without an agenda that stands out from those of other candidates, it's hard to show whether real changes have occurred. It's not that most people think Patrick has been an unusually ineffective governor; it's that he's been precisely the usual kind of governor, and that's his problem.
He got off on the wrong foot when his administration bought a Cadillac as his official car; other governors have had similar missteps, but standards are higher for those promising change. Then he pleased many constituents by restoring services cut by his predecessor. But like many of his predecessors, he quickly ran afoul of a powerful House speaker. A lot of negative vibes started emanating from Beacon Hill. Not uncommon - but no change, either.
In the eyes of many voters, Patrick's biggest initiative - the thing he is really fighting for - is a plan to raise revenues by building three casinos. This has given hope to those who love slot machines and blackjack, or are unusually focused on the state revenue picture. But it has given absolutely no hope to those who suffer from gambling addictions, worry about traffic, or think casinos are tawdry.
So Patrick's record has been a mixed bag. But the usual ups and downs can be devastating to someone who has staked everything on bringing about change. Whether posited by a candidate for governor or for president, the politics of hope invites disappointment, simply because hope means something different to every person.
Last week, people in Massachusetts had a second chance for hope - and took a pass.
Peter S. Canellos is the Globe's Washington bureau chief. National Perspective is his weekly analysis of events in the capital and beyond. "
By Peter S. Canellos | February 12, 2008
"WASHINGTON - In 2006, Deval Patrick ran for governor of Massachusetts on what his consultant, David Axelrod, called "the politics of aspiration." Patrick talked about hope - a lot. And when people said they were just words, he quoted the Declaration of Independence to upbraid those who think words don't matter. He told voters "Yes, we can," and later, more broadly, "Together, we can."
These words had a lot of power, as it turned out, propelling Patrick to a landslide. They echoed words that had been used by Barack Obama - also advised by Axelrod - in his record-setting Senate race in Illinois in 2004.
Last week, many voters in Massachusetts heard some of those words again at a massive rally for Obama's presidential campaign, joined by Patrick and the state's two senators, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy. But the next day, the people of Massachusetts went out and voted for the candidate of experience.
While voters in much of the country were becoming enthralled by Obama, who continues to gain momentum, Massachusetts voters struck a discordant note. Hillary Clinton beat Obama by 15 points in the Bay State, almost as big a margin as in New York, which she has represented in the Senate for seven years.
The reason may well be in those 2006 ballots, and the sense of disappointment that some people feel about Patrick's administration. And the Massachusetts result may carry words of warning for candidate Obama or, perhaps, President Obama, about the limits of the politics of hope.
Deval Patrick and Barack Obama are not similar personalities. Patrick is friendly and approachable; he's a good listener with an unassuming manner. Obama, by contrast, is stately and imposing, with the posture of a Roman senator. He stands out in a crowd, while Patrick blends in.
But they have things in common as well, two black men with inspiring personal stories and unimpeachable academic credentials who are upbeat about America. And, as Axelrod discovered, there is great power in those stories and the hopes they engender. For some, it's a validation of the American dream. For others, it's a truly colorblind society. But for most, it's a rejection of the sordid compromises of political life - a chance to choose someone who, for so many reasons, does not represent "the system."
Except that when it comes to the actual substance of issues, there's no special agenda attached to the politics of hope. Both Patrick in 2006 and Obama this year have websites full of positions on the issues, but they're not easily distinguishable from those of other Democrats. The issues tend to get lost in the language of hope, perhaps because they sound and feel routine, and don't strike an inspirational chord.
Instead, the candidates talk about creating a mandate for change that will supersede all the petty disputes that clog up government. Then, presumably, a lot of shared priorities will get through.
But as Patrick has shown, without an agenda that stands out from those of other candidates, it's hard to show whether real changes have occurred. It's not that most people think Patrick has been an unusually ineffective governor; it's that he's been precisely the usual kind of governor, and that's his problem.
He got off on the wrong foot when his administration bought a Cadillac as his official car; other governors have had similar missteps, but standards are higher for those promising change. Then he pleased many constituents by restoring services cut by his predecessor. But like many of his predecessors, he quickly ran afoul of a powerful House speaker. A lot of negative vibes started emanating from Beacon Hill. Not uncommon - but no change, either.
