November 26, 2007

Democrats May Benefit from More Nomination Confusion

 

I haven’t yet decided whom I’m supporting for the Democratic presidential nomination. Since misery loves company, I’m hoping to share my dilemma. Also, I think it useful for us Democrats to stay confused a while more before giving in to the inevitability of anyone.

 

People are acting as if there were only two, or perhaps three candidates. This is especially strange given the recent focus on experience, and the fact that those “other candidates”, especially Joe Biden, Christopher Dodd and Bill Richardson, have far more experience than the anointed two or three.

 

They are solid and represent mainstream Democratic values. For some reason the media, and many voters, are not seeing them as “presidential”. Those “second-tier” candidates make the most solid debate statements, but it’s hard to remember them amid the back-and-forth among the “big three”.

 

At a recent democratic debate, when Wolf Blitzer finally got to the others, his question was about the dynamics among the threesome (Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards). It reminded me of the narcissistic guy on a date who, after rambling on endlessly about his achievements, finally said to his unfortunate companion, “We’ve talked about me long enough. Let’s talk about you. What did you think about my latest book?”

 

I’ve liked Edwards a lot since the last campaign. He seems clearest about the need for challenging entrenched interests, though that’s easier when you have little to lose. Lately he is sounding shrill and desperate. I suddenly find myself remembering he has even less experience in public office than Hillary. Years of trial law may not ultimately be the best preparation for being president.

 

Former Sen. Mike Gravel seems to be playing the humor and conscience role that Al Sharpton played the last time around. But Jewish Alaskans are a smaller voting block than blacks, and that makes him less relevant.

 

Dennis Kucinich has compelling positions on important issues. Sometimes he seems to have it right, but then keeps going, just far enough to alienate many potential voters. And he just doesn’t look the part. Having Fred Thompson acting Dennis’s issues and role in the debates might just do it.

 

Barack Obama is by most standards too inexperienced to be president. Citing having grown up in Indonesia as a foreign policy credential doesn’t help, though I get his point. Knowing there is a world out there these days seems a huge relative qualification, though Barack’s worldly awareness may be more a result of his international family than his Indonesian babysitter. Most important, he reflects that awareness in his words and deeds.

 

I find myself wanting to support him – hoping his speaking ability reflects personal qualities that could inspire and lead our country. In a John F. Kennedy-like way, he gives me hope that our politics could be better. A 30-year-old relative mentioned recently that many friends who had had little interest in politics are noticing Obama – a great sign.

 

Hillary is looking more presidential. Still, I have trouble thinking of her as my candidate. Being a “Clinton” helps. For me, Bill was one of our most effective presidents ever – one of the “greats”, if only he could have put a lock on his zipper at critical moments. Still, having him around is comforting.

 

Hillary is a smart and capable woman. As seasoned as she has become, as successful as she was and would be in her own professional right, she would not have been elected to the Senate, nor be a presidential contender, had she not married Bill. Most of her “experience” was as First Lady. She’s not Eva Peron, but she is Hillary Clinton, not Hillary Rodham.

 

Barack (finally) made reference to this point in response to an attack by Hillary about his lack of experience: “As I understand it, Hillary was not Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton Administration.” This point by Obama, which I would make as well, is a result of her making experience such a cornerstone of her candidacy.

 

She has by all accounts been a very good senator, but not in the upper median of government experience among current contenders – the elected or appointed kind, accountable publicly to someone non-related. Her most visible public responsibilities – health care while first lady, and the Iraq vote – were not stellar successes. Experience can produce learning, but her recent Iran vote worries me.

 

She did have the opportunity to meet with world leaders with her husband, and was privy to deliberations whose nature most of us can only imagine. Woody Allen used to say, “Eighty percent of life is showing up”. Children of corporate executives have an easier time in corporate life, getting familiar with the scene over the dinner table. Hillary has been around, for better and worse.

 

My jury is still out.