Notes From D. R.

Why isn’t Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick giving his friend Barack Obama better advice?

While Patrick’s 2006 gubernatorial campaign wasn’t flawless, he never made errors commensurate to the ones Obama has committed. Patrick never trashed working-class Bay State voters as “bitter”, never made excuses for extremist rhetoric from friends, and never asked reporters to let him finish his breakfast instead of answering tough questions.

Patrick’s flaws were relatively minor. He did express scorn for those who opposed the 2003 Supreme Judicial Court ruling authorizing same-sex marriage, but the political tide against the ruling had already ebbed by the time he announced his bid for governor. He gave evasive answers to questions concerning his advocacy on behalf of convicted rapist Ben LaGuer and his controversial actions as head of the Civil Rights Division of the Clinton Justice Department, but those answers caused little political damage.

Remember the halo Obama used to have around his head before the scandals involving Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezo and Bill Ayers erupted? Patrick had that same halo around his head two years ago—and his political adversaries couldn’t knock it off. Patrick was so skilled, so slick, so smooth that his Republican opponent, Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, couldn’t lay a finger on him; Patrick’s political gifts (including his effective exploitation of anti-Mitt Romney sentiment in Massachusetts) powered him to a 21-point victory over Healey in the general election.

Like Obama, Patrick had a far-left track record during his previous stint in public service—but unlike Obama, Patrick understood that the key to victory was presenting himself to non-liberals as a man of moderate temperament and sound decision-making. Massachusetts is a nominally liberal state, but it had elected three Republican governors between 1990 and 2002 because many voters were deeply concerned about allowing the Commonwealth to drift too far to the left.

Patrick pointed to his private-sector experience as proof that he was not an anti-business radical. Patrick denounced income-tax cuts, but proposed broad property-tax relief (which he has not delivered on as governor, and probably never will). Patrick used plenty of hope-and-change rhetoric, to be sure, but he was able to convince voters who had previously gone GOP in past gubernatorial elections that he could be an effective steward of the state.

Patrick knew how to transcend political boundaries—something that his friend Obama has clearly failed to do on the campaign trail. You would have never heard Patrick talk about how he didn’t want teenage mothers to be “punished” with a baby. You would have never heard Patrick attempt to rationalize the hatred that motivated a minister to call God’s damnation upon America. Patrick was simply too smart for that.

Why isn’t Patrick telling Obama to knock it off? Perhaps he has, and Obama, in his arrogance and stubbornness, isn’t listening. It’s clear from his overrated Pennsylvania speech on race that Obama is a rather hard-headed individual: surely, he must have been told that it was absolutely necessary to wash his hands of Rev. Wright, but he refused to do so out of a bizarre sense of personal loyalty. Perhaps there’s just no getting through to Obama.

Patrick obviously loves and respects Obama. However, one has to wonder if Patrick is looking at Obama’s foibles and sighing to himself. Obama is making amateur mistakes, while Patrick was an absolute professional on his way to victory in Massachusetts.

It’s impossible to imagine Patrick discrediting himself as a Presidential contender the way Obama has. Patrick was trained at the Bill Clinton School of Faux-Moderation; he understood that many voters had an innate mistrust of (real or perceived) radicalism, and tailored his candidacy to appeal to those who didn’t want an apparent “wild-eyed moonbat” in power. Like Clinton after January 20, 1993, Patrick kept his ultra-liberalism under wraps until after he won the election.

If Obama loses to John McCain in November, it wouldn’t be surprising if Patrick begins to hear a Presidential tune playing in his ear. Patrick has had an absolutely disastrous run as Massachusetts governor, but he can effectively explain his failures away by pointing to the obstructionism of Massachusetts House Speaker Sal DiMasi, a fellow Democrat who has been less than enamored of Patrick’s ideas. Obama’s pre-scandal success has made it somewhat easier for a “progressive” African-American Democrat to become President in the future.  It’s hard to see Patrick running for President in 2012, since the likely Obama comparisons would doom him at that point. Yet, depending on how things shake out, he could be a formidable Democrat contender in either 2016 or 2020.

Patrick may be a woeful governor, but he was an effective vote-getter. Anything Obama can do, he can do better.