No one ever wants to be labeled the “establishment candidate,” especially on the Democratic side of the aisle. The phrase just reeks of stale, dull detachment. “Insurgent candidates” are exciting and lead movements of motivated activists; “establishment candidates” are safe but lackluster, more likely to curry favor with lobbyists than liberals. “Insurgent candidates” want to shake up the status quo; “establishment candidates” prefer not to rock the boat.
Last week, I heard some grumbling from Hillary Clinton supporters that Barack Obama, after picking up endorsements from Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, should be labeled an “establishment candidate.” It struck me as kind of silly, but apparently, the Clinton campaign itself starting pushing the idea on a conference call this morning.
…Hillary pollster Mark Penn repeatedly said Obama was becoming an “establishment candidate” — a rather strained effort to use Obama’s high-profile endorsements to weaken his insurgent appeal.
Asked about Obama’s loss in Massachusetts despite the Teddy Kennedy endorsement, Penn again reiterated the fact that voters making up their minds on the last day had broken for Hillary, suggesting (without quite saying) that this was somehow catalyzed by Obama’s new high-profile support.
“The more that Senator Obama has shifted to becoming an establishment campaign based on endorsements, people said, `You know, it’s really Senator Clinton who has the ideas for change,'” Penn told reporters.
Indeed, Penn suggested Obama would have done even better in Super Tuesday contests, were it not for the notion that voters rejected his “increasingly establishment-oriented campaign.”
I understand why the Clinton campaign would give this message a shot, but I’m skeptical that anyone is going to take it seriously.
Sure, Obama has picked up some high-profile congressional endorsements, but the truth is, Clinton has the support of 90 sitting members of Congress, while Obama has 63. (Obama’s backers seem to support him despite his role as an “insurgent candidate.”)
When it comes to superdelegates, all of whom are Democratic insiders, Clinton also enjoys more support than Obama.
But numbers aside, this spin turns everything we’ve seen the last year on its ear. Obama is, and has always been, the “insurgent candidate.” He’s followed in the Bill Bradley/Gary Hart footsteps of outsiders challenging the establishment. Indeed, by some measurements, Obama is the most successful insurgent candidate in a generation.
Clinton, on the other hand, has not only played the role of “establishment candidate,” she’s practically an incumbent. To be sure, Clinton is not your usual establishment figure — her policy ideas certainly reflect a candidate who’s willing to shake up the status quo — but she’s hardly the gatecrasher. Consider some of her top surrogates utilized earlier this year — Bill Clinton (President in the ’90s), Madeline Albright (Secretary of State in the ’90s), Wesley Clark (NATO commander in the ’90s), and Dick Gephardt (Democratic House Leader in the ’90s). Hardly the stuff of an outsider.
Put it this way: is anyone really prepared to characterize Hillary Clinton as the “insurgent candidate”? It seems like a stretch.