Pre-Primary Bias Check

Christmas writes:

Ezra is preparing himself for his inevitable Clinton endorsement. Most of left blogistan has been slowly trying to talk itself into thinking Clinton is an acceptable nominee over the past couple months; as long as Ezra pretends there are only two Democrats in the race, and focuses on one area (health care) where Clinton looks better on paper (except, of course, for all those millions of dollars coming from her buddies in the health care industry), he can coax himself into cheering on a Clinton campaign in the general.

This particular accusation gets tossed around a lot these days, including by a good friend of mine whose judgment I respect enormously, but who has inexplicably convinced himself that any progressive not supporting Obama is actually lying to themselves, to him, to everybody. So go the primaries, I guess.

I feel, though, that it's occasionally good for a writer to lay out his biases. So here they are: At the moment, it's a bit hard for me to see how anyone could wholeheartedly support any of the top tier candidates. This may be mere pre-primary anxiety, but I'm basically obsessed with the flaws of all the frontrunners, and find each to be a remarkable candidate with very dangerous shortcomings.

Edwards' acceptance of matching funds -- which is to say acceptance of spending caps -- is damn near a deal-killer for me. This is the first presidential election in memory in which Democrats may have a fundraising advantage (and in Obama's case, one derived largely from small donors!) and we're going to throw that away? Additionally, I have concerns abut how good of an executive he'll actually be. His has not been a campaign that's likely to have played well in the Senate, and I worry about his eventual skill in moving legislation. Moreover, experience does matter, and so far as the presidency goes, Edwards has very little that's of practical value (which is different than having lots that's of ideological value). That said, Edwards is running as a genuine populist, and the centrality of fairness and justice to his rhetoric is unquestionably thrilling. Moreover, whatever you think of Edwards' sincerity, I like the idea of a nominee who feels in hock to the progressive wing of the party.

Obama has run a dispiriting campaign. His domestic policy has, compared to the other two, been timid. His instinct, as Harold put it, is for the capillary, not the jugular. He's let Edwards do his attacking, and I don't now if that was the strategy, or if it's a happy coincidence papering over the fact that Obama cannot actually bring himself to muddy his pristine national reputation with bareknuckle politics. If you're unwilling to lose it, popularity can be a constraining force, and in Obama's case, I fear it is. That scares me against a candidate like Giuliani. I also don't get the sense that Obama will really fight for universal health care -- I don't think it's what moves him. That said, his foreign policy is inspiring and deeply thought out. His international instincts are unquestionably the most progressive of anyone in the race. And the president does, as I've argued before, have the most autonomy on foreign policy. But first he'd need to get elected.

Clinton has run, unquestionably, the best campaign of the three. I think she will do what's necessary to win. I think that's more important than any head-to-head polls at the moment. I think she does "get" the presidency the best, and has the deepest understanding of the challenges and opportunities for reform of the health care system. That said, some of her advisers unsettle me, I don't believe she places her candidacy in a broader narrative of progressivism -- which is to say I don't think she's looking to run an ideological administration -- and I remain deeply concerned by her foreign policy instincts. Put another way: I worry that her foreign policy instincts are a mixture of actual hawkishness and acute fear that she'll be considered weak on defense. That could have terrible consequences, and her campaign has not convinced me otherwise.

At the end of the day, I will happily support any of the Democratic candidates against the Republican. But those who're wandering around with total certainty as to their choice and absolute incomprehension as to the decisions of others, well, I find it baffling. I really don't know how a liberal fully aware of the Republican Party's campaign style could feel comfortable with Obama's reticence on the trail, or how a progressive could wave away his decisions on social policy (not only the weak health care plan, but the Social Security rhetoric, and the unwillingness to lead on tax policy). I don't know how anyone could feel secure in Edwards' ability not to end August looking like a rich, weak, pretty, opportunist. And I don't know how any progressive could feel comfortable with Hillary Clinton's expressed foreign policy instincts. It's a tough choice, and, on the aggregate level, a hugely meaningful one. If I were a Iowa caucus-goer, I'd feel totally paralyzed right now.