|
The problem with Iowa is not a problem in New Hampshire
By me
The race in Iowa has become a nail biter and has four candidates bunched up at the top tier. The questions is why is this happening? The political pundits had for weeks given the victory to front runner Howard Dean who has held a big lead there and in New Hampshire. One might dare say that it's because Howard Dean has certain electability factors missing from his profile, i.e., foreign policy, southern appeal, and likeability. It does appear that voters are starting to think about the democratic candidates and how each measure up to the issue of electability. Democrats want to win in November, and the overarching question is, who can best take the fight to George Bush?
The answer lies in searching each candidate's profile and finding the advantages and disadvantages of each in relation to how he might fare in the general election. Iowans are discovering John Edwards; a likable populist with charisma, a positive campaign and most importantly, southern roots. A self made man who represents the American rags to riches dream. The downside is that Edwards is a lightweight in experience in both domestic and foreign policy matters. There is not gravitas nor moxie lurking behind this candidate. Did I mention that he's an ex trial attorney? I can see Rove's eyes glazing over as I write.
John Kerry brings military experience, moderate foreign policy experience and gravitas to the table. Liberal John Kerry, a vietnam hero, has much domestic policy to bring to the table as well. Kerry, however, lacks charisma, seems aloof, and can bore supporters to sleep. The "Q" factor is important in elections. George W. Bush had it; Gore didn't. It's a factor that helped close the gap in 2000. Considering that Kerry is a New England liberal does not bode well for the 5 vacant senate seats dangling in the southern wind. The fact that he did not vote on the Medicare package recently passed does not endear him to many seniors either.
Gephardt does have good qualities with his labor friendly policies, and an expansive health care plan. He is also an all around nice guy. Problems for Gephardt is that he promises to get rid of Bush's tax cuts for all, talks of yesterday more than today, and has been around for longer than anyone would like to remember. His is not the fresh face many would like to see up against George Bush. Doesn't help that Gephardt will be viewed as having been ineffective against most of George Bush's policies approved by congress.
Edwards, Kerry and Gephardt have another little problem they would each like voters to forget; they all voted for the Iraq War Resolution. That position does not buy a lot of votes from liberal activists voters.
Howard Dean, the clear favorite of many until last week, has the "Internet organization", money raising prowess, big name endorsements, took the anti-war stance early and is relentless with Bush attacks. He says he has created a whole new movement that will revolutionize elections. But Dean lacks foreign policy experience, gravitas, mouth to foot control and the ever important presidential demeanor. Another New England liberal, though fiscally conservative, who wants to get rid of Bush's tax cuts (in effect raising taxes on the middle class during an election year). A candidate who may not do well in the south, again, where those senate seats still dangle. His message is that he wants to change the leadership of the Democratic party. Many voters are asking if that is the priority during this election? or is the sole priority to replace George Bush.
Al sharpton and Dennis Kucinich are also running, but I don't believe that they will make anyone's electability list.
Oops, almost forgot Lieberman. Maybe because he's not contesting Iowa? Or maybe because he's just not that memorable.
The last option is candidate Wes Clark. A candidate who is not contesting Iowa. I believe that this is Iowa' problem. You see, Clark is the candidate who has all of the advantages listed for the 4 other candidates, but none of their disadvantages. The big problem for Iowa is that Clark did not actively campaign there. Of course Iowa will not pick Wes Clark......after all, that would only undermine the importance that Iowans want placed on their caucus.
Wes Clark has, according to pollster, the high likeability factor that rivals Edwards'. Clark has also ran a positive campaign with a vision message. He hails from Arkansas and puts the south back at play. Clark, a four time wounded Silver Star Vietnam hero, has foreign policy galore, and is considered an expert in the field. He has worked out peace treaties, planned and won wars, and faced dictators.
Clark has a smart tax package that has impressed many economists. His 31 policy papers on his web site are more detailed than many other more experience candidates. His endorsements are also very impressive. The big name endorsers are not those who might stand something to gain (a la Dean), but rather those who have nothing to lose.
Clark has been running only four months but has an impressive internet organization (Alexa ratings show that Clark's website has Dean's beat for a bit of time now), broad grassroots support (he was drafted to run by this support), and is raising money hand over fist. Wes Clark also has a masters degree in economics, taught economics at West Point and did quite of bit of administrative work both as a White House Fellows, and as Commander in Chief of the Southern Command and NATO. Clark knows where all of the pentagon bodies are buried and is on first name basis with many of our allies and foes. The General's attacks on George Bush and his administration have been fearless classics. In balance, his patriotic credential are sterling and his love of America have been demonstrated for 34 years (38 years if one includes West Point). You see, he really can wrap himself in the flag, Bush's hallmark 9/11 half time feature.
Beyond these pluses, Wes Clark is a fresh face non politician, who opposed the Iraq war. The humanitarian General appears to have the "Q" department down pat as well, i.e., he is very telegenic. But maybe the biggest card that Clark brings to the table is the broadness of his appeal comparable by no other. Charges that he used to be a Republican would actually help Clark during the general election. With endorsements from pacifist/activist filmmaker Michael Moore and Peacenik Dove, George McGovern, the Republicanism charge just don't hold true. The label, however, may make many moderates, independents, and disillusioned Republicans vote for Clark during the general. We shouldn't forget the military vote; a real factor during the 2000 election battle. These are votes that Wes Clark can tap into, and votes win elections.
I heard a saying recently that goes like this: When Republicans are handed a knife, they will poke at their opposition; when the knife is handed to the Democrats, they will cut their own throats. That has become my reply when many ask negatively why a retired four star general, CIC of NATO, should get the Democratic nomination.
Many only have to look to see what is happening in Iowa right now to realize what is clear as a doorbell to me.
Hel-lo, is anybody home?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
