Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Shrum and Dumber: The Memoirs of a Political Consultant Who Knew How to Lose

By Matthew Yglesias, Washington Monthly. Posted July 2, 2007.


Political consulant Bob Shrum knows how to lose presidential campaigns -- he's done it three times for with Kennedy, Gore and Kerry. And now he's written his memoirs.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Matthew Yglesias

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Reviewed: "No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner" by Bob Shrum -- a strategist and consultant to presidential candidates Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, John Kerry and many other Democrats.

Walking around Washington, D.C., telling people you're reading Bob Shrum's forthcoming memoir turns out to be a fantastic small-talk gambit. People are astounded, confused, sympathetic. Someone gave him a book deal? Who would read that? Who would buy it? Good questions, all. But none quite as good as the question of why Shrum wrote the book.

Not, it seems, because he has any particular point to make about campaigns and elections in America, the role of the political consultant in the contemporary Democratic Party, the future of progressive politics, or, indeed, much of anything at all. His tide of anecdotes will entertain anyone interested in horse-race politics and not averse to a little name-dropping (did you know Bob Shrum met Laurence Tribe before he was famous? and Bill Clinton? and James Carville? do you care?), but in his own retelling they add up to almost nothing. A lifetime working at the highest levels of political hackdom, and he's reached essentially no conclusions on any subject of interest -- or, if he has reached any, he seems disinclined to share them. Instead of a book making some point about the world, he's written what is, in effect, Shrum's last campaign -- a race to save his much-tattered reputation as a perennial loser, a man who's lost more presidential campaigns than anyone else alive.

No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner is the title, and the candidate does an admirable job of staying mostly on message, when one takes into account the considerable temptations to backslide. Rather than providing excuses, Shrum wants us to believe, in essence, that his reputation has been sullied unfairly by a cabal of unscrupulous, backbiting Clintonite centrists who have sought to trample him, the progressive standard-bearer who's been fighting for you, the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

And, indeed, Shrum is fairly persuasive in arguing that his bad reputation largely is the result of the backbiting, unprincipled ways of the corrupt cabal of establishment political consultants. Unfortunately, the role of crusading outsider fits Shrum about as well as it fit Al Gore, as this voluminous account of his career makes perfectly clear. Rather, his assessments of political figures and policies are fundamentally grudge-based. The single most loathed figure in the book is Jimmy Carter, who had the temerity to win both the Democratic nomination and the White House after Shrum quit his campaign during a bleak stretch in the 1976 primaries. After Carter's victory, Shrum's career outlook looked bleak. Fortunately for him, Ted Kennedy was willing to give the young speechwriter a job based on his previous work for Ed Muskie and George McGovern, and he served the liberal lion well. A few years later, as a member of the inner circle, Shrum pushed hard in favor of Kennedy's 1980 primary challenge to the incumbent. To a remarkable extent, Shrum still appears to stand by absolutely every criticism the Kennedy campaign ever made of Carter -- that his Afghanistan policy risked plunging the world into nuclear war, and that wage and price controls were the solution to America's late-1970s economic woes -- and even tries to hold Carter responsible for the rise of al-Qaeda, though Osama bin Laden was but a college student during Carter's presidency.

Kennedy lost, of course, but kept his seat in the Senate. Carter, meanwhile, was shown the door by the voters in November, no doubt weakened in part by the need to fend off Kennedy's vigorous intraparty challenge. The resulting Reagan administration was a disaster for the poor and working-class Americans on whose behalf Shrum thinks of himself as toiling, but something of a boon for Shrum himself. With Carter in the White House he was, at best, a nobody who'd alienated the most important Democrats in town. With Carter gone, he was a speechwriter for the most famous Democrat in Congress -- and by most accounts a good one.

This is where the story gets both weird and all too typical. After working for years on Kennedy's staff, Shrum decided he wanted to become a political consultant.

The consultant's racket, especially on the Democratic side, is a good one to break into. Clients who lose wind up leaving office, losing power and stature. The D.C. power structure, meanwhile, is composed of winners, some of whose campaigns you probably worked for in the past. Even better, it's fairly rare for an incumbent to lose, so once you have some significant politicians in your Rolodex you don't need to be especially good at your job to rack up wins. Challengers who hire you and win are in your debt. Challengers who hire you and lose are yesterday's news. And challengers who want credibility with the big-dollar fundraisers and other party kingmakers need to demonstrate that credibility by hiring someone from the circle of established consultants.

