Over the last few weeks, the GW Bush camp has been attempting to humanize our Decider-in-Chief in order to up his approval ratings.  We saw the NYT article in which Bush Sr. talks about how hard it is to be the father of a sitting president.  And Bush Jr. has recently been crying on the friendly shoulder of Fox's Neil Cavuto about the fact that names CAN hurt him.  While not surprising, this attempt at controverting Bush's carefully constructed image as the brush-clearing, O'Doul's can-crushing cowboy is at least a little audacious.  And it makes me scratch my head as to how much of the public ire the Bush Co. actually brought on itself and how much is simply overhead from our (all-too-human) tendency to dehumanize the enemy.

When first contemplating the option that GW is actually incurring his just desserts, my initial impulse was to run through my standard litany of Bush evils: all the way from 2000 vote-stealing and caging lists through Gonzales and contempt of Congress.  But where does that get me?  We all avoid rehashing our regrettable moments (in fact, I make it a point NOT to document my Facts of Life rerun marathons for fear they may be used against me), and it's just part of the deal that when the president of a country has them, we all end up suffering.  But is it that simple?  Can any of the mistakes that I've made be placed on the same level as those of the Bush Co?  How much does intent matter, and how much of Bush's nonsense has been intentional?  "In other words," is Bush a fool or a knave?  And how much of a role should levels of responsibility and visibility play?  All of these questions may be relevant, but answering them doesn't seem likely to make it any easier to for me to watch a Bush speech.  As a result, I must explore other rationale for why I am so very deeply put off by the man.

So, this brings me to the parts played by image and dehumanization.  The thought that I am so easily swayed by style, is of course, somewhat disconcerting, but in all honesty, I may have been turned off by Bush before he ever became the Decider.  Even before I knew much about his lame Texas governorship (or really, anything significant about him), I was suspicious about the way he walked, the way he talked, and the entirety of his "bringing honor back to the White House" rhetoric.  Just looking at him reminded me of the smarmy, superficial frat boys I had known who had used their connections and underhanded tactics to get out of things like the Vietnam War and into things like the Air National Guard.  Which makes me wonder: In spite of all of my soap-box rhetoric and high ideals about America's place in the world, civil liberties, and social justice, do I loathe Bush for the same reasons that Republicans loathe Clinton?  Am I just as easily swayed by style as by substance?  And do I just use Bush's wrongdoings as an excuse to dehumanize him and call him names like "Geopolitical Warmonger", "Grossly Withoutcompetence", and "Grinning Weasel"?

The answer: I'm afraid I'll never know.

There's more...

In my last Diary entitled The Dangers of Groupthink and Political Correctness, I tried to create a framework for thinking about how voters make decisions.  My central premise was that there is a disconnect between netroots activists and the general voting population.  The netroots have a strong tendency to evaluate candidates based on policy, while the general population is more concerned with "brand." I suggested that because of this disconnect, the candidate with the most progressive policy proposals may not in fact be the strongest candidate or the best person to advance the progressive movement.

Today, I would like to apply this framework more specifically to the debate about whether Obama or Edwards is the most progressive candidate in the Democratic field.  Many Edwards' supporters will probably dispute whether or not there is even a debate.  They strongly believe that Edwards is more progressive; they point to Edwards support for cutting of funds for Iraq, his detailed health care proposal, and his refusal to acknowledge the GWOT, as examples of his more progressive stands.  OTOH, Obama's supporters point to his more liberal voting record in the Senate and to his opposition to the Iraq war from the very beginning.

As I have expressed in comments in other threads, I don't think this is a slam-dunk in either direction.  I think supporters on both sides can make a strong, coherent argument.
My own take is greatly informed by my experiences as an activist.  I have worked as a lobbyist for progressive causes in three states:  New York, Washington State, and Oregon.  I have been a community organizer, a legislative staffer, and the Executive Director of a statewide coalition working on health care issues.  

ACCOMPLISHMENTS NOT PROPOSALS

As a way of illustrating my take on the Edwards vs. Obama debate, I would like to relate a brief tale from my experience in this last role as Executive Director of the Oregon Health Action Campaign (OHAC).  In the mid `80s, OHAC put together a legislative proposal for a Canadian style single-payer health care system for the State of Oregon.  It was a great plan, and filled with youthful idealism, I set about trying to build support.  I quickly got a lesson in the combined power of the business lobby, the health care providers, and the insurance industry.  In spite of solid Democratic majorities in both Houses of the State Legislature, a friendly Committee Chair, and substantial grassroots support, we got crushed.  We finally managed to move it out of the substantive Committee, but we could not even get a hearing in the Ways and Means Committee.

