Over at the Big Orange Satan, our good friend ClammyC writes one of those “why do you want to be President” things. As a general rule, I dislike those types of diaries, as it buys into the whole idea of pols as something more than they are. Why does anyone run for President or for elected office period? To get elected. What values will they stand for? The ones that get them elected. Folks, that is what pols are. They are vessels for the political views that prevail in elections.
I have no doubt that each of the persons running believe they will do what is best for the country and be the best President ever. But they run to win. Asking them why they are running is silly in my opinion.
It’s funny that the most famous and damaging moment the “why do you want to be President?” question was asked was to Ted Kennedy by Roger Mudd in 1980. Kennedy fumbled the question and did great damage to his candidacy. But I ask you, did anyone have any doubt what Ted Kennedy would have tried to do as President? Ted Kennedy of all people?
I think Ted Kennedy is now the most honest, committed and, dare I say it, best representative of HIS OWN VIEWS in Congress. Heck, in politics. Why? Because Ted Kennedy will NEVER run for President and Ted Kennedy will never be beaten in an election. He is free. Of accountability with the voters. And of personal political ambition.
Every other politician, Russ Feingold not excluded, still feels the sway of the voters and personal political ambition. Pols are vessels of the politics of our country. They are the vehicles for the voices of the powers that decide elections. They do what they can and must to win elections.
Some call this pandering. Pandering, to me, is good. The question is who do you pander to. And why. Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner in the Presidential race. She is behaving in ways that she believes will enable her to win. To be frank, Hillary will not be the primary vehicle for making our voices heard on the issues. She must feel pressure from her rivals.
That is why I focus my attention on her rivals. That is why I support Chris Dodd. He has paid attention to the issues that matter to me. He has brought them to the fore. He has made his rivals move on those issues. Barack Obama, on the other hand, has moved NO ONE on any issue since he became a Senator. From my perspective, his candidacy has been an utter failure. I think from his perspective, he wants to win, it has been as well.
I deplore this focus on “doubletalk” (as if all them do not engage in it.) Press Clinton on the issues. Indeed, press Clinton’s RIVALS on the issues. Asking them why they want to be President is not only a waste of time, it distracts from what I think most of us want – attention to the issues we care about.
I know this admonition will fall on deaf ears when it comes to the rabid supporters of particular politicians. It seems clear to me that they have decided to put issues on the backburner. But for the rest of us, I hope we can focus in on what matters and pressure those who can put the issues on the front burner.
48 comments
Skip to comment form
I think that is sort of what he is asking….what issues matter to her and thus, what will she do as Pres.
As far as I can tell her “issue” is maintaining the status quo.
Barack’s issue is…..”hope”……if he is elected, I HOPE he knows what he will do.
Edwards at least realizes that his big chance is running on actual change, on opposition to the current system….not hope.
Edwards and Dodd are the best on actual issues because they can afford to be.
With a woefully uniformed electorate, it is nothing but a popularity contest for most Americans…Hillary and Co. understand this and understand the fact that as the frontrunners, all they have to do is not fuck up.
THAT is scary, because it means all we will hear from her is the safest position possible on everything…in the most vague phrasing possible.
Since Al is apparently afraid of getting assassinated (rightfully, imo) the best STRATEGY is to support whoever is speaking out on the issues….which means Dodd and Edwards.
By showing support for them, we assist in interjecting the important issues into the primary debate.
But you are correct, supporting a specific candidate above the issues is really just a form of laziness. It results in trying to “fit” your candidate to the issues.
when there are so many things of
importance that need to be addressed.
None of which are even getting
a blip on the radar screen.
I like Dodd, but I scare my self
every once in a while thinking
Ron Paul is starting to sound
good….lol (just kidding)
Choosing between the lesser
of two evils is getting old,
EVIL is still EVIL.
…is positive. By its very essence, it is unprincipled, and the best case that can be made for it is that when a candidate panders, s/he will actually deliver when elected.