It's nice work, if you can get it. And having a powerful senator like Kennedy in your corner is a good way to get it. Never mind that there's no reason to think a person well suited to the job of writing speeches for Kennedy's booming voice, outsize personal story and legacy, and passionate brand of politics would actually be good at a generic political strategist's job. The point, however, is not that Shrum was especially unqualified for his consultant's gig, but that his story stands in for that of his entire profession. Campaign operatives who succeed in any subfield reach for the prize of consultanthood, whether or not there's reason to think they'll be good at it. More to the point, once they reach that prize, it's extremely difficult to dislodge them from it.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: democratic party, bob shrum

Matthew Yglesias is an associate editor of the Atlantic.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Spot On
Posted by: Urstrly on Jul 2, 2007 4:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like you, Mr. Yglesias, I was astounded anyone would give Bob Shrum a book contract after 2004, and I certainly won't pay good money to read his rationalization for the strategies that have left progressives gasping for air. I hope yours was a review copy; Democrats should not put another dime in his pocket. Voters who listened to Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, could feel them straining against his leash.

And don't get me started on Jimmy Carter! Can any of us imagine how much different our nation would have been without Reagan's morning in America? (Cleaner air and fewer SUVs, for starters.) Was Ted Kennedy more charismatic than Carter? Of course, but with the albatross of Chappaquidick around his neck, there was no way Kennedy was going to take the presidency. So Shrum slimed Jimmy Carter anyway. I thought I'd gag when Shrum told Jon Stewart what a progressive he is. He's an opportunist and an obstructionist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's about time
Posted by: VAGreen on Jul 2, 2007 5:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"So consumed is Shrum by the quest for vindication in his struggles with Clinton's political team that he manages to recount the 2000 campaign without bothering to discuss Ralph Nader."

It's about time that the Democrats moved beyond their obsession with Nader and try to figure out what went wrong in 2000. I don't see what they have gained so far by their absolute refusal to do so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shrum, LOL....
Posted by: Bozly on Jul 2, 2007 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Have aught Shrum giving his "expertised" assessment often on air these Bushlerized years and found him NOT all that credible and more like self promoting and wondered WHO would bother listening up to him.
One point currently, just as the Kerry/Edwards VOTE in regard to "authorization" of war powers were "advised" to make their votes "YEA's" , currently the issue of ILLEGAL IMMIGRATON is going to be a major downfall for Dems who lockstep and attempt to rush thru legislation that THE TRUE MAJORITY OF LEGAL RESIDENTS/CITIZENS/VOTERS have MAJOR ISSUES against and feel ALIENATED from those presently elected to be REPRESENT , "WE THE PEOPLE" who are effected and affected by the presence of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS who do effect/affect OUR "standards of living" in regards to OUR employment, education, medical and other social needs. WE have seen jobs , benefits, wages ERODED by a CHEAPER work force and DO NOT BUY the premise "only filling jobs that NO OTHERS WILL", we have had our childrens education IMPACTED due to accomodation of children of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, we have had MEDICAL services CURTAILED due to overburdoning issues that stem as well from those that due to ILLEGAL status, working but NO BENEFITS, WE pick up the tab and lose services for our families/communities as accomodation is made to assist those that are in need but have not the ability to pay--we lose the services, we get charged more as well to make up shortfalls and services/availability for ALL declines proportionately as well. Attempts to spin this elsewise will NOT FLY, as too many of US, the LEGAL RESIDENTS, THE CITIZENS, THE VOTERS , HAVE EXPERIENCED SUCH FIRST HAND AND KNOW such to be the REALITY no matter how those trying to FORCE the issue try to spin elsewise!! and the Dems, siding with those that take to the streets to SHOW numbers, well the Dems evidently are ignorant of the "silent majority" who will let their votes do the shouting when the next casting of votes comes around. We the people are aware there ARE laws on the books NOW to accomodate "guest workers" and employment issues--let those in charge show us THEY are CAPABLE of enforcing those before attempting to "amnesty-size" our homeland once again. If they can NOT track/identify those here illegally, hardly CREDIBLE that they KNOW these folks are paying their fair share in taxes is another point that needs addressing. Evidently , WE THE PEOPLE are NOT quite dense enough but WTP think those presently electeds are !!!!
The ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION issue is akin to the WAR AUTHORIZATION vote...and NONE seem aware !!!! IT will HAUNT !!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You ignore two real issues here
Posted by: truthteller on Jul 2, 2007 6:59 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, scream loudly: THE REPUBLICANS STOLE THE LAST TWO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS! Ralph Nader did not cause Gore to lose the election in Florida, the GOP stole it. (They probably also stole several Congressional elections and assasinated Paul Wellstone and Mel Carnahan.) The evidence for this is overwelming, and as recent as Monica Goodling's admission of a vote caging operation in Karl Rove's office in '04. Why won't the writers on Alternet, or any other major on-line or print journal start with this fact, instead of ignoring it? This is the greatest story of electoral corruption since Watergate, and as John Dean says, probably "Worse than Watergate". Do you believe that the American people just won't accept this fact when all the evidence is presented to them? Or, is there something more under-handed going on here? I'm not sure what, or why for that matter. I thought good investigative journalism was a search for the truth.

Second, Al Gore and John Kerry both obstructed those who wanted to press the issue of these stolen elections for the sake of not looking like sore losers. What a load of BS. Better to look like a sore loser than face the mess this illegitimate and criminal gang of thugs and fascists running the executive branch have left us with? If Bob Shrum advised Gore and Kerry not to pursue the election fraud charges, then he is equally complicit in allowing all of the horrible things that have happened to us in the past six years.

We need to keep pounding away on the election fraud of '00 and '04. The GOP will do it again as long as they know that they can marginalize any coverage of their crimes as "wild conspiracy theories", rather than the well-researched, and documented cases made by the likes of Greg Palast, Mark Crispin Miller, Bob Fritakis and Harvey Wasserman.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bob Shrum is Political Kryptonite for the Democrats
Posted by: ChrisSmith0077 on Jul 2, 2007 8:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Political consultants, such as Bob Shrum, may have started out with liberal ideals. They were given opportunities to work on campaigns and somehow distinguished themselves. Mix youthful idealism with the excitment of working on a high-profile political campaign and, voila, a political consultant is born. Bob Shrum worked for George McGovern and Ted Kennedy, two of the Democratic Party's most prominent liberal standard bearers. I'm sure he learned a lot about politics, and he obviously made some extremely good connections. Unfortunately, he didn't learn how to win elections.

These were both losing campaigns. McGovern got trounced by Nixon in 1972, despite the unpopularity of the Vietnam War and the first glimmers of the Watergate scandal after the breakin that summer. Ted Kennedy didn't win the nomination, and would probably not have fared well in the general election, though he did manage to weaken Carter and damage his credibility. Reagan would probably still have won in 1980, but Ted Kennedy's primary camapign with its attacks on Carter did not help.

Shrum learned how to be an effective political operative within the Democratic Party. He was able to use his connections to secure his place within the party apparatus and make a very secure and lucrative living for himself. He obviously is not an original, visionary thinker. Rather, he thrived by not 'rocking the boat.'

I am convinced that the consultants have been a major liability for the Democratic Party. Shrum, for instance, has never won a campaign. Not only that, it appears that he is totally incapable of learning from the past. Failure can be an excellent learning experience, which Shrum has not availed himself of. Yet, the Democratic Party still kept him around. Hopefully, this memoir will mark his retirement.

Contrast this with Karl Rove, who has never lost an election. Yes, the man is evil, but he's effective, or at least he has been in the past. Rove identified social and demographic trends that could benefit the Republicans, then ruthlessly exploited them.

I was shocked to read that the consultants get paid a percentage of the money spent on ads. That's crazy! It can be nothing more than a spoils system for a coterie of Washington insiders. Isn't it comforting to know that this is where your donations go? Just spend money on ads, it doesn't matter how well targeted they are. Make sure these ads air frequently in metropolitan areas where air time is expensive. Repeat until fees make you rich. It doesn't matter that limited resources aren't being deployed where they can have the most impact, such as organizing.

Republicans know how to play this game. They have spent decades getting their message out and mobilizing the base far more effectively than the Democrats, who have let the Republicans define the political climate in this country. The Republicans are on the offensive and the Democrats put up a weak defense.

Hopefully, this will change. Progressives have found an unprecedented energy and determination, largely as a result of this administration's policies. They have learned how to use the Internet to reach out, particularly to young people, who according to polls tend to be progressive and support Democrats. Voters under thirty went for Kerry by about a fifteen point margin, if I remember correctly. Other groups that are growing in number and influence, such as immigrants and professionals, also lean Democratic. The Bush-Rove brand of politics doesn't appeal to them.

I can see the light at the end of the tunnel. The key is to get young people and immigrants to the polls. There are indications that there is a paradign shift, from the old command and control campaigns run by the political machine to a new, more dynamic model, exemplified by Joe Trippi.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shrum is dumb, but Paraquat Carter was dumber
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma on Jul 2, 2007 9:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Carter, meanwhile, was shown the door by the voters in November, no doubt weakened in part by the need to fend off Kennedy's vigorous intraparty challenge.

Sooooo... there shalt not be a primary challenger to an incumbent Dem prez, no matter how lousy the prez is... but thou mayest not criticize a third party spoiler like Nader?

Is that really the consensus of the AlterNet readership? I hope not!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» okay Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
Gore won in 2000, and Kerry probably won in 2004.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jul 2, 2007 10:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There were two things at play in the stolen elections.

