Crossposted fromMy Left Wing
I'm very disappointed in most of the respondents to yesterday's Question of the Day, which I posted at MLW:
Set aside, for our purposes here today, ALL questions about electability, money, appearance, history, possible Republican opponents and how your candidate might do against said Republican, and think back to the words you heard from each candidate. If you COULD, in some Utopian existence where none of the above issues were allowable in one's decision-making (not only your own but every voter's), choose a candidate to ascend to the nomination based SOLELY on that candidate's spoken and written words...
Who spoke the words that most closely hew to your own opinions and feelings, and, presumably, therefore would be your chosen Democratic candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America come November 2008?
Very few of the respondents actually answered the question as asked. I thought it was pretty simple.
My answer:
It was a very close tie between Gravel and Edwards, but ultimately, I chose Edwards.
Gravel spoke what I feel in my heart about Iraq, but he said it in such an impolitic way that it alienated even me, and I have been known to RANT in even MORE impolitic a manner, and far more profanely. HOWEVER, I am not running for President, nor do I have any wish to BE President.
Also, Gravel had NOTHING else to say about ANY other topic. Even I know that Iraq, which is this nation's greatest tragedy, is NOT our nation’s ONLY problem. That Gravel saw fit to turn each and every question asked of him into an opportunity to impugn not only the war and its creators (justly so) but his fellow debaters for their lack of zeal in joining his crusade -- well, it was the mark of a man who did not truly wish to be President, but merely wished to use his moment in this particular spotlight to say his piece. Bravo -- I applaud that, as I applauded the same behaviour in Al Sharpton in 2004 -- but I cannot choose such a man as my candidate.
Being President of a nation like ours requires more than passion, despite my constant pleas for just that. I believe John Edwards has not only the passion I require, but also the dignity, intelligence, compassion, foresight and imagination it will take to be the President of this wretched, beleaguered, dissolute, broken and besmirched nation.
I still wish for Gore, and I still believe Gore will run -- so Gore is my first choice. But should his candidacy not come to pass, Edwards is my first choice. Obama is my second choice -- thus far there is no acceptable third, with the exception of Clark, who has not yet declared himself a candidate*.
As for the rest of the candidates on the stage:
Richardson scares the SHIT out of me. Yeah, he wants the troops out NOW, but he's also a motherfucking HAWK. Did no one else notice how RABIDLY pro-force he is? And I'm none too fond of the fact that he attempted, every single time it was his turn to answer a question, to pack in far more information than was necessary. Some might say that's a mark of a man trying eagerly and enthusiastically to get a message across; I say it's a mark of a tin ear. He's worse than Biden when it comes to verbosity -- and less erudite, in the bargain.
Speaking of Biden: what a tragedy of a man he has become. Like John Kerry, he's spent too long in the Senate, and doesn't know when to shut the fuck up. Yes, he had a great moment -- but how sad that he had to curtail an actual reply for a laugh, when to answer it honestly and angrily might have stood him in greater stead. If anyone on that stage that night had actual qualifications for the job, Joseph Biden has them; but he's too corrupt, too divided, he's spent too many years in the protean halls of the United States government... and the very things that qualify for the job also make him the sort of man no one really trusts anymore. I do believe he is a good man, a truly good man -- but he's also a broken man and a compromised man, and I just cannot trust him.
Dennis Kucinich: The man is delusional. I offer my deep apology to anyone who supports the man, but I am being honest here; Dennis Kucinich comes across even more badly than he did in 2004. And he is STILL using that godawful "when I am President" shtick -- and that is fucking DELUSIONAL. At least the other dark horses and no-chance-in-hell candidates have the dignity and self-respect -- not to mention respect for their audience and supporters -- to tacitly admit that they haven't got a snowball's chance in hell. Kucinich, with that single act of pretending he is deadly serious in his belief that he WILL win, makes himself a fool or a madman. I meant what I said in the discussion of the QotD post that inspired this essay:
I thought the dismissive, mocking tone taken toward Kucinich and Gravel by the rest of the panel was shameful and disgusting.