In the eyes of many voters, Patrick's biggest initiative - the thing he is really fighting for - is a plan to raise revenues by building three casinos. This has given hope to those who love slot machines and blackjack, or are unusually focused on the state revenue picture. But it has given absolutely no hope to those who suffer from gambling addictions, worry about traffic, or think casinos are tawdry.
So Patrick's record has been a mixed bag. But the usual ups and downs can be devastating to someone who has staked everything on bringing about change. Whether posited by a candidate for governor or for president, the politics of hope invites disappointment, simply because hope means something different to every person.
Last week, people in Massachusetts had a second chance for hope - and took a pass.
Peter S. Canellos is the Globe's Washington bureau chief. National Perspective is his weekly analysis of events in the capital and beyond. "
Deval Patrick: A Cautionary Tale For Obama
From theCJPoliticalReport.com on February 13, 2008:
“It’s time to put our cynicism down. Put it down. Stand with me and take that leap of faith. Because I’m not asking you to take a chance on me. I’m asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations. Take a chance on hope.”
Barack Obama, right?
Wrong.
These are the words of Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, the first African-American to move into the Governor’s Mansion in the commonwealth’s 218 year history after defeating his opponent, a woman, Kerry Healey, the former Lieutenant-Governor of the state under Republican Governor Mitt Romney.
Deval Patrick and his good friend Barack Obama have much more in common than their prosaic words, the depth of the color of their skin, their Harvard backgrounds, and their female political opponents. Neither man can/could claim a mountain of legislative experience prior to their runs, although Patrick’s credentials were far more impressive than those of Senator Obama’s.
Patrick had served as an assistant attorney general in the Clinton Administration, best-known for heading the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Still, he had no experience in Massachusetts politics, and since all politics is local, and Patrick was seeking the Massachusetts governorship, his inexperience should have been an issue in the campaign. It wasn’t.
The electorate was too mesmerized by Patrick’s charm offensive, his promise of the politics of hope, and his “Yes we can,” campaign slogan to care about the particulars.
Where have we heard that before?
It is no coincidence that Patrick’s rhetoric is eerily similar to that of Democratic party presidential contender, Barack Obama. Both men's campaigns were/are conducted under the genius of political operative David Axelrod.
Studying the genesis of Patrick’s win has to be disheartening for Hillary Clinton's campaign. Patrick not only won the election through a grassroots campaign that touched the people’s hearts but he won big, seducing the party apparatchik into his camp as he manipulated the delegate count in ways it hadn’t been played before.
And, much like Senator Obama is doing, Patrick campaigned under little if any scrutiny, the electorate jumping on his soaring train of roaring rhetoric and inspiring message of hope for a better tomorrow, exactly the same style grassroots campaign that Senator Obama is mounting today.
Here’s a description of Patrick’s primary campaign from Frederick Clarkson of The Daily Kos posted September 2, 2006:
“While Reilly (Patrick’s opponent in the primary) continued to raise massive amounts of money, Patrick patiently played his own game; defied the odds and the tsk tsking of The Conventional Wisdom. He inspired people to get serious about electing someone different -- someone who could and would make a difference.
"He was and is a candidate who actually talks with you when you meet him; not just serving up premasticated sound bites. Out of the initial enthusiasm, he forged an effective grassroots organization that won more than enough delegates to be the official nominee of the Democratic state convention. He gave an oration at the convention that brought people to their feet, cheering.”
But it is what happened to Governor Patrick following his election that is relevant to the story. It is a cautionary tale of an unvetted candidate getting his win and then finding himself woefully unprepared for the position he secured in a brilliantly run campaign. America take heed.
Patrick’s first year in office has been a train wreck. But that’s what happens when a politician runs as an “idea” as much as a “human politician,” these the words of journalist Charles Pierce in his must-read piece The Mis-Education of Duval Patrick in The Boston Globe.
Pierce goes on to say: “Because of the nature of the campaign he ran. Patrick has spent his entire first year walking a thin line between two cliches of the established political narrative.
"There is the reformer who spends all of his time at loggerheads with the culture of The Building, watching his cherished proposals vanish in the Legislature like a bowling ball dropped into a vat of oatmeal. And then there is the reformer who "sells out" to the established power against which he ran, thereby disillusioning the primary base of his support.”
I point this out for the obvious reason, and more. I am thinking of Senator Clinton’s big win in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on Super Tuesday, when everyone was certain that Barack Obama would win Massachusetts having the weight of his friend the Governor, the Kennedy machine and the Commonwealth’s junior Senator John Kerry behind his candidacy.
