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.
[1] | 
[2] | 
[3] | 
[4] | 
[5] | 
[6]