Clinton

Few states have shed as many middle-wage jobs as North Carolina in recent years. So, now that the Tar Heel State has become a battleground in the presidential primary contest between Sens. Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama, the candidates have decided to channel their inner populists.

In appearances from the mountains to the coast, both candidates have talked about standing up to special interests, battling rapacious oil companies, supporting fair trade, valuing workforce training and bringing jobs to distressed rural areas. Yet no matter how passionately or skillfully they sound populist notes, neither candidate ever sounds quite on key. Why should, say, a dislocated textile or manufacturing worker in small struggling cities like Hickory or Rocky Mount trust what either candidate says? And for that matter, what are Obama and Clinton saying that is any different in substance or style from what Al Gore or John Kerry said when they were campaigning for president?

This is not to say that the economic positions of the Democratic are interchangeable with those of the Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain. Substantive differences exist and in many ways, Democratic ideas are rooted in a commitment in a shared prosperity. Yet when the candidates try to connect those ideas to the people and communities most adversely affected by economic change, they sound unconvincing and uninspiring. That disconnect constitutes perhaps the largest obstacle to the adoption of more inclusive economic policies on both the federal and state levels.