Eye Of The Beholder
Here's how I approached the Democrat Debate last night on MSNBC: I tuned in at 6:00, thinking the debate was on, but instead saw Hardballs with Chris Matthews (who does a mean Darrell Hammond impersonation), and their lame panel's take on the debate, which had taken place ealier in the day. So I got to see Hardball's recap (and spin) before I saw the real article.
I wonder: Did they see the same debate I saw?
These are my impressions of the contest, while noting that there were 10 people on the stage, all theoretically getting something close to equal time. In that format, it was going to be hard for anyone to state a comprehensive platform, much less create a strong impression.
I'll do this in rough order of contender status...
Howard Dean-Dean has obvious strengths. He speaks with conviction and he is a doctor, which gives him a bit of moral authority as well as an implied bit of authority on health care issues. But Dean's biggest asset is that he can point to some real successes in Vermont. They have a balanced budget there, they have a good healthcare situation, and they have been progressive with regard to same-sex unions (though that's not likely to be a benefit for him in the general race). Dean also has the advantage of having been very clear on his positions on the Iraq war, while avoiding the pollyanna approach of Dennis Kucinich's "Bring Them Home Now" rally cry. To hear Hardballs tell it, I expected to see Dean in constant flux between a slow burning rage and flames and smoke shooting out of his bodily orafices. Yeah, Dean can get testy, but I never perceived that he was out of control of his emotions.
Dean had two primary issues in the debate. The first was not policy-related, but it is important because it will drive the media myth about him. At one point, Gephardt pointed out that Dean stood with Newt Gingrich in 1993 in his call for shutting down the government and limiting Medicare. Dean freaked about that, went off about how it was shameful that he was compared to Gingrich, got all righteous and pissed off about it, and kept referring to it. (Sharpton rebuked Dean for his personal attack on Gephardt in response, calling Dean "Brother Howard". Man, upbraided, and rightly so, by Al Sharpton. More on Sharpton below.) Kerry, though, clarified that what Gephardt said was not that Dean was "like" Gingrich, but that he had "stood by him" on a policy issue. It made Dean look petulant, and Kerry was right on. Of course, why Gephardt needed John Kerry to be his knight in shining armor coming to his emotional rescue, is an open question.
Dean's other issue was that he has been outspoken about tying trade to labor practices, saying recently that if other countries don't raise their standards, we shouldn't trade with them. Kerry rightly said that meant we wouldn't be trading with anybody, anywhere.
I don't think Dean lost any real traction tonight, but I also don't know that he gained that much. Did he look Presidential? Well, he didn't look un-Presidential, put it that way. He'll be in the top three till the end of this thing.
Wesley Clark-I thought Clark did just fine. He wasn't afraid to say when he didn't have a plan yet, as on Medicare, but he was very explicit about things like corporate corruption, even though the questioner didn't seem to think so. Clark's main objective was to be competent and join the fray. Strangely, the other candidates didn't attack him much at all, choosing instead to go after Dean. The New York Times story today is an interesting one, because in it's lead paragraph is says that Clark "stood on the sidelines and was largely ignored", which gives the impression that he was a nonentity.
But that wasn't the case at all, and the Times story makes that clear in the body of the article:
General Clark, who is retired from the Army, looked crisp and confident throughout the debate...The decision by some of the better-known candidates to attack one other and ignore General Clark had the effect, by design or not, of allowing him to appear the way his aides have sought: a fresh face above the fray. For much of the debate, the rest of the field parried as if General Clark were not even there, showcasing the policy divisions within the party.
That's a good assessment of what happened. Clark had his say, and answered the questions he was asked, and answered them well, and then the others went back into their past voting records on trade, the tax cuts, etc. Clark was unsullied, and his mission was fulfilled: He looked Presidential, and he began to establish who he is. If you are interested, check out Talking Points Memo's take on the debate, as well as some great work he has done on this question of why Clark has supposedly supported the GOP in the past. Based on what I read there, it looks to me like Clark can safely call himself a Democrat, because there are no Republican smoking guns in his closet.
John Kerry-Kerry's not the most dynamic guy in town, but he did a fine job. He made his positions clear, and avoided any major gaffes. The irony, again, is that for me his defining moment was his stepping into the Dean/Gephardt row. I guess I take that as a good sign, because you know it wasn't just a scripted remark, unlike Lieberman's decent "getting plucked" line. (For some reason, he was comparing the American people to chickens, and ends by saying "It's the American People who are getting plucked." Then he paused two beats and said "I want to clarify that I said "plucked". Yeah, har-de-har-har. Great line if it wasn't so painfully forced and rehearsed. It was like a Letterman interview. But Lieberman's best joke was off-the-cuff at the end. More on that below...) I think that from a policy perspective, Kerry should be fine. He'll have to address his perceived waffling on Iraq, and the fact that he's a Northeast Liberal who also happens to be filthy rich will probably work against him. I guess the thing I see with Kerry is that he needs a defining moment or characteristic. He needs to stand out, and right now, between Dean and Clark, he isn't doing that. Did I mention I rode an elevator with Kerry once? Nice guy, salt of the Earth. He asked me what floor I needed.
John Edwards-I was impressed with Edwards. He's smooth and articulate. Dare I say it? He might even have a little Bill Clinton in him, at least in terms of his style and delivery. That is not to be overlooked. But he's in a box. He can't play the "relative outsider card", which he would be entitled to as only a sixth-year politician, as long as Wesley "9 Day" Clark is around. And Edwards doesn't seem to have the policy distinctions that set him apart. Like Kerry, he needs a moment in the sun, something for people to latch onto. Did you know his mother was a mail carrier? He would probably be the one to pick up the labor vote if Gephardt falters.
