This is my first diary, so please forgive any procedural errors on my part.
I am still undecided about getting behind a Democratic candidate in the primary season. There's no question I'll get behind the nominee in the GE, but I'm despairing whether I'll be able to get enthusiastic about anyone in the primaries. I'm put off by Clinton and Obama, disappointed in Richardson, wishing for Clark, and not so sure Gore getting in is a good idea. In many ways (short of Clark entering the race) Edwards is my only hope for being happy getting behind a candidate. I did send Edwards a little money in the first quarter of 2007 (and Richardson too), but I have held back really offering my full support because...it's hard to explain...
One reason I think is his dismal performance against Cheney in the VP debates of 2004. Another reason is the lack of leadership and resolve he showed in the blogger incident a few months ago. He handled that like a Senator, not like an Executive. Another reason is that he's been so tame in general, especially in defending himself against media caricatures. On a related note, I thought this comment from Camile Paglia's most recent Salon column was dead on:
"At their second debate, held in New Hampshire two weeks ago, the Democratic contenders were still skittish and uncertain. The top men, confronted with a woman competitor, seemed paralyzed by liberal p.c. and unable to attack her as they must. Even when John Edwards went on offense, he cautiously bracketed Hillary Clinton with Barack Obama, as if it would be unchivalrous to zing a lady. That both Edwards and Obama are hamstrung by effete professional-class gender etiquette was suggested by the way that Dennis Kucinich, with his rowdier and more robust populist style, has been able to shatter the debate decorum with exhilarating bursts of derisive rhetoric."
Paglia expounds further later in the column, echoing more of my own thoughts:
"For many Democrats like me, however, Hillary's history of prevarication, rigidity and quasi-divine sense of election is profoundly unsettling. ... But Hillary's intricate experience with the Washington bureaucracy makes Edwards (toward whom I've been leaning) and Obama (whom I may shift to) look like shaky tyros. After eight years of managerial ineptitude under Bush, will the general electorate realistically choose a work-in-progress like Edwards or Obama who needs so steep a learning curve?"
She's got it nailed there: Edwards needs to project more confidence, executive style, and, yes, authority. Deference ain't gonna cut it.
So I was happy to see clear signs this week that the Edwards campaign has made a clear tactical decision to fight back against "right wing framing" and gutter punk pundits. (Part of me would also like him to see him attack jackasses like Chris Matthews, but that would probably be a tactical error at this point, making it too easy to characterize Edwards as a whiner who is outside the mainstream.) I am happy to see that Edwards is finally using the tactics of a person who really wants to be President. I wish Gore had done more of this in 2000, when no one in the media would cut him a break.
Did anyone read the recent Hillary Clinton profile in The New Yorker? A major theme of the article is how prepared she is, how she's already planning her transition, thinking about who will fill various posts. Whatever her other shortcomings (the biggest being the people she's surrounded herself with), she comes across as very serious, someone who really wants this. Edwards much of the time comes across as well meaning, sincere, and right on the issues, but there's more to "being presidential" than that.
I will remain cautiously optimistic that Edwards may indeed have what it takes. He needs to do more of what he's doing this week, which will force the media to make a process story out of the fact that he's actually speaking up for himself, and for Democrats in general. Our Congressional Democrats are doing a poor enough job of it that it's not too hard to stand out in that regard.
rs