Pacific Views

No Lieberman

I wrote a post a while ago suggesting that whatever our differences, Democrats shouldn't pick each other apart. I even repented of my former hostility towards the idea that I might be forced to vote for Lieberman if he wound up on the Democratic ticket. However, over the course of the Democratic debates, I'm reminded why I thought that way in the first place.

It isn't because I don't believe Lieberman is a 'real' Democrat. And I think, as I said before, that we need to drop that whole silly line of debate. It's because, on balance, I think he's a pompous windbag. And god knows, Democrats have to work like hell to shake that whole pompous windbag PR.

Of course, that isn't the only reason. I was going to write more, but Billmon already spoke about why he's anything but courageous, and puts his attacks on Dean in perspective. (Incidentally, he also has an interesting post up about a NY Times piece that came to the same conclusions.)

We could also bring up his statement regarding the collapse of Enron. He was the chair of an investigation into the matter which essentially has gone nowhere interesting, possibly due to his own ties to the companies involved.

And, as the Progressive says, Lieberman is essentially doing Karl Rove's job for him. The candidates are competing after all, and we don't expect them to agree with each other about everything. But this relentless and petty savaging of someone who clearly has far more popular support only serves to cement the idea that Lieberman isn't really in tune with what the base of his own party thinks. He needs to remember whose nomination he's trying to secure.

But apparently, I'm not alone in my sentiments. As indicated by the polls Kos reviewed, his national numbers have slipped ten points in two weeks. it seems that the more people see him, the less they like him. Even Donna Brazile thinks he's taking the wrong approach.

We have, I think, an embarassment of riches as far as candidates go this time around. Even though Dean is my favorite, I believe that each of the others is contributing something valuable to the party's debate through their participation. So before I go on to say something nice about the seven candidates I haven't yet mentioned, I'd like to suggest that from now on, Democrats consider giving Lieberman the silent treatment. On the principle that 'if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything,' I will from now on refer to Lieberman as the Democrat-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.

On with the praise, which will be meted out alphabetically by last name:

John Edwards: He's probably one of the best qualified candidates to correct public misconceptions about tort law 'reform,' and he comes across as an affable, bright guy. He'll be a great presidential candidate in another ten years or so, but it's nice to see someone like him as a face of the party.

Richard Gephardt: He's been a friend of labor in this country for as long as anyone remembers, which is the cardinal liberal value too often undiscussed. And it seems that lately, someone lit a fire under him, which should have happened ages ago. Better late than never. Also, his campaign has launched A Miserable Failure, a website devoted to (do you need to be told?) George Bush's record as president. For that alone, he deserves some kudos.

Bob Graham: A true statesman. He's a good guy, which is nearly a blanket consensus, and he knows the issues. Even the people of Florida like him, and I imagine that's no mean feat.

John Kerry: Kerry is nothing if not a serious candidate, and a credible voice on foreign affairs. Even though someone (like me) who disagreed with his war vote would have to concede that he would never have botched things the way Bush has. Domestically, I haven't heard anyone feel the need to question whether or not he's a liberal.

Dennis Kucinich: A message to Greens everywhere that there's room in the Democrats' big tent for them, too. If it ticked you off that Ralph Nader didn't get to stand in the debate with Bush & Gore, consider that this time, Kucinich is bringing up your issues in a blessed and sanctioned mainstream event held by a major party. My personal favorite thing about having him in is that he gets to be the far left guy that the press will alternately make fun of and ignore, allowing the other candidates to be more liberal. That sounds like a bad thing, but what it really does is help reverse the rightward shift of the party's public discourse.

Carol Moseley Braun: Belaboring the obvious, she seems smarter and more articulate than the majority of the competition. She's not as zippy as Sharpton (though few are) but never seems at a real loss for something substantive to say. It's a tragedy that no one seems to know who she is. Any marginally sane Democrat, on winning the general election, should immediately offer her a cabinet position.

Al Sharpton: The best speaker of any Democratic candidate this time around. The issues he raises are ones that the party needs to pay attention to, and I'm glad they're being put out there by such an articulate voice. To those who are concerned that he's a divisive force, I think that it's in our interests to make his complaints about the Democratic party moot.

So there.

Posted by natasha at September 13, 2003 01:21 AM | TrackBack