An uncommitted look at the field of Democrats

I am uncommitted.   When I read the various candidate diaries, pro- and con-, I am at times amused, and at other times saddened.   I have no trouble with ardent, passionate support of a candidate, in fact I welcome it.   Nor do I have trouble with raising issues that might be a problem for another candidate in the general (although I do remind people that Willie Horton, albeit without his name or all the specifics, was first raised against Dukakis by the now-sainted Al Gore:  before that the Republicans did not have a hint).  

In the vast majority of cases I am neither convinced for or dissuaded from support of a candidate by what people offer.  The polling data may be interesting, but offers little meaningful information, at least for me.  And I have no interest in attempting to persuade or dissuade others.

But I do have observations, and I am not unwilling to share what I perceive.  So as we are about to take (mercifully) a hiatus, even if only a few days, from active campaigning by the principals, I thought I would offer what has struck me recently about the campaigns and the candidates.  And remember, I would support any of the top three against any conceivable Republican.  
I have been inescapably struck by what I perceive as a contradiction in the Clinton campaign.  Simply put, either the series of attacks on Obama at significant levels of the campaign were a deliberate strategy or else the campaign is unable to manage its own message even among its key supporters (including the former president and the national co-chair), in which case it raises real questions about how well it might manage the government.  Don't get me wrong.  I read Larry Johnson's piece about Mrs. Clinton and I can absolutely accept everything he says.  She is incredibly bright, and people I know who know her say that she is personally very warm.  I have no doubt about her passion for issues that concern her, and I remember the brouhaha she caused with her apparently extemporaneous remarks at her own college graduation.  Despite the fears of some that she would hurt Democrats down-ballot in places in the South, until recently I did not think that would be the case:  in a general I think would compare quit favorably when on a stage with any of the Republicans.   And I think people underestimate her ability to get support from Republicans and independents.  But the recent missteps of her campaign's attacks against Obama have clearly alienated many in the Black community, and without passionate black support in the general she COULD hurt down-ballot candidates, and not just in the South.  I have never met the woman, do not think she is the devil incarnate, admire many of the things in her public career.   But I have been bothered and concerned about some of what has come out of her campaign recently, and even by some of her remarks.  

I note that Obama had a real chance to bash Mrs. Clinton, but passed.   When, in the debate, he was asked why he was using former Clinton foreign policy advisers and Hillary quipped about how he was going to explain that, he could have responded much more fiercely than his gentle remark about expecting her to advise him as well.   He could have said that these were people who knew her from her husband's presidency and still chose to support him, why might that be?  When he didn't hit back like that, Obama was acting consistently with his normal pattern of not seeking temporary advantage through a process that might damage feelings by belittling an opponent, recognizing that for long-term success you need to be able to come together on key issues despite previous disagreements.   It is something I admire about his public record.  It is also something that I though was somewhat undercut by some of his recent attacks upon Edwards, although I know it can be hard when (a) you are both competing to be the non-Hillary, and (b) there is a need to make contrasts between yourself and your opponents in order to give voters a reason to support you.  

One thing I like about Obama is that he has been following a 50-state strategy - he has put campaign resources into small and late states.  HE recognizes that he can thereby increase his financial support by having a visible presence, and he has thus already started to built an infrastructure that would not only be useful for him in the general but also for assisting down-ballot Democratic candidates.

I feel sorry for John Edwards.  He has brought as much passion to this race as I can remember seeing from a top-tier Democratic candidate, but e seems to be the Rodney Dangerfield of the cycle - he can't get no respect. People are finally recognizing that he might win Iowa, but even if he did, and comfortably, the follow-on meme has been how that would help Clinton and hurt Obama, not how he might benefit from it.  Of course, polling data does not show him doing well enough in NH or SC to capitalize even on a significant victory in Iowa, and of course the polls at this point are going to be completely accurate portrayals of what will happen, true?  And his decision to take public funds, rather than being portrayed as having any principle behind it, has been heavily criticized, including by the proprietor of Daily Kos.  People argue that it represents unilateral disarmament on his part that would cripple him even should he win the nomination.  Of course, when independent groups demonstrate how they can provide support for his principles and at least indirectly his candidacy he is bashed for not totally disavowing them, even though such independent groups could, along with party organizations, provide the kind of support necessary to offset the obscene amounts of money raised by the two candidates with which he is contending.

There are things I admire about all three top candidates.  I respect the intelligence with which Mrs. Clinton has applied herself to multiple issues during her Senate service.  She has demonstrated an ability to work across the aisle with Republicans on issues of national importance.  John Edwards willingness to be blunt about the problems facing many people is refreshing: he says things in a way that brings to the fore the concerns of those not often considered in our public dialog.  Obama displays consistently a recognition that we must find ways to get along with people with whom we disagree, and as one who tries to teach my students about learning how to disagree without being disagreeable his career is one I can use to illustrate that it is possible to be successful in politics without being unnecessarily mean and small-minded.

