|
What I am looking for now I am not finding. Of those who actually might have or could still run, I think Al Gore, Wes Clark, Russ Feingold, or John Kerry would be more to my liking than those who are running. And that is just sticking to those who at one point or another expressed real interest in running in 2008. I disagreed with him about the importance of learning from our mistakes about how we got into Iraq, but Mark Warner was a formidable potential leader also. So on a "good day" I would include Warner also in the field that should have run instead of this one.
Count me in the group that says Obama is our future, but now is too soon for him to become President. He has amazing potential and significant accomplishments, but I don't think America should or will elect as President in the next Presidential election a man who was a relatively junior member of a State legislature during the last Presidential election. If we believe that America needs to become color blind, and not discriminate against people of color because of their color, than I can't in good conscience overlook Obama's relative lack of experience simply because I support people of color running for President.
I believe John Edwards continues to evolve, in positive ways, as an American leader. We are indeed fortunate that this man, and his true life partner Elizabeth, decided to make a deep commitment to public service, and that they are willing to champion the issue of poverty in America. John Edwards concedes himself that he is a much more seasoned candidate for President this time than he was last time, and that points to my concern. John Edwards, in my opinion, wasn't ready to be President in 2004, but he still focused on that goal for years prior with laser like intensity. He has more experience now, in regards to international affairs and national security, than he did then, but not that much more. I don't think Edwards is best suited for the Presidency. In some key areas I do not believe that the solidness of Edward's judgment under fire is buttressed enough with sufficient life experience to assure that he instinctively will make the right call when needed. My concern remains centered on international issues. I increasingly trust Edwards on domestic concerns, which has always been the focus of his interest.
I think John Edwards has an important future before him as a leading American voice of conscience, and as an inspirational leader of a movement for social justice here at home. Even putting my concerns aside, however, I do not see Edwards as a strong Presidential candidate. He is not winning over the Democratic Party outside of his current base among left leaning activists, and outside of Iowa which has virtually become his second home over the last few years. He offers the Republican Party a tempting target IMO, because of inconsistencies between his positions of today and those of his Senate days, and because he has symbolically given Republicans too much cheap shot material to work with in challenging his sincerity. Edwards had massive positive publicity carry over from his 2004 run, but he has been unable to capitalize on it. It is telling that only Edwards core supporters make the case that Edwards was an impressive campaigner running with John Kerry in 2004, and mostly they blame Kerry for not letting Edwards be Edwards, rather than argue that he truly sparkled. Obama, coming out of virtually nowhere, was able to quickly eclipse Edwards in appeal this time, and I think that speaks as much to Edward's weaknesses as a candidate as it does to Obama's strengths. John Edwards does as well as he does today, I believe, only because the activist base of the Democratic Party desperately needs a champion, and men like Kerry, Clark, Gore and Feingold staying out of the race gives Edwards much support out of default.
Hillary Clinton IS a strong candidate, and I would argue that she really is the only strong candidate in the current field, which is the only reason why someone with her amazingly high negatives in polling can continue to top 2008 polls. Hillary polarizes voters more so than any other leading Democrat. She is running a very polished, very competent campaign. She has a very strong, very experienced team behind her. I think her 8 years spent as a first lady with real access to the inner workings of her husband's administration does give her credibility regarding seasoning and experience that the other leading Democratic candidates lack. Her negatives though are major. I am by far not alone in the Democratic Party activist base being unhappy to think about backing her. She let me down on Iraq, I don't trust her on Iran, and she is much cozier than I will ever be with the Corporate wing of our Party.
A distaste for Hillary felt by many activists will be a significant handicap against her winning in 2008 should she become our nominee. I would work for Hillary as our nominee, I would even work hard for Hillary, but I know in my heart that I would work much harder for someone who I believed in more. I'm sorry, but that is just how I'm wired, and I know I'm not alone that way. Meanwhile Republicans LOVE to hate Hillary, should she become our Party's nominee she will be a healing tonic to the G.O.P. Most Americans barely even like Hillary. No one else has her negatives. So though I admit that Hillary is a strong candidate, she is no titan, and she isn't even a Bill Clinton. Rather she carries his baggage along with her own.
Of the remaining field only Bill Richardson had potential break out appeal in my mind, and his own performance to date has been decidedly underwhelming. That happens sometimes. Bob Graham looked great on paper, and he was popular in his home state, but he could not sufficiently connect with voters away from home. He is not an inspirational leader, and he is not connecting well with most voters. I like Richardson's seasoning and track record on World affairs. I sure as hell don't like his role in suppressing the 2004 recount in his home state however, and I don't like the fact that he spent way too long backing Gonzales as Attorney General either. Richardson has been more of a disappointment than he has been a strong candidate. I think he now gets some support BECAUSE of the weakness of our field, not despite it.
Same goes for Biden. The weaknesses of the rest of the field gives him his best excuse for running, because Biden is well past his public prime. And to paraphrase a favorite slogan of a leading credit card issuer: "Who's in your wallet?".
I am glad that Denis Kucinich is running again, to have his voice in the public debate, but Denis can't win his home state in a primary, he won't be our next President.
In closing: A display of affirmative action does not a strong field make.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
