One of the lessons journalists should have learned from the 2000 election campaign is that what a candidate says about policy isn't just a guide to his or her thinking about a specific issue -- it's the best way to get a true sense of the candidate's character.Do you remember all the up-close-and-personals about George W. Bush, and what a likeable guy he was? Well, reporters would have had a much better fix on who he was and how he would govern if they had ignored all that, and focused on the raw dishonesty and irresponsibility of his policy proposals.That's why I'm not interested in what sports the candidates play or speculation about their marriages. I want to hear about their health care plans -- not just for the substance, but to get a sense of what kind of president each would be. Would they hesitate and triangulate, or would they push hard for real change?
[...] If the war in Iraq is the most urgent issue facing the country -- and both Clinton and Obama said bringing the troops home would be their first priority as president -- then why aren't theirs the loudest, clearest, most eloquent voices in opposition to Bush's tragic misadventure? Each is asking for the opportunity to lead the nation. Shouldn't each be showing some leadership on the war?Yes, both Clinton and Obama can point to antiwar speeches, position papers and legislation. But when push came to shove -- the vote on continued funding for the war -- neither of the leading contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination emerged from the Senate chamber swathed in glory.Both finally voted against the spending bill, which had been stripped of any timetables for U.S. troop withdrawal or meaningful benchmarks that the Iraqi government would have to meet. But they waited until the last minute to declare their intentions, as if each were waiting to see what the other would do. "They went quietly to the floor of the Senate, cast the right vote," Edwards said in the debate. "But there is a difference between leadership and legislating." [...] Obama's sharp comeback to Edwards's jibe was the first real flash of steel we've seen from him. Still, the impression remains that he, like Clinton, is willing to let others lead the confrontation with Bush over the war. The image that comes to mind is of two smart and competitive kids taking a civics test, each trying to peek at the other's paper, knowing that if they give the same answers neither can get a better grade. There's something of a disconnect, though. The Democrats' two leading candidates for the nomination don't reflect how passionately many of the party faithful feel about the war. Official Washington seems to think the war issue is on summer hiatus -- Bush got his funding, the "surge" forces are in place and the next major decision point won't come until September. Meanwhile, though, the war is getting bloodier, at least as far as U.S. troops are concerned -- 16 soldiers killed in the first three days of June. Deadly car bombings are more frequent than ever, and no political solution is remotely in sight. For American troops and military families, senators, there's no vacation. Please speak up.
[...] If the war in Iraq is the most urgent issue facing the country -- and both Clinton and Obama said bringing the troops home would be their first priority as president -- then why aren't theirs the loudest, clearest, most eloquent voices in opposition to Bush's tragic misadventure? Each is asking for the opportunity to lead the nation. Shouldn't each be showing some leadership on the war?
Yes, both Clinton and Obama can point to antiwar speeches, position papers and legislation. But when push came to shove -- the vote on continued funding for the war -- neither of the leading contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination emerged from the Senate chamber swathed in glory.
Both finally voted against the spending bill, which had been stripped of any timetables for U.S. troop withdrawal or meaningful benchmarks that the Iraqi government would have to meet. But they waited until the last minute to declare their intentions, as if each were waiting to see what the other would do. "They went quietly to the floor of the Senate, cast the right vote," Edwards said in the debate. "But there is a difference between leadership and legislating."
[...]
Obama's sharp comeback to Edwards's jibe was the first real flash of steel we've seen from him. Still, the impression remains that he, like Clinton, is willing to let others lead the confrontation with Bush over the war.
The image that comes to mind is of two smart and competitive kids taking a civics test, each trying to peek at the other's paper, knowing that if they give the same answers neither can get a better grade.
There's something of a disconnect, though. The Democrats' two leading candidates for the nomination don't reflect how passionately many of the party faithful feel about the war. Official Washington seems to think the war issue is on summer hiatus -- Bush got his funding, the "surge" forces are in place and the next major decision point won't come until September. Meanwhile, though, the war is getting bloodier, at least as far as U.S. troops are concerned -- 16 soldiers killed in the first three days of June. Deadly car bombings are more frequent than ever, and no political solution is remotely in sight.
For American troops and military families, senators, there's no vacation. Please speak up.
