Unlike lots of other political blogs, BlueNC is not a forum that's obsessively focused on the 2008 presidential race. Yes we have folks who are strong and vocal supporters of individual candidates, but by and large, we lean more toward state politics than anything else.

All of which leaves me in a swivet when I get calls asking from people asking me to support this or that candidate. As a person who has flushed a boatload of money in primaries over the years, I'm up in the air about what to do right now. For example, I think John Edwards is a great guy who would make an awesome president, but I haven't jumped on his bandwagon because I haven't yet been able to make the case that it's the highest and best use of my resources.

The call I got today, however, triggered some new thoughts about the relationship between presidential politics and state politics.  In particular, I'm trying to think through what kind of top-to-bottom ticket we might have in 2008 - and which collection of candidates would most likely result in a victory for progressive politics. For example, the wrong presidential nominee could undercut all sorts of North Carolina races and make it harder for progressive candidates to win in the NC House and Senate - and in the governor's race.  

With all due respect to the man who proclaimed that "all politics is local," the Tipster got it wrong.



For more than a generation, American's have accepted Speaker O'Neill's folksy wisdom as a guiding principle. After all, it's local office impact that matters most, right?

Not quite. Because by jumping on the "all politics is local" bandwagon, progressives unwittingly buy into core Republican values: greed and selfishness. And in doing so, a game that is rigged from the outset to pit good people against one another. Thus corporate whores like Robin Hayes, Charles Taylor, Sue Myrick, and Virginia Foxx spend their careers slopping at the trough of government spending to bring home the bacon.

'Looka what I'm doing fo' my distric',' they say, slamming public spending on one hand while selling their votes to fund some highway contractor so they can brag about how hard they're working for their constituents.

I know moderation is not a compelling virtue for many out here on the internets, and no one would accuse me of being a moderate in any regard. Not in work, not in play, not in love, not in politics. But I must admit to a certain curiosity about people who bring a more considered approach to their words and actions. One such person is David Price of North Carolina's 4th Congressional district. I recently had the chance to interview him - to find out what he thinks about the state of affairs in Washington.  I was happy to see my Congressman had more than a few choice words to share:

It's difficult to know where to draw the line between corruption and incompetence, although there is surely a good measure of each. - David Price, March 14, 2006

Join me on the flip side . . .

This history of business is the history of branding - and for good reason. When properly constructed, brands offer a powerful shorthand for communicating value - and values. Effective brand strategies signal strong promises and reassure buyers that they're making smart choices.  Damaged brands have precisely the opposite effect. They destroy value, create barriers and undermine credibility.

Broken brands

I believe the Democrat brand is a broken brand. Stretched beyond the all reasonable limits, "Democrat" has come to stand for everything and nothing, creating a swirl of ambiguity that leaves many in the middle scratching their heads and wondering what the party actually stands for.  This is true for the Republican party too, thanks to Dear Leader's total abrogation of their core principles, but that's their problem, not mine.