Whose Side Are You On?

In vetoing SCHIP legislation last week, George Bush, the evil one, demonstrated that he cares as little for the health and welfare of America’s children as he does for the health and welfare of our soldiers and our status in the world. He has called for a “bipartisan solution” to this standoff with Congress, ignoring the fact that this bill is itself, bipartisan in nature. To Bush, the evil one, a bipartisan solution to a problem is one where the Democrats give up and agree with him – see, Iraq funding as an example. It is more than a little sickening, that Bush, the evil one, never showed the slightest interest in vetoing the bloated spending bills coming out of the Republican Congress and which ran up huge budget deficits for six years. Suddenly, the evil one has found “religion”, now spending must be reined in. Of course, the specter of “socialized medicine” was raised by the evil one – men like him always lie and always attempt to use some form of fear-mongering to bring about their unwanted policies. It does not make their policies any less repugnant and it surely does not make them more morally fit to lead.
What should the Democrats do now? First, they should refuse to compromise any further with evil. They must stand up to Bush, whatever the cost. And, like this column does, they must start to use the word “evil” in reference to Bush. It is a powerful word, it is a meaningful word, and in his case, it is a totally accurate word. Democratic Presidential candidates must especially begin this drumbeat. They must not only reinforce that which the majority of Americans believe, but force the Republicans, especially their Presidential candidates, to make their own stand – will they support the evil one, or oppose him? I know the answer, but it is important for Americans to know it too. It is important because in the campaign next year, the Republican candidate will also talk about change, like he didn’t support every disgusting thing done by the filth in the Oval Office. We must force the issue, we must make them, as well as their cohorts in Congress, take a stand. Do you stand with the evil one, or with the health and welfare of America and its children?

Campaign Themes -- Branding the Candidates

We might like to think of the electoral process as a high-minded exercise in political discourse, where like-minded people gather around the best candidates with the most to offer the country in expertise, leadership, experience, and ideas. This is, of course, a fantasy. Political campaigns are high-level advertising campaigns, with the same branding of candidates as exists for cars and soft drinks. Yes, the speeches and debates give us more depth than a 30-second ad, but most people will vote based on second-hand information and something – a look, an ad, a moment – that catches their interest and gives the candidate an edge. Those who run campaigns well know this – whether Reagan’s Morning in America, Clinton’s Third Way, or Bush’s Compassionate Conservatism, the ability to come up with a theme which resonates with the public can overcome all sorts of negatives about a candidate. Similarly, the lack of the theme can allow you to be defines by your opponents, or simply not give the public a positive image of your candidacy to gather around.
After the last Democratic debate, I discussed the themes as I saw them at the time. To recap the top ones: Hillary’s theme is Ready From Day One. Notice how often she harkens back to the concept, when talking about foreign policy or rejecting hypotheticals, she recalls the nature of decision-making in the White House, which she was there for. When asked about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, she made sure to talk about the process of coming up with that policy at the time. When asked about health care, she reminds everyone she has had to deal with that policy and, more importantly, the battle to get it through Congress (‘I’ve done that and have the scars to show for it”); she doesn’t have a health care policy to speak of, but she just falls back on her experience. Obama is New Leadership From a New Generation – everything about him screams how he is unlike anyone else. To borrow from an old New York mayoralty campaign, he is fresh while everyone else is tired...and you are tired of these other people too, of the Clintons, of Edwards, of Biden. Look for him to refine this as he goes on, using the words “new” and “fresh” and “different” as often as possible in speeches and answers to question.
John Edwards, on the other hand, has not found a theme which might resonate. He has spent a lot of time talking about the war, attempting to be the major anti-war candidate. But the debates, with Kucinich and Gravel attacking all of them equally, destroyed the distinctions between him and the other two top tier candidates. He has talked about poverty. He has had programmatic answers, including a fine health care plan. Yet if you ask someone why they support him, there is no unifying theme which could be put on a banner to lead the parade. In his first commercial, he has three memorable points. 1) America’s strength is in its people 2) we must be one America 3) we need to give Americans something to be patriotic about besides war. Pardon me while I yawn. The first sounds more Republican than Democratic – if the strength is its people, why do we need government? It’s not a bad first line if he’s going to follow with “it’s weakness is its government and I will fix that”, but he doesn’t. It’s just feel-good nonsense. The One American theme, as opposed to his Two Americas speeches from 2004, a concept which he apparently is reviving, is meaningless to most voters. It can be fleshed out into something else, a common good philosophy perhaps, but doesn’t grab people. The third one is a lovely turn of phrase, but it ignores how most Americans, especially those likely to vote for a Democrat, think. It is the war that makes them less patriotic, that’s the only thing that they aren’t proud of.
I have thought about a possible theme for Edwards’ campaign, and here is what I have come up with:

