Brooklyn's Independent Neighborhood Democrats' Presidential Forum
Tonight was the presidential forum of my local Democratic Club, Independent Neighborhood Democrats. We had representatives from the four top candidates: Barack Obama, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson. I was present not just as a board member of the club, and not just as a blogger. I was there as an undecided voter. Yep...though I am vocally opinionated and adament on so many issues, I am as yet undecided on Presidential nominees.
Today's forum did not change that. I left with pretty much the same impressions of all the four top candidates as I entered with. This is not necessarily a bad thing because I am undecided largely because we have, as City Councilman Bill DeBlasio, while speaking for Hillary Clinton, pointed out, one of the best fields of candidates in recent memory. His memory probably goes back a tad more than mine, but I agree that this is a far cry from "Gary Hart and the Seven Dwarfs". One thing I felt during this forum, as I felt at several moments in this elongated election cycle, is that I would be proud to support ANY of our top tier candidates for President over any of the Republicans. I would eagerly campaign for Obama, Edwards...even Richardson and Clinton. These are extremely intelligent and compentent people who would make good Presidents. I agree with Bill DeBlasio that we have an embarassment of riches this year. No...none of them is the perfect candidate to me. But all of them are pretty damned good.
In general, the advocates for each candidate did not capture my attention so much as their attempts to channel the candidates themselves. So this diary is not so much about tonight's forum so much as about the candidates themselves.
Barack Obama...I personally remain unconvinced by Obama, but I have yet to hear him speak in person. Each and every person I have met who has heard Obama speak was (to once again, borrow a Bill DeBlasio term) profoundly moved by him. I think it is safe to say that Obama has limited experience going into the Presidency, but he certainly wouldn't be the first to enter the White House with a lot to learn. What he brings to the table is an incredible oratorical ability. Which comes to perhaps his best quality...his ability to learn. Barack Obama is well known today for his oratorical abilities and he is often called a natural. He is NOT a natural. He bombed in front of most crowds during his first, disasterous run for office. But he learned to be an orator. And he learned to be a spectacular orator. People swoon when they speak of his speeches. Obama is becoming the preacher of the progressive left, and doing it better than Howard Dean managed. Obama has also rapidly learned to raise gobs of cash to a degree that has put the fear into even Hillary Clinton. This ability to quickly learn what he needs to learn is Obama's number one quality, even more valuable than his learned oratorical abilities.
My caveats for Obama is his lack of experience (often cited) and his recent missed votes in the Senate. Yes...I know when you run for office missing votes happens. But Hillary has been making the votes an Obama has not and these are some critical votes. Obama FAILED to stand up for some very critical votes that were extremely important to me in recent months. Some of those votes Hillary voted the RIGHT way on, to her credit. When Hillary out does you, Senator Obama, you had better be right there in the Senate casting your vote and proudly defending it. He is slacking on that right now and it bothers me.
Next we come to Edwards. Edwards also has failed to directly reach me, though he is also the one candidate I have heard in person. I heard his policy speech to Pace University and it really made a HUGE amount of sense. I also was impressed with the casual ease with which Edwards answered the press questions after his speech. He was relaxed, intelligent and knowledgeable. He is NOT the orator that Obama is, and he doesn't have the qualifications of Hillary or Richardson, but he strikes me as the balance of all the good qualities of the other candidates. He is not the best in any one quality, but is good on all of them. Can he do better than he did in 2004? I think so. He totally left me flat in 2004. He impresses me more now. I can safely say that I am convinced Edwards would make an excellent President. But can he raise the money? Can he deliver some Southern States? Unions are endorsing him right and left, which they should, but will it boost him after the initial primaries? He continues to lag now. For now Obama, the supreme orator over whom people swoon (women and men!), is the solid second breathing down Hillary's neck. I feel more confident of Edwards' abilities, but so far he has been unable to reach that spot of breathing down Hillary's neck.
Speaking of which, the IND president, in her introducution of Bill deBlasio as Hillary's spokesperson, seemed to imply a more intimate connection between Bill (deBlasio) and Hillary than deBlasio seemed comfortable with. I have never seen Bill deBlasio blush so red before. Yet his own speech emphasized the closeness of his relationship with Hillary. Bill deBlasio made a good case for Hillary, but it fell flat as an ideological case. The basic strength of Hillary is her intelligence and competance. She may well be the most intelligent and competent of all the candidates of ANY party, third parties included. She is brilliant and, I believe, would be one of our best Presidents. But...she also seems to lack core values, which is something many accuse Bill deBlasio of as well, making him unable to counter that accusation against Hillary. When people challenged him on Hillary's core values, he kind of fell back on Bill Clinton's record, even to the point of discounting Hillary's own voting record as Senator. I think this misrepresents Hillary. To say one should judge her MORE on Bill Clinton's presidential record (which Hillary influenced, unquestionably) than on her own voting record seems to discount her own independent nature. I say, to her detrement, we HAVE to primarily judge her on her voting record and her rather weak record of standing up to the Bush nascent dictatorship. She is her own woman. Judge her on her own rather hawkish votes. IND president Karen Johnson (effectively to some, ineffectively to others) skewered deBlasio on Hillary's record, and deBlasio had to kind of punt on that question. So we are left with the fundamental judgement of Hillary Clinton (and Bill deBlasio) as a supremely cometent and intelligent person who would do well, but (as with Bill deBlasio) is also supremely someone you cannot trust to stand up for core values. I would eagerly support her against any of the Republican candidates...but not against her fellow Democrats.
Which leaves us with Bill Richardson. Richardson is hands down the best candidate on paper. Anyone who disputes that is either lying or doesn't know Bill Richardson's record. Similarly, Richardson's proposed policies on Iraq, energy, immigration, etc. are the best, smartest, most thought out of ANY of the candidates. I don't agree with him 100% but the guy is, on paper, our BEST candidate by far. But he is the inverse of Obama as an orator. People swoon when Obama speaks. People never swoon over Richardson. Which is a real shame! We could really use someone with Richardson's diplomatic skills right about now. But he is not ready for prime time. And if he wants to make it this time he really needs to learn even faster than Obama did to be an orator. If Richardson learned oratorical skill to match Obama's, he'd be among our best Presidents ever. But I don't see that happening. I maintain a hope that he will be our VP candidate and will learn, over 8 excellent years of a Democratic Presidency, how to present himself and will then be set for the next presidency. But I can't see him making it now unless he changes fast.
None of this is new. But it is reenforced by tonight's forum. We have a great field this year. Don't lose sight of that. Each candidate has such stellar strong points. But each has weaknesses. I hope these stellar strengths are maintained and whoever makes the nomination also learns to deal with those weaknesses.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Election 2008 | Democratic Party | President
Hey, mole, I'd swoon over Richardson
Submitted by Margaret Bassett on 3 November 2007 - 9:05pm.
Of first criteria, oratorial skills comes down the list. Of course, I don't want a prompter-dependent garbler. A candidate must stand up at the lectern, looking like he has backbone and some old-fashioned empathy. He/she should not lay out the agenda he wants me to remember as though it's the first day of a new semester.
Our four contestants will probably soon get over feeling like finalists in a national declamation tourney. Obama is, I believe, the brainiest of the bunch. His Harvard Law Review background got him in trouble when he came up against Bobbie Rush, a Southsider with gang credentials. I look at Obama and can see how he is trying to be more one of the folks. He forgets it when he meets his rivals and has trouble. Sure, I swooned the night of the 04 convention debut. But that performance does not play well on TV beauty contests and possibly detracts sometime on the stump. His wife comes on as a natural out in Iowa picnics. Whatever happens to him this term around, I'm sure we'll find him prevailing over time. And he's got Chicago pols on his side.
