Mike
Lux is right, at least in part. All of our Democratic presidential hopefuls
beat the Republican litter by a mile. That said, considering the foreign policy
challenges we’ll be handed in ’09, it’s imperative to compare each of our candidates.
I’m only talking about three, but in case they’re not your three let me offer
the candidates below the top tier as well: Biden
who also has a head to head match up
of the candidates on Iraq; then there is Dodd,
Richardson, Kucinich,
Gravel.
TPM has compared the
Iraq war votes of Clinton
and Edwards, as well as Clinton
and Obama, with a chart on Clinton,
Obama and Lieberman. You will find it interesting, let’s just say. Also,
Howie has some thoughts on Chris Dodd, who is the first
senator running for president to support Feingold-Reid.
What I found very illuminating is that Senators
Clinton and Obama have the exact same Iraq war voting record except
for one vote: General
George Casey‘s appointment to Army chief of staff. On that vote Clinton
agreed with McCain: no.
John
Edwards missed quite a few votes during the ’04 presidential cycle, which
is evident in the
chart. It’s also interesting that Edwards starts out right of Clinton, but
in 2003 has a strong change of heart and moves left on the war. Edwards voted
against the $87 billion appropriation, with Clinton voting for it. Obama wasn’t
in the Senate at the time. It’s also important to note that John
Edwards long ago recanted his vote and said “I
was wrong.” To add, news just broke that Edwards continues his strong stance against Fox “News” as well.
As for Clinton,
she will not recant her ’02 vote, yada-yada-yada. Period. She has finally
offered some candid
thoughts on Iraq if she becomes president. It was a positive sign, though
clearly not enough for many. However, Clinton’s performance at the health care
forum was outstanding.
She was prepared, on fire and out shined all of her opponents. Hillary doesn’t
have a health care plan laid out, but who can blame her? It’s not that she doesn’t
know the subject.
Edwards’ health
care plan has received positive reviews, here
and here, with some raising questions, but still liking it.
As for Obama’s plan on health care… **crickets**… … unless you count
listening
and learning and “status
quo” warnings pabulum a positive position at this point, while he waits a couple of months until he figures
it out. This from a man who claims to be ready to hold the presidency is not electrifying. Shouldn’t Obama be the one leading instead
of learning at this point? It’s one thing to be learning what the people feel
and think, but it’s quite another to be learning about health care policies
because you haven’t got a plan in place.
But Barack Obama’s instincts on Iraq were right from the start. However, he
wasn’t in the Senate and didn’t have to vote on it. This is not a minor point.
Recent statements
still have me wondering what he would have done if he’d been in the Senate at
the time. Honestly, we’ll never know. The one sense I continue to get about
Mr.
Obama is that he eschews confrontations. He also has to come up with more
than platitudes and empty phrases of hope. Maybe now that he’s officially the
frontrunner he will. John
Edwards has challenged Obama, as well as reporters covering him, to do just
that.
Barack Obama’s campaign strategy is also a bit off putting. He’s decided to
run his campaign not on the strength of liberal Democratic ideology and philosophy,
but on the power of his personality.
Axelrod’s is a less grand, postideological approach, and his
campaigns are rooted less in issues than in the particulars of his candidate’s
life. For him, running campaigns hitched to personality rather than ideology
is a way of reclaiming fleeting authenticity.
Personality power is fine for the candidate running for president, but where
does that leave Senate and House candidates all the way down to the local level?
One of the criticisms of Bill Clinton by many progressive activists, though
not myself, is that Bill Clinton was gifted with political star power, but many
progressives fault him for what he left (or didn’t leave) in his wake; fewer
Democrats in power on all levels of government, up and down the chain. Sure, he was a community organizer, but rallying
the troops is not just about party unity. It’s about delineating differences between Republicans
and Democrats. The last thing I want to see is a convention like we had in ’04, which offered the positives, but didn’t call Bush out on his horrendous policies. There’s no doubt Obama is smart and gifted,
with personality power that can take him far, but what if our candidates for
Senate and House and local offices don’t have the personality to pull it off
by sheer political charisma? It would be good to have a progressive ideology
to trumpet, don’t ya think?
Then there’s Barack
Obama’s unqualified support and backing for Joe Lieberman in ’06. That action is un acceptable, especially as we look at the Senate votes on Iraq. Some have written that Lieberman was Obama’s “mentor” and
though that may be an overstatement it’s become the
talking point. I don’t care about that, but I do care that Obama walked away from the progressive candidate in ’08. That speaks volumes. Translated it means that Barack Obama
supported a war hawk over the anti war candidate, who also happened to
be the people’s choice and the only one the Iraq war.
“I know that some in the party have differences with Joe,” Senator Obama said, all but silencing the crowd. “I’m going to go ahead and say it. It’s the elephant in the room. And Joe and I don’t agree on everything. But what I know is, Joe Lieberman’s a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America.”
Then, with applause beginning to build, he finished the thought: “I am absolutely certain that Connecticut’s going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate.” That time, people cheered loudly.
If Obama is truly against the Iraq war why wouldn’t he support the one candidate who could help end it in the Senate? Tagaris called Obama: “Quite possibly the biggest disappointment … period.”
Clinton was the
first to cut Lamont a check, but I can’t let that be the last word, because
my friend Pach had much more to say about Bill’s
roll in it all.
As for Edwards, he campaigned
hard for Lamont.
One last thought. David Sirota wrote a piece yesterday that draws stronger
distinctions between the candidates. I urge you to read it and follow the links.
For the first time he also endorses John Edwards. He also offers his reasons
for why.
CAMPAIGN THEMES
To date, it’s fair to say Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s campaigns have
been about themselves. Whether that’s their own fault, a deliberate strategy
or a media distortion is not important – the fact is, neither of these candidates
has made any headway in staking out themes any more coherent than fuzzy poll-tested
rhetoric like “leadership” or “hope,” textbook rhetoric
of history’s past false prophets and vapid cults of personality – and that’s
the good stuff. More often on major issues like Iraq, we get Clinton trying
to justify her continued support for the war and Obama
either singing the praises of his “mentors” like pro-war
icons like Joe Lieberman or undercutting
fellow Senate Democrats who are trying to take an aggressive posture against
President Bush.Edwards, by contrast, has been extremely disciplined in making economic class
issues the central focus of his race (he has also taken a strong, consistent
stand on the war first by apologizing for his initial vote, and then unequivocally
supporting aggressive efforts to end it). Whether he was kicking off his campaign
in hurricane-battered New Orleans or using his clout to help union drives,
he has worked very hard to shine a light on the “two Americas” crisis
that has, unfortunately, been aided and abetted by the Wall Street-Clinton
administration pact which still dominates the Democratic Party establishment
in Washington, D.C. Edwards among the three is the only one who has shown
a commitment to taking stands on the core economic issues that Wall Street
would rather no Democratic candidates even talk about. On “free”
trade and the ability of K Street lobbyists to buy off politicians, for instance,
he’s been a populist
champion since way back in 2004.He has even called for the renegotiation
of the North American Free Trade Agreement – an issue Bloomberg News shows
that Hillary Clinton can’t even talk about coherently, and an issue which,
as I saw in my 2006 interview with him, Barack Obama desperately tries to
dance around (not surprising, considering his top policy aide was the top
policy aide to NAFTA proponent Bob Rubin). … ..
On the other side, will Bloomberg be the Nader of ’08? I’m
with Chris.
Comments are closed.