The Democrat's Big Three: Rachel Maddow Nails It (and Eugene Robinson Too!)

I heard Air America radio personality Rachel Maddow say this on her on show a few days ago, but I couldn't remember the whole text and didn't want to reprint it or talk about it until I could find it. Lucky for me, she repeated it on MSNBC's Countdown w/Keith Olbermann (thanks to C&L for their video as well).

The topic? The meaning beside all this "change" rhetoric:

And I think that Obama and Clinton and Edwards are actually identifying what needs to be changed in three really different ways. I think Hillary Clinton is saying the Republicans and Bush need to be out and Democrats need to be in. I think John Edwards is saying the special interests and the lobbyists need to be out and the people need to be in, in the populist way. And I think that Barack Obama is saying that he needs to be in because he can transcend the differences across the political divide right now. There’s three very different visions of what you would do to the country if you had the reins.

I think that sums up the top three Democratic candidates views on change very nicely, and it tell us alot about the candidates themselves.

For Clinton, it's about the party, and as far as recent history is concerned, the fondest memories of Democrats in power equate to the Bill Clinton Administration. His approval rating during his last year is but one small testament to the good feelings his term invokes. So if the your is "we just need Democrats in charge" and Bill Clinton has been the most successful Democrat, then why not another Clinton Democrat for the White House?

For Edwards, it's about the working class, or rather, what's left of it. People still consider it the backbone of the US economy, and between an increase in lobbyists, corporate mergers and pork-laden legislation, it's been taking a beating. The result has been a union that's been weakened and vilified, CEOs making crazy money and a government that would rather bail out an airline company for making bad financial decisions than a person. So if your issue is "Lobbyists and Corporations have bought your politicians," and you're not a fan of this, then why not an Edwards Administration?

For Obama, it's about turning politics as we know it on it's head. Your average American (let alone your average voter) tries to stay away from politics as much as possible because the process has become more disgusting with each year. As a consequence, people as less informed when they do decide to vote, and often rely on TV ads, sound bites and shoddy (not to mention partisan) debates. There are voters who cross party lines every presidential election, and this one will be no different. So if you believe the problem is that people need to more a part of the political process, and that this political process needs to be more about addressing America's concerns than building/solidifying a party majority, then President Obama may be the way to go.

Now, I could be wrong here, but this is how I feel about Maddow's interpretation. The type of "change" you want will depend on what you think the key issues are. I'm just thankful that there are people like her who can filter things out for those (like me) who can't always put the pieces together.

UPDATE: Here's a YouTube video!



UPDATE PART DEUX: It seems like Eugene Robinson has seen Maddow's assessment, or at least is seeing the three Democrats in a similar light:

The really agonizing choices are the ones being made now in both parties.

Is the Republican coalition assembled by Ronald Reagan and reunited by Bush still viable now that so many independents have drifted away? If not, then where lies the party's true soul? In the hawkishness of McCain, or perhaps Rudy Giuliani? In Romney's big-business boosterism? In Mike Huckabee's new admixture of social conservatism and economic populism?

Three primary contests have given three different answers. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, knows exactly what it stands for. Obama, Clinton and Edwards are hardly fire-breathing radicals. Their positions on domestic issues are all comfortably within the Democratic mainstream. Internationally, all would seek to repair the damage to America's standing that Bush has done; none is likely to look for wars to start, but none is going to take Dennis Kucinich's recommendation to renounce war-making for all time.

What Democratic primary voters have to decide, as they cast their ballots, is not just how they view the candidates but how they view the moment. After suffering through the infuriating Bush years, are Democrats ready to fight, as Edwards believes? Are they nostalgic for the Clinton era, which had its pluses and minuses but at least holds no mystery? Or are they ready to follow Obama on a promising new path, trusting that he knows the way?

Not easy.

Amen to that.