‘The Nation’ muses on “favorite sons” (and daughters)

By now, you’ve probably heard the news from innumerable sources: Stephen Colbert last night announced that he would seek the office of President of the United States as a “favorite son” of South Carolina.

But what exactly does that mean? The Nation (you know, the *other* Nation) takes a closer look:

OF COLBERT AND FAVORITE SONS AND DAUGHTERS…

. . .

Colbert’s candidacy says he’ll run in his home state of South Carolina “and South Carolina alone.”

As such, he is resurrecting the American political tradition of the “favorite-son” candidacy.

Into the 1960s, governors, senators and other prominent figures frequently filed as presidential candidates in their home states only, won party primaries and then led delegations to the nominating convention. Historically, “favorite sons” influenced platforms and the process by trading their their delegate votes for concessions from the frontrunners.

Colbert’s candidacy may be all in jest. But there is something to be said for bringing back favorite-son — and favorite-daughter — politics. Colbert can take his shot in South Carolina. But why shouldn’t California Democrats send a delegation to the 2008 national convention pledged to the only senator who objected to the certifying the 2004 presidential election results, Barbara Boxer? Why shouldn’t Ohio Democrats pledge their delegates to a critic of corporate-sponsored free-trade agreements like Sherrod Brown? Why shouldn’t Minnesota Democrats send a delegation pledged to a champion of presidential accountability like Keith Ellison? Why shouldn’t Wisconsin Democrats send a delegation pledged to the Senate’s boldest defender of the Constitution, Russ Feingold?

Read the full article here

• Ujjal Dosanjh: Stephen Colbert’s message “worth reflecting on”
• Stephen Colbert ‘Reports’ to Olympic Games
• Press Sec. Gibbs explains why Pres. Obama would avoid ‘The Colbert Report’
• Spoiler Alert: MP Dosanjh wants you to ‘Better Know a Riding’