Closing Arguments in Iowa

The closing arguments by the leading Democratic candidates in Iowa aren't about agenda. They aren't focused directly on who has the best chance of being elected. The argument concerns who can best govern and bring about the change that the country desperately wants and needs.

Obama argues that we need someone fresh who can bring the nation together, and transcend the partisan battles of the past. Insurance companies can have a "place at the table, they just can't own the table." He seeks a mandate to build a broad, bipartisan coalition to address real problems. The contrast with George Bush's bitter and divisive partisan politics is apparent.

Hillary offers experience: working for "35 years"; someone "ready from day one" to deal with the incalculable. Bill's presence on the campaign trail in the final week personifies the argument that she knows how to do this stuff. The contrast with the incompetence of the Bush regime is clear.

Edwards argues we need a fighter, someone prepared to call out and stand up to the "corporate corruption" that blocks change in Washington. The contrast with George Bush's corrupt corporate cronyism is stark.

Each carries the contrast to his or her opponents. Edwards says "the status quo and good intentions" aren't enough to take on a Washington corrupted by corporate power. Obama says it doesn't make sense to "elect the same Washington gang playing the same Washington games" and expect different results and that "we've had enough heat, what we need is some light." Hillary contends that "Change isn't something you just demand or hope for, it is something you work for and Hillary has been working for it all her life. "

Absent from the exchange is any face-off on substance. There's no argument between escalating the war and getting out of Iraq. No argument between balancing the budget and investing in new energy. No stirring defense of NAFTA and the trade regime against attacks on it.

Progressives have been sensibly disgruntled about the limits of the debate -- the unwillingness to promise getting all the troops out of Iraq quickly (as Richardson has done), the abandonment of single payer health care, general timidity on or avoidance of a range of issues, but in fact, progressives have won the issues primary. Hillary, Obama and Edwards all pledge to end the war and bring the boys home. All promise health care for all, a big jobs agenda and industrial policy around energy independence and global warming, and new investments in affordable college and education. All commit to raise the minimum wage, empower workers to organize, provide tax relief to working people and tax increases on the affluent. All call for a new course on trade. All rail against the powerful lobbies -- health insurance, big oil, Big Pharma and the drug companies -- that block sensible reforms. All are liberal on social issues.

There are differences in emphasis and credibility, but in the conflict between the corporate wing of the party and the progressive wing, the latter have swept the field when it comes to Democratic primary promises. (The money wing of the party will weigh in, no doubt, after the election is over). In their closing arguments, the candidates are essentially assuming the argument about direction is over; the question is who can get it done.

Yet the debate is revealing, for these arguments lead to very different mandates. An Edwards victory would be the mirror image of Reagan in 1980 -- a progressive president elected on an overtly populist agenda with a mandate to clean out the stables and take on the interests. With Democrats gaining seats in both houses, he could drive a bold agenda early, but would face an immediate mobilization and hostility from the corporate world. An Obama victory would be electric, with a mandate to bring people together, but less clarity about the scope of change that would result. A Clinton victory would demoralize the right, but a Clinton restoration raises the obvious question of whether Hillary would emulate Bill and govern differently than she campaigns.

The closing arguments speak indirectly to the other major question plaguing Democratic voters after the smashups of 2000 and 2004: "Who can win? Which of these candidates is least likely to blow the election?" Each candidate implicitly offers a different path to a majority. The Edwards strategy is to rebuild a Democratic majority among middle and lower income working families, winning socially conservative "Reagan Democrats" back to the Democratic fold on economic issues. Obama's unifying rhetoric is designed to appeal to the suburbs -- more upscale independent and Republican voters alienated by the religious right and the war. Clinton's appeal to experience -- and Bill's appearance on the campaign trail -- reminds that despite her high negatives, her team does know how to win, even if it's with 49% of the vote, whereas the right's attack dogs haven't even begun to rough up her competitors.

It won't be an easy choice, and Democrats have been burned repeatedly in the past. Winnable races were lost or stolen in 1988, 2000 and 2004. And the political and personal triangulations of the candidate they did elect in 1992 and 1996 left conservatives in control of almost everything. This time, the closing arguments are addressing the right question. Voters are looking for a dramatic change from the Bush catastrophe. Democrats should nominate the candidate who is the most credible agent of that change. And progressives should continue to build an independent movement that can hold any nominee accountable to his or her own promises.

