What It Takes

Last November, I went to Betucci's here in Boston with New York Times Magazine reporter Matt Bai. He had just given a speech at Boston College about his book The Argument and, having sponsored his speech as a member of the student senate, I got the chance to attend a dinner with him and the president of the College Democrats. After talking about his book, politics, and the like, I asked him what the best book he ever read about politics was. His answer: Richard Ben Cramer's 1000 page tome What It Takes which is about the 1988 presidential campaign. Several months later, after finally finishing it, I can't help but think about it in the context of the 2008 presidential race.

All over America, voters are asking the three remaining candidates for president if they have "what it takes" to be the next commander-in-chief. From coast to coast, from the fields of Iowa to the hills of Hollywood, average people have chimed in. So far, they have dispatched the so-called "next Ronald Reagan" (Fred Thompson), the William Jenning Bryan of 2008 (John Edwards), America's Mayor (Rudy Giuliani), the folksy preacher (Mike Huckabee), the elder statesman (Chris Dodd and Joe Biden), the diplomat governor (Bill Richardson), the flip-flop millionaire (Mitt Romney), and the long-shots (Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul). Clearly, these guys didn't have "what it takes." But do the remaining candidates?

Barack Obama's nickname (unfortunately for him) is Obambi. Hillary Clinton (unfortunately, at times, for her) has the last name of Clinton. John McCain, maverick-turned-Ronald Reagan footsoldier, is in his seventh decade. But despite their individual downfalls, the voters have seen somethings (or a lot of things) they like and have thus rewarded them with money, votes, and lots of advocacy at the local watering hole, water cooler, or family email chain.

Having studied politics in the classroom and in the streets hitting the pavement for various candidates, I've learned that voters make choices based on some pretty weird stuff. Experience, as Obama's campaign has proved, is not the end-all-be-all for millions of voters; these folks want to be inspired and inspired they are by the senator from Illinois. However, as Hillary's candidacy proves, voters are a bit nostalgic for the 90s Third Way of the Clintons. On the Republican side, voters have proved that experience does matter, even if that experience sometimes includes going against the wind of his party base.

With John McCain will eventually get the "does he have what it takes" glance over by the voters, the Democratic contest is in the spotlight of the "what it takes" judgment.

In today's Times, Maureen Dowd wrote of Obama:

After losing Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and his mojo, and getting whipsawed around by Hillary and his own chuckleheaded coterie of advisers, he will now have to come to grips with something he has always skittered away from: You can’t be elected president unless you prove you’re tough.

Spoken like a soothsayer. In the final days leading up to the March 4 Ohio and Texas primaries, Clinton went on the offensive against Obama, namely his 3 am credentials. As exit polls showed, Clinton won those voters who decided who they would support in the last three days of the election aka when her ad began running. And then, of course, the infamous NAFTAgate broke and voters in Ohio wondered whether Obama really cared about their blue collar concerns. The voters in the aftermath of March 4, as Dowd correctly pines, were left wondering whether Obama had "what it takes."

Clinton, while she made have had the upperhand in the "what it takes" round of March 4, is still nowhere near out of the woods on that issue. The day after losing Texas and Ohio because voters had doubts about him, Obama decided to play the doubt card against Clinton over the issue of her tax returns. While Obama may not be "tough enough," is Hillary "open enough?"

The questions surrounding each of the remaining candidates could take up as many pages as Cramer's book. However, it is clear that some major themes exist in the Democratic race.

In the post 2004 Democratic world, voters have a right to ask whether their nominee will be tough enough to withstand the attacks of the Republican sleaze machine. No one wants our nominee to get swiftboated this time around.

With the economy going down the tubes, voters want a Democrat who stands up for them and doesn't just say "whatever it takes" to get their votes. I'm not suggesting I believe Obama had been misleading voters on his true belief on NAFTA, though I and everyone realizes the importance of his position after Ohio. Pennsylvania, anyone?

While people felt Iraq would dominate this election, it has taken second fiddle to the economy though it still remains a most important issue (especially to this voter). Obama's charges against Clinton's vote to authorize the war matter to a lot of people and, whether Clinton likes it or not, I don't believe her vote for the war has been buried as an issue just yet.

Voters in middle America have a right to ask which candidate has the best chance of helping the entire Democratic ticket. Time and time again, it seems that many people believe Obama to be the better candidate in states that have not gotten a lot of attention from Democratic presidential candidates lately. Wondering which candidate will help down-ticket Democrats in those states is very important if we are seeking not just to elect a president, but to build a party.

Finally, though this list could go on forever, the character of the candidates must be addressed. Both candidates may sound the same on many issues facing our country but they are two very different people with two very different styles.

From now until Pennsylvania and beyond, Democratic voters will and should ask themselves whether they believe Obama and Hillary have "what it takes." In the mean time, if you have time, I would suggest picking up a copy of Cramer's book. If you're undecided or have an undecided friend or two, tell them to give it a read. The same questions we want answered in 2008 were asked in 1988 and the conclusions that were established in Cramer's book may go a long way in trying to make a conclusion in 2008.