02.07.07

TV Candidates

Posted in General at 10:28 am by JTinDC

I’m taking a short departure from my series called the Agenda to talk about the Democratic National Committee meeting last week when they heard from all their candidates.  From all the writing I’ve been doing about EPI and democratic economic policies, you may think I’m a democrat.  I’m not.  I’m apolitical, which makes me a fairly good person to write about what goes on in Washington.  I think all these people are full of it.  And yet, I know we need to keep an eye on them.

There is no doubt that the candidates to watch out for are the super stars – Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.  Other than being democrats and running for president, what do these three have in common?   How about they are all lawyers. 

Of the three of them, Obama spoke first.  He’s charismatic and his delivery is satisfying to watch.  He sounds a little like a preacher.  He uses preacher rhetorical techniques—telling stories that are in essence parables, but instead of teaching a spiritual lesson, he delivers civic or social messages.  At the DNC, his message was hope, hope for America.  And although this man may have strong moral character, although he may have served seven years in Illinois state government, although he turned down big law firms to pursue civic work during his legal career, this man does not appear to be ready for the White House.  Here in DC, there is a lot of talk of him becoming a running partner as another candidate’s VP.  He’d make a fine democratic VP.  That position would give him the time he seems to need to grow into the job.

Last election cycle’s democratic VP Candidate Sen. Edwards spoke a little later.  I went in listening for Edwards to deliver a strong message.  Having studied EPI’s agenda and knowing that he is in the neopopulist group, I was looking for clear economic policy ideas.  But he tanked.  His speech techniques could use a lot of refining.  He could learn a few things from Obama for that matter.  He ended most sentences with a foul scowl on his face.  He sounded a lot like a southern lawyer making a case and not at all like a seasoned politician looking to lead his party to the White House.  His speech itself came off as your typical bleeding heart democratic speech in which the only way for a world full of victims to have any satisfaction or justice is for a democrat to be in the White House. 

Then you have Hillary Clinton – former lawyer, former first lady, and if you ask some in New York, former Senator.  She formally announced her candidacy at the DNC.  And she had all the refinement you’d expect from a lawyer, first lady, and Senator.  She gave props to Nancy Pelosi as the first female Speaker of the House.  All good, but you could tell that she wanted to put it in the minds of all that it’s time for the ladies to run the whole country.  No problem there, except wasn’t she running the ship from the first lady position last time?  Does America really need more Rubinomics?  Do we need more NAFTA and more policies like allowing the Chinese into the WTO so that the price of steel in this country goes up three fold?  Didn’t she also vote to go to war in Iraq?  Yes, she did, not that it was her fault that some Iraqis want freedom – so they can start a civil war.  And she made a point of saying that if she had been in the White House at the time we, would not be in the war.  No, of course not.  And we wouldn’t have gone to war in Afghanistan either.  What did Bill do the first time Bin Laden attacked the World Trade Center?  Nothing.  He shot a ten million dollar missile at a ten-dollar tent and hit a camel in the butt.  Think this Clinton will protect America in the war on terror?

One candidate that did not rise to the top with the flash and pizzazz of a TV star, but has the real life credentials of a world leader, was Clark.  He’s one to look at more carefully.  He’ll never get the job because the Democrats are too desperate for the White House and they will no doubt try to capitalize on super stardom to snag it, but that’s a mistake for America.  This man may just be the right man for the job.  He’s a West Point grad and has served as general and with the joint chiefs in major military operations.  His problem is he isn’t charismatic.  He’s soft spoken and plain in appearance.  He’s also a bit thin.  Like Pierce Bronson being 007—he’s a little narrow for the character. 

To be President in America you have to look good on TV because that’s the only way most people ever see the president.  That’s why the guys who have the look, even if they don’t have the credentials, or the brains, get the job.  The man for the office has to be tall and have a certain swagger.  Think about it.  Nearly all the presidents since Kennedy have looked good on TV or at least better than their opponents.  Right?  What was the number one complaint about Gore?  Too stiff on TV.  What about Kerry?  Horse face.  Ugly wife.  So who are the Democrats going to go with?  The looker. 

This is American politics.  How well do you come across on television?  Maybe you could run.

Permalink