Comments

[YankeeCanuck]

Once again, it seems there are only three candidates. We will look back on this and say"We was robbed!"
Pakistan is the closing argument for Biden, and his depth and breadth of expertise in foreign relations.­Then,there are his specifics on policy for education, health care,jobs, social security, immigration. Not to mention his political solution for Iraq, passed overwhelmingly in the Senate. It's all based on knowledge and steadfast hard work.
Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich, have also been shut out of the media discussion early on.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brent-budowsky/media-insiders-shaft-bide_b_78823.html

Let's wake up and do something about it.

[tbone99]

Edwards is the only one of the three who can pull crossover voters from the republican party.All those good ol' boys who have stuck with the Republicans for years out of , originally, racial animosity, then anti - gay might finally just let all that drop, they've outgrown it now and because they are hurting financially for the very reasons John Edwards is talking about.

[batguano]

Why John Edwards?
As the Dem standard bearer for The Middle-Class, progressives, and in fact ALL Americans, John Edwards is the one who CAN WIN in '08 and begin the healing, restoration of Honor, and the concept of NATIONHOOD for our country! If you've been befuddled and weaseled by the other candidates spin or "$400 haircut" jive, you should hear Edwards actual words; words his opponents don't want you to read. If you haven't read a John Edwards speech in full, PLEASE read this one from St. Anselm's College, Manchester, N.H. Oct 29, 2007.
I believe that this Edwards speech shows the truth and commitment that he brings to the '08 elections. It shows his courage and integrity. It shows his honesty and understanding for average working Americans and our future. It shows why he deserves our respect and support to restore hope and truth to our government and society. Please read his impassioned words and appeal to us all to change the status quo, greed and corruption in our government and by corporations who abuse average Americans and corrupt our political process with the obscene profits they squeeze from us all. His words may convince you why we should support and vote for him.

The Moral Test of Our Generation http://www.johnedwards.com/news/speeches/20071029-moral-test/

[Querent]

If you want a progressive victory, vote for the progressive candidate. Obama wants to be the progressive candidate, but he also wants to be able to attack progressive ideas at every turn. Hillary wants to be the progressive candidate, but she wants everyone except the progressives to think of her as a centrist. Edwards wants to be the progressive candidate, so he acts like a progressive. Is it an act? Who cares? He ACTS like a progressive. Does Clinton? Well, no, but . . . Does Obama? Well, no, but . . .

[Qbear]

Iowa Tells Ron Paul

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-8/1210139/RonPaulResolutionJPG.jpg

[Qbear]

"John Edwards got some good news today. Q-Notes - the “leading gay news source of the Carolinas” - decided to endorse the controversially coiffed candidate. From Out For Edwards:

After a series of meetings between the editors, the staff and the publisher, Q-Notes has endorsed John Edwards for President. His concrete, progressive policy positions (including steadfast support for pro-LGBT issues), his commitment to returning power to the people from moneyed special interests, his outstanding polling strength against the Republicans and his positive impact for down-ticket candidates nationwide combine to make him the best candidate in the race.

Q-Notes encourages all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender voters to support John Edwards in the primaries and beyond.
We’re not sure we’re going to take you up on that offer, Q-Notes. We’re still undecided, but rest assured we’ll be taking a stand soon enough."

http://www.queerty.com/

[Janelynne]