Dick Gephardt-I was shocked to learn that Gephardt has only run before in 1988. It seems to me like he runs not only every election, but every damned year. Gephardt is an interesting guy, to me. He was all over the debate last night. He seems bright, his positions are solidly liberal, and Jane thought he looked Presidential.
(I'd like to digress for a moment, and say that I don't really know what I mean when I say "looks Presidential", nor do I know what anybody else means when they say that. My standard template used to be whether I could imagine them in front of that blue curtain in the press briefing room, and then whether I could imagine them giving the State of the Union address. Now, my template also includes whether I can imagine them giving the U.N. General Assembly the finger, as well as picturing them kicking back for an intern blowjob in the Oral Office. Using this metric, only Lieberman, Graham and Kucinich failed to "look Presidential" to me last night, an automatic disqualification for consideration. Carol Moseley-Braun, however did just fine in this regard. More on her below...)
Anyway, Gephardt. He's big with labor, although the AFL-CIO hasn't endorsed him yet for reasons I am not aware of. He should do well in Iowa. He's pushing medical care. Why is there this perception of the perpetual also-ran when he's only run the one time? I can't help but wonder if the Dems wish they could take Gephardt's policy package and put it with someone more dynamic. If he can't win Iowa, he's done. But if he wins Iowa, what then? I just don't see his future, and I don't see excitement in the base for him.
Joe Lieberman-Lieberman had a truly great line, and it wasn't his "plucked" canned joke. At the very end of the debate, when each candidate had 30 seconds to summarize something they would do if President that would be unpopular, Lieberman began by saying that this was the first debate he had been to where he wasn't booed. That drew some laughter, but then he quickly raised his hands and said "Yeah, I know, it's not over yet.". OK, maybe that was canned, but it didn't seem like it. It was genuinely funny. As for the rest of his night, he was pretty much just there. Not enough distinction between him and the others, and he has the past as a burden, because he's not fresh, and he brings up the bad memory of 2000. His annoying side didn't come out because last night was focused on trade, but we know it's there. He'll be done soon enough.
Bob Graham-Graham was as advertised. Smart, brought up some good points, and was totally, completely uninteresting. He's done, but I would still think that a long-time pol from Florida would carry some serious weight as a VP.
Dennis Kucinich-Well, give Kucinich credit. He's not afraid to distinguish himself from the others. But he's such a non-factor that the other candidates pretty much let his ridiculous "Bring Them Home" position stand without critique. No use wasting breath beating a sorry proposal from a guy who can't win anyway. "Bring Them Home" is such a bad idea, a manifestation of the concept that two wrongs can make things right. Dean and others were fairly straightforward about this: Going in was a mistake on some levels, the way it was and has been done has been a mistake on many levels, but that doesn't mean that pulling out now wouldn't be a mistake, too. Mistake, lies or no, we're there now, and we have to make things right. Only Kucinich doesn't seem to understand that. Oh, and the Department of Peace that he proposes, to pursue non-violent resolution to all problems? Good luck with that. Really. I hope it succeeds. That would be great. It's a sad sign of our state of society that we would collective roll our eyes and laugh at such a reasonable idea. And yet, here we are...
Al Sharpton-Frankly, I was impressed with Sharpton. I know he's a clown with all sorts of past position issues, but his statements made just as much sense as anyone else's, and he took some reasonable policy positions. Moreover, he gave the debate some moral authority as well, stepping in gently at the right time to keep the proceedings civil (And I really hope "Brother Howard" catches on as a moniker...), and dropping the best trade line of the night, saying that just because you have trade, doesn't make it good trade, and then referencing slavery as a "bad trade policy". Yeah, it's a bit hackneyed, but damn, that kind of thing needs to be said in a forum like that. And his point was actually cogent, because he was talking about human rights abuses, and how trade can either be a lever to clean them up or an enabler. Having said that, I think Sharpton's presence in the next debate would be unnecessary.
Carol Moseley-Braun-And I was quite impressed with Moseley-Braun, as well. Maybe it's because my expectations were low, but she's smart, she's clear and concise, and her politics are solidly liberal. She didn't get caught up in a lot of back and forth between the other candidates, probalby because she doesn't have extensive history with taking some of the more defining positions on trade and business. But she's a bright person, and I was glad she was there so I could hear her speak.
However, it's time to cut to the chase. The top five on this list should live to debate again, unless they falter badly in Iowa, and then they can be culled from the pack. We need to narrow this thing down so we can get to the meat of the top five people.
Nobody "lost" last night. They all did what they wanted to do. The "winners" were Dean, Clark, Kerry, Edwards and Gephardt. But to me, Clark was the biggest winner, because he could have bombed, and instead he was confident and clear and ready to engage the battle, while somehow staying out of the fray.
Bottom line, I think all five of those guys looked like they could actually beat Bush. I could see the public voting for all of them (with Gephardt trailing the first four slightly). Remember: Who knew in 1991 that Bill Clinton was such a badass? Who knew? Nobody. The campaign will transform someone; candidates who look vanilla today can become crusading, smooth orators tomorrow. After last night, I'm a bit more optimistic about the Dem field as a whole than I was before, though I still firmly believe that the lynchpin in this election is the position of Bush as the election nears. If he is strong, it will be tough for any of them to win. If he is weak, even as weak as he is right now, I think any of those top five guys could do it.
11:03:51 AM 
|
|
