This is an election of great importance. A sea change is occuring, in which the parties need to reconsider what they are about, what issues will be of importance to them, and who will be their allies --- who will join them in their party.
We need a leader of vision to make the Democrats viable for the next thirty years. If we fail to get that, there is every reason to think that the Republicans will get a jump on us at transforming their image, so that it will be they who will dominate in the decades ahead.
And that's a dangerous thing, the way the country is going.
Among the three frontrunners, the lack of experience has all along been an obvious problem. Each of these people has emerged from the pack of highly qualified governors and congresspersons for extraordinarily ephemeral reasons. Edwards and Obama each gave a good speech that garnered attention, and Hillary was the wife of a president. Of the three, Hillary's background appears strongest, because she has lived through the White House experience before and is more likely to get off the ground running and to make fewer mistakes.
But what will Hillary DO with her greater potential for effectiveness? Demonstrate that women can be just as hawkish as men? Reiterate "It's the economy, stupid," when this is no longer true?
Because while it is a fact that the economy needs looking after, another go at a corporate-sponsored Democrat --- the wife of the last one --- is not what this country requires. Using all of her bargaining chips to persuade pro-business Republicans to support something like NAFTA, like her husband, is not useful. More than that, it looks backward, instead of forward, allowing the Republicans to regroup and redefine themselves for the new era that's approaching, while we continue to mouth an old mantra.
It's not the economy, stupid.
So what of Obama? He is certainly something new. But is that something new a Democrat? Will he be a person who can lead Democrats forward with a vision for the times that are coming? Every fifth thing out of his mouth seems to be chiding Democrats to his left, or claiming that both Democrats and Republicans are equally to blame for things that we all know were caused exclusively by Republicans. This might be acceptable if there were reason to think this was a strategy to bring less informed moderate Republicans to his side. But I don't think that it is a strategy. I think he has entirely bought into the media's way of covering all issues, no matter how ridiculous, as if each side's position has equal merit. (That is, when the media gives the liberal side any mention at all.)
I don't think Obama is a leader. I think he is a follower. A charismatic, intelligent, beautiful to look at, follower. If during a Democratic primary, he spends so much time chastising liberals, what can we really expect of him as president? Does he really have a vision for the country that can guide Democrats in the decades ahead? Or will he be our slow-to-act intellectual, alienating his own party as he pacifies the Republicans, too eager to please conservatives to dream up and implement new ideas?
Then there is Edwards. Edwards' ideas seem balanced between the past and the future. Championing the poor in a class struggle is not an approach that will win him the next presidency, that time is past, but championing the working classes in a populist approach is the wave of the future. The record of Edwards in the Senate doesn't suggest that either of these things have ever been particularly important to him. Neither is it impressive that he hasn't bothered to do anything since his last presidential run that would indicate he really cares about these things --- instead, he has simply focused on his personal ambition to be president, beginning his campaign right after the loss of the last one. As far as I know, he has made no attempts to organize panels on poverty, to participate in labor forums, to act as a spokesman for any of the issues that he claims are important to him.
If Edwards became president, would the stuff of his speeches turn into action, when he has been disinterested in action before? A man whose professional life as a lawyer has rested on his rhetoric, not his actions --- will he see a populist vision through? He seems more likely to speak to people what they'd like to hear --- including his pro-Iran war supporters. But will that translate into the kind of actions that a Democratic president needs to take to turn this country around? It seems unlikely.
What I have read of Wes Clark indicates that he is a person with fresh, populist ideas who knows how to translate ideas into action. His career in the military and his actions on behalf of the Democratic party and keeping us out of a war with Iran demonstrate this.
Clark's biggest flaw --- and yet this is the key to his potential greatness --- is his modesty. I once read that in the 2000 election, Warren Beatty came out of a meeting with him deciding that he couldn't support Clark because he didn't have a big enough ego.
It is this flaw, in my opinion, which has kept him out of the race. Because however high the odds might seem against one --- whatever the apparent likelihood of defeat --- none of the other candidates, I believe, would take that into consideration. Their own egos would still lead them into the fray.
If John Kerry had had less ego, he would have dropped out when his numbers tanked about the time he was riding a motorcycle on The Tonight Show. Instead, he fired his advisors and rose like a phoenix from the ashes to become...another Democratic statistic. Another northeastern lawyer whose "Final Arguments" campaign failed. Another Democrat without a new vision for us.
I realize that a primary campaign takes a toll on a family. I realize that it's serious to ask people of all income levels to donate to a campaign when on paper it doesn't look like it will succeed.
But campaigns aren't played out on paper.
I understand that Democrats say they are contented with this field of frontrunners. But can any one of the three frontrunners truly revitalize the Democratic party and make it strong in these increasingly conservative times?
The stakes are much higher than usual. This is a transitional election into new times. What happens now will determine whether Democrats will lead or whether they will be pushed. I think General Clark will one day regret if he fails to fight. I think he underestimates his value.
And if I'm right, it will be all of us who will pay the price.