My Endorsement
Feb. 27th, 2004 11:57 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sdelmonteWhat follows is a long, rare totally political post from yours truly. Be warned.
Tuesday is presidential primary day in NY (among other states) and it actually matters, a little. If Edwards does to Kerry what Kerry did to Dean in Iowa and mobilizes his supporters perfectly, there will be a race again. So while I think Kerry sews up the nomination on Tuesday, it's not a sure thing.
So I did my research and picked a candidate. Some thoughts on the process.
Firstly, I don't get more than a little news from non-written sources (and never TV). So I cannot tell you if Edwards is indeed charismatic, or if Kerry is not. I know the sound of Kerry's voice, and that's about it. I am therefore picking my candidate on the issues and the record. In a way, this is outdated, given that speaking skills and charisma matter. But I maintain that in 2000 we had a choice between a man who is painfully awkward at public speaking and a man who is painfully dull. Thus I don't feel too bad about not knowing about personality.
Next, I must say that I have little enthusiasm for any of the candidates. I have never felt like this before in the presidential primaries I've voted in. In 1988, I volunteered for Dukakis and only lost interest in him when he failed to fight back against Lee Atwater's mudslinging. In 1992, I picked Clinton before the first vote was cast, and stuck with him from then till the day he left office. (I miss him, still.) In 2000, I was not thrilled by Gore, almost going so far as to cast a protest vote for Bradley, but I figured that his years with Clinton counted for something.
But this year? I haven't warmed up to any of them. Dean somehow rubbed me the wrong way - keep in mind that I was the kind of voter his initial groundswell was not paying attention to. Clark looked good for about a week, and then faded fast. Sharpton is a fake. Kucinich is too far out even for me, with no real understanding of the world. Gephardt was liberal, but anti-free trade. Lieberman was too moralistic. Edwards is too young and inexperienced. And Kerry seems too familiar, another insider who offers a lot but doesn't seem to have the right kind of experience. And it doesn't help Kerry that he voted for the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. It didn't help that none of them seem to be in favor of free trade, or willing to offend the NRA (even though the core Democratic voter supports gun control of some form).
I honestly hoped that Bob Graham, a longtime senator and a former governor, who opposed the Iraq War, who is dedicated to fighting terrorism, who is a foreign policy expert, who is fairly moderate, from Florida, would have stayed in the race, if only because he would have made the other candidates work a little harder to prove that they have the know-how of a former governor. It's worth noting that no seated senator has been elected president since 1960, whereas four of the last five presidents were former or seated governors. But Graham didn't have the heart (somewhat literally, since he had heart surgery), and we got Edwards to be the great Southern hope instead.
So what does this mean? It means that I had to pick from an uninspiring group, and then the group became just the two serious candidates. At least, I figured, I wouldn't have to debate about voting for Dean despite my qualms about him. (And ultimately, I would have given him a pass, since I think his foreign affairs knowledge is weak.)
Finally, it was down to Edwards and Kerry. I compared their positions and their records. On most issues, there is little difference between them. Both are moderates who voted for the war and the Patriot Act. Both want to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Both support health care reform, environmental legislation, using the UN and the EU to straighten out Iraq. Both would play to the middle class, but not to the upper class. Both would be improvements over Dubya.
There are a few places that they differ. Most importantly, Kerry has been in the Senate a long time. Edwards is there less than a full term, and was a trial lawyer before this. That matters to me, even though it has been pointed out that Kerry's record as an innovator, as the man behind legislation, is very weak for a man in this job for so long.
Kerry also comes with foreign policy experience. At a time when the US has to rebuild its relations with Europe, figure out how to get the Arab world to root out terrorism, deal with the aftermath of Iraq, and handle an unpredictable world, foreign policy knowledge matters. Edwards might get it in due time, but do we want another naif in the White House after Dubya?
Kerry also gets a few points for now admitting that he feels like he was suckered by Dubya about the war and that he wants to see the Patriot Act reworked. I wish he would say "I was wrong," but this will do when so few others will even consider the chance that the war was a mistake, or that the Patriot Act was foolish and anti-democratic.
And I feel that in general, Kerry is an intelligent, capable, and well-tempered man whose ability to keep his campaign afloat when it was pronounced dead shows he can think on his feet fairly well. (He's also opposed to the death penalty, like myself, but that's not a big issue for this job.)
So my vote, with perhaps a little enthusiasm, goes to John F. Kerry. Is he electable? I can't say. The general election is ultimately about Dubya. If the American people truly think he's doing a good job, he wins. If they don't, he loses. And I think that either Kerry or Edwards could make the same case against Bush. It's just a question of whether America will listen at all.
Lastly, I do hope that if Kerry gets the nomination, he picks one of two men for VP: Bob Graham, who would bring the experience of both senator and governor to the campaign, or Max Cleland, the former Georgia senator whose loss of three limbs in battle in Vietnam was not enough to prove his love of America to the Republicans.
Now, if you are a Democrat and from a state voting on Tuesday, get out there and vote. Even if you disagree with everything I said, it's still your obligation to make your voice heard.
