Looking Hard at the Candidates: Indecision as the Primaries Begin

As the primaries are beginning, I am naturally reflecting on the main candidates. I already discussed the chances (in my opinion) each candidate has in the upcoming primaries. Now I want to discuss the actual candidates and my opinions of them. This represents my thoughts on the candidates as individuals and on the issues.

I am facing the Democratic primaries MORE undecided than when I began. From the start I liked our candidates. They are a good bunch! Astonishingly intelligent and capable, even those I don't fully agree with on the issues. At first I figured I'd vote for any of the main candidates in the primary except Hillary, though I know I would be proud to work for her if she wins the nomination. Now I am even LESS decided because I even have entertained the possibility of voting for Hillary in the primary! I honestly don't yet know who I will vote for.

Probably the candidate who most matches my personal values is Kucinich. But I don't think I'd vote for him for two reasons: first, he has no real shot; and second because even if I like his values, I am unconvinced he'd make an effective leader. Carter was possibly our most moral and intelligent President ever, but he fell short as a leader at a time when even an effective leader would have been tested. We need a better leader than I think Kucinich would be in these days of a massive Bush mess.

The first one who almost convinced me was Richardson. On paper he is by far the best candidate. He is an accomplished diplomat who has dealt effectively with some of the trickiest characters in the world and in the process was nominated for the Nobel Peace prize four times. Believe me THAT is impressive and we need a man like Bill Richardson these days. He has been ambassador to the UN and is well respected around the world...something we DESPERATELY need now. He has also been energy secretary, a Congressional Rep. and, of course, Governor of New Mexico. It is hard to imagine better credentials to be president. Add to that the fact that on key issues (namely energy policy and withdrawal from Iraq) I feel he has the best plans for America. It really seems a slam dunk for me to vote for him. Problem is, he is unable to make a dent in the polls and he has a tendency to put his foot deeply in his mouth on the campaign trail. Obviously he can be an effective speaker and avoid insult one-on-one or he'd never have been an effective diplomat. And in the arena of New Mexico politics he seems to do well. But on the national campaign trail he comes off too much the amateur. I don't know why this is given his history, but it remains the reality. And if someone has trouble inspiring while campaigning, it will be hard to inspire as President in a negative (read: right wing) media climate. I see him as an ideal VP or Sec. of State who could in 8 years shape up to be a great candidate for Pres if he gets some coaching. But I don't see him winning now. This makes it hard for me to vote for him.

Hillary Clinton is a tough one for me. I am one of those Democrats who really did like Bill Clinton. So to imagine a continuation of his legacy is a plus for me, though I do not insult Hillary by believing she will be nothing but a way for Bill to extend his Presedency. She is far too independent and strong for that. Hillary is my Senator. But I have felt she has leaned too far to the right for my tastes and has made too many votes I was not proud of. I do feel adequately represented by her in Congress, but not WELL represented. I also have seen little bravery in her stands or genuine leadership so far. She is brilliant, competent and would make an excellent President. But...I do not think she would represent me and I believe I would spend 8 years defending her against attacks from my fellow liberals. I also think she represents politics of the last century. That could still work, but I really would prefer politics that look forward. She represents the old...GOOD old stuff, mostly, but there is too much that is old and too much truth to the triangulation accusation. I am afraid the Iraq quagmire will continue and I am concerned that she will land us in a difficult situation vis a vis Iran simply to show she isn't a wimp. I am also afraid that, as a product of politics of the last century, she will not have enough vision to deal with new problems like global warming. As I will say later, I may change some of these views, but so far she is my least favorite of the main Democrats even if I respect her and prefer her to almost any Republican in my lifetime.

