Now would seem the time to put one's weight behind a candidate.
My intention was to keep the 2008 election in 2008--endorsements, contributions, polemics--and keep the thing at a distance until it's time. That seems fine with regard to the elections at state level. Rather than blanket contributions to the DSCC, I will be helping individual candidates in races that matter, and I can decide those much later, once the choices are clearly before us.
Unfortunately, while I like the Unofficial National Primary as a means for the parties to choose their nominees for President (the date is declared by the parties, and states can go before or after, or on it), February 5 is ridiculously early. It should be in May or June.
The Republicans can kick each other all the way to the convention, and I'll be pleased. It seems, though, that because of substantial leads that Hillary holds in many of the key states after the show gets on the road, the road race in the Democratic party is all about the first lap after the green flag. If Hillary pulls even a narrow victory out of Iowa, she will quickly be anointed, based on the expectations set by polls in states like New Hampshire, Nevada, Florida, and California. Something has to interrupt that apparent momentum in Iowa.
So, with only 36 days, it's time to decide on an endorsement. Let's try to use logic and see where it points us.
Hillary or Other/Than Hillary (O/TH)?
This is the main line of demarcation for most every Democrat I've spoken with. Is there someone who's improvement enough on the Clinton Brand to justify putting roadblocks in her path?
The answer to this turns on four points, four "abilities": to get the nomination, to get elected, to govern successfully (at least our federal government), and to lead the country (and the world, insofar it has anything to do with US) toward a future worth living in.
We'll go into the last item more in Part 3 of the serialized endorsement--the discussion of policies and expected realities resulting from those policies. No one could deny that each of the first three points, though, is a sine qua non: we're not talking third-party Presidency here, not that anyone has explained how that could possibly work.
The only core scenario that makes any sense is a massive anti-Bushite victory in a referendum on the last eight years, and it's not farfetched at all. So, part of that governability requirement is bringing about a landslide, with coattails please, for the Democrats.
As I suggested in my Republican-party endorsement for Ron Paul and other postings, since the 2006 debacle there are no more candidates willing to wear a Bushite label. Yet the prevailing stance of the Republican candidates, with Paul's exception, is to accept many Bushite notions and only differ from the Administration on a couple of its qualities, its persistent incompetence being the principal choice. The non-Paul Republicans have in common a set of policy views typified by John McCain's all-but-Bushite (ABB) stance: we will not clamor to change much, except the stupidity we've come to associate with Bushite Misrule.
McCain is notable for presenting this position straightforwardly (and is doomed for it). The other first-tier candidates wear various masks over it: Giuliani the wounded urbanite mask, Huckabee the aw-shucks friendly pastor mask, Thompson occupies some sort of ghoulish re-animated cadaver of a 19th-century constitutional lawyer, and Romney, of course, is the Avatar of Ken.
Compared to these, Clinton is unabashedly and clearly an anti-Bushite and I would not begrudge her place alongside the Bushites' greatest foes. Yet, the question remains: is she sufficiently anti-ABB?
The key question of this election concerns McCain's advocacy of "the long war". He believes this GWOT will continue for generations, and, being honest, he tells us as much. This, not the cut-and-run neo-appeasement he accuses the Democrats of advocating, is the losing strategy. It preserves and enhances the need for continued war-fighting, instead of undercutting it, or better yet, uprooting it.
I want to see this strategy rejected from the 2008 Presidential election. This would be the greatest, most lasting result that could occur. The next President, no matter whom, is likely to be hemmed in and cursed with a lousy economy--a recipe for being outed after one term. Ending this Iraq occupation, and starting the hearts-and-minds effort which will be needed to end the tensions currently generating an unending supply of suicide bombers, are the accomplishments which can be expected (!) of the next President.
It is in this area that I fear Hillary could come up short. Partly because of her political posturing toward the hawkish side, though I recognize she could move once elected. More because of the ambiguity about her desire to go that way. "I will end this war," she says, but we don't know how. Bill reinforces our uncertainty when he claims to have opposed the Iraq invasion from the start.
There's another problem: Hillary winning this thing early means we'd have nine months of Republican Hillary-bashing to look forward to. This will give them plenty of time to propose a host of different angles, see which ones survive the Darwinian battle for our deficient attention spans, and provide the perfect growing environment for the viruses that remain. A sickness that poisons Hillary's candidacy and brings about a fold-up is probably the only thing that could prevent a strong Congressional victory for the Democratic party. The Republicans are counting on a protracted siege of Hillary's Honor and would have to improvise and invent a new game plan should anyone else get the nomination.
We look then, to Other/Than to see who has ideas to turn this thing in a new direction. Kucinich has the model answer (as he does for so many of the principal issues), but we all know what a weak vessel he is; in a general election tussle he's be an easy target to Swiftboat. Dodd I don't see rocking this boat of GWOT.
Biden and Richardson meet the general election requirement, so the question turns on the ability of either to get the nomination. Despite strong, and improving, performances in debates by both of them, Richardson gets no respect from the national media, while Biden has not succeeded in getting the voters' attention. I don't see a single state before the Unofficial National Primary where either could possibly win, so each will be put in the position of folding up his tent a few days this side or the other of Feb. 5.
We are left with the eternal question that has haunted our household for months: Edwards or Obama? Tactically, Edwards needs to win Iowa, while Obama just needs for Hillary not to win it. So, if we want to preserve our options, we should look for Edwards to win this round and Hillary to finish third.
Such a stance is little better than prevarication, though: we'd just be putting off the decision and letting events make up our mind. And such a fragile thread of hope such as Edwards' seems unlikely to hold, and his chances of governing seem doubtful. I see a potential Edwards Administration threatening to be like Jimmy Carter's--nice grin, Southern accent, good man, lousy President.
Obama is the only candidate whose promise includes the ability to win the nomination, win clearly against an ABB candidate (with or without Bloomberg in the race), carry the party to victory, yet preserve some hope of outreach to the defeated opposition.
We look for Obama to sweep up Edwards' Iowa caucus supporters in cases when they need to relocate to second-choices. Though Obama will tolerate the reciprocal movement (unofficially), he will gain on the unspoken deal and thus edge both Hillary and John in that state. He'll get enough momentum to get the message of his viable candidacy across to African-American voters, who will lift him in South Carolina and position him for an upset on UNP Day. After that, we'll see.
For now, it's Obama in '08.
And I didn't even wait until '08 to say it!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment