It’s not a presidential campaign in America anymore until someone puts their progressive hero-worship for a Clinton challenger to music.
The contrast in styles with “Yes We Can” is revealing. That song was celebrity-heavy and hymnal, both of which fed the idea of Obama as icon. He was an object of veneration, the left’s epitome of cool. Warren doesn’t have one one-thousandth his personal charisma and, unlike him circa 2007, she does seem to care about policy on the merits, beyond whether a given position will help or hurt her nascent presidential campaign. (Remember, Obama’s signature achievement as president began as an applause line he stuck into a stump speech because he didn’t want to seem less interested in health-care reform than Hillary.) They liked Obama because they saw him as an agent of political and cultural deliverance; watch “Yes We Can” again and see for yourself how hollow and ridiculous it looks now. They like Warren, I think, because they see her as authentic and substantive, in contrast to the Hopenchange light show. She’s basically their hippie grandma. Her song, naturally, is folk-y. She’s progressivism unplugged.
I shudder to think what “Hillary’s song” would sound like. The imperial march? Exit question via Conn Carroll: Aren’t “populists” supposed to be against corporate welfare handouts like the Ex-Im bank?