First was the deliberate manipulation of the vote. Many legal voters were prevented from voting (voter rolll cleansing), voting machines in poor areas were not maintained, electronic voting systems were not secure, and vote counts were halted by a right-wing politicized Supreme Court that had abandoned any pretense of being an objective and impartial guardian of the law.

Second was the refusal of the corporate media to report on the issue. This was a conspiracy of the major media outlets in the United States. There reason for refusing to report the results of their independent vote count was that in the 'post-911 situation' they felt the need to 'support the president'. However, all the information about the fraudulent election was available many months before 9/11.

The problem is not the advisors - the problem is the corrupt election process and the dishonest, bootlicking, gutless corporate media.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

stippolito
Posted by: stippolito on Jul 2, 2007 10:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bob Shrum and the cabal of the DLC are the culprits in the losses from 1994 sans Clinton victory in 1996. They have pushed the Dems into being pseudo GOPers consequently, everyone says "there ain't a dimes worth of difference between the 2 political parties" Amen. The author of the article doesn't mention Howard Dean in the article...does Shrum in his book? Probably doesn't since the DLC was instrumental in destroying Dean. No, I won't buy it or even read it...I'm so
tired of liars.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush & The Rule of Law
Posted by: EinMD on Jul 2, 2007 11:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The President could very well have gone to the 107th through 109th Congresses ( especially his pet 109th ) and had them modify FISA. He didn't. FISA allows you to conduct surveillance for up to 72 hours and get a warrant re-troactively if you are surveilling Americans. If you are only watching foreigners as BUsh as asserted you catch watch them for up to a year. In the history of FISA they have turned down -9- out of over 22,000 applications for a warrant. Bruce Fein, an assistant attorney general during the Reagan era testified on CSPAN before Congress in 06 that the FISA was basically a rubber stamp anyway so there would be no reason to go around it. Unless of course what your'e doing is so illegal, immoral or unethical that even the rubber stamp court would call it to question or you're an egomaniacle tyrant who can't brook even the slightest bit of questioning from any source.

Neither the AUMF, the 'inherent executive powers' nor the Constitution grants him the ability to disobey a law when he finds it inconvenient. So any argument to the contrary is complete bullshit.

The bottom line to all this is either you believe that the Law applies to everyone in all situations, even the President and even during a time of war, or you do not.

If you do not, then the United States of America is an illusion, the rule of Law has no meaning, we might as well throw the Constitution out the window because none of it can be enforced or guaranteed. In effect the terrorists have won because they have forced us to fundamentally change our way of life to allow a tyrant wrapped in the flag and bearing a cross to take over.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You go girllllll! Posted by: Suzon
Agree with truthteller on the fraud, but not on the ability to prove it.
Posted by: Marjorie G on Jul 2, 2007 6:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just because we believe there was fraud, overwhelmingly, there was no way Ohio was going to allow a recount, as a state has to. Bill Richardson said no as a Dem state governor allowing it, for reasons self-serving.

I have been on this issue since before 2004 and to the hill many times for the bad legislation many groups are trying to wrongly push as solutions. The bills further disenfranchise certain groups and make secret voting permanent and legal. All to placate the states not wanting to count or audit, and the vendors not wanting us to look inside their poorly designed junk, conveniently proprietary.

That said, we couldn't prove Ohio, and those who think a hero brandishing a sword was going to do it, doesn't know what we had or didn't have in Ohio of outcome altering proof or supposition. Especially then, when a hostile media to Kerry was not going to allow a fishing expedition.

I still want to know what was truth to Bob Woodward's claim that Carville pillow talked with Mary, who talked to the GOP powers, and poof, not the same amount of provisionals the next day, or enough to think possible, hugely changing the dynamic.

True, though, when Shrum says that Dems thought this would be easy, when, really, the country did not have enough of a clue of why they were going to the polls, the true quality and integrity of Kerry, but mostly too afraid to switch.

But we still won enough, had the votes been counted and not switched or turned away.
Remember that the media had the Swift Boat facts early, and chose not to use them. Easier to blame the candidate, than the Dem establishment who would not speak enough on Kerry's behalf, preferring to wait for Bill's third term.

Kerry was more alone than he should have been.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think I'll hold off until I see another review.
Posted by: Sojourner on Jul 2, 2007 10:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Shrum is fairly persuasive in arguing that his bad reputation largely is the result of the backbiting, unprincipled ways of the corrupt cabal of establishment political consultants. (...)Rather, his assessments of political figures and policies are fundamentally grudge-based."

"Persuasive" and "grudge-based" are a non-sequitur. That leads me to distrust this evaluation. Call it "grudge-based" if your vocabulary is limited.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]