Friendly advice for Edwards. And Clinton. And Richardson. Oh, and Obama, too.

[TygrBright]

Dear Senators Edwards, Clinton, and Obama, and Governor Richardson,

Please let me start by expressing my deep appreciation to you ALL, for demonstrating so clearly the delightful dilemma facing Democrats (which can best be described as an embarrassment of riches,) and how different we are from the Republican Party, (which can only be described as embarrassing losers.) It is a real joy to have ALL of you running for President, because ANY of you is so vastly, overwhelmingly superior as Presidential material to any of the Republican offerings. We literally cannot lose, no matter who we nominate. Damn, you guys know how good that feels? Mmmmmmm.....

And having watched the debates Saturday night (well, most of them... I admit my attention wandered some,) I experienced great pleasure in the noticeably better quality of debate and discourse (over all) among Democrats than among the Republicans. Kudos to each of you. Yes, each of you let the heat of the moment (or maybe the TV lights,) rattle you into a few honkers, but by and large you all looked great. I'm proud of you, and proud to be a Democrat with any and all of you representing our Party.

That said, I hope that someone connected with each of your campaigns is in a position to read this, because I really think each of you can benefit from what I've observed among my fellow Democrats' responses to you. And not necessarily those here on DU. Here are specifics:

My mother--white, retired, educated, and a lifelong Democrat--lives in Minnesota and she and her neighbors in the senior housing community share many opinions. Her comment to me when we spoke on the telephone on Saturday was: "The first one of those candidates who attacks another Democratic candidate loses my vote." Sorry, Senator Obama. She perceived your remarks early in the debate about Senator Clinton as an attack. She won't be caucusing for you at her local community center. But she'll still vote for you if you get the nomination.

My friend Jim in Montgomery County, Maryland--African-American, retired, a conservative Democrat--e-mailed me the other day as part of a long exchange/discussion about the election. I quote: "Any candidate who believes that winning the nomination is more important than winning the general election shows too poor a grasp of priorities to win my vote. I was supporting Hillary Clinton but if she doesn't start saving the cutthroat ruthlessness to other candidates for a GOP opponent, I'll support someone else."

The young son of an old friend--about twenty, 'multi-ethnic,' working road construction jobs to save money for college--said this to me during a phone conversation over the holidays: "I think Edwards could win it if he doesn't get distracted into a food fight with Hillary or Obama. I'd like to see him pull it out."

My college roommate's daughter--white, children's book section manager at Barnes & Noble, currently on medical leave because of complications with her first pregnancy, not too politically active in the past--has been spending a lot of time on the phone with me lately. Here's her take on the campaign: "I like them all but I wish they'd spend more time telling me *specifically* what they plan to accomplish if they're elected, and less time telling me why all the others are so terrible. And stop with the high-sounding generalities, already, do they think I'm dumb?"

A close friend here in Santa Fe--in his late forties, Anglo, a union meat cutter who considers himself apolitical or 'leaning Republican' in the past--has definitely had enough of the Republican Party, for now at least. His most recent comment on the choices offered by the Democrats: "I don't mind Richardson but if he doesn't relax a little and get his foot out of his mouth he's not going to make it to round two."

And finally, my West Coast friend--middle aged, single, white, female, very liberal indeed: "Look, no matter who gets nominated, we have to make sure the idiots who voted for Bush in 2004 know exactly why they need to vote Democratic in November. Could we just can the snarking and focus on that? If I read one more petty media flap about which candidate said what nasty thing about which other candidate I'm ready to give up and vote Green. It sounds more like the gossip in a Junior High School homeroom than grown-ups looking for the responsibility to clean up this mess Bush has landed us in."

Are you seeing a trend, here? Because I finally connected the dots. Here's how it reads to me. Election cycle after election cycle, all my life (and I'm older than some of you,) there has been much criticism of negative campaigning, which is always met by the undeniable conventional wisdom that "nobody likes it but it works." This exchange has been played out so many times that it's become an accepted truism. No one likes negative campaigning, but it works, so we have to use it, no matter how high-minded we really are, because after all, the important thing is to win elections, right? and after we've won we can demonstrate just how morally and ethically superior to our opponents we really are. In the mean time, let the mud fly and the chips fall where they may...

But sooner or later, a tide turns. The things that were "conventional wisdom" and "tried and true" campaign strategies when I was young have not all endured. Some have changed quite a lot. And I think this election just might be the beginning of such a change. I think Democrats are still quite tolerant of negative campaigning, and I think that it will remain quite effective--if it is applied to Republicans. But I think that many of us have reached something like a tolerance threshold, or a saturation point, or just a level of profound irritation, with intra-Party negativity.