As you know, I like Edwards. That is because he is further to the left than the others. He really wants to change the domestic agenda. He didn't grow up as poor as Abraham Lincoln or LBJ, or even me. Like most Southerners he lived a confined world view. Now he probably has a better one than any except Hillary, who has traveled with Uncle Sam on the really grand tour. It is one of her greatest strengths. I'm trying to get hold of Carl Bernstein's book. He has some personal data I want to check out. There is no way I imply that she shouldn't have a fair chance at the gold ring. However, it irks me when she plays an idea two ways. If she wants to be her own thinker, she should not depend upon Bill's charisma to pull chestnuts out of the fire for her. And she definitely should lay off the blame game about the boys piling on her. This is not football, where muscle gives an advantage.
Richardson has a wonderful sense of humor as far as I'm concerned. He smiles like it would hurt his face if he didn't. He has a lot of experience and gives the impression that if he were not to win, neither he nor the country would evaporate.
When you think of the top four, this is remarkable on the token quotient. A woman, an African-American, a Mexican-American, and an Appalachian high achiever.
Agreed pretty much all around
Submitted by mole333 on 3 November 2007 - 9:47pm.
Despite about as different backgrounds as you can get, we usually agree on the basics. I get frustrated with the inevitable internal fights among the supporters of the top candidates. It isn't that I think any of them is perfect. But I do consider all of them pretty damned good candidates. Edwards and Obama can strike me as too slick. Richardson is way too unpolished. And Hillary really does triangulate. But each and every one of them would make an excellent President.
The only one that's genuine
The only one that's genuine is Kucinich and he of course never gets any airtime from the supine mainstream media; the rest, Hillary, Obama, Edwards etc. are all phony opposition, just mainstream establishment candidates that don't want to significantly change anything. And the rest of the Dems in Congress are even worse.
I am sick to death of hearing the fake opposition Dems in Congress moan about not having enough votes to end the war in Iraq. They give lip service to the myth that the only way to end the war is to write a bill saying "the war is now over" and send it to Bush for a prompt veto, then override the veto. They then throw up their hands, saying "Well, as you can see, we don't have the votes to override any veto, so there's no way to end the war. Sorry folks."
This is disingenious and vividly illustrates who the Dems are really serving: the establishment, not their constituents.
Here's how to end the war: No bill specifically ending the war is even necessary. Remember those supplemental funding bills the Cheney regime has to constantly ask for, to continue funding the Iraq war piecemeal instead of in yearly lump sums attached to the actual defense budget? That's the achilles' heel of their war effort. The next time Bush asks for another $80 billion or whatever to keep the Iraq bloodbath going, all the Democrats have to do to end the war is to say: NO. To say "We won't allocate one more penny for your illegal war". Last I checked the Dems have a wafer-thin majority in both houses. With no Dems voting for the next spending bill it won't be passed and thus it won't make it to Bush's desk for signing. Bush (and especially his puppetmaster Cheney) may have concentrated an inordinate amount of power in the hands of the executive branch, but even they can't send spending bills to their own desk. That necessarily has to come from Congress. If it never reaches his desk he can't sign it, and will have 2 choices: 1.pull the troops out while there is still enough money left in the pipeline so to speak to allow an orderly withdrawl (and anyone who has five or more brain cells knows that the money isn't going to run out the next day, that's a non-issue that the right wing tries to use as a scare tactic but it is ridiculously dumbed down and simply not true; they don't wait until they have $5 left before asking for another supplemental OK?); or 2.don't pull them out right away, and leave them to wither on the vine in Iraq until the money DOES completely run out and they have to withdraw from Iraq chaotically, burning their supplies and vehicles. Either way the war will end pretty soon if the Dems refuse to vote on supplementals. They don't have to write a bill saying they are cutting off funding; this is only a fig leaf so they can pretend to be doing something to end the war when all they are doing is purposely spinning their wheels. All they have to do is to NOT VOTE ON SUPPLEMENTALS. Pretty effing simple. The people NOW need to DEMAND in so many words that if the Democrats are a genuine opposition party that they will carry out the will of the people and NOT VOTE on supplementals. If they are a fake opposition party as I feel they are, and are acting not in the people's interest but playing for the same team as the Republicans, then continue with more of the same hand-wringing and impotent nonbinding resolutions that resolve nothing. Decision time Democrats. Which are you? Genuine? Or fake opposition? I think I already know the answer to that one but why don't you surprise me?