Bring Back Jim Webb!

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

It’s hard to be a worse speaker than George W. Bush. But Kathleen Sebelius, the Democratic governor of Kansas, gave it a shot. Sebelius gave the Democratic response to the State of the Union. She’s not a good speaker—she’s obviously glued to the teleprompter, and the speech itself is awful. It’s really too bad, because this could have been a great moment for the Democrats. Bush’s speech is already being dismissed as a lame duck’s list of unfulfilled plans and missed opportunities. Democrats could have capitalized on that. But instead of trying to draw a clear election-year contrast between her party and the huge numbers of congressional Republicans who are still loyal to Bush, Sebelius mailed it in.

My colleague Jonathan Stein points out (correctly) that this is a fundamentally Obama-esque speech. It’s calling for unity; it’s calling for transcendence. But Obama’s speeches take it further than Sebelius did: he uses the force of his personality and charisma to bring people together in the service of progressive goals. Sebelius made a somewhat empty plea for the end of partisanship. It may be a product of Obama’s superior speaking ability; it may be the fact that Sebelius had only ten minutes (or thereabouts) to get her message across.

Point is: Obama has ignited something within the Democratic Party, regardless of whether or not he wins the presidency. There will doubtless be Obama wannabes (Obamannabes?) in the next few election cycles. We may have seen the first tonight.

Update: David Corn, our Washington bureau chief, has problems with the whole idea of a State of the Union “response” speech. Instead, David thinks the minority party should send someone out to riff off whatever the President says. He says it would be more spontaneous, more interesting, and more effective than sending out an apparently randomly chosen Governor, Representative, or Senator to read off a teleprompter in monotone. (Although he admits Jim Webb was good). Anyway, I agree, and not just because he’s my boss. The current format does not work.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend