John Edwards
Earth to Al
January/21/2008 00:09 Filed in: Politics
We've all gotten pretty used to the new Al Gore by
now: reinvigorated intellectual, shrewd
businessman, nobel prize winner, altruistic man on
a mission, champion of the global warming cause.
Gore has shied away from the political limelight in
recent years both as part of his successful foray
into the private sector and, as part of what seems
like a general embarrassment at his former
political self. Gore himself states that he has
"fallen out of love with politics". He has
repeatedly denied even an interest in running for
President in '08 and appears awkward and sheepish
when pressed about it. The reason for this is that
Gore has found the success in business that he
lacked in politics precisely because
forward-thinking is most often rewarded in the
business world, whereas in politics it is often the
recipe for failure, and rarely a major precondition
for 'getting things done'. Politics in recent years
has come to mean calculating just what can
be achieved in the current moment instead of what
ought to be accomplished as an ideal,
where a myopic understanding of power manipulation
and positional jockeying is of higher value than
moral and ideological integrity.
What exactly do I mean by forward-thinking? No better example than Gore's fierce defense of global warming as a major threat to planet Earth in the 2000 election. Gore's prescient understanding of the gravity of the crisis clearly preceded that moment, but it was the election that brought the political ideation of it and then saw it crushed. In one of the more famous debates, Bush derided him for being an 'o-zone man', and in another he questioned the validity of the science behind it. Gore's forward-thinking and moral judgment applies not only to his stance on global warming, but also his courageous criticism of the Iraq war, both before the invasion and after as well as his shrewd concern over our curtailed freedoms as a result of September 11 (constitutional abuse, domestic spying, sanctioned torture). Going farther back, he was right about confronting Milosevic in Bosnia and Kosovo and he was right about welfare reform and cutting the federal deficit. But prescience clearly does not beget apotheosis in American politics. After the 2000 election Gore was essentially ridiculed and written off into political oblivion.
My point in writing this is that Gore is doing a disservice to the citizens of the United States by actively pursuing a disengaged role in politics. I'm not asking him to run for President or to be the savior of the Democratic party. I respect his decision to tackle the world's problems as a businessman and to try to solve the climate crisis from an entirely different podium than the President of the United States. But Gore has to understand the chips at stake both in this primary and in the general election. I'm sure, in fact, that he does. But he shouldn't allow his newfound political timidity to enfeeble his potential to change and influence the dynamics of the election. I strongly feel that Gore should endorse a democratic candidate. He himself has said he will do so. Skeptics say that Gore will abstain from endorsing any candidate because taking sides in the primary will tarnish his vaulted national/international reputation, that he has transcended the pettiness of American politics. Others say Gore will reserve judgment until the national election, so as to preserve the potential to sway policy in whichever future presidency. Still others point to Gore's endorsement of Dean in the 2004 election as caution enough for him to avoid making the same mistake.
As a true progressive and one who has always spoken his mind openly, I believe Gore should endorse Edwards or Obama. Gore's dislike for Clinton is well documented, and besides, one has to believe that Gore favors the two more liberal candidates and particularly Obama for his message of unity and bipartisanship as well as his consistent criticism of Iraq. Gore may have been ostracized from the political scene in 2000, but he should not allow his own embarrassment to keep him from doing the right thing. As iconic a figure as he's become, he has the power to directly influence the contour and direction of this primary. He would give any candidate in the field the imprimatur not only on the environment but on a whole range of progressive issues.
What exactly do I mean by forward-thinking? No better example than Gore's fierce defense of global warming as a major threat to planet Earth in the 2000 election. Gore's prescient understanding of the gravity of the crisis clearly preceded that moment, but it was the election that brought the political ideation of it and then saw it crushed. In one of the more famous debates, Bush derided him for being an 'o-zone man', and in another he questioned the validity of the science behind it. Gore's forward-thinking and moral judgment applies not only to his stance on global warming, but also his courageous criticism of the Iraq war, both before the invasion and after as well as his shrewd concern over our curtailed freedoms as a result of September 11 (constitutional abuse, domestic spying, sanctioned torture). Going farther back, he was right about confronting Milosevic in Bosnia and Kosovo and he was right about welfare reform and cutting the federal deficit. But prescience clearly does not beget apotheosis in American politics. After the 2000 election Gore was essentially ridiculed and written off into political oblivion.
My point in writing this is that Gore is doing a disservice to the citizens of the United States by actively pursuing a disengaged role in politics. I'm not asking him to run for President or to be the savior of the Democratic party. I respect his decision to tackle the world's problems as a businessman and to try to solve the climate crisis from an entirely different podium than the President of the United States. But Gore has to understand the chips at stake both in this primary and in the general election. I'm sure, in fact, that he does. But he shouldn't allow his newfound political timidity to enfeeble his potential to change and influence the dynamics of the election. I strongly feel that Gore should endorse a democratic candidate. He himself has said he will do so. Skeptics say that Gore will abstain from endorsing any candidate because taking sides in the primary will tarnish his vaulted national/international reputation, that he has transcended the pettiness of American politics. Others say Gore will reserve judgment until the national election, so as to preserve the potential to sway policy in whichever future presidency. Still others point to Gore's endorsement of Dean in the 2004 election as caution enough for him to avoid making the same mistake.
