Click here for info on the Print Journal (and to purchase your copy)!

Just 360 Days Left: The Latest Debate

By Mark Grueter

---------------------------------------

On Monday, the Democratic candidates for President debated in Iowa for two hours. A few weeks ago I suggested that Wesley Clark become more assertive in these forums. And although he will never entirely grab the spotlight because he simply refuses to “attack” candidates other than Bush, Clark did show signs of aggression. His concluding remarks were convincing; he vividly distinguished himself from all the other candidates by talking about what is truly important: beating Bush:

"I think the real question before this party is: Who can stand toe to toe with George Bush and argue foreign policy and security policy and the values that we, as Americans, believe in? I'm the only person on the stage whose led major forces in an alliance in war. And I'm the only person here who's negotiated an agreement to end a war. I am the candidate who can stand with George W. Bush and win this election."

Clark is, by all accounts, a modest man and he even appeared slightly uncomfortable boasting of his record, but it had to be done. So his advisors deserve credit for finally getting these lines into his stump speech. Throughout the debate, Clark demonstrated that, in addition to perhaps John Kerry, he was the only candidate who really knew what he was talking about in the realm of foreign policy. Say what you will about Bush and Iraq, it would be idiotic at this point to just drop everything, to “pull the troops out and put the UN in.” Clark responded to this line and what has become a campaign slogan for Dennis Kucinich by tersely pointing out that “the UN is not willing or able to go into Iraq right now.” I wonder who would know better? Even Carol Moseley-Braun understands that we need to exit Iraq gradually. By the way, Kucinich was hoisted up on some sort of milk crate that made him look taller than all the other candidates. Or actually, it made him look like a really short, weak man standing on an milk crate.

Clark is, of course, not flawless. He confirmed his unfortunate status as that of a sky-godder by affirming his commitment to spirituality and by referencing “our Lord” after a question about, to be fair, religion. He has also adopted a tendency to speak in platitudes, something he never did as a TV analyst or, one imagines, in real life. So he still needs to get more specific about what he would do. Referencing a recent Bush ad that condemns criticism of the ‘war on terror’, Clark argues “I’m not criticizing Bush because he’s attacking terrorists. I’m criticizing Bush because he’s not attacking terrorists.” But certainly the government has been targeting terrorists. So Clark needs to explain specifically what he would do differently than Bush other than simply “I’d go after Bin Laden,” because that’s obvious.

I watched this debate closely. Al Sharpton has lost his rhetorical edge; he’s now just repeating his old jokes and he continues to initiate each one of his dismal sermons by bellowing out the tired saying “First of all!” And at one point he confused George W. Bush for former senator Joseph McCarthy by stating that Bush was engaged in “red-baiting” his opponents. If a serious candidate had said this, it would have been all over with. As it was with Sharpton, nobody even noticed, because nobody even cares.

The moderator, Tom Brokaw, scored a victory over John Edwards during one exchange. Edwards went on a tirade about how bad the Patriot Act is and how terrible it is that Ashcroft is taking away our civil liberties. Brokaw interrupted the speech by noting that The Patriot Act passed in the Senate by a vote of 98 to 1 with the support of Senator Edwards. “As a lawyer, I would have thought you would have read through the legislation more carefully and would have understood its implications before agreeing to vote for it.” A sudden sheep-like silence, broken by a bleat.

Kerry did an effective job pinning Dean down on Medicare: “Governor, will you cut the rate of growth of Medicare?” Dean wouldn’t answer directly so Kerry just kept on asking the question, hammering away until finally Dean responded: “I will not cut Medicare.” A cut in the rate of growth of a program is considered a “cut” nevertheless, but Dean avoided this distinction and Kerry made it plain to everyone that Dean was being evasive. This kind of thing may seem like irrelevant nitpicking, but as Kerry said, it’s important to draw out the differences between candidates, no matter how slight they seem.

Clark, however, sticks with the big picture and he doesn’t focus on minor differences. And there’s something to this because as the debate went on, it became clear that they all agree on too many issues. They all excoriate drug companies and HMO’s and oppose the current Medicare bill even though it will end up passing with support from many congressional Democrats. So Clark suggests they focus instead on Bush and what is wrong with the Republicans.

But before that happens, we should get to know the Democrats better. They should be asked more unconventional questions, questions that steer them away from their prepared lines and speeches, and even the issues themselves. This is the only way voters can assess the personalities and characters of these people. For instance, during the CNN “Rock the Vote” debate a couple weeks ago, an audience member asked each of them to choose the one other person they would want to go to war with, or back them up. In other words, who was their favorite person on the stage, other than themselves? But time ran out and only Kucinich was allowed to answer. He answered, I think honestly, by selecting Sharpton, as they seem to be closest to each other ideologically. It would have been interesting to hear all their answers. Most pundits dismiss or underrate questions that stray from the issues, but the fact remains that most voters do not vote based on the issues.

On MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, the host has asked candidates questions like ‘who is your favorite philosopher?’ and/or ‘your favorite movie or book?’ These kind of questions may seem silly, and the answers themselves aren’t always instructive, but it is sometimes revealing to see how the candidates handle them. Recall during one of the general election debates in 2000, Bush said that his favorite “philosopher” was “Jesus Christ,” to the laughter of almost everyone.

What many people, on the contrary, liked about (say) John McCain was his willingness to take chances. Asked which web sites he reads during a CNN debate, the outspoken McCain joked that he looks at CNN’s page along with all the other “communist periodicals.” And later he actually said that Alan Greenspan should remain head of the Federal Reserve even after he dies, suggesting that we could just “prop him up like in Weekend at Bernie’s.” This stuff is funny within the context of a dry political exchange and it seemed almost outrageously bold at the time. I think whoever can most effectively tap into the energy McCain created among moderate Dems and independents will win the Democratic nomination; and only Dean, Clark or Kerry have the potential.

Click here for Grueter's previous column.

---------------------------------------

Mark Grueter is pursuing a Masters in Liberal Studies at the Graduate Faculty for Political and Social Sciences. He is the Publications Manager and Web Editor for The Canon, the school's student publication and is a contributor to Stop Smiling, a magazine based in Chicago. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.  Grueter may be contacted at [email protected].

© 2003 Me Three