Based on the forum, and personal visits with some of the candidates, here is my OVERALL impression of each candidate (
Martin Frost. He didn't seem to bring much to the table in terms of either forceful personality or specific reforms. Mostly touted his experience as DCCC chair and his campaigns in Texas. I respect him for his work, and bemoan him getting DeLayed, but don't see him as the kind of chair we need.
Tim Roemer. Looking at him with as open a mind as possible (i.e, without considering some of his positions and affiliations that have received so much attention in the blogosphere), I found his presentation to be extremely defensive, prickly and unappealing. He mostly seemed to whine about being the victim of unfair attacks by other candidates. He seemed to think that the non-orthodoxy of his views--of having no "litmus test" for Democrats--made him the best choice. Well, guess what. I too am uncomfortable with litmus tests, and I think we can AND MUST stress values and faith. But there's a wrong way (ie, Roemer's) and a right way (see Donnie Fowler below) to do that.
Wellington Webb: You can tell he was an effective politician--he can give a good mini stump speech; he can speak directly to the voting members of the DNC he knows and has worked with. But I didn't see any indication of him being either the public fighter a Howard Dean would be or a reformer of any stripe.
Howard Dean: As I said before, I was very impressed with Dean's presentation. While he was not my choice in the primary season (I was for Wes Clark), I thought his appearance here was absolutely terrific. He clearly would be a strong voice for the party in terms of being a battler for Democratic values and positions against the Bushites. And he is clearly interested in building the grassroots. Of course, he touts his ability to raise money as well. I'm still somewhat concerned that in many parts of the country, he would still be saddled with the (unfair but still present) image as polarizing, left-wing, etc. What I am more concerned about is his ability to be a behind the scenes manager who does the harder, less glamourous work of building the party.
Simon Rosenberg. I was very interested in how Simon would come across, having never seen him other than in print. Well, to me, he comes across much like he seems in print. Incredibly bright, incredibly earnest and hard working and thoughtful, and filled with specific ideas about working on a better agenda, a better means of communicating that agend, of building the party infrastructure and capturing the passion of the grassroots. A big selling point, of course, was the practical experience he has had in that regard--including in so called "red" areas. (and he has worked with my Dem congressman Dennis Moore, who keeps winning in a strong GOP district). Having said all that, I wonder about how strong a public face he would present--after all, he isn't the experienced political figure like Dean. Even so, very impressive.
David LeLand. I knew nothing about him before I saw him. And while I liked much of what he had to say, and thought he was a good exponent of getting more power back to the state parties, I don't think he is at the level of Dean, Rosenberg or Fowler. By the way, he thought we needed more caucuses and fewer primaries, because of the way caucuses breed party activists. I'm not sure what I think of that at this point--might it not also mean less reaching out to independents, which at least some primaries make you do?
Donnie Fowler. I went into the forum thinking that Dean or Rosenberg would be the strongest candidate, but Fowler, I thought, made the strongest presentation. I liked the fact that he stressed not conceding the South or the Rocky Mountains. I loved his attact on the "aristocracy of consultants." I loved his stress on values and faith in a positive way (very unlike Roemer's). He seems to combine a very strong and charismatic personality, which makes me think he would be an effective public spokesman) with a commitment to reforming the party infrastructure and building from the grassroots. Like Rosenberg, he also stressed his working at the grassroots level. He also stressed his commitment to diversity. (which, of course, they all did, but I thought he did it more effectively). But maybe most importantly, he stressed that we need to accept that, right now, we are no longer the majority party--and that we have to grow the party base to win. I also think he would be great at focusing on building on the youth vote and participation in the party.
Having said all that, I would be thrilled with Dean, Rosenberg or Fowler--I think they all bring a lot to the table. I would be most distressed with Roemer. Frost, Leland and Webb I all respect for their service to the party, but in my opinion they aren't the people who would bring an URGENCY to change.
In an aside, Kathleen Sebelius, our Kansas governor, gave a terrific talk before the forum began. She has a rough period ahead with an overwhelmingly GOP state legislature--but she is clearly someone to keep an eye on.
In another aside, Ryan Lizza of TNR and I shared a surprise that so little was said about the Social Security fight. (when we visited afterwards, we both realized we were sitting there waiting for any of the candidates to make a strong statement about how he would address this issue--which I personally believe is a great OPPORTUNITY to really take the debate back to the REAL VALUES we stand for).
Whew--I promise my later postings will be much more concise!
|
|
|
Permalink :: 15 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
