|
One thing I think we all try to do is look past the hype, and try to see what each candidate will actually do once elected. With all respect to the other candidates, the only candidates I have seriously considered are Kerry, Dean, and Clark, so I'll restrict my attention to them.
If you look past the hype with Dean, what you see is his record in Vermont. He has complained about Bush's foreign policy, but he hasn't offered any ideas of his own to compare to them. What he has said recently on foreign policy has all been said by other Democratic candidates before him. He did well at balancing the budget of a small state; balancing the Federal budget will be a bit different, especially in the face of a Republican congress. His confrontational attitude won't make that process any easier, either. He isn't the smart, cagey, charismatic guy like Clinton, who was able to use sheer intelligence and political savvy to move the country toward Democratic goals. He is simply a solid candidate with good and bad in his past, and an angry, uncooperative image. The angry tone appeals to some (including among the Republicans, Bush supporters, hence the comment above), but it does not appeal to me at all.
I expected Kerry to be my kind of candidate: an inspirational leader with a solid foundation in our core democratic values, who could trounce Bush on the domestic issues that Democrats traditionally care most about. A candidate who would beat George Bush with more credible plans for getting out of the foreign policy quagmire that Bush has landed us in. Kerry's campaign did not put his best foot forward, and now I don't think he has a chance at anything but maybe VP.
Kerry isn't that candidate, but Clark is. Look at what he says in "Winning Modern Wars", a book published in September. He gives an in-depth analysis of where we are in foreign policy, and of the relationship between the economy and trade issues and the Bush/neocon idea of military empire. The guy looks at the big picture, shows he understands it, and puts forth practical ideas of how to get the US to a better place through standing up for core Democratic values at home and abroad. His explanation of how our support of and cooperation in international treaties, organizations, and trade agreements has made the world a safer and better place for both Americans AND other countries is excellent, and is the sort of thing that will sway voters on both sides in the General Election. Bush's fearmongering and imperial agenda cannot, and will not, stand against that. Bush can't take Clark's mantle of respectability away from him; it is too firmly rooted in fact.
If you look past the hype with Clark, what you find is the kind of leader I think the country needs at this point in history. I don't think any of the other Democratic candidates offer the kind of match to our current situation that Clark does.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(639 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
