by John Hunt - March 20, 2008
I finally finished Al Gore’s book, The Assault on Reason. Among many other reactions the book educed from me, perhaps the most prevalent was anger. This is a man who should have been President of the United States. Here is a man who has a vision of how America should be. Here is a man who understands the glory and promise of American democracy, and how individual rights are being not just chipped away, but imploded by billionaires, media moguls, neo-Conservative warmongers, and religious zealots. Here is a man passionate about the environment, sure, but also about civil rights, and religious freedom, and poverty, and the right to free speech.
I think about 2000, and I think, what went wrong? How could we elect someone barely smart enough to tie his own shoelaces instead of a brilliant, idealistic, freedom-loving patriot who deeply cared about issues that should be so very important to every American? I know, I know—Gore really won the election, and Bush was installed by the Supreme Court. But how could the race be close enough for the shenanigans to work?
The problem was that the American public never saw the Al Gore revealed in his books and in interviews since the election. Instead of an intelligent, warm, funny visionary, we were force-fed the stereotype of the clunky, wonkish mannequin, prone to exaggeration and uncomfortable in his own skin. Oh, yeah, he’d be competent, but he wouldn’t be the kind of guy with whom you’d want to have a beer. Gore spent the entire campaign fighting these misconceptions, mostly unsuccessfully. His attempts to seem normal only made him look more dorky. Gore also suffered by distancing himself from Bill Clinton—it’s hard to take credit for the successes of an administration with which you don’t want to be associated. And because Gore wasn’t revealed as a far-seeing firebrand, some of those who should have been supporting him were instead attracted to Ralph Nader. Of course, you know what happened next.
The next election was supposed to be different. Seemingly from nowhere, Howard Dean seemed poised to win the Democratic nomination. Dean was a guy who captured the imagination of young people. He was a man who had ideas and a fire inside him. He was a man who made a funny hooting sound after losing the Iowa Caucus. The press recoiled in horror. Can we really elect someone who makes enthusiastic noises? Do we want someone who doesn’t mind looking silly on the teevee set? Heavens, no. Instead, we nominated somebody safe and boring. John Kerry might not be exciting (might not?), but at least he’s someone who exudes competence. Okay, nobody’s going to get ecstatic about the prospect of a Kerry presidency, but, hey, look at his counterpart. Even his supporters had to admit that Dubya wasn’t the sharpest tool in the shed. Bush had ruined the most robust economy since World War II. He’d gotten us mired in two different unwinnable wars, one of which he started for no understandable reason. I mean, we Democrats should be able to run a retarded kitten or a melted block of cheese against George W. Bush and win, right? Pick someone safe and uninspiring—it doesn’t matter who.
Except that it did. Again, Bush won an incredibly close election (this time, apparently, for real). How could this possibly be? The Peter-principled frat boy beat out the competent policy wonk. Oh, sure, there was the swift-boating, but the fact is that John Kerry had as much charisma as day-old doughnuts. Is there anyone who seriously doubts that Howard Dean would have cleaned Bush’s clock had he gotten the nomination?
This brings us to 2008. The Republicans are again running a candidate who is clearly not presidential material. John McCain is bad-tempered, confused about what’s going on in the world, and one hundred and twenty-seven years old. He seems to have won the nomination on the Bob Dole principle—it’s just his turn. Again, we Democrats should be able to beat him with one hand. So, who do we run? Hillary or Obama?
I admit that neither of the primary candidates captured my fancy. I was for Kucinich first (yeah, yeah, laugh if you want), then Edwards, but by the time of the Arkansas primary, Obama and Hillary were the only two candidates left. I waffled back and forth, but finally, on the morning I went to vote, I decided on Hillary. Obama is young and inexperienced. His time would yet come, I thought. Hillary had looked quite impressive in the debates, and I thought she’d be an effective campaigner. I liked her health care plan better than Obama’s. And the fact is, the most important quality I was looking for in a candidate was the ability to win the election. The United States of America cannot stand four more years like the last eight. Hillary was experienced where it counted most—on the campaign trail. Not so much inspiring, but safe and competent.
Safe and competent. Safe and competent. Before the Texas primary, that seemed to be the crux of Hillary’s campaign. Then the "3 a.m." ad began to get airplay. The ad seemed creepy, and eerily familiar. It was a Republican ad, playing on the fear of terrorism. Was this ad for Hillary Clinton or Rudy Guiliani? Was this Hillary’s game plan? Was she going to out-Cheney the Republicans? She was going to compare her experience and readiness in dealing with terrorism to a former POW war hero? Holy crap! We could lose another election!
I finished Gore’s book the day before Obama made his speech on race. I was stewing, thinking of what should have been—a robust economy, a signed Kyoto treaty, no war in Iraq, maybe even no 9-11 attacks. A president who would not be an embarrassment, but who would have increased American standing in the world. Then I heard Obama’s brilliant speech. He had clearly thought about the issues he was talking about. He had considered race from both sides. He wasn’t condemning anyone—he was actually interested in finding common ground and working from there. Was he being political? Sure. But at the very least, he was being political in a way that was practical, and, dare I say it—inspiring? What I saw in front of me was a Democrat who people might actually want to vote for!
If you look over the policy positions of both Clinton and Obama, you won’t find much difference between them. Maybe Clinton’s health care plan is a bit better, and in the end, that’s how I decided my vote. But after all, I think I made a mistake. It doesn’t do a bit of good to have a slightly better health plan if you can’t get elected to enact it. The last two elections, we Democrats lost when we should have won because we were defensive—we portrayed our candidates as safe and competent, instead of as leaders. It was a mistake, and we could make the same mistake again. I did. If I could change my vote now, I would.
Plus, Obama seems like the kind of guy I wouldn’t mind having a beer with.
John Hunt is a biologist who teaches in rural Arkansas. He blogs at Notes From A Transitional Fossil.