I had this actual exchange with a relative during the 2004 presidential campaign:
Me: "But you don't agree with most of what Bush has done. I don't understand why you would vote for him."
Him: "At least I know where he stands."
Me: "But you don't like where he stands."
Him: "I like that he's a fighter. He's not going to let anyone push him around."
As I watched the Democratic debate yesterday I tried to look at our candidates with this exchange in mind. I tried not to think about them in terms of how they would govern, but rather how they stuck me as candidates expressing where they "stand". I tried not to think too deeply.
My relative would never vote for Clinton. Other than being against everything W, it's not entirely clear where she stands. I'm not criticizing her actual positions on issues, just my knee-jerk reaction to "where she stands." Whereas my relative saw Bush standing fiercely in opposition to those nasty terrorists and those who would "appease" them, I imagine that he sees Clinton trying to dance her way along a razor's edge between toughness and diplomacy. A far more reasonable "stand" than that of Bush, but not particularly inspiring.
My relative would be confused by Obama's "stand" as well. Again, I'm not criticizing the man's actual positions, just pointing out that he appears to favor actually listening to all sides and coming to a responsible, inclusive solution. A far more resonable "stand" than that of Bush, but not particularly inspiring.
Other than the more marginal candidates Kucinich (sorry but he is on the margin) and Gravel, the other candidates are equally hard to pin down as far as where they "stand". Triangulation is probably a great way to govern, but it's a lousy way to campaign.
The exception, I think, or at least the candidate with the most potential to be the exception, is John Edwards. And I believe the issue that can define his "stand" is universal health care. The other leading candidates have nibbled at the edges of health care reform. They've cobbled together plans that still leave insurance companies firmly entrenced. Edwards' plan calls for Medicare for all: screw the insurance companies. Just as Bush took a "stand" against the easy target of terrorists, Edwards' stand is against the equally easy target of insurance companies.
Edwards' pre-politics career was about standing up to big business and winning. I think he scares the daylights out of the GOP and their corporate allies. That's why they, with the help of the MSM, have attempted to couple his compassion for the poor with his pretty-boy good looks to paint him as a lightweight, attacking him, it seems to me, far more aggressively than either Clinton or Obama. They know that a candidate willing and able to "stand" against entrenched corporate interests will enjoy broad appeal. Hell, who wouldn't like to see big insurance and pharma brought to their knees?
Just as Teddy Roosevelt made hay with his aggressive stand against monopolies, Edwards can inspire voters by "busting" the health care bad guys.
Edwards is a fighter. He's not going to let anyone push him around. I could imagine my relative voting for him.