|
Are Democrats making a mistake in probably nominating Kerry?
I'm going to try and look at the presidential contest from an objective viewpoint, and analyze the pros and cons of the main Democratic candidates along with President Bush.
Kerry has incredible depth of knowledge in a wide variety of policy decisions, and that comes across well when he speaks. But he's lacking in depth in being able to connect to voters on a more personal level in the same way that Clinton or Reagan did. His Vietnam veteran status does give him great credibility now that we are in three military conflicts, though his geographic location and liberal record on social issues are very much detriments. Because he is from the Northeast, this very much limits his ability to win in much of the Electoral College; particularly most Southern states except for perhaps 2 or 3. The often-quoted line of no Democrat ever winning without four Southern states may have more to do with the fact that the Southern Democrats once controlled most of the power in the South however.
I've read that the Democratic Party's constituency is basically the same geographically as that of the party of Teddy Roosevelt in the early 1900s, and thus the Democrats would run a strategy focused primarily on the Northeast, Midwest, West, and Southwest even if they did have a Southern candidate. The Republican Presidents didn’t win a single Southern state in about a twenty-year period in the early 1900s.
Kerry also needs to stop trying to use Vietnam to counter Republican attacks that he voted to cut certain military expenditures, and what he should do is use those quotes by Cheney and HW Bush from the early 90s advocating similar cuts in the defense budget to neutralize the issue.
I’m not sure what to think of the National Journal’s rating of Kerry as “the most liberal Senator,” and Edwards as the “fourth most liberal” Senator. From what I’ve read it may be because they both missed so many votes in the past year while campaigning, and only came back to vote on those issues they felt most passionate about. Still, GWB is hardly what I would call mainstream on a great many issues.
All that said, Massachusetts is a state of many great Presidents, with three being named, “John.” Coolidge and H.W. Bush were also born in Mass.
Bush Sr. was more like Kerry in that he was more focused on the "talking points" of policy in his speaking style. A seeming detachment from ordinary people actually helped lead to Bush’s defeat in 1992 along with economic concerns. Indeed many of those same economic conditions that lead to his father's defeat, from the weak dollar, to job losses, to huge deficits, are also present again in the current admin. Polls show that economic concerns override even national security concerns to a large degree, and that's what the election will probably be decided on in November.
W's entire credibility as a candidate in 2000 rested in the fact he seemed like a "straight shooter" able to connect well with ordinary people in the South and Midwest regions. He was the "sheriff from West Texas" come to take on the baddies in Washington. Despite Gore’s horrible campaign he still received half a million more votes, though they were in regions that didn’t help in terms of the Electoral College (e.g. California, Illinois).
It may in fact be that he truly did not intentionally lie to the world about Iraq, and that he was so detached from what was really going on that he only read what he was fed by his handlers. Likewise he also may have been detached enough to sign the jobs report forecasting over 2 million new jobs to be created within the next year. The fact he later rescinded this prediction days later also detracts from his aforementioned "straight shooter" credibility appeal.
Intentional or not though, his credibility on issues from the economy to the Iraq War has been severely hurt, and that was I think his main asset as a leader. Though the economy will probably decide the election unless Bin Laden is captured perhaps a week or two before, if Bush cannot regain his West Texas sheriff credibility appeal, I think he’s done for almost regardless of his opponent. People need to be able to trust their leaders on something as fundamental as taking the country to war, and his approval poll numbers now are at 47-48%. Cheney is also a liability now instead of an asset as he was in 2000, because he seemingly represents everything wrong with the Administration including corporate cronyism, and the PNAC driven foreign policy. His approval rating is now about 20%.
With Edwards, it seems his faults are the complete reverse of Kerry's.
I see a very charismatic and charming man who connects well with voters, but I also see a man who lacks the depth of knowledge and experience needed at this time in history. I think Edwards connects with the "common man" much better than Kerry, and now after over three years of the current administration's economic policies, I think he probably connects better than Bush as well. So the dilemma in choosing between Kerry and Edwards is in choosing what we know works for Democrats historically – a Southern charismatic populist – versus a Northerner with experience and depth of knowledge in policy concerns.
It may be, based on polls, that the Dem leaders will pressure Kerry to pick Edwards as his running mate to counteract Kerry’s weaknesses in connecting with voters on a personal level and also his geographic location, but since Edwards attacked (more or less) Kerry in the last debate, I wonder if he would still pick Edwards as his VP. I think my favorite guy was still Clark, but oh well. I still don’t know who I’ll vote for next week, since I like different aspects of both Kerry and Edwards.
In all the debates I’ve seen though, Kerry has won hands down.
As for the Nader factor, I suspect he will be practically irrelevant this election year - at least as irrelevant as Pat Buchanan or whomever else runs as a third party on the right.
Article about Edwards:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Feb29.html
| quote: |
In Edwards, an Echo of Clinton
Tactics and Demeanor Are Similar, but Differences May Be Key
By John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 1, 2004; Page A04
ATLANTA -- He definitely rings a bell somehow, that fresh-faced politician up there on the stage. Perhaps it is the accent, which gets a bit thicker late in the day or when a crowd comes alive. Maybe it is the time spent lingering when the speech is over, hugs for everyone who wants them.
