 |
I Want A Candidate Who Fights |
 |
I was only vaguely aware of Barack Obama when he won his Senate seat in 2004, but I knew who he was when he came to Evanston, IL to deliver the commencement speech at my graduation from Northwestern University in 2006. He had electrified the country with his famous words at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and Chicago was basking in the glow that comes with a rising political star.
Obama’s commencement speech affected me on a deep level. It wasn’t even the content that really got me. He spoke like I imagined the political giants of the past, giants like JFK or FDR, spoke. He projected something beyond charisma. I didn’t just want to like him, I wanted to believe in him. Looking back on it, his connection with young people like me was most impressive. He could address graduates without talking down to us. He could engage our intellect and bring out big themes and deep thoughts without sounding grandiose.
From then on, my candidate was Obama. While my support would probably be characterized as “soft” by pollsters and strategists, I agreed with his policies too, particular those addressing poverty and education. His overall message was attractive as well. A candidate of hope sounded great, especially in the aftermath of Bush’s reelection and the 2006 changes in leadership in Washington. It seemed all but inevitable, given his huge grassroots support, that he would run a swift and vicious campaign of change and be swept into the White House in 2008, ushering in a new era of progressive governance.
Somewhere along the way, from his speech at commencement to this summer, he lost me as a supporter. And it’s wasn’t because of his policies or his gaffes. And it wasn’t because core message soured. It was his timid campaign that finally turned me off.
To me, it seems he adopted the front-runner frame too easily, preferring to play it safe rather than take chances. This is counter-intuitive. When a maverick like Obama gains a groundswell of support, that should make him more confident that what he’s doing is the right thing to do. If anything, it should strengthen his anti-establishment message. Obama went the opposite way, trading his Mr. Smith-goes-to-Washington vibe for a one of a triangulating, spineless (and utterly unappealing) mainstream Democrat.
Obama failed to attack Hillary Clinton, a moderate Republican in progressive clothing, during the debates in any substantial way. He failed to control the media narrative around his campaign as it moved from portraying him as the next great hope to labelling him Clinton Jr. He tried to play her game, running a non-campaign without substance, holding back policy initiatives and stringing supporters along, instead of running with a concrete message of hope and change.
All this frustration crystallized for me on May 24th, when Obama and Clinton both voted against funding the war in Iraq late at night towards the end of the voting time period. They were like thieves in the night, sneaking in and out, hoping few would notice their presence. You call this leadership? Obama had to vote no. There was no other vote for him. His entire campaign against Clinton was built around his consistent position against the war. So why be so sly or low key about it?
Barack Obama, you’re a Senator! You’ve got a platform! Use it. You could have been the first person to vote against funding the war. You could have told the American people and your fellow lawmakers exactly why you oppose the war. But you didn’t. In the controversy surrounding that vote, you decided to keep your head down. It was a poor choice, it lacked leadership, and it cost you my vote.
With the exception of John Edwards and Bill Richardson, every candidate running for President has a national platform from which to get things done in the present. While real change may have to wait until 2009, the strategy of capitulating to the Republican minority until then is making the Democratic party weaker. Like it or not, the 2006 elections made the Democrats the governing party in the minds of the American people. When people go to the polls a year from now, with the war dragging on, CIA agents torturing detainees in secret prisons abroad, and their telephones tapped without warrants, they won’t be able to point to anything positive that governing party accomplished. That’s a problem.
The front runners in this race (Clinton and Obama), seem content to stick with Pelosi and Reid’s strategy of inaction until 2009, at which point a brand new Democratic majority will finally be able to do all the things it’s been saying it would do for 20 years. While this kind of Democratic majority is far from assured, I don’t trust the people who compromise everything when the going gets tough to actually stand up to a vocal Republican minority in 2009. If they can’t fight now, why will they fight then?
I want a candidate who fights harder when push comes to shove. I want a candidate who plays politics like Republicans, just for my side. That’s leadership. That’s why I’m voting for Chris Dodd in the primary.
Dodd is using his position of power to make things happen now. In quick succession, he’s fought three legislative battles that have impressed me:
- He co-sponsored an amendment restoring Habeas Corpus and he created a great grassroots tool to help citizens whip their representatives to vote for the bill.
- He has put a hold on the latest version of the FISA legislation and has said he will filibuster any bill containing retroactive immunity for telecom companies.
- He was the first to pledge to oppose Michael Mukasey’s nomination for Attorney General on the grounds that no Attorney General can put the executive branch above the law.
He is trying to drum up as much support as possible for his initiatives, but it seems he is unconcerned with the outcome of the fights. He hasn’t shown any indication that he will back down if support for his actions doesn’t materialize. That’s the right attitude. Leaders lead, even when it is unpopular.
These actions seem to have struck a nerve with the American people and the progressive blogosphere. After announcing his filibuster plans, Dodd raised over $150,000 in 24 hours. He’s been right on so many important issues lately that Chris Bowers among others, who postulated that Obama’s problem was not that he watered down his message but that the political landscape shifted around him, has asked, “Why not Dodd?”
If voted into office, I believe Dodd would continue with the kind of leadership he has displayed so far. I believe he will fight for progressive policies, because that’s what he’s doing now. If elected, he will have a clear mandate from the American public that endorses his brand of strong leadership. I feel like he’s got my back.
His campaign style is exactly the opposite of Obama’s. He takes risks. He takes stands. He fights. That’s the kind of President I want.
nice piece. very nice my friend.
The softening (or mainstreaming) of Democratic candidates is an issue I broght up when I attended The Seminal’s happy hour a few weeks ago. The problem is that to get elected, a candidate has to appeal to more than just progressive Dems. You have to appeal to the moderates and even a good number of conservatives too.
So while I agree with the message of your post, is a candidate who fights hard against Republican policies but guarantees few (if any) Republican support and alienates moderate Dems really the best hope for the Democratic party? Can such a candidate win the general election if put up against a popular candidate like Guliani? Or is it better for the democrats to put up a candidate that is moderate enough to appeal to people in both parties and can carry the midwest states rather than just the northeast and California? Then once he’s in office, he can open the doors for progressive legislation pushed by those with the real power.
Oh for pete’s sake. Barack Obama is a god-damned corporate stooge. You like him because you want to feel like a “good liberal” for supporting a superficially “black” candidate because you think it represents “progress” in America.
Barack Obama is no more culturally or sympathetically “black” than Thomas Sowell, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, or any of a thousand other Uncle Toms in the American political landscape.
How can you even BEGIN to consider yourself smart or intellectually aware, when you support a charlatan whose agenda is closer to Dubya Bush’s agenda than that of the average working American?
Oh, because of his RHETORIC?
Jesus, you are easily gulled.
Wake up. Please. And try supporting the only candidate who has the character, experience, intellect and knowledge of how to repair what’s broken in America.
Mike Gravel.
Of course, if you’re a 20-something naive little punk, you probably say Gravel is “too old.” I wonder if you’ve ever taken the time to get to know anyone his age. I have known lawyers in their 80s who are smarter and sharper than Barack “salve the liberal conscience” Obama.
BULLSHIT DETECTOR:
The problem is that to get elected, a candidate has to appeal to more than just progressive Dems. You have to appeal to the moderates and even a good number of conservatives too.
Ummm.
WRONG.
Just because certain DNC/DLC stooges utter that bogus platitude doesn’t mean it’s true.
I thought that The Seminal was about intelligent discussion of issues that matter.
Apparently Marc thinks it’s about maintaining the status quo ante rooted in the Bush-Cheney Crime Syndicate Agenda.
Apparently Marc thinks things are great right now.
Apparently Marc has his head in the sand!
Marc,
How can you be so utterly simplistic as to think you only need to say Republican or Democrat?
Why would The Seminal bother to exist if it only mirrors the idiotic DNC/DLC sycophancy of Daily Kos and its ilk in the pseudo-”liberal” blogosphere?
