RenaRF’s fine diary from Friday ("This Could Get Ugly") sent me into last night's excellent debate thinking about my own candidate indecision. Prior to the debate, I'd pretty much narrowed my choices to the Big 3 (O, E, and C). So I focused on those three. The performance of one of them reawakened and reinforced some simmering concerns and I came away from the debate with my choices narrowed to two.
(After The Break...)
My choice will be between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Why these two?
To me, Barack Obama IS indeed Kennedy-esque and represents change based on hope of national unity. He offers the potential to be a leader who can do that by stirring the national imagination and moving us past the relentless bickering of the past 28 years (I date it back to the Republicks’ [and NCPAC’s] take down of Senator Frank Church in 1980; the Republicks probably date it back further, to our take down of Tricky Dick). Barack Obama offers us so much and generates for me only two concerns: (1) whether he can out-bipartisan John McCain – who I think will be the GOP nominee and who can pull out an array of old centrist positions in the general and "straight talk" us out of reclaiming the White House, employing Benedict Lieberman any time he needs to gild his claims to bi-partisanship; and (2) whether the coming Republicks’ personal attacks on Obama will register with voters. We know what they’ll do, we’ve already seen the crap they’ll use against Obama (and no need to repeat all that), and some of us are already seeing the below-the-radar emails from GOP partisans – hint: they’re going after the middle name that we dare not speak here, unless we want a troll rating. We all know well what they can do to a good person with a targeted below-the-belt attack on just one thing, one aspect of a Democratic candidate’s life – an attack for which the RNC and McCain campaign can claim plausible deniability.
And, to me, Hillary Clinton represents change based on an actual record of change, driven by a commitment to progressive ideals which can be traced back to her college days. I know (and regret) how so many fellow Kossacks despise Hillary Clinton, but you do so in spite of what she has actually already accomplished for the progressive cause. As Kredwyn and others have noted this morning in comments in various other diaries, she co-founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families (allied with the Children’s Defense Fund), was a state coordinator in the Carter campaign, served on the BOD of the Legal Services Corporation (and was their first female chairperson), served as Governor Clinton’s leader for educational reform in Arkansas, served as President Clinton’s task force leader on health care reform, was probably the ace that trumped the Republicks’ attempt to take down President Clinton (remember how her "right wing conspiracy" argument reframed that debate?), and then went on to be twice elected Senator from New York, during which time we can pick only one thing we all vigorously disagree with her on – her vote for AUMF and her refusal to completely disavow it. As much as I opposed the war from the drumbeat run-up in September, 2002-on, I will forgive her for what I think was a politically-calculated, costly, horrible vote. But, to me, this is one mistake amid a career of ideal-driven, progressive decisions. (And no, I don’t count the health care reform debacle as a mistake on her part, as I well remember the impact of the insurance industry’s "Harry and Louise" campaign, double-teamed with fierce Republick opposition.) My concerns about her are not the "half the country hates her" argument. I think that’s old news and may actually redound to her and our benefit if she’s the nominee. Instead, my main concern about her is her speaking style. While she’s improved in this regard over the past 8 months, she’s not Bill and will never inspire like him; she’s not Obama either and will never reach his lofty oratorical heights. But, I don’t think the Republick candidate will be a great orator either (unless they pick Gov. Pyle, and my, what we can do with that form of oratory), and I don’t think speaking style will carry the day in the general election. Instead, I think it will eventually come down to issues, and probably economic issues. And, from her record spanning her adult life (and yes, from her husband’s 8 years in office), I believe she will be very effective on those issues – both when running vs. the Republicks and when governing.
Settling on those two candidates means that I’ve personally crossed off someone many of you care deeply about and have supported ably and honorably here at DKos: John Edwards. So, why wouldn’t this former Edwards considerer still consider him? Three reasons:
(1) I’ve always found him a bit cloying (something I could overlook if he was the nominee), but last night, he seemed to me to be in cloy over-drive, trying to glom as much Obama aura as he could. I thought he came off cheap as a result.
(2) Aside from achieving personal financial success with the help of a publicly dear and supportive spouse, I cannot think of a single thing John has really accomplished on the public stage. And apparently, neither can John. When asked about this last night, he could only name his co-sponsorship of the Patient’s Bill Of Rights – which was never passed into law. The reminder of this stunned me. Here was a candidate claiming the mantle of change, with 6 years in the Senate and no record of accomplishing, or changing, anything. I thought that was a devastating moment for him.
(3) And finally, something that pains me to say but which I feel needs saying: as much as I like Elisabeth and the case she makes for John, I really just don't believe what either of the Edwardses are telling us about how he "has fought bad corporations his entire life" on "behalf of the middle class". I’m a professional and I live and work among professionals, many with high progressive ideals, many actively involved in trying to create change on an everyday basis (e.g., supporting progressive causes, including this community of progressives, fighting for corporate and industry-wide recognition of King Day, trying to pry open opportunities for women and minorities, trying to give a boost to people who deserve it but maybe weren't as fortunate in their career/educational preparation), and I’ve never met a high-earning professional who was driven to success by just a desire to help others. Some may have gravitated toward a profession because of an ideal, but none I’ve ever known have stayed at their profession and made fortunes for that reason. Instead, I believe that high-earning professionals do what they do mainly out of a desire for personal achievement, a better life for themselves/family, and probably out at least some measure of personal greed that’s active within all of us. With that personal experience (which may vary from your own), I can’t say I ever believed John’s spiel about serving a career as a lawyer in order to fight for the middle class, but for a long time in this campaign (as well as during the ’04 campaign), I was willing to overlook that claim. Not anymore. The fact that he has made it his raison d’etre in his campaign for the nomination makes him and his argument for nomination just too much for me to believe. That, together with the "cloying" factor and his lack of public accomplishment, has eliminated him from my list.
So, I’m now down to two and I would be quite happy with either (or both...nah...won’t happen), for both represent high potential for re-taking the White House and both represent the change I want – serious change, at every level, from the Bush years, as well as extraordinary historical change in terms of the role of race and gender in our nation.