Cross-posted on Open Left.
In prior diaries, I introduced Cheryl Crist, weighed the risks of her primary challenge to pro-war Democrat Brian Baird, and considered whether Baird was worth challenging.
In each instance, the comments have weighed heavily in favor of adding a dedicated and experienced progressive peace activist to Congress, but wondered whether Cheryl Crist was a "credible" candidate?
What makes a candidate "credible," and does Cheryl Crist measure up? I will propose a counter-intuitive definition.
I worry that people who talk about "credible" candidates wonder if the contender can attract significant money and media attention. If that is the definition of "credible," then we are looking for millionaires and celebrities who can self-fund and titillate the news.
A few times we might get good leaders -- John Edwards and Al Franken are prominent current examples -- but more often we'll get disasters like Sonny Bono, Fred Grandy, Ronald Reagan, Jay Rockefeller, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or at best distracting mediocrities like Jesse Ventura (Commenters please nominate your least favorites).
Another road to credibility would be through connections to the powerful -- access to money, institutional affiliations, and a wealth of chits to cash in. This is actually another face of the same anti-democratic arrangement -- rule by the rich and famous -- only with the machinery better hidden.
Credibility might be gained through prior service -- a proven Lieutenant Governor might be considered for Governor. This view sees politics only as a career -- smart, informed, determined citizens are unwelcome in the legislature unless they have paid a lifetime of dues. This risk-averse approach highly values technical competence, but constricts democratic participation.
Or shouldn't credibility be determined based on personal characteristics, such as one's intelligence, wisdom, commitment, understanding, agenda, sincerity, and communication skills?
Paul Wellstone had all those things, but was not considered a "credible candidate" for Senate in Minnesota in 1990. Wellstone was an underfunded college professor who had never held office.
By contrast, in what sense is Oklahoma Senator James Imhofe "credible"? He compares environmentalists to Nazis, votes for torture, confuses the Bible with the Constitution, and doesn't believe in climate change. He has no credibility at all -- he doesn't even pass the straight-face test. But he would be considered a "credible candidate" for reelection. So, it seems that...
People looking for "credible candidates," are really looking for candidates who are "likely to win." But we must not apply the "credibility" filter so that our only candidates are celebrities, the wealthy, power-brokers, insiders, and careerists. That would inaccurately apply the definition, and not only over-restrict the candidate pool, it actually selects based on the wrong criteria, tilting the playing field heavily against the Paul Wellstones and toward the James Imhofes.
The right definition of "credible" is hidden in Wellstone's example, and in the examples of a hundred activists who succeeded based on the strength of their convictions instead of their connections. A candidate is credible if they are smart and have integrity, and if enough people will rally to their cause.
Nobody challenges Cheryl Crist's integrity. Thurston County Democratic Chairman John Cusick says that Crist "really does walk the walk that she teaches." And Crist's past work as an activist and a business professional show she is smart and conscientious. (You can find that out just by talking to her.)
Therefore, whether a candidate is "credible" does not depend so much on the candidate, it depends upon YOU. Whether Crist is credible depends on whether enough citizens of WA-03 will rally behind her, join her mailing list, share this diary, send her $5, and take the time to actually meet her, for example by attending tomorrow's peace rally in Olympia. Crist says:
Those who can attend the peace rally in Olympia (4th Ave bridge to the fountain) on Saturday morning, please meet me at 10am at the fountain and across the street from the kissing statue. I will have clip boards, flyers and donation envelopes for you. We will be signing up supporters and volunteers.
Winning a primary isn't that hard, if enough people pull a little.
Kossacks are pretty excited about the Responsible Plan to End the War. Look at all the Democratic challengers who are ready to embrace this plan as part of a responsible plan to throw out pro-war Republicans. WA-03, however, is in the unenviable position of having a Pro-War Democrat in Brian Baird. If we believe in the Responsible Plan, then let's do the Responsible Thing, and kick out the entire Pro-War Caucus, Democrats and Republicans alike.
Too risky? No, we've seen otherwise.
Brian Baird is actually okay? No, we've seen otherwise.
Is Crist not smart, committed, and honest? No, we've seen otherwise.
Will it take celebrity status or great wealth to defeat a pro-War Democrat in a purple district when Dick Cheney ("So?") tells the American people that cards and letters won't end the war -- they'll have to vote? No, we've seen otherwise.
It's up to us, and to the citizens of WA-03. Are we willing to make change happen?
Listen to Cheryl Crist interviewed on the Thom Hartmann Show.
Send $5 to Cheryl Crist to show support.
Visit Cheryl's website.
Previous: Ready to Go After Another Blue Dog?
Previous: Is a Primary Challenge Too Risky?
Previous: Is Baird Bad Enough to Warrant Replacing?
This Diary: Cheryl Crist is a Credible Candidate
Follow up: Fix FISA by Removing Baird
Follow up: Crist v. Baird Race Heats Up