A ship in need of a captain: is it Edwards?

Yesterday, an opinion piece by David McLennan about John Edwards' chances appeared in The News & Observer. While it didn't cement any particular point for me in one direction or another, the conclusions made in it did make me think long and hard about what Edwards and his fellow candidates must do to get elected...and what none of them so far have been brave enough to try yet: namely that whoever wins the next Presidential election may have to be a 'band-aid' leader, not terribly removed from the late President Ford. Ford had Watergate, the Vietnam and Cold Wars, and the 1970s economy as major hot-button items.

Dubya's successor, unfortunately, will have something far more challenging and long-term to contend with: a massive deficit, a weakened stance in the global community, a overwrought military, and every other Constitutional, judicial, fiscal and civil mishap that is Bush's 'Idiotgate' legacy. As I asked back on this same blog in March of last year, I'm not sure why anyone really wants the job right now after Bush, Jr., is wrapping up his term. However, the more I ask this question, the more I realize it not only just applies to the next POTUS, but also most likely the next 2-3 down the line, too. God help us, Dubya's been an overachiever in the screw-up department. And we're all gonna be on clean-up detail for a mighty long time.

McLennan's article:

Despite the skeptics, Edwards can win the Democratic nomination -- if:

• He raises enough money.

To be considered a top-tier Democratic challenger heading into the primary season, Edwards must raise significant campaign funds. Last time, in the first quarter of 2003 he raised more than $7 million. However, by the end of 2003 he had raised just $16 million. To compete successfully with Clinton or Obama, Edwards must demonstrate the ability to raise three to four times what he raised in 2003.

• Obama announces his candidacy.

Some observers suggest that having both Obama and Clinton in the race hurts Edwards and others by "sucking all the air out of the room" because of their current popularity. Obama's entry, however, would help Edwards by creating a likelihood that Clinton and Obama would spend most of their time attacking one another, allowing Edwards to create the perception that he's everyone's "next best" choice. His hope would be that Democratic voters tire of a Clinton-Obama slugfest and make him their choice. (Blogger Ed: I personally wonder if a Obama/Edwards or Edwards/Obama team may come to fruition and both sides are gearing up for that hopeful union. So far, the only candidate we know will do a slash-and-burn campaign to the sea aka General Sherman is Clinton. Teaming together may be the only way for them to extinguish her fire and get into The White House.)

• Edwards becomes more aggressive with his message.

In 2004 Edwards promoted himself as the "positive" candidate who did not attack other Democrats, even in debates and joint appearances. As a result he failed to differentiate himself from the other candidates after the South Carolina primary.

He needs to develop a much more aggressive campaign style. In doing so, Edwards can no longer simply attack President Bush and his policies, but instead must quickly and regularly compare himself to Clinton and Obama. A repeated message will solidify his image in voters' minds and also help inoculate Edwards from being defined by other candidates, especially one as adept as Clinton.

• He gets and maintains momentum from early caucuses and primaries.

In 2004, Edwards was able to make the race with eventual nominee John Kerry interesting because of his strong showing in Iowa and a victory in the South Carolina primary. In 2008, Edwards not only needs to duplicate or better his performances in these states, he needs to be even with or ahead of other major contenders until the primaries move into the Midwest.

In the "rust belt" states such as Michigan and Ohio Edwards' strong ties to organized labor and his populist message could garner many more delegates, enough to make him a contender for the nomination or at least a player in delegate-rich states such as California.

• There is gridlock in Congress on domestic issues.

Because Edwards has so clearly staked out a populist position, he needs some of the "pocketbook" issues so important to middle-class and lower-middle-class voters to remain divisive. If, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has promised, Congress is able to pass legislation increasing the minimum wage, correcting problems with the prescription drug program for seniors and lowering the interest rate charged on federally backed student loans, Edwards' populist appeal is reduced. Paradoxically, congressional gridlock could hurt Democrats' chances for retaking the White House, but might help Edwards win the nomination.

The 2008 nominating processes for both the Democrats and Republicans promises to be one of the most wide open in over a century. There is no presumptive nominee for either party. John Edwards, although not enjoying "favored son" status in North Carolina, could surpass the expectations of many experts and become the Democratic nominee.

(David McLennan is a professor of communication and political science at Peace College in Raleigh.)

Everyone who has declared...or is considered to be 'seriously considering'...must have a set group of philosophical phrases and 30-second sound bites, and about all the topics that the nightly news churns out to us ad nauseum. All candidates presume we can still be it all, do it all, and lead it all. As bad as we Americans want to buy that, I'm not sure we all can anymore. While it may be hard to be humble 'when you're perfect in every way' (to quote a famous Mac Davis country tune of the same words), it's equally difficult to have unrestrained pride in efforts we now are questioning. The doubts are clearly there, and they certainly should be thoroughly examined.

We have truly stagnant pools of leadership, and that in and of itself will cause the populace to no longer pay attention, no longer care, and no longer work toward the larger, national goals we so desperately need addressed. At this point in this stage of The American Adventure, we need anyone of some strong leadership qualities to step up and steady this ever-rollicking and fractious ship. Where we go from here lies largely on where we think we've come from, and even where we're at...if any of us can take a good 'measurement' of that. I'm actually looking for someone that has all of the elements that McLennan thinks Edwards has/can possess, but is willing to be a one-termer for the sake of the country. We don't necessarily need a sacrificial lamb per se, but we do need an undaunted, overworking, and thoroughly relentless disciplinarian to get us back up to an even keel. Anything less than competent and diplomatic just won't do it; Lord knows we know what the reverse can bring us. And while I love the enthusiasm that both Obama and Edwards possess, I'm not sure either man is willing to give up himself that much. And I feel deep down, in the very fibers of my being, that the others running (so far) sure as hell won't.

I don't know if it will be Edwards, Clinton, McCain, Obama, Giuliani or some candidate to be named later, but it's time for us to start examining the horses in the race and developing a betting strategy. Sadly, we have no 'vote of confidence' option in our leader like those countries spearheaded with a Prime Minister, and until this President, I've never readily endorsed such an option. As bad as this sounds, I think if we did it just this instance we may be a happier constituency. At least we could know somebody with a different strategy was having a go of it, and that's gotta be better than the status quo of Dubya et al. Until then, though, we're just left praying things don't deteriorate..everywhere...more, that the 'right' candidate for most of us will emerge (I'm also starting to doubt if this country can handle yet another nail-biting ender for the Presidential campaign), and that we only continue to gain strength and wisdom as we count down the remaining days.

And cheer up people: as of today, we've got only another 745 days to go.

What counterattacks are missing from "The Clinton Battle Plan"

Thought I'd take a few moments today and comment on a very interesting article I read from Newsweek magazine, entitled "The Clinton Battle Plan". Essentially it lays out how the ex-President Bill Clinton still wields enormous political power, and will certainly use it to help his wife, Democratic NY Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton if (but more likely when) she decides to run for President herself. She won her recent re-election to the Senate handily, has a war chest of campaign funds set up with additional excellent fundraising avenues, and is considered by many to be the presumptive nominee for 2008...again, providing she decides she wants to run.

The article also features some potential roadblocks to that presumed Democratic nomination...everything from her lack of Bill's charisma, to her position of initially (and, in many ways, still supporting the Iraq war), to a very likely fellow candidate in the popular (and African-American) Illinois Senator Barack Obama. It also touches very briefly on some of the political missteps as a First Lady with Bill...namely, her very revolutionary yet heavy-handed proposal of universal health care (a concept that was not embraced by many in Congress back in 1992, but now, 14 years later and with medical costs and the numbers of uninsured Americans skyrocketing, it would now get a far more sympathetic ear). While Newsweek has put together a pretty thorough argument, I kept waiting for its discussion on the issues that really seem to make Hillary such a lightning rod of division here. Issues that, unfortunately for her and for the political values I support, I think will lose her the general election if she does run for President in 2008.

Here are some of the unmentionables that Newsweek failed to tackle:

In some areas of this country, she is vehemently hated. Regardless of political affiliation, economic situation, educational background, or countless other factors, she is just hated by some and has been for a number of years, to a degree even that elicits more emotion than expected. Whereas her husband seemed 'down home' enough to be able to talk to voters of perhaps a 'lesser status' than he, Hillary has never been quite able to pull that off and many times not really tried. She will have a problem obviously with conservative swing voters (which she will need in 2008, as the country is hugely divisive still), she will have a problem with the less-educated because she comes off as 'better' than them (unless Bill does all of her campaigning in that area, which then poses the question just exactly who are they voting for? Hillary? Or Bill again?), she will have a problem with the rural voters because she seems 'out of touch' with their concerns. The heavily dominant 'blue' Democratic states on either coast hold vast number of supporters for her; but in the 'flip flop' states or 'red' Republican states, she faces a huge PR battle that far outweighs the political one.

At the end of the day, she is seen as elitist liberal Democrat to many. This is unfair on many levels, but within the working-class party of Harry Truman, an 'elitist' tag can be as beneficial as carrying an 'gravedigger' one during the Plague. Like John Kerry, she does not seem at ease with the 'country folk' of this nation...and with all due respect to my friends in NY state, farmers in New York are not the same as farmers in Oklahoma, or Iowa, or Colorado, or Louisiana. And in a time when the word 'liberal' has been vastly overused in the popular media, the fact that Hillary can be quoted from Bill's impeachment investigation days about the"vast, right-wing conspiracy" is going to make her look like the liberal poster hellion every Republican warned you about. Former President Clinton was right when he told Democrats that the voters had given them a chance, and not a mandate. He stressed how the country wants unity among the parties and things to get done for a change. That said, remaking battle-warrior wife Hillary (a warrior who got him elected through her tough 'in the trenches' mode approach, frankly) into something more 'equally appetizing' for all affiliations is a tough row to hoe. The plus side: she may just get elected President. The negative: she may look like she will change her current position from her old one just to get elected, i.e., the old 'flip flop' politician we all have come to love to hate.

Then there comes the 'woman voter' issue. For the life of me, as a female American voter from a family who takes our past and present contributions and duties to this country very seriously, I am always a bit flabbergasted when I hear fellow women state they would gladly vote for a female President...as long as it was not Hillary. Logic could lead one to think women voters would support, perhaps even campaign for and be happy for, a female candidate for the highest job in the land...but apparently not in this case. Regardless of the issues, regardless of her opponent, regardless of the race...just a steady, unswervingly blanket 'no' if Hillary is involved from some.

Back in the 1990s when I first heard this, I wrote this off as some women believing Hillary had gotten her role with then Vice-President Al Gore (or perhaps even that of Bill's) confused and emotions would settle down. Unfortunately, I was in error to shrug this off so quickly. Through the Lewinsky scandal, through her initial campaign to become a NY Senator, through her current tenure as one of the most powerful Senators in the country...the animosity among some women against Hillary has remained strong. A sampling of responses I've had over the last 10 years on this subject: Hillary's seen as anti-religious among the God-fearing set due to some of her political and moral beliefs (especially abortion rights and stem cell research); too ambitious and 'ballsy' for a woman among the traditional set due to her determination to be a 'heavily-involved with policy' First Lady; too 'stand by your man' (oh the irony) from the feminist set due to all of Bill's alleged affairs; and too unwilling to put her husband and family first (and presumably giving up her career) among the soccer mom and mini-van crowd. And here's a capper: almost entirely, these comments came from Democratic and/or liberal women voters, and not even from the base groups most likely to complain about Hillary. There never seems to be a shortage...I'm sure I could go out today, have the same discussions, and come back with some new complaints. I don't even know how to address the arguments of women who say Hillary shouldn't be elected 'because a woman President would be too weak in times of war'. Who actually knows what's valid or not with any or all of these theories, or what will eventually play in the hearts of women if (when) faced with a Hillary nomination for President in the voter's booth. But, as any man will tell you, women don't change their set opinions easily...and to carry her own gender, Senator Clinton will have to do a lot of campaigning to convince these women they were and/or wrong about her.

And finally, let's not forget about sex. Yes, folks, I said sex. The public relations images of Bill possibly of (a) getting too much, or of (b) getting not enough, or of (c) 'degrading' the American public with his oral sex/Monica Lewinsky antics, or of (d) trying to do everything he could (in fact, perhaps trying to change the dialogue of what is is, among other classics) to not have to admit he had extramarital 'relations/non-relations' with any woman, let alone Monica. As much as Bill is charismatic and smart and well-prepared, Hillary will always be the cold, aloof-like, statue of a long-suffering wife shackled to his unsavoury past, no matter how much is true or not. To survive the tawdriness of the attacks surely to come, she will have to appear to be even more stoic, even more down to business, and even more detached from the past scandals...and how does that approach win any more voters then? It's beyond ironic when one realizes Hillary's best asset...Bill...is also her biggest Achilles' heel.

In a country as uptight about sex as ours is, far lesser people have been brought down (and far more recently) with far, far less sexual 'ammunition' (whether implied or real). In Europe and in even in many parts of Asia, Bill's indiscretions would never have caused anything more than a small blip on the political radar. 'Boys will be boys' and all that standard shrugging. But this is America, where guilt is not only first assumed of our public figures and celebrities, it's searched out, propagated, and fertilized at an amazing pace. We, as a society, don't seek out the Jimmy Stewart characters anymore...good is dull...but we want the Jimmy Hoffas. As good as her policies may or may not be if she's elected, Hillary's going to be overshadowed by the image of a woman who couldn't manage her own private affairs at home, affairs that are so 'public' now that she can't hide behind the 'privacy' gates anymore (not that certain members of the current 'press' would abide by that request with anyone these days). True, marriage stress and public questions about infidelity are extremely unfavourable situations for anyone...and not something foreign to countless millions of American (nor international) households. But women, and especially women public figures, are held to a higher personal standard than their male counterparts...I doubt seriously if anyone even cares if John McCain needs a facelift, but online polls by the dozen dissect Hillary's appearance regularly. Hell, questions about her rumoured new use of Botox® even made her re-election campaign and the hallowed print of Fashion & Style in The New York Times. Hillary is not only supposed to be smart and savvy, but it's also expected that she be desireable, too. Politics is always full of mud-slinging, but it's tougher to remove the dirt if it's caked in with the lipstick and blush.

How will this whole affair end? Will she run, or won't she because of the above, and other reasons? Time and more importantly, money, will tell. For what it's worth, though, I think she should hold off until 2012 at least...if she ever does run. Get some more experience under her belt and perhaps garner even more political clout under her own wings...and becoming a tad bit more centrist wouldn't hurt her in the pursuit of the undecided/independent voters. By 2012, Hillary's public experience will be equal to that of Bill's (counting his years as Governor of Arkansas), and she'll also have more time to 'distance' herself from the constant controversy that dogged his Presidency. Time may be a healer, after all...but who's to know if it can also create forgiveness. With any luck, though, by 2012 the world will be an improved place by then and America will be back on its way to reestablishing a positive respect with its global neighbours. Besides, given the holy mess that Bush, Cheney, and Halliburton et al, have done for us so far to date...who really would want the job in '08, anyway??