I CHOOSE JOE


I've been thinking long and hard about who to support for the Democratic nomination. I am squarely in the Anyone But Dean camp, for the central reason that his nomination is a validation of the knee-jerk left-wing opposition to the war in Iraq. Kerry voted against the first Gulf War, which while being the wrong position, was a coherent position - as opposed to his waffle on this war. I give Gephardt credit for showing the Dems a way to victory in 2004 (hawkish on terror, but uncompromising on the economic issues), but I his protectionism is simply too much for me. So that left Clark, Edwards and Lieberman.


Clark is probably the most electable candidate in the field. His resume will close the national security gap better than any other Dem could hope. Secondly, Clark's experience puts him a better position to craft an independent response on the critical challenges on the war on terror, rather than rely on the "wisdom" of the old Clinton team, which botched the issues when they were in office. And if Clark had demonstrated that independence so far, I'd be on board already - but he hasn't. Rather, Clark has pretty much spat out the same tired nostrums of multilateralism and realism that most of the other candidates have so far. Frankly, I'm uninspired. Despite that, Clark is still the candidate I'm most likely going to pull the lever for on March 2d, because he has the best chance of emerging as the ABD candidate.


John Edwards on the other hand, is inspiring, his poll number notwithstanding. He has not only developed the most creative and insightful domestic policy initiatives of any candidate, but has also honed the best message to challenge Bush. And with his charisma and personal skills, he has the ability to be a powerful messanger as well. Unfortunately, after 9/11, I can't afford to simply choose a candidate based on his domestic agenda and Edwards does not have a coherent foreign policy agenda. His political instincts led him to support the war, but I get no sense that he did it with any conviction. Nor does Edwards have anything original to say about what to do next in Iraq. I have no doubt that at least at first, an Edwards administration would simply be Clinton redux on the foreign agenda.


My heart has always been with Lieberman. Long before he was chosen to be vice-president, I believed his combination of religious conviction (allowing him to claim the cultural center without yielding ground on the rights of women and gays), agressive Wilsonian foreign agenda and pragmatic left-of-center socioeconomic positions were ideal for the party and the country.


I'd have committed long ago if I actually believe Joe had a shot to win this thing. Alas, he is too moderate in policies to win the nomination, and too moderate in temperment to win the election (he's
too much of a mensch to last 10 rounds with the Bushies, who play as dirty as the heavy in a pro wrestling match).


But as of now, anything short of a Dean nomination and a Bush victory is a longshot, so I might as well take place in the struggle for the soul of Democratic party. The reality is that the Dems simply do not understand the realities of a post 9/11 world. The left is hostile to American power, a toxic mix of Jeffersonian isolationism and globalist utopianism. The Clintonian center is in denial as to the failures of the Clinton years, refusing to understand the limits of multilateralism and realism, that the same policies that worked so well in the areas of trade would fail to contain Sadaam or create a viable, peaceful Palestinian state. Lieberman in contrast presents a muscular Wilsonian alternative - unyielding in its commitment to human rights and democracy, but pragmatic in its means. Lieberman rejects both the knee-jerk unilateralism of the neocons and Cheyney-Rumsfeld Jacksonians as well as the knee-jerk multilateralism of the Dem opposition. He is a lone voice of sanity in the foreign policy discourse of the Dems and the country as a whole.


So, as long as I'm picking the longshot - I might as well back my favorite. Go Joe, go.