Since I often engage in criticism of Democratic Presidential candidates, but less frequently praise them, I thought it would be useful to spend some time to explain what I am looking for in a Presidential candidate before making an endorsement in the primary season. Here are the broad principles:
- A Progressive Core. Beyond any specific policy proposals made on the campaign trail, I am looking for a candidate who I believe will take a progressive approach to issues and legislative scenarios that have yet to arise. In other words, I am looking for a candidate who, at his or her core, is reflexively and instinctually progressive. Is someone's first reaction typically a progressive one, or does a candidate typically have to be cojoled and pressured before taking a progressive direction?
Admittedly, this is a nebulous realm of candidate analysis. At different times, I have engaged in different means of determining it. Does a candidate refer to himself or herself as a progressive? To what extent does a candidate's background and formative years foreshadow their future actions? Who is willing to stand with the movement in the face of right-wing smears and engage the bar fight primary? Different candidates excel at different aspects of these methods of determining a progressive core. Edwards stands with the movement, for example, and I think he has a solid, immutable progressive core named Elizabeth. Obama has the background as an urban community organizer, a member of the religious left, and an international, multicultural upbringing. Clinton repeatedly self-identifies as a progressive, and viciously attacks the Republican Noise Machine. But they all have problems, too. Right now, in this category, I am leaning towards Obama, but that decision is not final.
- A Populist Attack On Elites. I believe that the political and media establishment in America is fundamentally elitist and instinctively anti-progressive. These are two of the main reasons why this establishment has been wrong about pretty much everything over the past ten years. I want a candidate who attacks that establishment, and whose campaign drives fear into significant sections of it. In my time as a political professional, the only two campaigns that I saw really scare the establishment were Howard Dean for America in 2004, and Ned Lamont for Connecticut in 2006. Back in 2003, in was widely viewed as dangerous to your career to work for Howard Dean. In 2006, Ned Lamont's primary campaign against Joe Lieberman seemed even more frightening to the establishment than Dean, as it dominated national headlines for weeks before the primary, every pundit slammed Lamont supporters as Stalinists, and as Lieberman took in $2,100 donations in amounts typically only seen with small donors. If you are not scaring the establishment, are you really going to be in a position to challenge them once in office? Call this the FDR criterion, perhaps, considering that media elites overwhelmingly hated the man early in his time as President, and that wealthy industrialists even tried to oust him as President in a military coup.
Right now, Edwards has the clear lead in this category. Not only does he regularly engage in populist attacks on elites, but his campaign does seem to be the target the rather excessive establishment smearing. Obama has made motions in this direction when he talks about change, but to be honest one of the aspects of Obama's campaign that worries me the most is that he is surrounded with insider, establishment types. Some will argue that Obama, as an African-America, is not in a position to diss the establishment as openly as someone like John Edwards can, but I would argue that even if that is true, he certainly does not have to be as in bed with the establishment as he has been so afar in the campaign. As far as Clinton goes, if she wins, I feel like the establishment wins.
- Clarity On Iraq. My transformation from a part-time, volunteer political activist and union organizer to the world of professional politics and activism was spurred on in large part by the run-up, and eventual start, of the war in Iraq. I remember once, in mid-March of 2003, ranting to my brother that I have never been as angry with "my" government than I was at that time. Everything was bult on a series of lies and propaganda, and large numbers of Democrats and the media went happily along with it all. I knew that not only was the war immoral, but that it would have disastrous, long-term consequences for America. I vowed to make certain that those responsible would face both legal and electoral consequences for their involvement in this ruinous colonial clusterfuck.
Right now, the only candidate offering clarity on Iraq in Bill Richardson. Quite frankly, by not offering estimates for how many troops they intend to leave in Iraq, I feel like the big three are lying to me when it comes to Iraq. Clinton, Edwards and Obama offer clarity and hypothetical estimates on everything from energy, poverty, health care and pollution, but they refuse to offer hypothetical estimates on troops levels in Iraq. That feels both dishonest and all too familiar. This is a huge missing ingredient when it comes to any of the "big three" receiving my support in the primary.
- A Willingness To Help Him Or Herself. I don't like lazy candidates, and I don't like candidates who don't stand up for themselves. If you aren't hitting the campaign trail until you are near the brink of exhaustion, if you are not engaging in a huge amount of call time to raise money, it you seem unprepared or extemporaneous on the stump, and if you are generally not doing all of the demeaning things required of a winning candidate, then I am not interested in supporting you. I am not going to waste my time supporting candidates who are not doing pulling out all of the structural stops necessary in order to win a campaign. My time is limited, are people are constantly hitting me up to support their campaign or cause. I will not waste my time on candidates and causes that are not absolutely dedicated to victory. And the same goes for candidates who are smeared by the right. If you do not respond in kind, f you apologize when the right-wing asks you to apologize, and if you allow bullshit media narratives to form around you without doing everything you can to hit back against the Republican Noise Machine, then I won't bother offering you my activist support.
In case you are wondering, this is why it makes supporting Biden, Kucinich and Gravel impossible for me. Not only are they the three weakest campaigners in the 2008 field, but they all singed on for the non-cancelled Fox News debate. I can't be bothered to associate with self-defeating weakness of this sort. Clinton and Obama clearly lead in this category, but Edwards has improved of late.
- Who Has Movement Support? I generally trust the judgment of my progressive movement-oriented colleagues, and if they start to endorse a candidate en masse, I will probably follow along. This is especially the case when I am convinced that supporting a candidate can actually help grow the progressive movement. Overall, in this category, Obama has the most activism being engaged on his behalf. In my narrower realm of the progressive blogosphere, Edwards appears to be the most popular. This divergence within one segment of the movement from the movement as a whole, not to mention very real questions as to whether or not endorsing either Edwards or Obama would actually help build the progressive movement, is a serious barrier toward making any endorsement. It is also worth noting that Clinton actually has a decent amount of grassroots activism conducted on her behalf, too.
So, that is what I am looking for in a Democratic to endorse in the 2008 primaries. A Carbon tax and single-payer health care would be nice, too. No candidate has a clear lead according to all these criteria, although obviously Edwards and Obama hit more categories, and thus have advantages over the rest of the field. Hopefully, a post like this will be useful not only in that it shows where I am leaning in terms of the 2008 field, but that it also provides real transparency in how I view and critique the campaign. I think that if either Obama or Edwards were to adopt Richardson's Iraq plan, I would probably end up endorsing the candidate who did so. However, right now, I feel that there is at least one major red flag for all of the candidates, and so I remain in the undecided column.
|
STATE BLOGS