As a true progressive and one who has always spoken his mind openly, I believe Gore should endorse Edwards or Obama. Gore's dislike for Clinton is well documented, and besides, one has to believe that Gore favors the two more liberal candidates and particularly Obama for his message of unity and bipartisanship as well as his consistent criticism of Iraq. Gore may have been ostracized from the political scene in 2000, but he should not allow his own embarrassment to keep him from doing the right thing. As iconic a figure as he's become, he has the power to directly influence the contour and direction of this primary. He would give any candidate in the field the imprimatur not only on the environment but on a whole range of progressive issues.
|
Talking Points
November/02/2007 13:25 Filed in: Politics
The Democrats debated yet again this past Tuesday. And while there were Hillary attacks ad nauseam, and debates over Social Security and the pending conflict with Iran, I found myself focusing not on these talking points but on how the points were talked. We’ve seen from past elections how important stage presence, body language and speaking habits can be. In 2000, Gore was highly criticized for his elitist, scholarly drawl, lecturing, it seemed, not only George W. Bush, but also the American people. By contrast, Bush was and has always been a bad speaker on any and all accounts. He repeatedly uses poor grammar, even poorer sentence structure, he stutters and rummages vainly for words amidst his very limited vocabulary. When his vocabulary fails him he pulls a Harding and simply invents words ('misunderestimate', 'eck-a-lectic', etc.). He is not even a remotely fluid speaker in the way his father was. Indeed, he often pauses mid-thought as if to catch his breath before stammering cantankerously through his remaining argumentation. Yet I believe his speaking presence nonetheless helped him outperform Gore and Kerry in the eyes of the American people. (Kerry’s flaw was precisely his speaking eloquence, his ‘patrician aloofness’ ). It was Bush’s ‘tell it like it is’ cowboy twang that endowed him with a tough, down home quality that appealed highly to voters. So, let’s take a look at how some of the current Democrats speaking prowess fares.
Hillary Clinton: The only woman in a crowded field of 7 men, Clinton is surprisingly the most comfortable and forceful speaker. She carries herself very strongly, she has a clear speaking voice and rarely gets lost in her own words. There is a resoluteness in her tone that many voters will find appealing, because it exudes confidence and know-how. Clinton is sometimes so effective a speaker that she cleverly manages to eschew pointed questions by answering them in whatever context she pleases. You’ll also notice when moderators try and hold her to task she is extremely assertive and overpowering. Her achilles heel is clearly the timbre of her voice which a great many voters find smarmy and grating. A-
Barack Obama: It is strange because in the early stages, Obama was touted as a great speaker and leader, capable of awing crowds with his powerful rhetoric. But in the 13 debates so far he has not lived up to the reputation. Obama is simply not a great speaker. He stutters often and does not seem to pace the intervals between his words very well. This occasional stumbling is not a case of confusion or unformulated thought, as in the case of the current President, but instead appears to be a habit of over-intellectualization. It’s as if Obama is thinking so hard and thoroughly about the topic at hand that he overloads his speaking system and ends up presenting himself clumsily. B-
Denis Kucinich: Kucinich is clearly one of the smartest candidates in the field with some of the brightest ideas. And while there are no glaring issues with his speaking abilities, voters will continue to dislike his high-pitched tenor and elvish stature. Let’s face it, Kucinich is neither physically imposing nor tough-sounding. In a fist fight, Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani would eat him for breakfast and regurgitate pocket constitution, AFL-CIO card and all. But if voters could look past some of these limitations they would find a candidate whose words speak a moral courage and toughness that defy his physical limitations. B+
Bill Richardson: Richardson has one of those deep husky voices that can only be caused by years of chain-smoking, emphysema or some combination of the two. That kind of raspy croaking might come across as charming or character defining in a candidate whose physical stature merited it. But Richardson’s hoarse squawking bellows from what caricature artists might winningly portray as a bloated bullfrog. Combine this with the fact that Richardson often makes some of the most asinine, crooked comments and you get a candidate with very little opportunity of winning over the hearts and ears of voters. C+
John Edwards: In many respects Edwards resembles a southern JFK. He can display both charm and compassion, knowledge and insight, all the while retaining his stunning good looks and signature hair. But Edwards sometimes strays from this picturesque impression. During debates he can often be seen squinting and blinking repeatedly, instantly giving voters reason to doubt his preparedness. In certain debates he has simply been caught in the headlights, reduced to temporary silence as he regained his composure. In speaking, he sometimes reverts to an almost schoolboyish dialectic, especially in his complaints pointed towards Clinton. When he is clear, he is effective and emotive. When he rambles, he comes across like a fifth grader who feels snubbed for not winning a popularity contest. B
Chris Dodd: Dodd is a Senator from Connecticut with a crisp New England vernacular, which makes me instantly like him. But voters, at least in the general election, will find the same issues with Dodd as they did with Kerry. Instead of seeing graceful parlance they will see verbal snobbery and will feel distanced from him. When Dodd speaks, he is neither particularly warm nor exciting and it is likely that many will unfortunately completely disregard or forget about his candidacy because of this. B+
Joe Biden: Biden is the second best speaker in the field. He carries himself well, has a deep, full voice, and wavers rarely. Biden also has an attribute that few of the other candidates possess: sense of humor. During one debate, when asked whether he could curtail his "notorious talkativeness" in order to be taken more seriously on the campaign trail, Biden answered with a succinct “yes”. It was funny and it hit the spot perfectly. Biden can use that kind of wit to his advantage as long as he avoids becoming the class clown. Coupled with his commanding speaking presence, Biden offers an interesting alternative to voters so long as he can garner a bit more recognition in the polls. A-
Mike Gravel: Is he still running for President? He hasn’t been at any of the recent debates and it’s a pity. Even if he is radical and angry, his anger is most certainly an effective tool, at least in the sense that it puts the other candidates on the defensive. A debate with Gravel is like a debate with a second or third moderator - he answers the question and then points to his peers and demonstrates their inadequacies, after which they are forced to respond. While he might be slightly too far off his rocker to be President, Gravel is a useful rabble rouser and an effective speaker to boot. B+