"Real Change Takes More Than Words"

The above is the cover copy for a flier distributed to AFSCME members, one of whom lent a copy to me, endorsing Senator Clinton for the New York Democratic primary. Ironically, the document is itself only so many words, none of which make a persuasive case for the Senator's exclusive claim on AFSCME's votes. We're told that she fills our need for "strength and experience to change this country because "she has never stopped fighting for New York's working families." The proof of this is that she "successfully fought" to raise the minimum wage -- along with hundreds of Democrats, of course, and that she "stood strong" against the privatization of Social Security -- along with hundreds of Democrats then, too. The union boasts of her sponsorship of numerous bills supporting workers and working families' rights without informing readers that bills like these have scads of co-sponsors. If you're meant to believe that only Hillary can defend your rights as a worker, the case is made only by omission. I suppose this is better than saying that Edwards and Obama are enemies of the working class, but since the union says "How you vote is a personal decision," fairness might have obliged them to make some representation of the other Democrats' positions rather than imply negatively that Clinton's rivals have done nothing for unions.

Meanwhile, the Albany Times Union has endorsed Clinton. Instead of strength, the Hearst paper cites the Senator's "intelligence and experience," characterizing her as "a workhorse who can transcend partisan differences and get things done." Perhaps this transcendence takes place within the corridors of power, but out of doors we see little of it.

"This is not to dismiss her chief rival," the editorial writer says before dismissing Sen. Obama. After reviewing his "appealing qualities" and noting his lack of "polar negtives," the writer opines that "at this juncture in history, the country needs more than an inspiring persona. It needs a proven leader who can begin to clean up George Bush's mess." Since the argument ends there, you're left to figure out for yourself that fourth-year Senator Obama is an unproven leader, while eighth-year Senator Clinton has proven her leadership, on no evidence provided here. Edwards is dispensed with in a paragraph that expresses impatience with his "populist mantra," which might have made him more viable "at another time, and in another field," but pales when "Hillary Clinton ... stands above all others."

The most absurd section of this endorsement comes, as you might expect, when the spotlight turns to Mr. Clinton. Because Bill was able to repair "an economy that had gone sour under a clueless President George H. W. Bush," and the Senator will have to do something similar, "that makes former President Clinton more of an asset than a liability to her campaign." Tell that to South Carolina.

So the battle lines are forming for February 5 in New York. Friends of Obama have opened up a campaign headquarters in Albany, while nationally the Kennedys stand poised to weigh in on his side. Yesterday I saw a couple of Clinton sign-wavers at the corner of Colonie Center where Ron Paul's people performed weeks ago. Was there some turf war fought and won, or do they all take turns now? The Paulites remain active in Troy, where they're recruiting volunteers for door-to-door work next week. There's no sign of the big Republican guns yet, but now that Giuliani is vulnerable, McCain and Romney will likely establish local beachheads after Florida votes. Things should start to get interesting around here shortly.