If you folks intend to be parrots of The Kos, you deserve to be ignored and dismissed with righteous anger and endless frustration.
Because really, your perspective makes things safe for more of the same. And I don’t think things are good in America right now. They’re about as far from good as one can get. They’re about like Marcellus after he got gang-raped in Pulp Fiction.
But you idiots don’t want to see that, you want to continue glorifying the Democrats and vilifying the Republicans as if it were that simple.
HINT: Nobody in the US Congress right now is in favor of any sort of America that helps anyone but the richest and most powerful.
Look at the votes to support EVERY ASPECT of Mr Bush’s Administration’s agenda.
Who stands against Mr Bush with righteous fury?
Nobody.
Who is telling the truth about America?
Nobody except Mike Gravel among the 2008 POTUS candidates from EITHER side.
Nobody except Mike Gravel.
And you college punks ought to research some history and learn that Mike Gravel ended the draft and helped end the Vietnam War by publishing the Pentagon Papers in the US Congress.
That’s a whole lot more than any of the other Dem candidates has done.
There’s only one viable candidate if you want to improve America.
And he sure as hell isn’t Obama.
Wendigo, I think Dodd has taken positive steps to stand against Bush, which is why I like him. Gravel does this too, yes, but he is much less effective at it. Plus, he’s a terrible campaigner. From what I’ve heard, he simply goes to the televised debates and not much else. I’m sorry, but if you want to win, you have to play to win.
As for Marc’s idea, he’s right, but he’s looking at it in the wrong way. Both sides, Republican and Democrat, need “independents” to win the presidency. The difference between the two parties is how they go about winning those independent votes.
Democrats prefer to look at the massive political center in America as one big homogenous block. Of course, the center isn’t actually homogenous. To win centrist votes, they water down every one of their principles (like accepting the Global War On Terror frame and trying to appear “tough” on national security in a Republican way). It makes them look calculating (see Hillary) and it makes them look spineless. They don’t stand for anything.
Republicans deal with the political center in a much smarter way. They look at the huge block and carve out a sizeable yet ideologically friendly chunk to make their base. Recently, that has been “values voters,” the religious right. Republicans realized that there were a lot of people in America who would vote with them if they played up values issues, and they could safely play up values issues without watering down the rest of their platform. They could get enough votes to win (only takes 50+1, right?) and they could still have a strong platform and a strong brand. Very smart, and it worked.
The issue with the Democratic party is how to address the center. Instead of watering down everything, making nobody happy, they need to find their own base and carve it out into a distinct group.
Um. Again, NOPE.
Gravel is “not an effective campaigner”? What is your basis for this? The fact that he expects you to research him yourself? The fact that he lacks a war chest?
Your argument basically says, “whoever is richest is most qualified.”
And it basically says, “whoever plays to the mainstream media’s criteria is most qualified.”
And it basically says, “whoever lies to the American people in ways that protect their fragile fantasies is most qualified.”
You sure don’t expect much from your candidates.
I find your perspective embarrassing, and I’m shocked that you state it with such conviction. You’re not even close to correct, but you think you are.
You see only what the “news” media want you to see. You refuse to look behind that morass of misinformation and lies.
Then you deserve a nation run by thieves and deceivers.
And the idea of “reaching the center” is the most laughable pile of bullshit I’ve ever read.
You must be a big fan of the DLC.
“Reaching the center” = giving up values and principles merely for the sake of getting votes.
So is it about “winning,” or is it about getting America on a sensible course?
I submit that since the turn of the 19th to 20th century, the Democrats have been “reaching for the center” and look where they have taken us. To war. Repeatedly.
The “center” is an illusion.
“Appeals to the center” are an illusion.
You can unite Americans of all political allegiance by ignoring the Us vs Them dynamic that YOU CLING TO, and instead focusing on issues that are universal.
How can you miss this very simple and basic point?
HOW?