This week Iowans will vote. It will be followed by more bitter partisanship within our own party for every primary ahead. I fear that the Democrats may have missed the point and possibly the boat as well. The choice has always been to win the Presidency with strength, courage, and leadership, and it has not ever been to let the opportunity slip away. The Obama faction has been laced with bitterness focused on one other candidate: Hillary Clinton. The goal has been to elevate Obama solely by eliminating Clinton. It has been repeated ad infinitum by many in our own by ad hominum attacks on Hillary Clinton. What is truly divisive is the ruthless repetition of unfounded and non reality based assertions targeted at her. It seems that it was the only way that Obama has stood a chance is to knock her out of the box. Obama doesn't seem to have the leadership qualities that can make him stand out from the crowd any other way. This is his inherent weakness. These tactics are the same tactics that were used to swiftboat Kerry, to ridicule Gore, and get rid of Howard Dean. Bush could not have won on his own merits had he not had the help of the big machetes out clearing the brush. Those who are chanting for Obama have two possible wakeup calls ahead: Hillary will win. Or, the tactics may prove fruitful. Then Obama will ultimately wind up surrounded and out-maneuvered by his own lack of gravitas and experience. The MSM and the GOP will move in for the kill on the great sanvanna. We have seen it before, and we will see it again. We may lose the White House once more, because we got manipulated into making this false choice, based on weaknesses. I regret that my party is reactive and so maleable. In the end, I will vote for the Democrat selected. I feel the road ahead will be painful. We are in for the battle of our lives. Perhaps only Edwards can save us from ourselves.

[daybranch]

Obama and Hillary are not progressives. They would rather walk in the middle than antagonize big money. Edwards is the progressive in this race. We do not want another Clinton who embarasssed us with his lack of morals and set up moral if smewhat nuexciting Gore for defeat. We need morality and progressive leadership. This is our chance to advance that agenda started by FDR. Lets pick a real progressive with the fire in the gut and the understanding of human nature and value that this country so deaperately needs now for ourselves and maybe even more for our children. Edwards is the only choice, that can win the nomination and meet the criteria I laid out.

[fullkelly]

We could just get another monkey and put it in the oval office. We could train it to do what we wanted it to do and say what we wanted it to say. Then all the dems will be happy.

Oh wait- that was tried once before by that old party that is dieing out, what was the name of that party? The party with the monkey trainer named Karl Rove- YALL know who I'm talking about? That ol obsolete party with the born again monkey that was trained to talk to god.

So maybe the monkey idea isn't such a good idea because it destroyed the party that owned it and the monkey was even forced to fire it's trainer. And that ol obsolete party finally disowned their own monkey.

Don't sweat it dems, because no matter which of the dem candidates that win, whether it is a him or a her, WE will all get our wish. We will all still have someone in office WE CAN ALL BAD MOUTH. And Oh Yes, it is a given that all the ol monkeys of that obsolete party will will bad mouth OUR WINNER too.

[msfiskvletterman]

12/29/07
7:09am
Alexandria, VA

It appears to me that "the right's attack dogs" have not yet begun to go after Hillary.
Could it be that they are hoping that she is nominated?

[hellinabucket]

Here it is another election and still MY VOTE WILL NOT COUNT!!!

ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE---one person one vote!

And what makes Iowa the be all end all? This whole F'd up election system SUCKS!

Here is the new Millennium-why has NOTHING been done? Still the same ole same ole.

My vote goes to Kucinich-WHO?

[isis]

A good analysis and may I add all are also against media consolidation.

[Laprawler501]

Obama's closing arguments have been one thing NEGATIVE.

We all know what Axelrod was trying to do and that was link Hillary with the death of Bhutto. He did not come right out and say it, but he tried to make the connection.

Now he claims al Hillary did on her many visits around the world was sip tea with foreign leaders.

[Lucere]

One could easily argue that in 2008, the Democrats best STRATEGY for winning the White House AND Congressional seats, is to nominate a liberal Democrat - a true leftist - thus highlighting the totality of differences between the two political parties and their respective candidates.

Running toward the center was a losing strategy in 2000 and 2004.

Let's try winning this time!

[LizM]

I guess it’s just too bad that Joe Biden, who has already demonstrated that he is the only real agent for meaningful change, time and again, is not considered to be a leading Democratic candidate.

But, if wisdom and sanity prevail in this nomination campaign, and the people select Senator Biden as the Democratic nominee for president, then progressives won’t have to worry their little heads about building an independent movement to hold him accountable to his promises - progressives will just have to sit back, relax, and watch President Biden fulfill them.

Of course, if Senator Biden is not the Democratic nominee, then progressives will have their work cut out for them...and I don't mean by holding a Democratic president accountable! Progressives will be too busy trying to endure at least ANOTHER four more years of more of the same.