I have worries about each.  For me, as a Dean supporter, there were two things that marked the beginning of the end of his candidacy.  The first was when he appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews and spoke about breaking up the concentration of power of the media.  I knew that was going to make him a target.  The second was the Gore endorsement, because it immediately placed all the other candidates at risk of being swamped and led to the formation of alliances and an almost common understanding that Dean had to be taken down in Iowa or it was all over.  I see applicability of a similar dynamic in this race, although not focused on one candidate.  Edwards represents a real threat to the way business has been done in Washington.  If he were able to win the nomination and the presidency by violating the 'conventional wisdom' of how a race has to be run this cycle, if he can so change the nature of how campaigns are done, that represent a threat to many:  the gatekeepers in the media, the conventional powerbrokers inside the Beltway, including lobbyists and Democratic party figures.  That seems to parallel something of the threat Dean posed.  

Similarly, there is a parallel on the focus of Iowa for both Obama and Clinton.  Should Clinton win Iowa, the conventional wisdom says it is hard to see how she would be stopped in NH and SC, and would probably run the table. Here I am not sure that it is the case.  If Edwards were effectively knocked out in Iowa by finishing 3rd, even if Clinton narrowly defeats Obama that does not knock him out, and in a two person race those who are uncomfortable with Clinton would quickly coalesce around Obama, making for a very unpredictable few weeks.  The press, which has no interest in the contest being over, would hype the race and magnify any differences no matter how minute between the two of them.   And under that kind of scrutiny it is impossible to predict which candidate might make a misstep and how such would play.

Should Obama win Iowa, there is a real possibility that he could catapult that victory to sweeping NH and SC.  I think that is a very real possibility.  But that would not eliminate Clinton because of the strong support she has built in the big states like CA.  There would be a lot of interest in how her people would react to losing the first three events.

And of course there is always the possibility of a split result.

All of that is speculation.  I cannot avoid it, because that is what I am reading, online and in the press, and seeing among talking heads.

I am encouraged that the Democratic contest has not yet gotten quite as nasty as the Republicans have been.  Although, as Faye Dunaway said to Robert Redford in Three Days of the Condor, when Redford's character noted that he had not tried to rape her, the night is still young.  It could get very nasty.  The kinds of bitterness we have seen in campaign diaries here could become far more common on the campaign trail.   And people will focus on missteps and misstatements.

I want to see a strong discussion of issues, even as Markos and Jerome have written that it is not issues that drive elections.  While I largely agree with the assessment they offered in CTG, I want to see some demonstration of how the candidates propose to lead us, what motivates their thinking, about what they are passionate.  

I have never had the desire to run for public office.  I have an ego, but it is not that big as to believe that I am the best choice for a particular office, although at times I have found myself voting for people  for offices I knew I could fill better than they would.  Each of these three has demonstrated a willingness to step into the fray, to take on the not very pleasant task of raising money, turning one's life over to constant public scrutiny and criticism, and attempting to persuade a sufficient number of those who will vote in Democratic primaries and caucuses to support them.  It is not an easy process.  And even as I find things to criticize or worry about with regards to all three, I admire all three for being willing to take on the challenge, to persist despite near constant criticism from one point or another of the 360 degrees around them.

All three are quality people.   In my opinion, all three would win the electoral college without too much difficulty against any of the top four Republicans, and possibly even more should a deadlocked GOP turn to someone like Newt Gingrich.   Perhaps because we can really taste victory for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue our internal contest is so bitter.  

For me, I really hope to see a candidate who can thread a very small needle.   I accept the need to define the differences between oneself and one's opponent.  I acknowledge that one must demonstrate passion for certain issues, and to demonstrate why the American people should be willing to support you, first over other Democrats, and then over any Republican or third party (Mike Bloomberg?) candidate.   I hope that in the process of winning a preliminary battle the eventual nominee and his/her current opponents do not so damage one another that they lesson the possibilities of a meaningful victory in November.  I want someone who will be a fierce battler, like John Edwards.  I want someone who understands that the nature of our politics needs to change, to bring us all together for the common good, like Barack Obama.  I want someone whose intellectual curiosity leads to reading in depth and being able to go beyond the surface level of issues, looking ahead to consequences of actions, as Clinton demonstrated in the incident recounted yesterday b Larry Johnson.  

Most of all, I want to win.   I want a president who can heal this country, repair our image in the world, reestablish proper checks and balances among the branches, eliminate the depredation of our liberties we have undergone for the past 7 years, and give hope to the many who are beginning to despair, to think that nothing will be able to make a difference for them and their children.

I am not yet convinced by any of these three.   But I remain hopeful, perhaps foolishly so, that the process will give us a nominee in whom I cn believe, and not merely someone for whom I will vote merely because they are a Democrat and thus of necessity superior to the candidate from the other party.

I live in Virginia.  The last Democrat to carry my state was Lyndon Johnson.  I also want a Democratic nominee who will not abandon nor ignore this state, who thereby can help with continuing to bring this commonwealth back to political sanity.  That is possible for all three.  I would like to see all three commit to campaigning vigorously in parts of the country that too often the national democrats ignore.  

And I want the internal bitterness to be over.  

I don't want much for Christmas, do I?

Peace.  

Comments