Wendigo, I’m not sure you read before you respond. If you read my comment, you’ll see I agree with you about the center. You should not give up your values or principles to pander to the center. It’s a losing strategy.
As for Gravel, I know what his platform is, but only because I have researched him. He’s spectacularly bad at getting his message out, and that’s not about money. If the Ron Paul campaign has taught America anything, it’s that a candidate can find support outside of the traditional media.
“Spectacularly bad”?
Uh, NOPE.
Why don’t you just hire someone to kill him, it would be better bang for your buck.
You pretend at supporting principles, but your method of rhetoric is juvenile! If your original essay is akin to what I’ve been saying, why do you say it in the way you do? Why do you accuse Gravel not just of needing to reach you better, but of being “spectacularly bad.”
Sheesh.
You’re either on someone’s payroll for DLC empahties, or you’re “spectacularly bad” at conveying the truth.
Which would it be?
He’s spectacularly bad because he doesn’t get his message out at debates, which is his only media vehicle at this point. He compains and tears down other candidates, which is fine. I respect that, they deserve the criticism. However, when was the last time he got in his proposal about taxes? Or his national referendum idea? He’s got some interesting things, but he doesn’t get them out to the American people.
I mean, who here, besides Wendigo, can name two of Gravel’s platforms off the top of their head?
I’m not saying Gravel is a bad candidate, just a bad campaigner. I personally feel there are better choices policy wise, but that’s my right. However, he just doesn’t seem like he really wants to win. If he’s just there to shift the debate, then fine. I’m glad he’s there because he’s doing that. But should I vote for him because of that? I can’t say I would.
Man you are totally absurd!
You approve of the present system. That much is obvious.
Gravel’s whole point is that the present system is broken. You think the way to get that message out is by using the broken system?
The “media” have silenced him, and you blame him.
No, you are engaged in disinformation, lies, and other nonsense.
This is a lot like your juvenile position on public education.
You are a PBS/NPR “liberal” who doesn’t see that his view has been written for him, you think you’re thinking independently but you are stuck within broken paradigms and silly principles.
Go ahead, enjoy your fantasies that tell you that anyone besides Gravel can or will change anything.
Thanks for helping destroy America. Really, thanks a lot.
Ah, the classic battle. Do you work inside the system for change or outside of it? I’d say if Gravel actually wants to get elected, he works within the system. There is no way for him to accomplish what he wants without it. It’s a sad reality. As they say, you gotta know when to hold em, and know when to fold em.
Wendigo, you need to stop using the personal attacks. If you can’t make your point without them, you undermine your own position. Anyone reading this thread would see J as the calm voice and you as somewhat hysterical (typing in all caps, making wild accusations, etc). Additionally, why don’t you stop making giant assumptions about other people’s beliefs? And ones you know not to be true? You accuse J of being a DLC pawn, but it would be clear to anyone who follows the Seminal that he is not - his positions conflict with mainstream Democrats’ on a regular basis, and he doesn’t pull punches in criticizing them.
If you want a left-wing candidate for President, you’ll find us in agreement with you. So why waste so much of everyone’s time on hysterics?
Wow, thanks for the welcome! I’m new to this website and to political debate in general, so yes, maybe I am naive.
But just so we’re clear, I don’t think things are great right now. I’m not sure they could be much worse! And I certainly don’t support the Bush-Cheney agenda. What would make you think that? I just want to make sure there is a truly electable candidate up for the Democratic party so that we can stop this illegal war in Iraq, give health care to kids, restore our civil liberties, and protect our environment.
Now I’m really confused. How can you put America on a sensible course if you don’t win? Sure, you can shout your views from the rooftop but you can’t DO anything unless you win the election.
I’m with ya here. I guess I just see the playing field as fundamentally different than it was in the Clinton years, or even in 2000 or 2004. I think pretty much any of the top 3 Democratic candidates are electable, possibly even the top 5 or 6. So that means to me that I have a choice. I can vote for the best candidate out there, knowing with confidence that they will beat any Repubican. It’s a nice feeling, really.