Timidity, and, the definition of insanity

by Don Wheeler

A few weeks back I was involved in a conversation with a relative of mine about the presidential contest. It should be noted that it is entirely possible the event was officiated by a smidge of Tullamore Dew.

At any rate, this relative (hearing my complaints) ventured the claim that both John Edwards AND Barack Obama periodically suffer from "feet of clay". I take the American English translation of that phrase as timidity, and after reflection, find the comparison ludicrous.

It's true we can't know exactly how Edwards would have behaved after securing the nomination, but there is little in his primary campaign that suggests timidity. Whatever one may think of his personal conduct, he advanced a bold, progressive set of policy proposals (which he never strayed from) and clear methods to pay for them. He also had spent two years of his own time in advance of the election studying these issues.

Contrast that with the conduct of the presumptive nominee. Mr. Obama started out with a much more cautious agenda, and has backwatered hard from a significant number of earlier commitments. The examples are numerous and growing, but the assurance that he would filibuster the FISA reauthorization bill if necessary - and instead voted in favor - pretty much sums it up.

This sort of behavior (I was assured by my relative) is SOP, is understandable and should be overlooked. (There is an inherent belief that he'll do better once in office). The extension of that claim was that it was what has to be done to be elected.

Really? I'd suggest the record indicates something else.

For starters, Mr. Obama is in a dead heat with a corpse (no pun intended). While the generic Democrat enjoys a ten point advantage over the generic Republican generally, Mr. Obama is within the margin of error of Mr. McCain in all polls I've seen. And Mr. McCain (as a candidate) is as lame as anyone the Republicans have offered in my memory.

And how have past timid Democratic Party Nominees done?

They could have done better. They all lost - or would have under typical circumstances. Jimmy Carter won after Watergate, because he wasn't a Republican. Bill Clinton won his first term only because Ross Perot siphoned off enough votes from JHW Bush. In fact, I'm not old enough to be sure I know of the last outright, clean Democratic victory. Johnson won because Kennedy was murdered. Kennedy's win might fit the bill, or maybe Truman. But Truman won as an incumbant, didn't he? Wow.

In any case, it was a long time ago.

A very popular definition of insanity characterizes it as continuing to do things that fail under the belief that it (they) will eventually succeed.

Even a cursory look at American History shows clearly that, when times are challenging, a progressive agenda with input from thoughtful conservatives has always served us well.

"We are at the point in our history when we have to leave behind half measures, broken promises, sweet rhetoric.."

Mr. Obama faces observations of his lack of executive and international experience. These are fair concerns, but not overriding. It seems to me the best way to counter these concerns is through the exhibition of strong leadership. Backpedaling on less than bold earlier proposals doesn't reflect strong leadership.

Hopefully, after the convention, the campaign can stake out some new, compelling vision of what can be - and match that vision with some concrete proposals to get us there. I believe the country is starving for true leadership.