Barack Obama never wowed me. I like him. I definitely donated to him when he ran for Senate. And I think he is brilliant, perhaps the most intelligent of ANY of the canidates of ANY party, competent and would make an excellent president. But...he leans too far to the right for me, similar to Hillary, and I am unconvinced he is prepared for the extremely grueling job that is President. I think he would rise to the occasion, but would have a shaky start and a shaky start would be dangerous at a time when we need to recover from the abyssmal failures of Bush. But he IS a forward thinker. He is more a product of the new century of politics, with a good dose of Howard Dean style. But he has shown himself too willing to play the game that has kept us in Iraq and threatened to get us into Iran. And he has been too quick to decide nuclear is necessary to wean us off of fossil fuels EVEN THOUGH building new nuke plants cannot happen fast enough to make a difference. One thing is I have not heard him live. My understanding is that he blows you away live. I know someone, generally unintersted in politics, who saw him and the way he talked about the event was like the best rock concert he had ever been too mixed with some of the best political analysis he had ever heard. I was impressed by the impression Obama made on this guy...an undecided voter. I would like to hear him live...if I get the chance. But so far I remain unmoved, though my default is positive.

John Edwards is someone who did NOT impress me much in 2004 but impresses me more now. I have heard him live and I find much of what he says right on. Next to Kucinich I think Edwards most reflects my genuine beliefs and values. He is also very intelligent (though I think Obama and Hillary beat him somewhat in intelligence) and competent and would make an excellent President. And I think he has grown a lot since 2004. So as a good combination of where he stands on issues and what I think can win (unlike Kucinich and Richardson) Edwards strikes me as the best balance for me. Hearing him speak on foreign policy convinced me that he has a good idea of how to tread the difficult path we need to go to get us out of Iraq, cope with terrorism that has grown so much thanks to Bush's fumbles, reestablish the respect of the world, and face up to the need for new energy policies. What worries me is that he hasn't polled as well as he should particularly in key states where he SHOULD do well and which will matter a LOT for getting the nomination: Iowa, Michigan, South Carolina... I am not sure why he isn't doing better, though with Obama and Hillary as rivals you really do have to be exceptional to shine. I may yet vote Edwards, but if he doesn't do well in the early primaries I will have to reconcider both Obama and Hillary.

Which brings me back to them. Both are exceptional people. Both are too far to the right for my tastes, but so is much of America. Richardson and Edwards appeal to me personally the most. And both are still in the running for my vote. But, I realize that I am not voting for who I personally agree with...I am voting for who will lead America as a whole the best. In that context I have to reconsider the extremely charismatic Obama and the frontrunner so far, Hillary.

I also have to consider that the fact that the two very serious frontrunners also make a political statement. In some circles this would be considered impolite to bring up, but the possibility of the first woman or first black President is a precedent not to be lightly ignored. Given that they are both extraordiniary people, making that statement appeals even at the expense of leaning further to the right than I would prefer. I would NOT vote for them primarily because of their race or gender. But in the context of their being excellent candidates a field of excellent candidates, and they are the candidates in the lead, is it worth leaning further to the right than I normally would to make that statement, to be part of what really is a long overdue precedent? Sri Lanka, Liberia, India and Pakistan all have had powerful women leaders...why not America? And anytime I hear someone ask if "America is ready for a black President" I want to puke because that is a self-fulfilling prophecy and if we are ready to have a spoiled rich frat boy moron as President why the hell aren't we ready to have a competent, intelligent black as President? Yes it matters. If Obama and Hillary were useless fools or were way behind in the polls I'd never consider voting for them whatever their race or gender is. But given that I am having a hell of a hard time deciding, and given that they ARE in the lead, and given that I am convinced they would make good Presidents even if I wouldn't always agree with their stands, yeah I am willing to consider the worth of voting for a black or woman over a white guy. If Richardson could present himself better on a national stage I would be even more psyched to support him because he would be our first Hispanic President. And I may STILL do so! But he really needs to learn how to be a better orator.

This partly was inspired simply by recently hearing Obama and Hillary on Sunday talk shows. Both of them came off so refreshingly smart and handled questions so well that I really felt I wanted to vote for them. My wife's comment about Hillary at the time is about right: If she wasn't so hawkish I'd be THRILLED to vote for her. That is key. Both Obama and Hillary, in different ways, lean more right and are a little too triangulating for my tastes but OTHERWISE are quite exciting candidates.

So it comes down to an excellent Democratic field and the question of will I vote more to the right within that field because the precedent of a woman or black President and the value of voting for one of the two front runners are worth something to me.

