It is well past time for somebody (Hillary? Edwards?) to ask Obama a couple of important questions:
1. Are you a Democrat or an Independent?
2. If you are a Democrat, what does that mean to you? What political beliefs do you have that distinguish you from being a Republican?
3. If you are an Independent, why should Democratic voters vote for you?
4. You say that it is time to end the divisiveness of the past 20 years. What, precisely, do you mean by this? What are the divisions you plan to overcome? And how do you plan to overcome them? For example, how do you plan to bridge the divide between Republicans who insist on Supreme Court justices who will override Roe v. Wade and Democrats who want the reverse? Or those who believe that tax cuts are the solution to every domestic problem vs. those who believe that the people, especially the rich, should be willing to pay for the government services they want? Between those who believe the war in Iraq is wrong and those who believe it is right? Are you just going to wave a wand and make all happiness and light? [oops, forget that one. "Fairy tale" allusions are racist.]
5. A rather large proportion of your vocal supporters on the Web have stated that they will vote for the Republican candidate, whoever he is, rather than vote for Hillary or John. That suggests that, at best, they are voting for you as a person rather than as somebody who supports their political beliefs. What do you say to them? And to Democrats who want a Democratic President who will represent their Democratic beliefs?
Showing posts with label Edwards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Edwards. Show all posts
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Criterion for choosing a candidate: The Press Conference Test
The latest California poll shows Hillary leading Barack by about 12 points but 20% of the voters are still undecided and, I suspect, a fair number who expressed a preference may not be fully committed.
So, if you still can't make up your mind, try the Press Conference Test. Ask yourself which of the candidates you would most want to watch at a press conference.
My take:
Remember: All of them would duck the questions they didn't want to answer.
Obama - he'll hem and haw (as he does often during the debates) and fall back on inspiring statements when he gets lost. Sort of like Bush except in full sentences.
Hillary - she'll bury the reporters in detail, admittedly not hard to do since 99% of the reporters couldn't explain her health plan even if they had read it (which they most probably have not). These would probably turn into such dull affairs that the news organizations would start sending their 2nd stringers.
Edwards - he might be a lighter version of JFK (still the best Press Conference President ever). He has a sense of humor and is skilled at facing an indifferent, at best, or hostile audience (the jury). Indeed, of the three, I think he is the only one who might survive, and enjoy, the British Parliament's Question Period
So, if you still can't make up your mind, try the Press Conference Test. Ask yourself which of the candidates you would most want to watch at a press conference.
My take:
Remember: All of them would duck the questions they didn't want to answer.
Obama - he'll hem and haw (as he does often during the debates) and fall back on inspiring statements when he gets lost. Sort of like Bush except in full sentences.
Hillary - she'll bury the reporters in detail, admittedly not hard to do since 99% of the reporters couldn't explain her health plan even if they had read it (which they most probably have not). These would probably turn into such dull affairs that the news organizations would start sending their 2nd stringers.
Edwards - he might be a lighter version of JFK (still the best Press Conference President ever). He has a sense of humor and is skilled at facing an indifferent, at best, or hostile audience (the jury). Indeed, of the three, I think he is the only one who might survive, and enjoy, the British Parliament's Question Period
Criteria for choosing a candidate: Hope and Inspiration
Imagine that you are on the Board of Directors and are seeking a new CEO for Citigroup (largest loss in its 196 year history) and Merrill Lynch (worst results in its 94 year history). You have 3 candidates who are trying to prove to you that they will do the best job of turning those historic losses into profits.
Candidate #1 tells you how he will inspire the employees to work harder.
Candidate #2 says she has 35 years of experience during which time she has successfully coped with a variety of problems. She provides a detailed plan.
Candidate #3 has a lot of energy and a reputation as a goto guy. He identifies the primary cause for the losses, the people and actions responsible, and offers a general plan for recovery.
I suspect that you would not turn the job over to candidate #1.
Candidate #1 tells you how he will inspire the employees to work harder.
Candidate #2 says she has 35 years of experience during which time she has successfully coped with a variety of problems. She provides a detailed plan.
Candidate #3 has a lot of energy and a reputation as a goto guy. He identifies the primary cause for the losses, the people and actions responsible, and offers a general plan for recovery.
I suspect that you would not turn the job over to candidate #1.
Campaign phrases I am tired of hearing
1. "Change". Enough already. If you can't give specifics, the word's not worth a penny.
2. "35 years of experience". Hillary, we all get it. You'd be smarter to simply give specific examples, when the opportunity presents itself, of what you have done and when.
3. "I can inspire people". Barack, this is an incredibly arrogant statement even given the natural arrogance and ego that any candidate running for the Presidency can be expected to have. JFK, RFK, MLK all inspired people. But I doubt if any of them ever stated this ability as a qualification for public office. You remind me a bit of Wolf Blitzer who repeats at least 100 times a day that CNN has the best political team in the business - as if by saying it is so he can make it so (the grown-up edition of the self-esteem movement in the schools).
4. "I'm not an insider... and I've run a business". It's amazing to me that Romney can shout this with a straight face. It amazes me even more that people are attracted to this message. By my reckoning, the only insider President we've had since Gerald Ford was Bush 41. Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43 all ran as outsiders. Bush ran as a businessman. Look where it has gotten us.
2. "35 years of experience". Hillary, we all get it. You'd be smarter to simply give specific examples, when the opportunity presents itself, of what you have done and when.
3. "I can inspire people". Barack, this is an incredibly arrogant statement even given the natural arrogance and ego that any candidate running for the Presidency can be expected to have. JFK, RFK, MLK all inspired people. But I doubt if any of them ever stated this ability as a qualification for public office. You remind me a bit of Wolf Blitzer who repeats at least 100 times a day that CNN has the best political team in the business - as if by saying it is so he can make it so (the grown-up edition of the self-esteem movement in the schools).
4. "I'm not an insider... and I've run a business". It's amazing to me that Romney can shout this with a straight face. It amazes me even more that people are attracted to this message. By my reckoning, the only insider President we've had since Gerald Ford was Bush 41. Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43 all ran as outsiders. Bush ran as a businessman. Look where it has gotten us.
What have we learned from the debates?
1. A lot less than we should have. One reason many of us Democrats are still undecided (besides the fact that Democrats are blessed with a very strong bench) is that we still know very little about the nuts and bolts of the candidates' positions. The media have decided that the differences are too trivial to matter and too complex to present. They are probably right about the magnitude of the differences, but I would still like to hear a sustained debate among the remaining candidates (including Kucinich) on, for example, their health plans. What do I want to know? Well, for a start, their assessment of the pros and cons of mandates. What about the hundreds of different forms doctors and hospitals must deal with? Why not just take "over 65" out of the Medicare plan? I want to know what factors each candidate weighed in coming up with the plan, partly so I can understand the arguments over the differences and partly to see how well the candidates understand their own plans and can defend them.
2. The moderators wouldn't know a substantive question if it were dropped directly into their voice boxes. In the 1/20/08 South Carolina debate, Blitzer, at the end of the first part, told the audience to stay tuned for more substantive questions in the 2nd part. And what were some of these "substantive" questions? Is it OK for African-Americans to vote for a candidate because he is an African-American? (Edwards knocked this one out of the ballpark. Obama pretty much ignored it as did Hillary.) To Edwards: how do you feel being the only white man? Was Bill really the first Black President? And, to top it all off, Wolf ended with what I'm sure he thought would be the piéce de resistance: why MLK, if alive today, would endorse them.
3. Needless to say, the aprés-debate pundits focused on the mudslinging. They didn't even bother to hide their glee. It is clear that the press corps prefer a gloves-off (cheers to Jon Stewart for catching this) to a gloves-on boxing match.
2. The moderators wouldn't know a substantive question if it were dropped directly into their voice boxes. In the 1/20/08 South Carolina debate, Blitzer, at the end of the first part, told the audience to stay tuned for more substantive questions in the 2nd part. And what were some of these "substantive" questions? Is it OK for African-Americans to vote for a candidate because he is an African-American? (Edwards knocked this one out of the ballpark. Obama pretty much ignored it as did Hillary.) To Edwards: how do you feel being the only white man? Was Bill really the first Black President? And, to top it all off, Wolf ended with what I'm sure he thought would be the piéce de resistance: why MLK, if alive today, would endorse them.
3. Needless to say, the aprés-debate pundits focused on the mudslinging. They didn't even bother to hide their glee. It is clear that the press corps prefer a gloves-off (cheers to Jon Stewart for catching this) to a gloves-on boxing match.
DEMOCRATIC DREAM TEAM - Revisited
In my Jan. 15, 2008 entry, I gave my assessment of different pairings for a Democratic Dream Team. From various blogs, I see that I am not the only one who has thought of an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket as the solution to our indecision.
As I wrote earlier, I think the only two viable combos at the start of the campaign were Edwards/Obama or Clinton/Obama.
Today, given all the animosity that has been stirred up, largely by pundits and journalists looking for a fight, I think the chances for such a pairing have been reduced significantly. But I decided to look at the combos not from a political perspective but from a functional perspective.
Obama/Clinton
Obama plays the "big picture", inspirational leader while Hillary gets the budget and legislation drafted and pushed through the Congress. In short, this is the typical Manager/AA arrangement that has existed for decades in which the hardworking female AA does all the work for which the male boss gets credit. Unfortunately, this is another reason why Clinton is unlikely to accept such an arrangement.
Clinton/Obama
Clinton micro-manages everything and sends Obama around the world to win back our friends and allies. This has the additional advantage of keeping Barack and Bill away from each other. This gives Obama a fair amount of room for travel and seasoning for his own run for President. But it would require some humility and a willingness to wait for his turn at the top job . . . to say nothing of what Michelle would have to give up.
As I wrote earlier, I think the only two viable combos at the start of the campaign were Edwards/Obama or Clinton/Obama.
Today, given all the animosity that has been stirred up, largely by pundits and journalists looking for a fight, I think the chances for such a pairing have been reduced significantly. But I decided to look at the combos not from a political perspective but from a functional perspective.
Obama/Clinton
Obama plays the "big picture", inspirational leader while Hillary gets the budget and legislation drafted and pushed through the Congress. In short, this is the typical Manager/AA arrangement that has existed for decades in which the hardworking female AA does all the work for which the male boss gets credit. Unfortunately, this is another reason why Clinton is unlikely to accept such an arrangement.
Clinton/Obama
Clinton micro-manages everything and sends Obama around the world to win back our friends and allies. This has the additional advantage of keeping Barack and Bill away from each other. This gives Obama a fair amount of room for travel and seasoning for his own run for President. But it would require some humility and a willingness to wait for his turn at the top job . . . to say nothing of what Michelle would have to give up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
