I’ve broken the Democrats into two sets, dealing with the big ones first – conventional wisdom has already picked the frontrunners on the Dem side (the Republican situation, I think, is more fluid, not necessarily in a good way), and it’s pointless to deny it.
Off the bat, I have to say, I’m not thrilled with any of them – although, as you’ll see, people are growing on me. And, like may, I think the question is whether anyone can stop the inevitability of Hillary Clinton. But rather than start there, I’d like to start with my descending level of interest and expectation:
- Joe Biden. I start with Biden because he's just been on Meet The Press, and my impression there was also my impression from South Carolina: with little to lose, Biden is taking
this seriously and giving
it his best shot. Yes, he's got issues, and his "Obama is well spoken" comment underlined some dicey questions about Biden and race. But that said, Biden has made foreign policy his bailiwick for years now, and he has the issues down cold. That was only underscored in South Carolina when after a tentative, boilerplate answer from Obama on current risks in the world, Biden managed a concise, knowledgeable assessment of the situation in sixty seconds, and reminding it's not just the obvious (like Iran) but the things we are not watching closely (Putin's anti-Democratic maneuvers in Russia, and the threats they pose to Europe). Moreover, he was the one who had a good answer for improving mental health care in the wake of Virginia Tech, something Hillary Clinton didn't - more on her in a moment. I've always sort of lukewarm liked Biden. I'm not sure he can pull this off - indeed, he's not seen so far in the front of the pack. Call my choice a hunch, but no one at this point seems to sound better on the "I get it" questions of America's role in the world. That matters.
- Hillary Clinton. Clinton's the hardest, most complex case - I don't like her, but I think she'll win, and I want a winner. I don't trust her or know what she stands for, but I think her
election would hold major promise, and I like promise. No one, not even Biden, gave off the quality that Clinton did in SC
that if asked, tomorrow, she'd assume the presidency without hesitation. So what are the problems? The ones I see are a) a nagging sense that she'll say exactly what she thinks people want to hear, preferably in a vague way that commits her to nothing. That's being highly political, but it also makes it hard to know what she really believes, or that, in a crunch, she wouldn't give up something major she believes in. And b) She's a terrible speaker. Horrible. She has a terrible time projecting warmth and empathy, and she comes off as cold. We've had poorly spoken Presidents - take a look at the guy we have now - but I'm not sure we need another one, now. Finally, c) She's Hillary Clinton, with all the Clinton baggage, all the weird and nutty right wing hate propaganda, all the negative perceptions and on and on. Electing her will be hard. But I'll back her if I have to. - Barack Obama. I want to like Obama, honest I do. His story is my story, he
is American the way I'm American. Why, then must he make it so hard? He talks in vagaries. I need specifics. He's
young and untested. I need experience. While he's not as painfully neophyte as John Edwards, the fact remains that Obama is very new at this, and he's not necessarily ready, however much the energy around him reminds one of young Kennedy. John Kennedy by 1960, had been a Congressman and a Senator, and a talked up name for Vice President. Obama's got some time as a community activist and an Illinois legislator, but little national or international experience. It shows. We have to face that. And he has to face it. I think he may be the best next VP, but not President. We shall see. - John Edwards. I can't say I've ever been wholeheartedly in favor of Edwards; he too has that "too much too soon" syndrome of Obama, a one term Senator and not much else in public service. I think Edwards means well, but I think for whatever reason, he's still shockingly unsure of how to run a campaign. The minor kerfuffles about his bloggers, and his haircuts, after a while, start to add up, and the
problem isn’t the specifics of either case, it's the tone deafness of the campaign to spotting problems that could become issues. Too often Edwards seems like the President Hollywood invented for the movie version - handsome, youthful, naively liberal, all big ideas and few details. His health care plan is expensive and short on specifics; his concern for the poor admirable, but hard to pin down. And too often, worse than Clinton, he tends to give the answer the progressive blogosphere wants to hear. And where he doesn’t – for instance, on Iran – he seems at times as naïve as Bush on the realities of our foreign policy. I think the Edwards candidacy is a real trap for young progressives, new to campaigns, who don’t realize that his missteps are not new, not necessary, and deadly to a campaign in the long run. The fact that he seems less able to tap big money the way Clinton and Obama already have, makes him a distinct, consistent third, the spoiler to keep someone, probably Obama, from being able to stop her. And the only one who likes that outome, I'd bet, is Hillary Clinton.
Comments