Any Other Primary Fence-Sitters Here?
Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 03:21:12 PM PDT
It's that time of year when any diary that argues strongly in favor of a particular candidate can feel a little suspect. Are they part of the campaign? Are they simply sharing their feelings about the candidate, or are they in campaign mode, deliberately glossing over flaws, pumping up features, and generally indulging in talking points? It's hard to see what's real and what's not.
And so, just because I can, and because I'm hungry for some more honest opinions from people who haven't decided yet, I'm going to share my own impressions of each of the candidates right now, from my perch atop the fence. If you're also a fence-sitter like me, please weigh in with your thoughts.
In the past, my favorite candidate has been Edwards, Obama, Clinton, Biden, Richardson. Dodd has me mildly curious as well.
Edwards: I was a bonafide Edwards supporter for a while. Some days he's still my first choice, but I think he's had some missteps recently. I have always really liked his behind-the-scenes life. Even back to the 2004 campaign, I remember the whole thing about him seeming blow-dried or "breck" or whatever. But I always knew he was a very human, good man underneath that. What I always liked about him most was that he was one who - even in 2004 - seemed best (along with Clark) at not accepting premises to slanted questions. That's one of the most key elements to being able to responsibly wield power, in my mind. I've been pleased to see him adopt more well-thought-out positions over the years (which usually means more progressive, but not always). But... I wonder if he might be losing his nerve a bit by watching the poll numbers. Some of the campaign's stunts lately have just been silly. The one that bugged me the most was about supporting an act for Congress to vote themselves out of health benefits. Really made me roll my eyes. Sure, it's just a stunt, but it shows a kind of panic coming from their campaign that makes me concerned about what they'll do in the future. The numbers right now can show momentum for various candidates, but they're all soft. People might jump on the Clinton bandwagon, but at this point, it's like "ah sure, she seems to be moving ahead, must be good, I'll stick with her too". No real thought behind it. Support is soft. What moves people ahead as people start paying attention (in a couple of months) is the strength of a candidate's narrative. Edwards has shown the most ability for this in the past. Edwards supposedly learned the lesson from his Iraq vote that he should trust himself more. If that's the truth, he needs to prove it now and trust that his message will eventually come through. If he distracts himself with cheap stunts and attacking other candidates and the "establishment" in a way that contradicts his message, I'll have lost faith in him.
Obama: I've gone back and forth on this guy. I was a huge supporter of him back when he was attempting to have an honest conversation with dailykos through his diaries. I thought that showed real leadership and I respected it. But since then he seems to be a lot more about promise. He's got a great brand but I still don't trust what is behind it. I know he's got a lot of policy proposals now to back everything up, but that doesn't help me trust his ability to enact them. I honestly don't see a way out of this for him. When I think about Obama, I think about the old advice for novelists and screenwriters: "Show, don't Tell." We're getting a lot of telling from Obama. Telling us what he'll bring, telling us how he represents change. Even his campaign message - change - is the most ambiguous of the other narratives. I have a pretty good idea of what's being changed from, a pretty dim idea of what's being changed to, and absolutely no idea of how that change will be accomplished. Beyond that, I have to admit being a little turned off by the style and tone of his supporters. Maybe at 37 I'm turning into an old fogey. Sometimes the passion-to-thoughtfulness ratio is just a little high for me. I think that in order for Obama to neutralize this stuff, he needs to take some ACTIONS. Mobilize his supporters in some way to actually create some visible social change. Or do something legislatively ballsy that will SHOW us his principles. Give me something to hang my hat on. I don't trust when it's just limited to message, tone, and promise of change. When you think about it, that's pretty much how Bush won in 2000.
Clinton: Her message is competence. She's freakishly disciplined - her campaign has seemed to be about riding her strength, never really needing to take any kind of actual leadership actions, but then taking steps to methodically inoculate herself against all her perceived weaknesses. She seems like less of a pawn to me now, that was my impression a few months ago when she was all campaign hype and almost no visibility. She's very good at not taking bait. And honestly, my own sense of her is that she's a bit stealth. I think she's more liberal than Bill, but can't and won't admit it. The question is whether she'd ever let that come through, or if she would just stick with being careful and disciplined throughout her entire presidency. Overall, she's the most opaque of the candidates. I find little reason to actively support her, but I find less and less reason to oppose her. She's kind of the benchmark candidate - she doesn't need a narrative other than "competence" (second-vaguest behind Obama's "change"). No one will be able to take her down by attacking her (something Obama and Edwards should take to heart). The way to beat her is to construct a message/narrative that has enough momentum to overtake her under its own power.
Biden: His message is basically the hard truths. I can't underscore how much appreciate it. He makes the debates better. He keeps others honest. I hope other candidates drop out and Biden stays until the bitter end, because the more Biden, the more the other candidates will be tested, and the stronger they will become. I want to know more about what Biden thinks about the other candidate's plans. Biden just needs to stick around. He's not viable as a candidate right now because he's not really even running as one - I never see anything in press from him about him putting forward social policy plans, etc. But he could become one if the other candidates self-destruct. A lot has been said about Biden's foot in mouth problem. But I think he's pretty inoculated from that now. Everyone knows he's going to do it, so it'll just be an entertaining sideshow when he does. It doesn't feed into a narrative of him being unfit for office, because he's a freaking institution by now. Besides, his words would be a relief after Bush. I'm also interested in his defense of voting for the bankruptcy bill. I think that if pressed, he'd actually be willing to debate it, explain it, defend it, or apologize for it.
Richardson: I have to admit I'm basically following the dailykos lead here. He just doesn't seem serious. I look at him and I can't even fathom how he's accomplished all the other things he's accomplished. It's like there's some phantom super-Richardson flying around the world saving the day, and I see absolutely no linkage between that guy and the guy I see at the podiums. He's got to do a better job at showing that Richardson to the world, because as it is now, podium-Richardson is damaging the credibility of super-Richardson. Where are those skills that solves problems? Not a rhetorical question, I really want to see them in order to feel better about him.
Dodd: He's basically been taking all the steps the netroots want him to take. I recognize that as a pattern, but I don't really know anything more about him. I'm not sure if that is because of a campaign strategy, or because of an underlying set of principles as expressed through a campaign-driving narrative.
Kucinich: I don't trust this guy. He puts idealism ahead of realism. I don't know what he would do if Congress authorized military action. I'd like to see him leave the race because I think he dumbs down the debates in the same way that Biden makes them more intelligent. As far as speaking truth to power, Gravel's almost more useful. The only thing that gives me pause is that the primary needs a voice speaking on behalf of singer-payer health care.
Gravel: He's useful to have around but probably shouldn't be given any more time in the debates than he has been given.
So, at this point it all once again seems to be about Iowa. I think what is going to decide it is the emergence of a real campaign-specific narrative - something Real that a candidate stands for. I used to think Edwards had the best shot of this but now I'm not so sure.
And I also think that if Gore entered, he'd have those storylines in spades... he'd be a monster. But he needs to stay mythic in order for it to happen. Sometimes I wonder what would happen if he released a twist on the Sherman Statement: "If nominated, I will not run. But if elected, I will serve."
Permalink | 89 comments