RE: "LIFETIME LIBERALS." I'm not sure if Dana's right about the electorate's affection for "lifetime liberal" narratives, but I think she's wrong in how she apportions out the accolades. Hillary's time as a Goldwater girl and college activist rarely, in my experience, gets brought up as a reason to support her. Obama's time as a community organizer emerges somewhat more frequently, but is decidedly distant from the central narratives of his campaign. That makes sense. Both histories are interesting, and they say something about the candidate's skill set, but in fact very little about their beliefs. And since both Hillary and Obama have substantial political records, there are more direct ways of analyzing their organizing styles than examining their mid-twenties. Rather, it's Edwards, who Dana says "[lacks] such a "lifetime liberal" narrative," who gets the most mileage out of his backstory. It's the millworker stuff, and his history as an anti-corporate lawyer -- "I beat, I beat them, and I beat them again," he says -- that tends to undergird his support. And that's because spending a lifetime battling with corporations actually changes your view of capitalism, and of corporate power, and of economics. Edwards narrative isn't of a "lifetime liberal" so much as a "professional populist," but it's served him well. In the original draft of my Edwards profile, I spent substantial time on this subject, but much of it got cut out. For those interested, the excised portion is below:
