…at least that’s what it looked like after watching the Democratic debate on CNN Sunday night. The debate spent much if it’s time harping on the issues of the Iraq War, and health care. It was hard to hear a difference between the major front-runners. And I’m talking more than just the traditional big three in this election, all the democratic candidates sounded similar. Ms. Clinton even went as far as admitting that “The differences between us here are few, the differences with the Republicans are great.”
Although in a legislative sense, it’s great that the major political figures of the party can agree on a lot, it belies the importance of this election. There are major foreign and domestic issues that will face the next person that takes the highest office, and it will be a presidency filled with president, it has been a long time since so many candidates have sought to undo so much of a presidental term. This is also the first election in nearly 80 years that an incumbent or former Vice-President was running for office. The GOP alone has 10 major candidates, and Democrats sit near that number, however, all the democrats are saying the same shit.
When the field for office is so open, and the role of the next president so significant, it’s stunning to hear that 90% of the people that want the job will all do it the same. If they’re all stand similar on the issues it forces this election into one about character and “presence” and who is the most “presidential”. This isn’t bad, except it comes with baggage. Character oriented campaigns have a nasty tendency to devolve into mudslinging divisive politicking that leaves everyone tired, worn-out, and cynical about our electoral process. If the election does become a character focused campaign then it really is only a race between a white dude, a black dude, and a white woman. This is not American politics at it’s best.
And it’s not like there’s no wiggle room. Joseph Biden was the only candidate on the stage that voted for the latest Iraq spending bill. He stood up and spoke directly and clearly, that this is a complicated war, and it involved a lot of hard decisions as a member of senate, but in the end he can never withhold finances that could help keep American troops alive. Old man Gravel shot back that this money doesn’t help the troops, then Obama, and Clinton stepped in and kept them all sounding the same, by agreeing with Biden that this conflict has created many difficult decisions.
Very true, it’s a hard issue to deal with, and everyone across the spectrum has valid talking points. It’s an issue that the American public cannot be educated enough on, and goddamn deserves some real options, not just a bunch of folks that you can place on a sliding scale of how “no war” they are. If the major foreign policy issue of this election is going to be a war, the candidates should be talking about it with the same gravity and seriousness that a war invokes. It’s not enough for Obama to say that he has been against it from the beginning.
Although the reasons for war should still be debated and discussed the way we still debate and discuss why we have engaged in any armed conflict, this election should be a forum for new ideas and critical discussion amongst the candidates about what can and cannot work, and what should be done with the U.S. forces. Saying they should simply stay or go is a sound bite, it’s not a real discussion, or framework for action.
The entire debate was scored with an undertone of agreement. Wolf Blitzer regularly tried to square the candidates off against each other specifying when the different candidates have been in direct opposition to each other, the candidates responded only by saying “I don’t think _______ is wrong, I’m not here to judge their decision, I made what I felt was the right decisi- blah blah, I’m a wimp blah.”
Like most Americans, I also don’t get particularly excited about campaigns that undermine the personality of a candidate, or generate underhanded mudslinging, but I damn well expect the candidates to be fierce on the issues, and to passionately defend their stances. I expect candidates to be unique beyond race and gender, I want to vote for someone that can really stand out, and be electable. More than anything though, I want an electoral process that cultivates differing ideas and fosters a wide array of planning options.
I do not need a loud spoken batshit crazy candidate like Mike Gravel that sounds good, and brings heated argument to the stage, but it’s totally without chance in a national election. I want someone who knows how to gauge what the nation wants, but doesn’t feel the need to hedge bets simply to get into office. The democrats have been avoiding distinction and have kept to a “feel-good” style of campaigning because they’re scared of losing another election. They have reason to be scared, but it’s still just the primary, they need to stand out on the stage.
The arguing would do them well, it would keep them ready and tough and smart for the national election stage that is soon to follow, and no democrat should ever forget; the great GOP machine that gave one of the least popular presidents ever two terms is sitting dormant, just waiting for it’s new candidate. Karl Rove will be a master campaign adviser without a puppet. This election is far from over for any Democratic hopeful, and it would be wise if they began training now rather than more jerk off sessions on national television.
~C
(x posted)
 Guide to Democratic Presidential Campaign Tiers |  Esquire Interviews Chris Rock | Sarah Palin Is The Most Disliked Candidate Of The 2008 Election | Who Is Excited For Another 4 Years of Democratic Cowardice? |
Explore the PBH Network! More funny, faster.