Democratic Presidential Candidates

“The Starting Gate”
by Jeffrey Goldberg
from the New Yorker, 15 Jan 2007

Like many people, I have been excited about Barack Obama as a presidential candidate. He speaks brilliantly and with conviction. He embraces the complexities of an argument instead of clinging to a cautious refrain. I love that he got an AIDS test in Africa in order to encourage other Africans to do the same. Senator Obama has smarts and a heart. He feels my pain.

But he’s not right for president.

That’s how I feel after reading Jeffrey Goldberg’s article in the New Yorker. Goldberg compares the early campaign strategies of Senators Obama, Clinton, and Edwards—where they stand, which votes they’re courting, and what the odds are. Although it doesn’t endorse any of the candidates, the article had a strong effect on my loyalties.

Senator Edwards, first of all, is hardly a serious candidate. His experience with foreign policy is minimal (although Bush got elected on less) and his campaign barely addresses the fiasco in Iraq. Edwards simply insists that we bring our troops home as soon as possible, which is no strategy at all. He is focused almost exclusively on domestic and economic issues—things like increased wages, job protection, and a something vaguely resembling “growth.” Edwards seems to believe the upcoming election will be decided by a single farmer in Iowa—a nearsighted, crotchety old man with an ethanol engine in his tractor. Senator Edwards cannot be taken seriously.

What surprises me is that Senator Obama is only slightly better. We have pinned so many irrational hopes on him that he’s become reluctant to take a stance on the most pressing issues, so that nobody will be disappointed. Obama is cautiously disdainful of Iraq, and he still hasn’t articulated a national security agenda. On other issues, like abortion and health care, he skews toward the extreme left, which is where I stand. But the Senator’s campaign is still not advancing a plan; they is simply offering a person.

But the real kicker is Senator Clinton. At first she supported the war in Iraq and the destruction of personal liberties. She is also responsible for a couple of boneheaded measures like the plan to censor graphic violence in video games. But she knows what she believes in. She has an impressive amount of knowledge at her fingertips, and she explains her arguments in light of current policy and international events. If you ask Clinton a question that she doesn’t like, or if she doesn’t immediately have an answer, she will refuse to respond until she’s been able to investigate the matter.

Clinton supports a radical change in Iraq, which will probably include the withdrawal of our troops, but she views the issue in terms of Vietnam, the Cold War, and international politics. She wants to combine our military solution with a far-sighted plan to foster global stability. It you still think of Senator Clinton as a lightning rod for controversy—which is how salacious pundits like Bill O’Reilly have portrayed her—then you are at odds with her colleagues in both parties of Congress, who consider Clinton a staunch and clear-eyed ally.

I don’t agree with everything on Senator Clinton’s right-leaning domestic agenda. But she is the only candidate who seems capable of fully considering the facts and making a bold, sensible decision. I don’t know what else could possibly matter. She has balls. If the election were held today, she would also have my vote.