Stop Loss
The New Republic Online: Stop Loss
According to Michelle Cottle Democrats have a tendency to nominate bad candidates for President. While Kerry might have turned in a good debate performance against Bush, he was still Kerry and the expectations were so low. She worries short sighted Democrats might actually look at Kerry and say "He came so close" and nominate him again. Not only does she warn against re-nominating Kerry in 2008 she strenuously warns against nominating Senator Hillary Clinton.
But the American public is not rational about anyone with the last name Clinton. If you thought the Republican base was energized this year, just give them the chance to vote against that uppity Clinton girl. The GOP possibilities for fund-raising, not to mention creative attack ads, are mind-boggling.
At minimum, Hillary starts with some 40 percent of the country dead-set against her. Granted, an equal number would start out in her corner. But it's hard to see how she unloads all of her baggage in order to reach enough mushy-middle voters to win. The political class may now think of Hillary as a moderate legislator. But the bulk of the electorate, all those folks who won't tune into the race until after Labor Day '08, will be voting on Hillary the icon. Think headbands and cookie-baking. Think Vince Foster and the Rose law firm billing records and the health care debacle. Washington understands that Hillary has grown, but it will be much tougher to convince Middle America. (And let's face it: Her status as a senator from the ultra-uppity, Yankee state of New York is unlikely to help.)
Democrats have a track record of nominating people who want to be President just for the sake of being President. What was Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, or Kerry's ultimate calling? Kerry had "plans," Mondale promised to raise taxes, and Gore prattled on about lock boxes and couldn't decide on the color of his clothing. While its true Carter and Clinton were both Southern Governors, there is also sometihng true about the only two Democratic Presidents in the last 30 years. Carter and Clinton believed in government and believed in the power of the Presidency. Carter and Clinton offered policies couched in a comprehensive vision for where they wanted to take America. Carter chartered a foreign policy based on basic, Christian teachings about justice. Clinton promised a cohesive domestic agenda aimed at lifting up average Americans and expanding prosperity for every American.
Looking at Bush, 9/11 transformed the President from the accidental President to a man driven by a Godly calling only the most devout can understand. Despite his foolishness, reckless foreign policy, and idiotic administration Bush was driven in his reelection by a calling to the Presidency. Bush believed in himself and offered a vision for the future (albeit the wrong vision). Fundamentally he believed in the power and possibility of the Presidency.
If you need proof that it takes more than plans, policies, and capactity to be President look at George HW Bush. By all accounts, Bush I was a capable President. He charted a responsible foreign policy and lead America in a time when the world was undergoing immense change. Yet, by the time 1992 came around Bush just didn't believe anymore.
Cottle's piece tells me: we need candidates who have a vision, self confidence, and believe in the power of the United States.
3 Comments:
Amen, Zach. Careerists from either side of the aisle haven't done well - Bob Dole comes to mind. I'd hazard a guess that the careerist streak in our candidates, in addition to the same in our campaign professionals (see my "Old Dogs" post), feeds our inability as a party to issue declarative statements about right and wrong - we don't really know, and sometimes don't much care.
Zach, I think you've summarized things much better than Cottle does. She makes the same mistake I think many lefties are prone to in the wake of this election: namely, claiming Kerry was a crappy candidate. He wasn't. He "brought nothing--zero, zilch, nada--to the table that would actively appeal to any voter beyond the safe bicoastal blue zones"?? That's just not true.
He did, however, have the fatal flaw that is a commonality among loser Democrats AND Republicans over the last 25 years or so, and you hit it right on the head: no ability to convey a compelling vision of his America. This is something worth talking and thinking about as the Democratic Party engages in the self-reflection Cottle so condescendingly (and accurately) mentions. We better figure out what we want this country to be, and then find a candidate who believes in and can sell that vision four years from now.
(PS--she's right, though, about Hillary)
Traci - Kerry was a crappy candidate. Cottle maybe overstates the case, but the case itself is accurate.
But we agree on Hillary. Look at that...common ground emerging. :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home