I've been mulling over what I want to see in a Democratic presidential candidate, and ultimately in a President of the United States. I think that it's clear that the country needs real leadership on almost every issue, foreign and domestic. I imagine that everyone here agrees that we need a leader who will stand up for something other than the interests of the top .5% income earners in the country, a leader who will help restore America's image in the world, starting by getting us out of Iraq, a leader who will take responsibility for the country.
And then, there's the ever elusive "character". To me, this is measured through actions, not campaign speeches. So, looking at a candidate's past decisions, and stated positions on issues, I'll make a decision about who I thought would be able to face these known and unknown challenges in the best way. I think reasonable people can disagree on which candidate would do this best, but I think we can all agree that it is a characteristic one wants in a President.
Fine. We're agreed. But I think what we as a country really crave is somebody to lead a movement.
What's a movement? According to Dictionary.com it's:
a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group of people or organizations tending toward or favoring a generalized common goal:
It's a combination of ideas that inspires people to action. It's a group of people firmly committed to change.
And most of all, it's organized. And there will emerge a leader, somebody willing to stand at the forefront of that movement, to be its standard bearer, and to put its ideas and ideals into action.
Another characteristic I'm looking for in a candidate is his or her viability as a candidate (not "electability", mind you). I believe John Kerry would have made an outstanding POTUS, but, as a candidate, he was a dismal failure, in part because he failed to find an overarching theme or vision for his campaign.
I think looking to the past can be instructive here. I think Ronald Reagan was the last candidate to possess both the leadership and candidate qualities. I might have found the conservative movement misguided, and ultimately destructive, but nobody can deny that Reagan ran at its forefront.
Bill Clinton was the consummate politician/ candidate. He had the charisma and viability quotient in spades. But while his views and mine (and those of many others, no doubt) often coincided, there was nothing cohesive about his stances. Many accused him of triangulating, and failing to stand up for anything he believed in. These qualities, in my opinion, made him incapable of leading a movement in any sense.
Howard Dean stands as an excellent example of somebody who was a born leader of such a movement. He inspired, and continues to inspire, millions of people to become involved in this country's political life. I joined DFA after the primary, and have continued to work with them through two moves around the country. As Chairman of the DNC, I think he's done a brilliant job, and his 50 state strategy is changing the face of politics (for the much, much better).
But as a candidate, he was dreadful (excuse me as a I don my flame retardant suit.) There was a story (sorry, I couldn't find a link) about how he told garment workers in South Carolina that if they wanted to continue buying T-shirts at Walmart, then something was going to have to give. Undeniably true, but not the way to talk about the issue if you expect people to vote for you. Joe Klein talked a bit in Time about this in 2004; the article is more negative than I would have been, but at least it's a link:
Joe Klein article
Which brings us to our 2008 field. In order of my personal preference, the three frontrunners:
- John Edwards
Edwards has talked, from the beginning of this campaign, about his desire to make changes in the world. Some of these are no-brainers around here: Bring the troops home. Rebuild America's stature in the world. Close the income inequality gap. Universal healthcare. He's got the ideas going, that's for sure. But what has bumped him up, in my estimation, is his desire to change the country with his campaign. That's right- not just change the country if and when he's elected President- change it now. His OneCorps is designed to get people organized around issues, not Edwards. His work with unions has been designed to unionize people- who, yes, will probably vote for him- but who will also have a voice they didn't have before his campaign.
In his Martin Luther King Commemoration, Edwards talked about King's quote, "There comes a time when silence is betrayal." He says, "That time is here again." He exhorts people to stand up and be heard, and to take an active role in our civic life.
Edwards MLK commemoration
This is building and leading a movement.
2.Barack Obama
Obama is edging up, in my book. While I do not subscribe to the view that Obama has done nothing while in the Senate, I would love to see him run after gaining more experience (and potentially winning the Governorship of IL in 2010). Having seen him speak, I can vouch for the charisma, and the level of sincerity that emanates from this man. I believe he has the capacity to lead, and inspire people to action, but I haven't seen it yet, and I don't think he's hit his stride yet. I'm willing to support him, but I need to see more.
Interestingly enough, he seems to be moving in this direction already. At today's announcement speech, he started using some of the same rhetoric as Edwards- talking about his candidacy being about the people, the "us" not "me", "reclaiming the meaning of citizenship", and taking action. I for one would like to see much more of this- much more of leading a movement. He spends the last 3 or 4 minutes talking about it:
Obama Announcement
3.Hillary Clinton
OK, anybody reading this far will probaly be able to guess what I have to say about Senator Clinton. She's currently my Senator, and I voted happily for her in November. While I agree with her on many issues, I, like many, find her reluctance to voice strong views disturbing. She, like her husband, has found ways of dodging issues, of trying to be all things to all people. Unlike Bill Clinton, however, Hillary doesn't have the extraordinary political charisma.
And unlike Obama and Edwards, she's not talking about leading people to action. She's talking about leading people to....talking. She wants to start a conversation. Not a bad idea, but not the stuff of great leadership either.
Clinton announcement
If her slogan is "I'm in to win", where's the community, where's the movement in that?
Each of these three candidates has said things with which I agree. Each of them has said things with which I disagree. Moreover, it's possible that another candidate (announced or potential) may blow all three out of the water. This leadership framework, the ability to lead a movement, is a good basis for decision making, though, and for now, I'm sticking to it.