Tuesday is presidential primary day in NY (among other states) and it actually matters, a little. If Edwards does to Kerry what Kerry did to Dean in Iowa and mobilizes his supporters perfectly, there will be a race again. So while I think Kerry sews up the nomination on Tuesday, it's not a sure thing.
So I did my research and picked a candidate. Some thoughts on the process.
Firstly, I don't get more than a little news from non-written sources (and never TV). So I cannot tell you if Edwards is indeed charismatic, or if Kerry is not. I know the sound of Kerry's voice, and that's about it. I am therefore picking my candidate on the issues and the record. In a way, this is outdated, given that speaking skills and charisma matter. But I maintain that in 2000 we had a choice between a man who is painfully awkward at public speaking and a man who is painfully dull. Thus I don't feel too bad about not knowing about personality.
Next, I must say that I have little enthusiasm for any of the candidates. I have never felt like this before in the presidential primaries I've voted in. In 1988, I volunteered for Dukakis and only lost interest in him when he failed to fight back against Lee Atwater's mudslinging. In 1992, I picked Clinton before the first vote was cast, and stuck with him from then till the day he left office. (I miss him, still.) In 2000, I was not thrilled by Gore, almost going so far as to cast a protest vote for Bradley, but I figured that his years with Clinton counted for something.
But this year? I haven't warmed up to any of them. Dean somehow rubbed me the wrong way - keep in mind that I was the kind of voter his initial groundswell was not paying attention to. Clark looked good for about a week, and then faded fast. Sharpton is a fake. Kucinich is too far out even for me, with no real understanding of the world. Gephardt was liberal, but anti-free trade. Lieberman was too moralistic. Edwards is too young and inexperienced. And Kerry seems too familiar, another insider who offers a lot but doesn't seem to have the right kind of experience. And it doesn't help Kerry that he voted for the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. It didn't help that none of them seem to be in favor of free trade, or willing to offend the NRA (even though the core Democratic voter supports gun control of some form).
I honestly hoped that Bob Graham, a longtime senator and a former governor, who opposed the Iraq War, who is dedicated to fighting terrorism, who is a foreign policy expert, who is fairly moderate, from Florida, would have stayed in the race, if only because he would have made the other candidates work a little harder to prove that they have the know-how of a former governor. It's worth noting that no seated senator has been elected president since 1960, whereas four of the last five presidents were former or seated governors. But Graham didn't have the heart (somewhat literally, since he had heart surgery), and we got Edwards to be the great Southern hope instead.
So what does this mean? It means that I had to pick from an uninspiring group, and then the group became just the two serious candidates. At least, I figured, I wouldn't have to debate about voting for Dean despite my qualms about him. (And ultimately, I would have given him a pass, since I think his foreign affairs knowledge is weak.)
Finally, it was down to Edwards and Kerry. I compared their positions and their records. On most issues, there is little difference between them. Both are moderates who voted for the war and the Patriot Act. Both want to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Both support health care reform, environmental legislation, using the UN and the EU to straighten out Iraq. Both would play to the middle class, but not to the upper class. Both would be improvements over Dubya.
There are a few places that they differ. Most importantly, Kerry has been in the Senate a long time. Edwards is there less than a full term, and was a trial lawyer before this. That matters to me, even though it has been pointed out that Kerry's record as an innovator, as the man behind legislation, is very weak for a man in this job for so long.
Kerry also comes with foreign policy experience. At a time when the US has to rebuild its relations with Europe, figure out how to get the Arab world to root out terrorism, deal with the aftermath of Iraq, and handle an unpredictable world, foreign policy knowledge matters. Edwards might get it in due time, but do we want another naif in the White House after Dubya?
Kerry also gets a few points for now admitting that he feels like he was suckered by Dubya about the war and that he wants to see the Patriot Act reworked. I wish he would say "I was wrong," but this will do when so few others will even consider the chance that the war was a mistake, or that the Patriot Act was foolish and anti-democratic.
And I feel that in general, Kerry is an intelligent, capable, and well-tempered man whose ability to keep his campaign afloat when it was pronounced dead shows he can think on his feet fairly well. (He's also opposed to the death penalty, like myself, but that's not a big issue for this job.)
So my vote, with perhaps a little enthusiasm, goes to John F. Kerry. Is he electable? I can't say. The general election is ultimately about Dubya. If the American people truly think he's doing a good job, he wins. If they don't, he loses. And I think that either Kerry or Edwards could make the same case against Bush. It's just a question of whether America will listen at all.
Lastly, I do hope that if Kerry gets the nomination, he picks one of two men for VP: Bob Graham, who would bring the experience of both senator and governor to the campaign, or Max Cleland, the former Georgia senator whose loss of three limbs in battle in Vietnam was not enough to prove his love of America to the Republicans.
Now, if you are a Democrat and from a state voting on Tuesday, get out there and vote. Even if you disagree with everything I said, it's still your obligation to make your voice heard.