The bell-ringer is Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), and the chimes of memory he is striking are of another southern Democrat who pursued the presidency with some of the same populist themes and ebullient energy: Bill Clinton.
A generation of ambitious Democrats, including Clinton, once emulated the phrases and manner of John F. Kennedy, with a few politicians even mimicking the distinctive way he jutted his hand into his suit coat. Ronald Reagan remains the beau ideal for a generation of ambitious Republicans.
But Edwards is the first national politician to run as a Clinton echo. Some of this may be coincidence, as both men are telegenic natives of the New South. But many of the similarities seem by design, from certain frequent phrases in Edwards's stump speech, to the people he has hired as senior political and policy advisers, to his frequent invocation of the fact that only Democrats who have run well in the South (and, not incidentally, happened to be from there) have managed to win the presidency in recent decades.
"If you close your eyes, you can definitely hear echoes of '92," the year Clinton sprang to national notice, said Bruce Reed, who was a senior aide to Clinton from 1992 through 2001, and as president of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council has advised Edwards and rival Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) this year.
At first blush, the similarities in rhetoric and campaign-trail mood are striking. Clinton's oft-repeated mantra was about representing people "who work hard and play by the rules," and he said his philosophy was based on "opportunity, responsibility, community." At a recent event in Savannah, Ga., Edwards praised the two single mothers who introduced him as "examples of what we're supposed to do in America -- work hard, be responsible, support our families." He says his philosophy is based on "hard work, responsibility, fairness."
Clinton and Edwards share some of the easy familiarity with crowds, a skill the more reserved Kerry lacks. "She's not bothering me a bit," Edwards reassured a mother, as she fussed in obvious embarrassment with a squalling child during a recent speech. Even the Clinton and Edwards methods for dealing with protesters at rallies -- "Let's give them some applause," Edwards said cheerfully when chanting AIDS activists broke into his speech in New York the other day -- are nearly identical.
At second blush, however, some of the contrasts between Clinton and Edwards may be more consequential.
Substantively, Edwards has been seeking to set himself apart from front-runner Kerry by stressing his opposition to the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement, which he said has destroyed jobs. Clinton regularly cited his successful passage of NAFTA -- and his repeated willingness to transcend the historical Democratic suspicion of free trade -- as an important pillar of his legacy. For Democrats generally, the retreat from unabashed promotion of trade and globalization as a net positive for America -- a retreat that Kerry has also joined -- marks perhaps the party's sharpest ideological turn from the Clinton era.
Even stylistically, the differences between Edwards and Clinton run deeper than superficial likenesses. On the campaign trail, Edwards has proved himself vastly more disciplined and controlled -- but also far less conversant in the details of public policy.
Clinton's speeches were often larded with the finer points of legislation he was debating with Republicans, or free-ranging meditations on the social consequences of phenomena such as the Internet or genetic engineering. Sometimes he would hold forth on movies he liked, such as "High Noon" or "American Beauty." Reporters who covered him learned the hard way not to drift off during late-night speeches inasmuch as these were often the source of newsworthy unscripted comments. When a frustrated aide once asked Clinton why he could not simply repeat the prepared comments he delivered in the afternoon, Clinton replied that this made him bored.
Repetition does not bother Edwards. He sticks to nearly identical language at most appearances and interviews. And, although his campaign produced a detailed issues book months ago, much of it drafted by "New Democrat" former Clinton advisers, Edwards almost never mentions it any more or quotes its specifics.
This lack of details leaves some listeners cold. Sarah Gerard, a freshman at Hofstra University on Long Island, N.Y., said she came to a recent Edwards rally full of anticipation for a man she regarded as the most exciting candidate in this year's field. She left disappointed by a speech that was "way too broad."
"My reaction to what he was saying is 'Yeah, duh.' Don't just tell me what I want to hear," she said.
Paul Begala, a political analyst who lived with Clinton for a year as a traveling aide in 1992, said "the profound similarities" between Clinton and Edwards is their "innate ability" to relate to people emotionally, "without having to consult a focus group about what to say." The profound difference, he said, is that by the time Clinton sought the presidency, "he had spent his whole life in public policy."
Jennifer Palmieri, who worked in the Clinton White House and is Edwards's campaign press secretary, said Clinton had a spontaneous fascination with the tactics and strategies of politics that Edwards does not. Before speaking to a group in, say, Wisconsin, Clinton would know everything about recent voting patterns, and the issues the group probably wanted to hear about, she said. Clinton would "lock on to someone in the third row and not let go until he had won that person over."
Edwards, who talks occasionally to Clinton, rarely mentions the former president by name. Although Clinton is remembered appreciatively by Democrats for his economic record and his ability to win, the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal and other controversies of his eight years in office do not make him an automatic applause line the way Reagan is for Republicans.
Rick Hahn, 50, a computer security expert here, said he admires Clinton -- but is not looking for a replica, and believes Clinton's pre-Sept. 11, 2001, era seems long ago. "I can see how people note the similarities," he said at an Edwards rally Saturday. "But it's a different war now. The times are so different."
But his friend, artist Barbara Robinson, 48, said she is backing Edwards in part because of the Clinton comparison. "He seems very charismatic," she said. "He's interested in people, and he's got that common touch that Clinton had."
|
Thoughts?
___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/
Last edited by DaveSZ on Mar-02-2004 at 05:37
|
