Rollingstone goes after political consultants, uses political consultants to make its point.

[Mass]

I started reading this article hoping a lot. God knows I agree with the premise.

The Enemy Within - The Democrats' most dangerous opponent in '08 may be their own campaign consultants, who charge far more than GOP strategists -- and deliver far less


2008 has the makings of a banner year for Democrats. The wave of discontent that swept the GOP from Congress last November is growing, and the Iraq debacle will make it difficult for Republicans to retain the White House. But there is one group of powerful Washington insiders who have a proven ability to derail the Democrats. Working behind the scenes, these top-tier operatives humiliated Mike Dukakis in a tank, muzzled Al Gore on the environment and portrayed John Kerry -- a lifelong crusader for gun control -- as a rifle-toting Rambo. Year after year they have made sure that the Democratic message comes across as little more than a fuzzy, focus-grouped drone about child tax credits, prescription-drug plans and the "fight for working families."

But, very quickly, this article is turning to a farce.

Here is the first witness that the writer uses to make its point:

"The political consultants," says longtime Gore policy staffer Elaine Kamarck, "have not served our presidential candidates well." Larry J. Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, is even more blunt. "Forget what Shakespeare said," he advises. "First, kill all the consultants."

Seems nice, but, ... Isn't Sabato a politcal consultant? Isn't Kamarck a political consultant?

The article continues like that for a long time. A lot of points I think are valid, but, all pushed by people I would call political consultants, may be retired now, but who were doing exactly the same job at the time.

Can somebody tell me the difference between the people who are denouncing political consultants and the people they denounce, because it escape to me right now.

[whometense]

1. Thanks for pointing this out.

I haven't had a chance to read the article yet, but I will later, and then hope to have something to add to the conversation.

What you bring up resonates with me, though - consultants denouncing consultants - I see it on the talking head tv shows all the time. What it says to me is, "THEY SHOULD HAVE HIRED ME INSTEAD." Which is, you know, pretty self-serving, isn't it? I'll let you know what I think after I read the article.

[Firespirit]

2. All consultants are not created equal

All staffers are not created equal either.

Some consultants/staffers are out of touch, f*ing stupid, incompetent, or even disloyal and subversive. Others are not, and are the lifeblood of a campaign. The danger, as usual, is in a subset of the profession. Sabato talks about lawyers, well, a subset of the legal profession gives the entire group a bad name. Lobbying ought to be a respectable profession, taking the concerns of the country to its elected leaders, and there are good lobbyists, but it's been tainted with corruption.

There are some very legitimate concerns about the "DLC consultants" and "longtime party operatives," but most of these people have gone to HRC, and I have no problem with that whatsoever. But by not making the distinction clear, this type of article is just further evidence of the dumbing down of America, and the inability of people to think critically.

[TayTay]

3. Agreed

Ostensibly, some of the people in the new "This Moment on Earth" book are now de facto lobbyists. They are bringing items of particular concern to them directly to the attention of legislators with the hope of affecting the direction of legislation, direct funding to a cause and so forth. The vast majority of public interest lobbyists make little to no money doing their jobs and perform a public service.

Bob Shrum, for all his problems, was an asset in certain Senate campaigns in the past. The basic problem here is, to me anyway, one of messaging, and how the Democrats are both trying to expand and contract their brands at the same time. Some of this is inevitable because the Dems are a coalition Party and what I think of as the Dem Party up in Mass might not bear much resemblance to what someone in another state sees as the Dem Party. We still have the problem, and will have the problem in '08, with how we put everything that is the Democratic Party onto one nominee. (The Repubs still do this better than we do because they do structure, we don't.)