I’m wondering if Senator Clinton’s stunning Massachusetts victory wasn’t only a vote for her but equally a redux of the vote for Governor Patrick. And a warning, a cautionary tale, for America’s voters, not to fall prey as Massachusetts did to the empty rhetoric of inexperienced but charming and poetic politicians.
“It’s time to put our cynicism down. Put it down. Stand with me and take that leap of faith. Because I’m not asking you to take a chance on me. I’m asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations. Take a chance on hope.”
Barack Obama, right?
Wrong.
These are the words of Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, the first African-American to move into the Governor’s Mansion in the commonwealth’s 218 year history after defeating his opponent, a woman, Kerry Healey, the former Lieutenant-Governor of the state under Republican Governor Mitt Romney.
Deval Patrick and his good friend Barack Obama have much more in common than their prosaic words, the depth of the color of their skin, their Harvard backgrounds, and their female political opponents. Neither man can/could claim a mountain of legislative experience prior to their runs, although Patrick’s credentials were far more impressive than those of Senator Obama’s.
Patrick had served as an assistant attorney general in the Clinton Administration, best-known for heading the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Still, he had no experience in Massachusetts politics, and since all politics is local, and Patrick was seeking the Massachusetts governorship, his inexperience should have been an issue in the campaign. It wasn’t.
The electorate was too mesmerized by Patrick’s charm offensive, his promise of the politics of hope, and his “Yes we can,” campaign slogan to care about the particulars.
Where have we heard that before?
It is no coincidence that Patrick’s rhetoric is eerily similar to that of Democratic party presidential contender, Barack Obama. Both men's campaigns were/are conducted under the genius of political operative David Axelrod.
Studying the genesis of Patrick’s win has to be disheartening for Hillary Clinton's campaign. Patrick not only won the election through a grassroots campaign that touched the people’s hearts but he won big, seducing the party apparatchik into his camp as he manipulated the delegate count in ways it hadn’t been played before.
And, much like Senator Obama is doing, Patrick campaigned under little if any scrutiny, the electorate jumping on his soaring train of roaring rhetoric and inspiring message of hope for a better tomorrow, exactly the same style grassroots campaign that Senator Obama is mounting today.
Here’s a description of Patrick’s primary campaign from Frederick Clarkson of The Daily Kos posted September 2, 2006:
“While Reilly (Patrick’s opponent in the primary) continued to raise massive amounts of money, Patrick patiently played his own game; defied the odds and the tsk tsking of The Conventional Wisdom. He inspired people to get serious about electing someone different -- someone who could and would make a difference.
"He was and is a candidate who actually talks with you when you meet him; not just serving up premasticated sound bites. Out of the initial enthusiasm, he forged an effective grassroots organization that won more than enough delegates to be the official nominee of the Democratic state convention. He gave an oration at the convention that brought people to their feet, cheering.”
But it is what happened to Governor Patrick following his election that is relevant to the story. It is a cautionary tale of an unvetted candidate getting his win and then finding himself woefully unprepared for the position he secured in a brilliantly run campaign. America take heed.
Patrick’s first year in office has been a train wreck. But that’s what happens when a politician runs as an “idea” as much as a “human politician,” these the words of journalist Charles Pierce in his must-read piece The Mis-Education of Duval Patrick in The Boston Globe.
Pierce goes on to say: “Because of the nature of the campaign he ran. Patrick has spent his entire first year walking a thin line between two cliches of the established political narrative.
"There is the reformer who spends all of his time at loggerheads with the culture of The Building, watching his cherished proposals vanish in the Legislature like a bowling ball dropped into a vat of oatmeal. And then there is the reformer who "sells out" to the established power against which he ran, thereby disillusioning the primary base of his support.”
I point this out for the obvious reason, and more. I am thinking of Senator Clinton’s big win in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on Super Tuesday, when everyone was certain that Barack Obama would win Massachusetts having the weight of his friend the Governor, the Kennedy machine and the Commonwealth’s junior Senator John Kerry behind his candidacy.
I’m wondering if Senator Clinton’s stunning Massachusetts victory wasn’t only a vote for her but equally a redux of the vote for Governor Patrick. And a warning, a cautionary tale, for America’s voters, not to fall prey as Massachusetts did to the empty rhetoric of inexperienced but charming and poetic politicians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)