I've posted a few essays regarding my thinking of the three major candidates. The rough history is here - I liked it when Obama came to Daily Kos. I thought it showed courage and leadership, even though the response was less than heartening.
I came down pretty solidly in the Edwards camp, although I do remember being impressed by Hillary's warmth and likability in her debates - it didn't seem like she was trying to just come across as another man. That's a good step forward.
I was impressed by Barack in Iowa and wrote about it in the immediate aftermath - it hit the top of the reclist for a few hours there. I was thinking, maybe there was something to this unity stuff if it's actually what possibly helped him win Iowa.
But I was still in the Edwards camp, until I was shaken by Edwards' response to Hillary's emotion. I've gotten over that a bit, and am still impressed by Edwards, but... I'm still having to think... if Edwards doesn't make it, who am I going to support?
The progressive in me wants to like Barack over Hillary. The fighter in me wants to like Hillary over Barack. It's a real war. I find myself leaning towards Hillary, but then I'm reminded about how McAuliffe != Dean. So then I find myself leaning towards Barack, but then I have experiences like watching him in the debate the other night.
This is not a hit diary, because I am not clearly supporting any candidate right now. But I have to stress just how much Barack turned me off, multiple times throughout the debate.
I understand that he has policies that are about as progressive as Edwards. I don't care about Renko. I think his frustration against the Clinton tag-team is understandable. None of that stuff bugs me.
What bugs me is that this guy loves wiggle room way too much.
John Edwards was on the verge of making a great point about this. John and Hillary have a history that is not always in line with their present. But at least in John's case, he's acknowledging and taking accountability for his past votes. There is something to be said for growth and evolution! That is a sign of strength! A person who puts themselves out there, perhaps fails and is wrong, and then learns from it, transforms, and becomes a better person and a better leader for it. That is respectable. I don't agree with Hillary's Iraq history, but at least I have a sense of where she's coming from. With Barack, I only get a sense that his words were against Iraq.
Barack's response is "We need someone who got it right the first time." I find that arrogant. It would be one thing if Barack were a consistent voice against the war and everything it stood for every step along the way. But he just wasn't. I wish Hillary had actually asked him the question, rather than just pointing it out. Barack, how do you reconcile your supposedly strong anti-Iraq-war views with your behavior in the Senate?
The man isn't explaining a philosophy or principle that saw him through. When he paints himself as a strong anti-Iraq voice, he's pointing to an occasion in his past. I found myself relating to Hillary's somewhat snide "You gave a great speech" in reference to that.
Barack has had opportunity to lead more strongly on this issue. A lot more opportunity than John Edwards has had, because he was actually in the Senate. And instead he hung back.
Barack's response about the "present" votes annoyed me, too. It didn't annoy me that he did them - it's in the past - but it annoyed me that he defended them.
What I'm driving at is that when you decide to be President, that is a different role than being a legislator. This is something that I think John Edwards understands more deeply than Barack does, and also more than Hillary, although to a lesser extent.
I don't believe in dumbing down the debate. I understand nuance, and distinctions, and I'm not going to claim it's all fuzzy and confusing and beyond the ken of myself and all the other stupid people that relate with me and will vote for me, like Bush did. I get that there were probably valid reasons to be all arcane and gamey and "within the system".
I get that as a state legislator, Barack has accomplished a lot of good, positive change, by putting forth an agenda, and working with his opponents, often convincing them with gentleness and persistence, by appealing to their better natures. But being a president is different than being a state legislator or a Senator. When you are dealing with world leaders, many of whom came to power by destroying and killing their opponents, and are only concerned with retaining power, you cannot work with them. These people don't even have better natures.
Being an American President means something. It means you reject the game. It means that you will not wait to respond. It means that you will act. Set the agenda. Do it in a way that forces others to respond. You don't work with them. You act, and force them to respond. Negotiation and diplomacy means applying pressure, it doesn't mean appealing to their better nature. I don't care that Barack affected change by convincing people. I want to know that he can affect change without convincing them. I don't care that Barack's policy collection is as progressive as John's. What matters is how that collection of policies looks a few months into the administration. When you are President, you don't throw your policy collection out there as a starting point for discussion.
Barack has not shown me that he will fight. He's shown that he will fight back, but not that he will fight for. All throughout the debate, I saw Barack on the defensive. Trying to explain. Trying to make distinctions. Reacting. He's a good reactor. He's also good at inspiring. But in my book, that doesn't add up to being a leader.
I can hope that Hillary will remain progressive. And be, as rumored, more progressive than her husband. I can hope that I'll get a better sense of how her administration will be different than her husband's. I can hope that the Dean team will still have a place in her administration. But with Barack, I'm having trouble hoping.