During the first four months of the 2008 presidential campaign, Matt and I have based much of our discussion on the candidates in two frames:
the bar fight primary, and how much a candidate is a friend of the progressive movement. Whilst sifting through some older blog posts, I was reminded of how on August 1st, 2005, the day before the OH-02 special election,
James Powell laid down a series of bullet points that still accurately delineate the basic criteria of what will make a candidate popular in the progressive blogosphere. Let's call it the Hackett litmus test (I added the numbered bullet points myself):
I suggest that we DID have a litmus test, and that Paul Hackett met every important point. It's just not any of the litmus tests that we usually hear about. While I am sure that all of us would have our favorite elements, they would have to include some or all of the following:
- Does 'distance himself' from the party or its leaders, or is he proud to be a Democrat?
- Does he talk like a bureaucrat or like a regular person?
- Does he make it clear that he opposes Bush and the Republicans?
- Does he back down when the corporate press/media or Republican pundits attack him, or does he stand by his words?
- Does he respond to the nationwide reaction of the left blogosphere, or does he assign it to a junior staff member?
- Does he sleepwalk through the campaign, or does he act like he wants to win?
I don't know all of Paul Hackett's positions and, since I am an old school lefty I am sure I don't agree with all of them. But he passed the litmus test I have set out for Democratic candidate I will support with time and donations.
Two years later, I still think this list pretty much sums it up. Avoid triangulation against progressives and Democrats. Speak with honesty and passion. Ditch "the politics of unity and purpose" and earnestly take the fight to Republicans. Get our backs in the bar fight primary. Take the movement seriously and consider it an ally. Play to win and never be lazy. Pretty much every single criticism we have made of Democratic candidates, congressional leaders, and advocacy organizations over the past four months still fits into one of these six categories.
I think it is important to note that these criteria work best for what I have previously termed "
the activist blogosphere," rather than for either the blogosphere or netroots as a whole. I certainly think it works for the hub of websites around Dailykos and MyDD, and mostly works for the hubs around sites such as Fire Dog Lake, Eschaton and Hullabaloo (and maybe some others too, but I don't want to speak for too many people). It isn't blogosphere-wide, but it does serve as a useful guide to navigating a substantial number of prominent progressive blogs.
Where do the 2008 candidates fit in terms of the Hackett litmus test? Here are some quick thoughts:
- Biden seems to flunk the entire list, which is probably why he isn't very well liked in these parts.
- Clinton seems to struggle at everything except for number four and number six, although in terms of number five her campaign has improved its netroots and blogosphere outreach. Whatever other complaints we make about Clinton, being lazy, not playing to win, and rolling over to the press are never (or at least rarely) among them. Her problems seem to be grouped into numbers one, two and three.
- Dodd definitely has problems with number two, and his "just give me a chance" campaign theme does not help him much with number six, either. Otherwise, he seems to do well.
- Edwards does not appear to have any clear weak points in this test, which is why I imagine he is doing so well in Dailykos and MyDD polls. Of course, I'll probably take a lot of flack for not being harder on Edwards here.
- Gravel is clearly has problems with numbers five and six. In fact, his problem with number six is so utterly severe that it is difficult to even tell what other strengths and weaknesses he might have on this list.
- Kucinich has major problems with numbers four, five and six. He seems to spend more energy defending Fox News than actually trying to put together resources necessary to compete.
- Obama, despite his record as a legislator, seems to have problems with numbers one and three. There is an underlying "politics of unity and purpose" theme to Obama's campaign, as well as a tendency to triangulate. Also, despite his huge netroots support, there does appear to be a problem with number five from time to time. However, that is more a problem in his words, than in his actual campaign structure or operation.
- Richardson's problems seem to center on numbers two and three. He doesn't triangulate, but before Iraq he also never seemed to lead on any partisan fights against Republicans. Perhaps it is a visibility problem
I want to emphasize that these observations are very much off the cuff, and I am making them more as a means of starting a discussion than chiseling them in stone. I think this is a useful template to understand the performance of the candidates in certain parts of the blogosphere, and I would like to hear your thoughts on this matter.
Update: As more than one commenter points out, the use of non-gender inclusive language in this litmus test probably reveals an inherent bias in the selection of netroots candidates. Clearly, that is a problem.