Edwards is still my most likely choice. But Obama and, yes...even Hillary, are possibilties. Or even, if it seems the nomination is sewn up by the time I vote, Kucinich or Richardson. I think where each candidate is faring in the early primaries will have more of an effect on my vote than it usually does. I do NOT feel I have to vote for a winner. But when I am having trouble deciding, well, maybe it might feel nice to vote for a winner!

Now for the other guys...the Republicans. What a bunch of losers! And the only one of the whole lot who could be a reasonable President has decided to abandon his personal values and model himself after Bush...our WORST President ever. So here's my impression of the other guys:

Romney: Untrustworthy flip-flopper. He has no values of his own but seems only to say whatever he thinks will get him what he wants. He may be my least favorite of all the main candidates even if he has taken some moderate stands here and there. He strikes me as a used car salesman in a cheap suit who doesn't even vaguely sound credible. I can't really address his stand on issues because they change so much!

McCain: The man who SHOULD have been the Republican nominee. This is a man who I have always disagreed with but used to respect. He would have once been an ideal Republican candidate and one that would have been hard to beat. AND he is by far the most intelligent of the Republican candidates. But he one day decided to abandon his own values, his independent mind, and hitch his wagon to the rapidly falling Bush star. He embraced things that he previously rejected and kissed the ass of the man who had so badly smeared him in the past. McCain betrayed the voters and sided with Bush. I say betrayed because THAT is what it was. He betrayed even himself and chose to be Bush's successor. But no one wants a successor to Bush. They want a replacement, someone who can FIX the horrible mess that Bush has handed us. McCain once could have billed himself that way. But instead he has billed himself as the next Bush with warmed over Bush policies that no one wants. Pity. But that is what he did. McCain: stay the course is NOT the right thing to do when the course is the wrong way.

Giuliani: Well, I'm ahead of most Americans because I remember him as mayor of NYC. And in some things he did a good job. But he is a little tyrant, a wanna be Mussolini, who believes in NOTHING but himself and his right to bully his way to the top. He is a walking ego that has nothing but disregard for American voters. He screwed the NYC firefighters repeatedly, both before and after 9/11. In fact, his actions condemned many firefighters to death on 9/11 and to respiratory illness afterwards. He put his buddy up for police chief even after being told that man had criminal connections. He used city money to pay for his affairs with women and he degraded police officers by forcing them to walk his mistresses dog. Racial tensions skyrocketed in NYC during his time as mayor and he claimed credit for everything other people did, never working with people, merely dictating. I can think of no one more ill suited for cleaning up the mess of years of Bush corruption and arrogance than this corrupt and arrogant man. The only way Giuliani is better than Bush is he is much, MUCH more intelligent.

Huckabee: A co-worker from Bulgaria had this to say about Huckabee after watching him in a debate: he is a very clever man. He did not mean this as a compliment. He saw Huckabee as a crazy fanatic who was very, very good at making himself seem reasonable. He found him the scariest of the lot because what he said was so crazy but how he said it sounded so reasonable. I think this is very true: Huckabee shows every sign of religious fanaticism similar to that of fundamentalist Muslims. Yet he sure can talk a good line! Unlike Romney, who doesn't seem to HAVE values, or McCain, who abandoned his values, Huckabe very definitely has values. Problem is, they are values akin to those of the Taliban or Iran: belief that he is the mouthpiece of God and the rest of us are unimportant and potentially worthy of damnation. THAT is a very dangerous kind of leader. Added to this is the fact that he has shown himself to be dumb. Perhaps not as dumb as Bush, but he has no grasp whatsoever of foreign policy...yet he is running for President! He has no grasp of issues that are facing America right here and now. All he has is a solid belief that HE is annointed by God to lead us, facts and issues be damned. That will be disasterous for America if he wins because even if he changes course from Bush's failures, he will himself fail because nothing he does is based on reality. Yet he can sure sound convincing if you don't pay attention to what he really says. He strikes me as a used car salesman in a NICE suit who is cheating you but you can't quite catch him at it. But believe me, when you get the car home you will realize your mistake.

So, the Democrats impress me enough that I find it hard to decide who I will vote for. The Republicans disgust me, and many other voters as well, so much that it is hard to decide which of them is worst. But within a month or month and a half, we will probably have our candidates lined up.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | |