Campaign Distraction

For entertainment value it was hard to beat the Monday-night hissing match. It may end up being one of the few times in history that the sympathy figure was the white guy. John Edwards struggled for attention, while Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama dumped on one another. For good measure, Obama went after that other guy, the ex-president-turned-political hit man, Bill Clinton.

While Bill is doing his Spiro Agnew imitation, while Hillary and Barack duke it out and while John Edwards heckles damn near everyone, all we really see is sparks, very little illumination.

But look no further than Monday morning's New York Times if you want some light shone on one of the campaign's most important issues, our gone-to-hell-in-a-handbasket economy.

In an interview with the Times, Hillary Clinton was displaying some of the policy substance and experience that she's always bragging about. In the process she engaged in the kind of "big picture" discussion that usually gets drowned out by the pettiness of the day-to-day election screeching.

She was describing the fundamental changes she would try and impose on the the relationshp between the public and private sectors, and the haves and have-nots. Actually what she was espousing was a return to a strong role in the nation's commerce for government, labor unions and other institutions.

She would utilize public works projects to provide employment and would rejigger taxes to take more from the rich and provide for the poor and middle class.

In the last decade or two, our country's corporate and financial terrain has resembled an economic Wardistan, a nearly lawless state where the strong routinely take away from everyone else.

Hillary Clinton has laid out in simple terms her vision for reordering priorities, and the emphasis she'd place on closing the gap between haves and have-nots in this country.

My purpose here is not to take sides in the issues she raised. I seriously doubt if anyone paid much attention, even though she was getting to the core of our system.

That IS my point. None of us focuses on that kind of discussion. All we seem to notice is the "he-said-she-said," who-snapped-at-who crap.

Even when our economy is in the toilet, a reasoned debate, about how we got to this point and how we get out, seems to be a waste of effort. No one wants to hear about that kind of thing.

It's exactly what we all do need to hear. Maybe it's time that we in media find imaginative ways to seriously present these matters in ways that grab people's interest, and maybe it's time for us voters to seriously consider them.

Granted, it's much less work to just go for the simple-minded campaign Roller Derby play-by-play, but we are in trouble. We need to decide who has the best plan to get us out of our mess. Otherwise we'll just sink even deeper into history's quicksand.

Comments

[RaderBarbarian]

It is not Hillary who is divisive. It is the Hillary Haters who are divisive. So, I wonder, why don't you Hillary Haters just go on over to John McCain's website and sign up. What's stopping you? We'll take our chances without your voters.

[Cathexis]

Hell, yes, we need to hear it!

I am sick and tired of the typical Radical Right approach to situations, whether it be global warming or the economy:

* Deny there is a problem.
* Attack anyone who claims there is a problem.
* Attempt to diffuse attention/alarm with spin, pseudoscience, and rhetoric.
* Admit there MAY be a problem, but not due to the causes anyone else suggests (and not involving any deviation from Far Right ideology). If possible, suggest Tax Cuts as a remedy.

And finally ...


* When things hit full crisis mode and the unwashed masses are ready to dole out torches and pitchforks, the Radical Right says "Let's not waste time trying to assign BLAME! Let's just all focus on how to deal with the crisis."


Well, FORGET IT! I *WANT* blame! It's called "ACCOUNTABILITY" and it is the key to:

1. Breaking out of the persistent cycle of causing our own problems. If we don't analyze our mistakes, we are doomed to repeat them.

2. Identifying the *******s who keep CAUSING the problems time after time and still miraculously maintaining vestiges of credibility.

[LeeFromVA]

I fundamnetally disagree. I think we've listen to their plans to death. I think all the Democrats are basically in agreement about what we need to do. The differences are small and debated heavily. So, what everybody wants to know is also what's very important at this point. What America now needs to figure out is who is best suited to get us there. We are electing the leader of the free world. There's a reason why Richardson was not selected in spite of having the best resume. This is not a resume job. We don't need someone who is well studied and knows all the statistics. The role of Leader is to motivate, inspire, and represent us on a world stage. We need someone who shows good judgement and is willing to take a stand in spite of the latest poll. The answer is clear to me. Hillary is a big negative and offers no advantage other than she's good at fighting her enemy. Problem for her is she now has too many enemies, many of whom are now in the Democratic party. But if she wins the nomination the party will be fractured beyond repair.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

One problem Hillary has is articulating her plans-- whenever she says "green collar jobs" I feel like she's reading off a visualized index card from the debate prep session. I'm sure the issue of "green collar jobs" is important, but I wish she could speak somewhere beyond the territory of Edwards's tear-inducing empathy and Obama's spine-tingling inspiration.

But scratch all that-- a Democrat won't even get a chance to help fix the economy if we don't send someone who can take on John McCain.

And, personally, I'm sick of Democrats being the party of "We're for war, we just like to think about it a little longer." "We need to be more *nuanced* in how we prepare for war." "Before we bomb the hell out of this country we need a report from a study group."

Obama's politics on war don't entirely line up with mine, but at least he isn't that disaster waiting to happen which is Hillary vs. McCain.

McCain in some future debate: "You voted for this war, Senator Clinton, and now you want to bring our brave troops home in defeat just as the surge is working."

And since I won't put words in the mouth of a future Hillary, here's a brief summary of what the typical Democratic response would be: We need to look at all our options, make sure we think about this responsibly, then thoughtfully come up with a careful plan for withdrawal.

Average American voter: "Well, I'm not sure McCain is right but at least he really believes in what he is saying, and you know it would be nice to win this war, so I'm voting for him."

[vbond]

Bob,

Has it occurred to you that the very same "take no prisoners" attitude that has characterized the Clinton campaign is exactly what has distracted our national discourse from the other critical issues.

I say "other" issues because one of the critical issues that we face in this election is "who has the temperament and mettle to actually be an effective national leader in this fractured time?"

Do you actually imagine that the low-down tactics that the Clintons are using today would expire at the Inauguration?

The differences between Clinton's and Obama's experiences are less evidenced by their policy differences, which are in fact minor (Obama would insure as many as would Hillary and Hillary would negotiate (though possibly less effectively) with dictators).

No, the differences are in the ways they would win and try to win, with Congress, with foreign leaders and with the American people.

It is therefore wrong-headed of you to declare this "hissing" irrelevant.

Depending on whose vision of governance and mode of behaviour we choose, we will be cursed with its presence or blessed by its absence for years to come.

This is not a distraction... it is the most important and fundamental point of this election.

And you know it...

[altohone]

You praise Hillary for pandering?

She is a DLC stalwart on everything from the bankruptcy bill to the war in Iraq. It is the DLC'ers who worked with Bush AND during the Clinton administration that essentially created much of the mess we're in.

Why should we believe her campaign rhetoric when her record indicates the exact opposite?

I'm all for the discussion, but I believe a little cynicism is needed when Hillary is now opposed to policies she voted for.

[neotrebor]

I believe it is time to flush both the Clintons from the 2008 presidential scene. They are divisive and will insure no democrat is elected to be president this year.