John Edwards: Reviving the American Dream

Isn’t that what he is about? For most of the 20th century, the American dream was a simple one – get a good job with good benefits, buy a home, raise your kids, give them the education and help needed to have a better life than you have. Your job provides health insurance and retirement benefits and along with Social Security, your future is secure. Most Americans don’t dream of being rich, they aren’t entrepreneurial, they just have basic desires. That dream is dying. They fear losing their job and with it their health care benefits. Even if they don’t lose the job, the pay increases are not keeping up with the costs of gas, housing, food, and health insurance. The job may provide insurance, but the cost to the workers keeps increasing as wages stagnate. American optimism is fading. We know this because more and more polls have shown that Americans no longer believe that their children will be better off than they are. We know this because the first sign of fear is the resentment of the “other”. In this case, it’s the threat seen from the developing world stealing our jobs. Even more so, it is the perceived threat of immigrants. The anger over immigration is fueled by fear, not just of losing jobs or lower wages, but of the culture changing around them. There are many historical examples of this happening, and many of those were particularly nasty. Everything Edwards talks about can be linked back to this. Health care, ending the war, trade, job security – all of it. He has talked about “two Americas”, but there are three (at least), not just rich and poor (and he has talked about the poor far more than is good for his candidacy, sad to say), but those in the middle. The middle used to aspire to more, now they fear going in the other direction. Back in the 90’s, Bill Clinton said that most Americans would no longer have just one career, but two or three careers. Of course, that’s elitist crap, since most Americans don’t have “careers” they have jobs. And while it’s one thing to go from being a lawyer to a politician, to a college professor, as Clinton did, losing your job, and the wages and benefits that go with it is a harrowing experience. Looking for a new job involves starting over, usually at a significantly lower pay rate. If you lose your job after age 50, you can kiss your lifestyle goodbye. Edwards needs to tell people that he understands their problems, understands their fears, and will do everything he can to deal with them.
Will he find this theme? I don’t know, but America needs to hear it, so I hope he does.

Making a Choice

Polls of Democrats show that people are generally satisfied with the field of Democrats running for President. I admit that I am not among them, as I see serious weaknesses in all of them, either in experience, leadership, or judgment. In some cases, the problem is more difficult, with electability being the key problem, which seems unfair, since these are experienced men and woman who have won multiple elections and perhaps it would be better to not jump the gun on the impossibility of victory for some of them. Unfortunately, this is not the case, since there is less time for these campaigns to catch fire than in the past. Let’s take a look at the second (and maybe third) tier candidates.

Joe Biden: Totally qualified. Has shown no ability at all to get support outside of Delaware. In Gallup polling he is locked in a battle with Al Sharpton and Wesley Clark. As for his judgment, I don’t trust him at all – he was a strong supporter of the war, has a “solution” which while it sounds reasonable, has no support either within Iraq or in any neighboring country. His vote on the bankruptcy changes two years ago was morally reprehensible and to me, renders him unfit to be President.

Chris Dodd: Totally qualified. Seems more anti-war than most at the moment. Has even less support than Biden, although he seems to have raised a decent amount of money – it’s good to chair the Banking committee. This seems utterly quixotic.

Dennis Kucinich: Frankly, I think he’s right about most things. Unfortunately, there is little realism in either his hard-line positions or his campaign. I wouldn’t mind looking at his wife for the next four years, but unfortunately, he comes with her.

Bill Richardson: Totally qualified – has the best resume since George H. W. Bush. Stunningly dull, seems to have no base or electability. While he seems like a good VP candidate, his dullness may even hurt that.

Mike Gravel: If we change the name of the party to the Slightly Loony Party, he’s our man.

On to the real race – and in one case the unreal one.

Al Gore: Gallup has been including him in their polls and his numbers, so he has to be looked at. Easily the most qualified, in a better world we’d be in the seventh year of the Gore administration. Right on the war and on the environment, he seems very comfortable with himself and I would love to see him in the race. I don’t think he’s going to run. He doesn’t want to discuss ethanol in Iowa and whatever other crap will get votes in various states. His disinterest in joining the fray reveals the biggest weakness of our system, wherein the best-qualified are forced to compete for votes on a demeaning level and forced to beg for money for hours a day. This is not a good way to pick a President.

Hillary Clinton: Sort of qualified – has been in the halls of power, has seen how the executive branch works up close, has met world leaders, has worked effectively in the Senate. Of the top tier candidates who are running, is easily the most qualified. Her stance on issues has been troubling. Her Iraq stance was awful, has tried to join the opposition, yet it seems, like everything else she does, thoroughly calculated. Says she will end the war when she takes over, yet hasn’t given the slightest indication of how, which seems thoroughly Nixonian to me. I hate comparing someone whose positions on many issues parallel mine with Richard Nixon, yet I feel comfortable with it. A Clinton administration would take on an unpopular war which she had supported, then promised to end. Like Nixon, she would enter office with remarkably little good will and trust. It’s not just that you’re either with her or against her – many who would be with her don’t much like or trust her. Like Nixon, she seems driven by a lust for power more than a vision. Because of the front-loaded primary structure, featuring many states where she has a big advantage, combined with her being strong among the most-likely primary voters (women and the elderly), she has to be considered a serious favorite to get the nomination. I would vote for her in November, of course, but I would be holding my nose while I did it.

