The SC Debate

In first half of the SC Congressional Black Caucus debate, listeners saw both a sharp exchange over substantive issues (health care plans, sub-prime lending, usury, etc), and a series of sharp swords over character issues. The interests of the Democratic party and the longer-term interest of its candidates were best served by the debate over substantive issues.

For months, it has been apparent that many Obama supporters seem to think a focus on character issues is a winning strategy for the nomination. This is, in my opinion, naive. First, it is a bit early to say who will benefit or lose the most from the exchange. Second, there are risks of turning up the heat in this area. No one is purer than the driven snow.

Big elections are won by candidates who are judged by voters to be basically honest and trustworthy, but rarely (never) by candidates judged to be perfect. There need to be standards. Campaign opponents, the press, bloggers and others will always get around to character issues. Every candidate will get worked over pretty good, before a vote in November.

Doing some due diligence now is prudent. But what is not prudent is making this the main focus on the campaigns. In the end, voters are sophisticated and cynical enough to recognize that politics is a rough game, and they will pick the flawed (but acceptable) candidate who will make them better off.

Comments

[hrayovac]

To hell with Love's "flawed" candidate principle. I liked Woody Allen's old quote (which is strictly from the male perspective) "Sex, even when it's bad is still pretty good."

I hate the hynotism going on in which many on the left have been succeptable.

You cannot find anything in Barack Obama's character which remotely suggest that he is untrustworthy.

So the Clinton's aided by their friends in the political complex have sought the cheapest, sleaziest distortions..aimed at suckers who care so little for our country that they can't spare the time to find out who these people running for president are.

Google Yucaipa for instance ..today's Wall Street Journal ... if you seek just the dirt.

[Riverwolf]

"No one is purer than the driven snow." That's the key point that Obama supporters are missing. They believe their candidate is above reproach, which is, of course, ridiculous.

And why all the venom toward Hillary's character? So she's ambitious--so is every other person who decides to run for president. When did that become a negative? People rant about Hillary but never provide any substance. What specifically has she done that you don't like and how did it ruin our country? So she tried national health care and it failed. Hmm--was she trying to "change" the direction of the country? I remember feeling "it was change we could believe in." So she took a risk and it didn't work. I believe that's called leadership. What happened is the Clintons tried to do too much too soon. The majority of voters responded in '94 that they did not, in fact, want change that fast, and so the Republicans won Congress. Obama needs to be careful or, if elected, he find himself on that very same path.

[EspressoAtNoon]

Hillary has lost all credibility to many Americans. Obama successfully called her out and gave very detailed explanations of her distorted charges that proved her charges were baseless, but also shone a light on her honesty.

American want more than anything (after George W) a President whom they trust. What good are all her positions and ideas if she has no credibility with the American people? How will we know when she's REALLY going to do what she says or just says whatever it takes to get elected?

[cloudy]

continuation (short thread):

Obama, by contrast, eg in the Myrtle Beach debate, as in most of the debates I've seen (the New Hampshire debate, Des Moines, etc) as well as his Jefferson/Jackson day speech is indeed eloquent at least at times. His answers (as in naming his greatest weakness) in the debates stand out as thoughtful & honest, & his intelligence (I know a potential liability in US politics, one that Bill Clinton knew & knows to keep at least partially hidden) comes through clearly. To me, at least, this is a major +, & one of the terrible weaknesses of W Bush; somehow
"eloquence" has been translated by HRC as 'words and not deeds', while 'likeability' is immediately compared to that smirking, nauseatingly entitled, utterly uncompassionate (towards those who are victims) & spoiled W Bush; the notion of the latter as likeable baffles me completely. These HRC transformations of Obama's strengths into supposed weaknesses is Rovian -- and it is BS.

Now Hillary is in a sense a modern type of demagogue (I know Obama's rhetoric about unity strikes some as 'the audacity of hype', because any uplifting message in this day & age elicits cynicism, but I read more than a little sincerity as well as savvy in this theme). Hillary plainly distorts what Obama said about Reagan, pulls trillion dollar estimates out of a hat (just like a Repuglican), &c. Her "working class" support is mainly political inertia, not true populism.

The Clintons DID balance the budget & preside over a prosperous economy, for which they deserve significant credit (I say they because clearly Bill would have a hand in an HRC Administration); but the Clintons are more like what Repuglicans OUGHT to be -- something like big business Democrats, rather than Democrats at all. Nostalgia for better times is a powerful political elixir -- I'm only surprised that the Clinton campaign hasn't exploited it more effectively (so far).

The distinctions go on & on, but they're between candidates -- their character & their campaigns (eg unforgiveable race-baiting 'provokatsiia' as cited on TPM, whether "racist" or not) -- remain the largest difference between them.

[cloudy]

First off, the elephant in the room that James Love does not address is how little sunlight there is between the platforms of the three leading Democratic contenders. Indeed, the platform differences are so minimal, for the most part, that often the stated platforms of Edwards sound better to me (more populist, more progressive) than the other two. Yet I support Obama -- and the reasons have much more to do with judgment of Obama the man than of Obama's platform, relative to the others.

Obama comes across, on many levels, as indeed much more sincere, in contrast to the inauthentic ring of Edwards' populism (so grossly contradicted by his Senate voting record), or Hillary's single-minded ambition. I would put Edwards as my second choice, and there might indeed be something to what is really the major argument of his campaign -- not so much his anti-corporate rhetoric, as his point, made very clearly and bluntly, that HE could give McCain or any other Repuglican nominee a run for their money not only in the blue states, and in places like LA, NYC, and Chi-town, but in Missouri, in North Carolina, and in West Virginia.

On the other hand, Edwards was on the ticket in 2004, and didn't carry ANY of these areas, including his home state of N Carolina, as well as in two other Southern states where he spent a number of his formative years. He was less than overwhelming in the debate with Cheney, doting at length on his compassion for Cheney's gay daughter in a way I considered both awkward and suspect.

[YcCoSQ]

the character of the Clintons is well known. The media in America has determined Hillary is a viable candidate for President based upon her establishment connections. The Democratic Party was decimated by the previous Clinton Presidency. There are no reports on that. George Bush was elected in part because of the Clinton Presidency.

Hillary takes positions of the other candidates during a debate. There are no reports on that. It is a form of lying.

[Countess]

You cannot run a campaign against the Clintons without talking about character because they live in the sewer of politics. When you are chasing rats you must end up below ground.

[Nutcase]

Both Clinton and Obama proved themselves too petty to be president.

cognito ergo populistae

[daveny]

"Big elections are won by candidates who are judged by voters to be basically honest and trustworthy, but rarely (never) by candidates judged to be perfect."

The problem is, over 50% of the national electorate doesn't just think Hillary is imperfect -- they think she's WORSE than dishonest and unstrustworthy.

Remember, there's a general election to be won here, folks, not just a primary. That wonderful clintonian "scorched earth" strategy is a ticket to second place in novemeber. And unlike in the olympics, they don't give out medals for second place.

[vsign]

I think the new technologies are propelling an unproven and unprepared candidate to leadership on the world stage. As voters we need to be smarter. I compare it to germany when the new technologies of the microphone, radio, film propelled a man to the world stage because the people thought him superior. Be very careful of unintended consequences. The internet is giving Barack too much influence. More balance please.