But Christ almighty, Kucinich practically BEGS to be mocked. And frankly, I think it's shameful that he does so -- precisely because his positions and his statements thereto ARE so damned important. His stands, his ideas, his pleas to the American people -- they're all rational and sound and moral. But he renders them null and void by making himself a clown. Many disagree with me on this point, but I thought the presence of Mike Gravel on that stage made Kucinich look like MORE of a buffoon than ever. Gravel, at least, pulled no punches. Gravel KNOWS he doesn't have a prayer -- so he uses his bully pulpit in the debate to the greatest effect. I don't doubt he had thousands, if not millions, CHEERING his rants. Kucinich, on the other hand, by playing STATESMAN while uttering completely unstatesmanlike speeches (that is to say, unstatesmanlike in comparison to the expectation of most Americans of what a statesman is), looked and sounded like a fucking crackpot. "When I am President," indeed. When Kucinich is President, there will be bacon in the treetops, for lo, pigs will indeed have sprouted wings. And Madscientist is right -- he looks like Hitler.
UPDATE: I forgot about Dodd. That ought to say everything that needs to be said (by me, at any rate) about him.
Parenthetically* -- where was Wesley Clark? Is he not a declared candidate? And if not, why was I under the impression he was?
Barack Obama didn't make many missteps, to my relief. The pragmatist in me suspects that my first choice (barring Gore's entry, of course), John Edwards, has very little chance of winning the nomination. The pragmatist in me suspects this is going to be a fight to the death, down to the wire, between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. And should that be the case, I'm throwing my full weight and every ounce of energy and every millisecond of my time behind Barack Obama. So you might imagine my relief when Obama's performance turned out to be... pretty good. Not bad, not great -- but he had gravitas and thought quickly on his feet, his answers were in-depth and obviously given more thought than the standard soundbite crap we might expect of a novice who might have been rehearsed within an inch of his life. And, with apologies to Edwards, I didn't get a sense of any "high-falutin'" language. To the contrary, I heard an eloquent simplicity that, while it lacked no erudition, probably could still be digested and understood by most people with an average education and intellect. As to his policies and plans, they did lack specificity, which I expected -- however, I have a feeling Obama has the common sense to surround himself with advisors whose wisdom and experience he will trust -- and though he will "be his own man" and make his own decisions, I suspect Obama will be the polar opposite of George W. Bush, should he become President, and make his decisions judiciously and thoughtfully. So, despite many misgivings, it will not be too troubling to me should my first* choice go down and I be forced to support Obama.
Now the candidate who fills me with dread and bile and terror:
If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination of the Democratic Party, I will be at a loss. I simply do not know what I will do. I live in a solid blue district in a solid blue city -- but California is purple now, and Hillary Clinton is pure toxin. I believe she will turn the entire country red. I believe she will lose in so spectacular a fashion as to bring the Democratic Party to the brink of extinction -- and possibly drag the entire ticket down with her in the 2008 election if she is the top of that ticket. If Obama is her VP, it may save us from a totally ignominious defeat -- but we will still suffer a terrible loss -- and this country may never recover from another 4 years of Republican domination.
As for what she said? Nothing new, nothing unexpected, nothing that sounded remotely genuine. EVery word she says sounds like a lie. Moreover, her stated policies and plans scare the bejeezus out of me. i think she's a hawk; maybe even more of a hawk than any man on that stage. I don't know if it's a stance she's taken to compensate for her sex, or if it's her true nature -- it doesn't really matter, because if she takes the Presidency, she's going to follow through on it. Diplomacy? I didn't hear a word about it. As for what Bill Clinton's role will be in her Administration... should he become her closest advisor and we see a return to the Clinton Era, I'm sure many would be relieved and even gladdened. I, however, will be sorely disappointed. TO be sure, comparatively speaking, a return to the Clinton Era would be heavenly. Only a little corruption, and only half as much poverty and death and destruction -- hey, it's a great step forward. I mean, backward. Back to the future? Forward to the past?
But it's a new era. the Clintonian era is gone. Russia is a dictatorship again, no matter what the announcements coming out of there say. China is the number one reason the world stands watching as evil men perpetrate genocide and mass rape and countless atrocities upon the people of Sudan; don't tell me it's not so, man -- Sudan has oil that China needs and China owns us lock, stock and barrel. We interfere, China takes their money out of the U.S and we collapse. So tell me, President Clinton, what are we going to do about Rwanda Sudan? Never again? Never again? Riiiiiight.
I cannot think right now what to do if Clinton wins the nomination. For now, I support Gore, pending his Nobel win and subsequent entry into the 2008 campaign for the Presidency; barring that, John Edwards is my candidate. Should he drop out at any point in the primaries, Obama is my default candidate. That's my plan so far. I cannot think about a Clinton nomination; it is simply too ghastly and too painful and too apocalyptic to contemplate right now.
</div>