Obama, Biden and Dodd: Live and in Person

This week I have had the opportunity and the honor to see three of the Presidential candidates live and in person. I hope to see more.

The critics among you may note that the three I’ve seen are all Democrats. I’ve explained my reasoning for that. I am somewhat intrigued by a couple of the Republicans, specifically McCain and Paul. The conclusion that I have reached (See my entry, “What Now? Who to Vote for in the Primaries and Why”) is that voting for Republican candidates is rewarding bad behavior. I’m giving Republicans a time out this election.

That means I am narrowing in on Democrats. I still do not intend at this point to select one particular Democrat to endorse. I have, however, clearly stated that I do not favor the nomination of Hillary Clinton. I feel this election needs to be about where we go in the future and Senator Clinton’s nomination will not help that discussion.

So let’s talk about my impressions of the three candidates.

I saw Senator Obama at a high school in Council Bluffs. The crowd was large and highly supportive. His stump speech is well crafted and elicited a lot of response. Obama has Secret Service protection and the opportunities for personal interaction are highly limited. I’ve read Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope, and already felt familiar with some of his policy positions. One thing I found appealing was his clarification of issues. For example, Obama states that testing students for achievement of knowledge is something he supports. At the same time, he feels that simply training to take an achievement test (I’m paraphrasing here, of course) is not enough. Students also need the opportunity to learn about music, literature and art so they have an opportunity to apply that knowledge. Obama’s thoughts and policies are appealing. The reservation about Obama is whether he has the kind of executive skills needed to be an effective CEO and Commander in Chief.

With regard to Democrats and education, you get a universal message and what seems to me to be a universal omission. The message is that we need to pay teachers more and we need earlier exposure to educational development for all children. These topics resonate with someone whose grandfather, aunt, late first wife were teachers and now his daughters are teachers. The omission is of a fundamental truth. Teachers have a responsibility to teach and we need to seek out and reward those who are best at teaching. Similarly, students have a responsibility to learn and we need to seek out better ways to deal with those students who fail to meet their responsibilities. That includes keeping disruptive students from keeping other students from learning. Making teachers’ jobs easier by making it easier to deal with disruptive students would seem to me to be the equivalent of a pay raise.

Senator Biden spoke in a VFW-like facility to a standing room only crowd. He made a few brief remarks and then took questions. This was the day former Pakistani Prime Minister Bhutto was assassinated, so Biden’s remarks were focused on that event and the resultant impact on the United States. Since so many candidates are focused on experience and change, Biden made his own comment. Biden said voters should judge candidates by the quality of their experience and what things they are willing to work at changing. In his own case, Biden has been in the Senate since 1972 and is able to point to a number of bi-partisan achievements. You can see his web site for the details. Biden says the biggest change we need with the new President is that person must be willing the trust the American people as a whole, not just selected groups. The new President must challenge the American people and tell them the truth. America is an idea and an ideal that people aspire to. Instead of appealing to fear and baser instincts, Biden thinks a President should make us reach for something beyond ourselves and “Make hope and history rhyme.”

Biden was asked a number of hard questions about pressing issues of the day. I won’t cover those questions individually (unless someone wants to ask in a comment). Instead, I will summarize by saying this. Biden’s answers revealed not only an in depth understanding of the topic, but an appreciation of where the pressure points were to leverage a solution and how best to apply that pressure. Biden recognizes opportunities to apply pressure through economic, diplomatic and political means first and sees military pressure as a last resort. (Biden’s own son is being deployed to Iraq, who said that he hoped he could arrange things so that his grandson would not have to go 20 years from now.) Further, despite his detailed knowledge, Biden (unlike Senator Kerry 4 years ago) does not display a tendency towards paralysis of analysis.

Towards the end of the meeting, Biden was asked by someone in attendance how he can be so impressive in person and yet fail to have significant standings in the polls. Biden’s answer was that he simply did not have the funds to mount the kind of media campaign he would like. The reason he did not have the funds is that he is not considered “reliable” by big money. Biden explained the term “reliable” means he can’t be counted on to vote your way on an issue. Biden said he always felt his job was to look at an issue and do the thing that was right for the people he represented and the country as a whole, not just for a special interest.

I personally think there is another aspect of that Biden is reluctant to discuss. Biden became a widower at a very young age suddenly and unexpectedly. My experience is that people who have those kinds of experiences have a very low tolerance for pretense and mendacity. Accordingly, with Biden, what you see is what you get. Occasionally, he will say things that are embarrassing for him and those he represents. But at least you will know what he is thinking and that he has no hidden agenda.

I came away very impressed. The question I have is whether his long Senate experience is also a weakness for him. His voting record provides ample opportunities for him to be swift boated.

The third candidate I saw was Senator Chris Dodd. The setting for Dodd was in a Fire Fighters’ Union Hall. My impression was that Dodd had been in this setting before and that 80-90% of the people present was already supporting his candidacy. Accordingly, Dodd’s remarks were not so much focused on persuasion as they were on motivating the troops to get out the vote for him on Caucus Day. I have remarked before on the favorable impression Dodd makes. In foreign affairs, he is the number two ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee behind Biden. His experience in this area is clearly superior to that of either Edwards or Obama.

What perhaps impresses me the most is his ability to speak clearly and persuasively on the topics he did speak about. When I think about and contrast the speaking styles of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, I note this. Ronald Reagan spoke well and not just because of his training as an actor. From reading Reagan’s writings (particularly his notes on his radio addresses), I have discovered that Reagan had thoroughly and logically thought through the topics he talked about. Reagan had considered the arguments of others and satisfied himself in his own mind that his position was superior. Whenever I hear George Bush speak I have the feeling that he is telling me what he has been trained to say, not what he truly believes. That is why I think you sometimes hear the tortured syntax that is such a delight for today’s comedians.

When you listen to Senator Dodd, you are hearing someone who speaks knowledgeably and forthrightly from the heart. His staffers told me he doesn’t need a briefing book because his knowledge is so extensive and his convictions are so deep.

Like Biden, I worry about Dodd’s long voting history in the Senate and his vulnerability to swift boating based on that record.

Contrasting Biden and Dodd to Edwards and Obama poses an interesting question due to the similarities of their backgrounds. All 4 have been US Senators, but the first two have been for a much longer period of time. So, which do you value more? The more extensive experience and contacts of Biden and Dodd, particularly in foreign relations? Or do you value the newer perspective and lesser ties to tradition Edwards and Obama offer more?

If you’re in Iowa, you’ve got three days and a wake up to decide.