Let's start with that snarky little question they threw in at Saturday night's debate. You know, the one that went something like "What's one bad thing that one of your primary opponents has said?" I don't remember the specific wording, but it was a clear invitation for each of you to slang off at least one other candidate.

I think you answered first, Governor Richardson, and I remember hoping that you were going to not only decline the gambit, but hang a bell on that particular cat. Well, you did decline the gambit, and I give you credit for that, but then you used it as an opportunity to segue into a chunk of your standard stump speech about your own experience, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Imagine, if you will, all of you, just how powerful it would have been if the first one to answer had said, "Well, Charlie, I'd rather use this opportunity to say something positive about each of my opponents. I think that encouraging us to criticize each other's positions is more valuable to the media hoping to cover a spectacular display of malice than it is to voters who want to learn more about why they should support each of us," and then gone on to say something positive about an accomplishment on the part of each of the other people on the podium with them.

Getting shilled into playing the media's game of "oooh, look at the mud-fight!" may look like a way to gain a strategic advantage in the immediate term, but it's starting to backfire. For each of you. For ALL of you. Listen to the voters out here. For every noisy one encouraging you to "Be tough, take them on head to head, don't let any negative smear go unretaliated for" there are ten, fifteen, maybe twenty voters saying "When will they stop squabbling with each other and talk to me about stuff that's important to me?"

I hope you've found this useful. I wish you all well, and I'll be very happy to vote for whichever of you wins the nomination.

respectfully,
Bright

[silverojo]

1. Funny how screwed up these voters' "priorities" are

Instead of worrying about who does what first in a debate, LISTEN TO THEIR FUCKING POSITIONS ON THE ISSUES! :grr:

[corkhead]

3. unfortunately, they are a product of the shit they are fed by the corporate media

at least they aren't basing it on who the imagine would be best to have a beer with. we all know how that worked out.

[Triana]

6. True. And they need to THINK about where this country is now and where it's going...

..and WHO can best get it back on track after the bu$hit trainwreck. Sure, any of them will be better than bu$h but which one will fight to TAKE THIS COUNTRY BACK FOR THE PEOPLE and who isn't backed by so many special interests and lobbyists?

THE issue is corporatism.

I'd HATE to think that we have an opportunity to elect a president who will DO something to fight that (instead of being part of the problem like the current and previous ones) and that we'll slag off that opportunity for a glamor candidate instead.


Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrggghh! :banghead:

[corkhead]

2. Thanks for the reassuring OP. I used to think the voters were not stupid

but that was so 20th century. Seeing what the people you hang out with think gives me a little hope.

[salin]

4. Interesting essay - but one correction about the end...

the last question wasn't about what another candidate said that they should take back, it was to the candidate about her/himself was there anything s/he would take back or do over that s/he said during the campaign.

[DeeDeeNY]

5. Going negative

If one candidate contrasts their positions to another candidate's to make the point that their position is better, then that is valid and not really "going negative". Overall, they did take the high road in the debate. I was especially gratified to see a few of them frame their answers in contrast to how much this present administration has mucked things up and how fixing this will not be easy. As you said, they should never lose sight of the fact that they want to run in the general election, and they'll be running against a candidate who basically supports Bush (lower taxes for the rich, less services for the middle class, more war, etc). You really can't blame them for not speaking in generalities - it's very difficult to get too specific in a debate format. Small sound-bites are played on the news or quoted in the newspapers, and the longer they discuss a topic, the more chance that the media will cut off parts of it and thereby distort what was said (such as what happened to Kerry in 2004).
All that being said, at least there were no diamonds or pearls questions!

[MissMarple]

7. Bell the cat. Brilliant suggestion.

Thank you for a good piece of time honored advice. :applause:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

8. I believe that the broadcast media encourage this kind of sniping

It's easier to hash over "the mean thing that Candidate A said about Candidate B" than to explain to explain to their viewers how each candidate's health care plans differ.

For the most part, the mainstream broadcast media have forgotten how to cover a story seriously.

[Time for change]

9. I agree -- that has always been a very important issue to me

Though I have no problem with Dem candidates criticizing the policy views of their Dem opponents, as long as those criticisms are accurate and don't parrot right wing talking points (of course, if they parroted right wing talking points they certainly wouldn't be accurate.)