However, as we well know, the delivery is often forgotten subsequent to the election, so it’s an illusion to assume that the pandering will lead to satisfaction on the part of the pandees. Unprincipled candidates pander to a broad cross-section to get elected, grabbing up a few percentage points here and a few there by telling groups of voters, including groups of voters who disagree with each other, what they want to hear – something Hillary Clinton is especially good at, but that she is not alone in doing.
Whoever wins the election jettisons the pandered-to voter cohorts whose views s/he never had any intention of doing anything for in the first place. The pandering brought about by critiques and pressure from the winning candidate’s rivals during the campaign will amount to squat. Indeed, this process of jettisoning will get rolling after the Nominee begins his or her General Election campaign, when pandering must be extended to include an even broader cross-section of potential voters.
One can argue that this is the nature of modern, “democratic” politics. And that we’re stuck with it at least until we devise some newer version that gives rank and file real clout by cutting out the financial clout of hoi oligoi. But that reality should never cause us to praise pandering for being something that it is not.
those seeking elected positions or even appointments have not engaged in some degree of pandering to secure their position or reach out to a particular group that is perceived as useful/powerful/necessary?
What I don’t understand is why people here actually take any candidate seriously outside of the fringe candidates, Gravel, Paul and Kucinich….I view the mainstream candidates as ABSURDIST CANDIDATES and the fringe candidates are people who appear to be reasonalbe.
But none of this matters because there isn’t going to be an election.
It’s not really an election. It’s an affirmation.
An affirmation that there is no reality. That it’s all a big entertaniment show. Whose going to win. It’s a compettition of personalities for a job whose job description is already set in stone by ….yes….the corporations and organizations that provided the money to advertise their postion and sell it to the passive American mind. A mind that responds only to the amount of advertising it recieves and pays very little attention to the quality of the advertisement.
If there is enough advertising for a postion it is deemed credible by the American public. That’s why torture is actually considered ….not torture…..
Why people from the CIA who advocate torture (Larry Johnson) by saying torture is not torture…in his case….sleep deperivation is not torture….
There isn’t going to be any election. The job postion requires a war monger. And that’s the issue upon which a presdient will be elected….whoever preaches the most war.
So don’t be confused by polls that say “Americans” are aganst the war in Iraq….or Iran (52% in favor)
Americans are PRO WAR …Very few Americans are for immediate withdrawal….that means the rest are Pro War.
The candidates are all Pro War except for the 3 nutcases.
I’m still undecided about which Democrat I will vote for. I have not made up my mind-I’m still in the information gathering phase. There are things I like about all the Presidential candidates, and there are things I dislike about all of the candidates. The thing that disturbs me (and has disturbed me over the whole campaign) is the fact that so many of the Candidates’ supporters have “fallen in love” with their candidates to the point that no questions or criticisms of their beloved will be tolerated.
I read Clammy’s diary and commented in it. My comment wasn’t directed toward HRC or to any one candidate specifically. I was musing on why for the most part, with exceptions, the Democratic candidates IMHO seem to be working much harder in the primary to appeal to the “center” than to their base-while the republican candidates seem to be doing the opposite. That was just an observation on my part about campaign styles of the Democrats vs. those of the Republicans. Yet my comment received replies from HRC supporters, defending her. I understand that, being that the diary was written about Hillary and apparently all comments in such a diary are assumed to refer to the candidate specifically.
IMHO, it’s sad that the supporters of various candidates are so blinded by love of their Candidates and are so defensive that every legitimate concern or question is perceived as an attack. Sometimes a question is just a question. I like all the Democratic Presidential Candidates, some more than others, but will vote for the ultimate winner of the primaries because I believe each of them would make a better President than any of the Republican candidates.
But, considering that too many people weren’t objective enough about GWB and that didn’t turn out too well, I wish that we could hold all the candidates feet to the fire and objectively demand answers to troubling questions.
on kennedy was one of the worst i’ve ever seen. it was absurd, but the powers-that-be were genuinely scared.
what’s most interesting is the polls. if the democrats would actually pander to the voters on most issues, we’d be doing a helluva lot better- both on policy and politics.