Barack Obama: Here’s a man with a vision. He has no real qualifications, only two years in the Senate with no leadership demonstrated on any issue. In many ways, he’s the anti-Hillary – he’s warm, visionary, with a charisma which makes you think he could be the one to both lead the country and maybe even unite it. In his writings, the man emerges as thoughtful and knowledgeable. Yet he still speaks in generalities, seems careful on everything, and doesn’t seem to want to lead on issues of substance. I’m not sure what we get with him – his best chance is for it to narrow down to him and Hillary in time for him to get the anti-Hillary vote. Head-to-head matchups with her seem to favor her at the moment, yet that could easily change if he can make that the race.

John Edwards: Like Obama, it’s hard to see his qualifications. Six relatively undistinguished years in the Senate doesn’t exactly prepare you to run the country. What must Biden and Dodd think when they see these two “back-benchers” walloping them in the polls? In no other country in the world would this sort of thing happen. He was a lousy VP candidate in 2004, with a deer-in-the-headlights performance in the debate with Cheney being the most egregious example. He seems to have learned from that experience, seems tougher and maybe better prepared for the battle. He is driven to be President, yet it seems to come from a different place than Clinton’s drive. He has things he wants to do, people he wants to help. Talking about the poor and forgotten of society is not the best way to get votes, yet he does that. This is a good man, with the ability to admit mistakes (Iraq) and the vision to see the problems that face us, not in electoral terms, but in people terms. You may not agree with his position on trade, but he at least understands, as more and more economists now do, that free trade is not a panacea and that more and more Americans are being hurt by it. The first step towards tackling a problem is seeing that it exists. Unlike Clinton, he has talked about ending the war and how it should be done – he’s been derided as naive by Biden, but he’s at least shown the leadership to have a plan. Speaking of which, go to his website, johnedwards.com, and read his health care proposal — if the Democrats were smart, we would adopt it as the official party position.
Of the three front-runners, Edwards would be my choice. He has thought about the problems and has taken the risk of making actual stands on them. I have no illusions here – his lack of experience will not help him get things done. Even more important, his poll numbers are troubling. We are still a long way from the voting, yet when I step into the voting booth on Feb. 5th of next year, I expect I will have a tough choice. Do I vote for the person I want to be President, or the person best able, based on polling data, to beat Hillary Clinton? For now, I will take the high road and hope for the best.

The Democrats Debate

Of course, having eight people on stage with only two hours to debate, much of which is taken up by the questions themselves, is not the best way to get any real impressions of the candidates. On the other hand, some things came out and are worthy of being pointed out. Let’s look at the candidates:

Mike Gravel: the crazy old uncle of the field – at times fun, but a waste of time. He managed to make Dennis Kucinich seem moderate. He’s something of a loon.

Dennis Kucinich: right more often than he was wrong, his function in this race is to put pressure on the others, has health care right and, like Gravel, lumps everyone else together on Iraq, which helps Hillary. His general foreign policy approach is hopelessly naive.

Chris Dodd – showed some guts on the drug testing question. Gave a wonderful answer on gay marriage, then chickened out by saying he was against it, although in favor of civil unions.

Bill Richardson – It isn’t good in a Democratic primary to be referred to as the NRA’s favorite candidate. His favorite Supreme Court Justice – Whizzer White...Whizzer White??? A man who was opposed to Roe v. Wade? Horrible speaker, bad impression – may have seriously damaged his VP chances. He has no Presidential chance at all.

Joe Biden – Had the best, and shortest, answer of the night. Sounded intelligent, well-informed, and clearly someone who could be helped by the night. Let’s see if the polls move.

John Edwards – Came across as smart and articulate, gave a good answer on his Iraq vote, yet didn’t seem sharp enough. Bungled the “hedge funds making America better” question, looking like a defender of them and the very rich who deal in them. He sounded like someone who asks the right questions, which, frankly, is what I like best about him. Not sure whether his pointing people to his web site worked, but reminding people that depth and solutions are necessary was good. Great answer on moral leader question at the end, which may have been the thing that saved the night for him.

Barack Obama – I’m going to disagree with a number of pundits – I think he did very well. Seemed authoritative, correcting a bad quotation from Brian Williams made him look tough, generally good on his feet. I thought his answer about Asia was good. His bringing up the Terri Schaivo vote as a regret was a bold move and one I greatly respected. One failing was his answer to Williams’ “Al Qaeda strikes” question. Later he took on Kucinich and looked really tough.

Hillary Clinton – Judged by most as the winner and I won’t debate that, although I hated the giant pearls. She had a good answer on keeping US safe, less good on health care, not good on Iraq. Won the night with the best answer on “if we were attacked”, by immediately responding with strike back. Seemed very comfortable with herself, as did Obama.

Best Answer: Clinton on “Al Qaeda attacks”

Most Memorable Answer: Joe Biden’s one word response to “are you too verbose?”

Most Thoughtful Answer: Edwards’ moral leader answer. May have been more helpful than anything he had said in the previous 80 minutes.

Worst Answer: Several by Richardson, who seemed way out of his depth.

Most Surprising Moment: Seeing Dennis Kucinich’s wife, Elizabeth. He got a tall, hot, redhead with a British accent. Not sure how he did it, but damn, he got the respect of a lot of men across America. If he can get that babe, maybe he can end the war and solve the health care problem.