Blog For Arizona

Making Waffles and MisDebatin'

Indecision Thy Name is Clark

A man who wants to be President ought to at least know his own mind before asking for the votes of his fellow citizens. The flip-flops and hedging of General Clark on the issue of the authorization of the Iraqi war is a little disappointing. I was hoping that he would display a clarity of judgement and eloquency of disposition that would convince much more of our populace that the rush to war in Iraq was complete folly and an abidication of the Constitutional role of Congress. By doing so he would humiliate and justly shame most of the Deomocratic field and frame the issue clearly for the showdown with Bush, no matter who the candidate was.

He's failed to do that; I hope he still can. Dean's positions couldn't be more clear - and the public couldn't be less ready to listen to him. So many are still caught in the delusion that the military can accomplish even an impossible mission. Who better to disabuse them then a 4 star General? The realization that Dean has been right to oppose this war, and did so for the right reasons, could not help but come eventually. Instead, the General has lost the operational initiative and will have to overcome the confusion and relativism of his early statements to marshall a message from the melee of opinions he's deployed.

I think I understand the military mind on this aspect of leadership. A good commander attacks a problem from many angles and considers the weaknesses and strengths of each option for before commiting himself to battle. However, a military commander should also know that this process must be internal and appear effortless to the troops. If you display indecision and vacillation, they won't follow you, trusting their lives to your judgment.

Niether will civilians trust a President who appears too indecisive. Their lives are no less in the hand of the President than those of the soldiers in the field are in that of their commander. Presidential leadership is a complex mix of the domestic and the martial. A inexperienced politician would understandably have diffuculty in adjusting to the role, but a military leader should be expected to at least have the martial quality of surety of command. Clark has demonstrated a lack of political savvy, but also a lack of that which makes him so appealing to many, a military mien and firmness of judgment on matters of foriegn policy and security.

I have to wonder what exactly Clark was thinking about if not this very issue and others of national significance as his draft movement was begging him to run and he was writing his book about Iraq and terrorism due out next month. If after writing a book on a subject he still doesn't know for sure what he thinks about it, when will he ever?

The Debate that Became a Dogpile

Dean again bore the brunt of Gephardt's and Kerry's attacks on his "record" in the New York debate. Despite these assaults Dean dealt with the attacks with firmness and even a touch of adomonition that felt quite well recieved by the audience. He kept his good humor and self-deprecating air and played the statesman calling for a positive tone and a focus on the real issues and the enemy that awaits them all.

The fascinating thing about these attacks by Gephardt and Kerry is that most the them are both nearly a decade old and they are almost all speculation or statements of general principles by the candidate, not what he DID, but what he SAID. They can't criticize his record so they attack him using out of context quotes talking generally about policy - not what he's done, not policies he implemented- just things he has speculated about or abstractly supported. Many are decontextualized so as to be misleading, make a fine distinction or simple misstatement into a policy flip, or imply his support for something which he does not support. It's simple dirty pool. It misleads and alienates the voters.

When attacked, Dean was straight-forward and honest about it when he had simply screwed up or when he had not been sufficiently clear in stating his position. He was very credible and did not seem to be weaseling out of the charges at all, but simply answering them and them admonishing his attackers. At one point, however, he counter attacked Gephardt by way of illustration how politicians have to make tough choices and sometimes change thier views. I saw it as a constructive counter-argument to Gephardt and Kerry's rehashing of the past, but it may have come off to some as overly defensive. He also got rather hot about Gephadt associating him in any way with Newt Gingrich and got a little too boisterous about defending himself. Al Sharp-tongue then gently chided him for his temper, which is likely to reinforce Dean's reputation as prickly and tempermental.

In all, Dean weathered the attacks fairly well. Outside of two moments, when Sharp's-tongue pricked Dean and when Kerry pointed out that Gephardt didn't actually compare him to Gingrich, Dean appeared relaxed, articulate and stateman-like. Dean is getting more polished, confident and cool in debate. He no longer seems like the member of a high school debate team out for the highest score.

I was actually rather surprised that no attacks or criticisms were leveled at Clark at all. I expected Dean to get some breathing room since Clark is leading in national polls and is running strongest in head-to-head polling with Bush. The are two possible explanations; either they don't see Clark as a threat in early primary states yet, or they have some other reason for holding their fire, especially on the Iraqi waffles. The first reason is clearly the most likely.

What that other reason(s) could be is only speculation of the rankest sort, but that's what blogs are for isn't it? Kerry, Lieberman, and Edwards all have the DLC to be concerned about. Going negative on Clark now could be impolitic to their bases and could jeopardize their funding streams. Gephardt and Kerry could be hanging fire because they do not want to call attention to their own compromised votes on the issue.

Down in the Minor League

Kucinich is harder to figure. Frankly, it doesn't much matter what he does, he's not going to be elected. He may see the General as a way to harm Dean. I can't imagine why he would he would think that any of the those pulled from the Dean camp by the General would gravitate to him, though.

Kuchinich is doing good things in Congress during his race and is using his run as a platform for very progressive legislation. I can see Kucinich's race as a future model for a smart legislator wanting to promote some interesting ideas by running for the Presidency while sitting in the Congress. It is actually a powerful legislative strategy in the right hands. Building a national constituency for fundraising in order to help finance other Congressmen's races can aid greatly with party advancement. The campaign, regardless of your chances, will afford you a national audience for your ideas and superior access to the press. You get to raise your status and cement the advantages of your incumbency with the folks back home, who now see you as a national figure. I see much of these goals in Kucinich's behavior in this campaign. He knows the odds against his winning are overwhelming, but much like Nader's Green campaign of 2000, winning is not really the goal.

Kucinich's latest bill to strip Consitutionally problematic provisions from the PATRIOT Act might actually have a chance at passing. An early sunset provision would be attractive, but until at least the Presidency is no longer in GOP hands, better the evil we know, than the evil the GOP can concoct. Congress might hold the line this time, but I wouldn't bet my civil liberties on it.

I genuinely like Al Sharpton. Really, how can you not? He is such a rascal and has a wonderful wit. He's possessed of a genuine and honest demeanor, too. You want to ask him over for dinner; he'd be delightful guest. He may be a charlatan, but he does have more than a dollop of genuine, hard-won wisdom and and a sincere compassion for the less fortunate. I suspect his run is a bid to supplant Jackson as the leader of black America. Jackson's recent scandals leave a vaccuum of high-visibility national leadership in the black community. Worthy or not, Sharpton and Braun both see an opportunity to claim that position.

To a greater or lesser extent they will probably both succeed. Braun, should she actually capture the endorsement of NOW, will be force to be reckoned with in the women's movement and possibly have a positive effect on the participation of women minorities in politics. That can only be positive for the Democratic party.

I have a hard time seeing Sharpton's effect. He is clearly a very smart and resourceful man and his run will probably succeed in cleaning up his image and rehabilitating him as a more mainstream leader in the black community. The depth of the credibility remains in doubt though. His numbers, much lower than Jackson's polling in 1999, tend to indicate that Sharpton remains unable to cross-over to get votes outside minority electorates.

Could Bob Graham be any more boring? I think he's a good man and genuine and honest politician, if that's not oxymoronic. But dang, even when he's speaking your eyes can travel right over him like he wasn't there. I don't know why, but he just doesn't excite any enthusiasm in most people. If ever there were a man destined to be VICE-President, it's Graham. And maybe Gore.

Edwards. Gosh Golly, I jess don't know. I grew up in town called Hope, strapped to an assembly line in the mill mah Daddy worked in. They fed me doggy biscuits till I grow'd up got me some legal larnin and became a multi-millionaire by suing big bad corp'rashuns that done hurt gran'mama. People aren't buying the marketing. They see a Slick Willie in those Saville Row trousers and they ain't having none. He's too young, too polished, too earnest, too... Clintonian? It just makes people uneasy. Kinda creepy in a serial killer pretending to be a cop sort of way, you know? It's the only expanation I can come up with. He advocates some genuinely smart and important things, but he just isn't able to get people to buy in to his vision. Maybe he's not ready. Maybe he needs to go back in the oven for eight years to finish up?

posted by Michael Bryan @ 9/26/2003 05:17:00 AM