What does this have to do with Obama and Edwards?  My point is that the progressiveness of the candidates should not be measured by what they propose; it should be evaluated by what they can accomplish.  This is hard to do.  Policy proposals can be evaluated and measured; future accomplishments are necessarily based on speculation.

I would argue that much of the difference between Obama and Edwards is based on positioning and style rather than a significant difference in core values:

POSITIONING

Obama and Edwards face different challenges in their efforts to win the nomination.  Edwards has known since 2004, that he was going to face HRC.  He knew that she would have the support of most of the Dem establishment and the support of the DLC.  He also knew that she would be able to raise more money.  HRC was without a doubt going to be the 800 lb gorilla of this election cycle.  If you are facing an opponent who has greater resources, you have to differentiate yourself in personality and message if you are going to have a chance.  Edwards has been preparing for an "insurgent" style campaign for the last three years.  This forced him to the left.  Obama's entry into the race certainly complicated Edwards' task, but it only increased the pressure on him to speak out in order to differentiate himself.  The truth of this statement does not mean that Edwards' positioning is not heartfelt.  There are many indications that JE is sincere.  My point is that necessity has forced him to articulate his more progressive positions.

Obama has faced an entirely different challenge.  His biggest hurdles are his limited experience on the national stage and the very real race barrier he is trying to break.  I would argue that the race barrier is not an issue of whether most Dems are personally willing to vote for an African American candidate, because I believe the vast majority are willing to do so.  I believe the barrier is one of perception; many Dems may hesitate to vote for Obama because they perceive his race as an issue of "electability".   Many may hesitate to vote for him because they fear he can't win in the fall.  Ironically polls show that the group most inclined to feel this way are African Americans.  The pervasive and lingering effects of racism have left them with little confidence in the willingness of whites to vote for an African American candidate.   This skepticism and lingering racial stereotypes, make Obama particularly vulnerable to attacks that he is outside the mainstream.  I believe that both the race barrier and the inexperience factor force Obama to position himself more to the center than his own personal ideology would otherwise.

To summarize, the dictates of the three-way race have forced Edwards farther to the left and Obama more to the center, making it appear that there is a larger ideological gap than there is in reality.

STYLE

Edwards has built on the foundation of his Two Americas stump speech and evolved into more of an openly populist fighter.  Obama has chosen to emphasize his skills as someone who can find common ground.  These stylistic differences are really more about process than about policy.  Edwards believes that we must mobilize the Dem base to reverse the excesses of the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress.  This fits the style of the netroots, which evolved in response these excesses and the timidity of the Dems in opposing the rising right-wing tide.  Obama on the other hand, offers himself as something different, a progressive who can frame progressive policies and values in ways that will make them accessible and acceptable to many in the mushy-middle.  Some have argued that Obama may be a sort of Democratic version of Ronald Reagan; I find that the analogy makes me a bit queasy, but I see the point.  Reagan with his charm and charisma was able to sell conservative values to many who were not self-identified conservatives.  Obama may be able to do the same with voters who are not self-identified liberals.

CONCLUSION

Again, I don't think there is a slam-dunk case on either side of this debate.  I encourage Edwards' supporters to use great caution to not confuse policy with accomplishments.  Anyone can propose a laundry list of progressive policies.  The acid test is who can advance the progressive cause.  Who can persuade more voters to come to our side?  Who can help elect more Dems?  Who can most effectively change the debate, and who can actually pass progressive legislation through a process that emphasizes checks and balances.

Let's have a respectful debate, with as little trash talking and cheap shots as possible.  I believe we have a common goal. I believe that the vast majority of Obama and Edwards supporters would prefer either of these two to HRC.  Let's discuss electability and who would be more successful in advancing progressive policies and building the progressive movement.

There's more...

As a fan of the on-line political world in general and MyDD in particular, I'm going to vent about the seemingly stylish affectation of writing about "people powered" campaigns as if they were something new under the sun.

What Chris, Markos, and others mean when they say "people-powered" is nothing more than a good old-fashioned grassroots campaign as opposed to a campaign built around institutional support.

There are a couple of fallacies at work here.  One is to suggest that campaigns that don't originate or sustain themselves from the netroots are somehow legitimate and don't involve people.

There's more...