My #1 criterion for a presidential candidate is someone I trust on national security.
Given the hole we’re in now, I want someone who can “Shoot the Moon” in this arena. I’d gladly trade zero progress on domestic issues by 2015 in exchange for a more secure America.
I visited the websites of the 4 Dem contenders. Each candidate
A. Priority?
I was curious how they tackled non-Iraq defense issues, and what term each chose.
I liked Obama’s approach: It’s #1. He calls it “Strengthening America Overseas.”
For Richardson: “Foreign Policy” is the last issue on his website.
Clinton calls it “Restoring America’s Standing in the World.” It’s towards the bottom of her Issues list.
Edwards doesn’t really have any single “Issue” pages. He has one page. Lame.
B. That tells me…
Most Dem polling shows that Dems don’t want to talk much about defense policy. That’s too bad.
Obama’s polling, meanwhile, tells him that even though Dems don’t want to discuss it, they want HIM to discuss it, because they struggle to take him seriously as Commander In Chief.
C. Scorecard
I like Richardson’s message. Repair Alliances. Stop treating diplomatic engagement with others like a reward for good behavior. Lock up Russian nukes.
Clinton says some of the same, but it’s the sort of overwrought language that drives me crazy.
Obama wants so much to link himself to Senator Richard Lugar (R), that he describes weird priorities, like locking up CONVENTIONAL arms around the world. Certainly not in anyone else’s Top 20 list, but it’s an issue Obama worked on.
And in addition to nuclear terrorism and Darfur, Obama also addresses a curious duo: Avian Flu and Congo. It’s almost like other candidates now talk about Darfur, so Congo is the new Darfur.
Google their websites because I have to run to the movies — what do you think?
GGW, please accept this friendly question. Are you serious? You’re including as a serious criteria the ranking of issues on a candidate’s website? It’s as bad as judging candidates based on where their staffers put a response to VTech on their website. Look at the first and last priorities of the following:
<
p>
Obama’s website. First issue: foreign affairs. Last: Faith.
Hillary: 1st: Stregenthing the middle class. Last: Democracy.
Richardson: 1st: Iraq, then Health Care Last: Foreign Affairs
Romney: 1st: Defeating jihadists. last: education
<
p>
Giuliani and Edwards both have single, extended issue pages.
<
p>
Notice a pattern? It’s not what candidates care about most. It’s about taking care of weak points. Candidates put your weak points first to reassure voters that you take it very seriously. (Giuliani has separate bullets for abortion, the only one I saw.)
<
p>
Obama will put foreign affairs first because he has no experience on the issue and that is his major weak spot (same with Romney on his website). Obama puts faith last because he regularly outGods half the GOP. Hillary has seen more countries than the current president could name — that’s a major part of her push, and part of the Bill Clinton video. Richardson — well anyone who seriously wonders if Richardson is qualified to speak of foreign affairs probably should not be surfing the net unattended.
<
p>
So let’s not confuse marketing with prioritzation.
<
p>
2. We learn something from marketing (i.e., the placement, the language, and the content of the website) — and not exclusively a candidate’s weak points.
<
p>
Candidates also a) talk about what they think voters want to hear (we can learn about Dem voters as a cohort), and b) talk about what they personally care about the most.
<
p>
i.e., we know that poverty is not a top issue even of Dem voters (looking at the group of Dem candidates), but Edwards really enjoys talking about it, so he emphasizes it, even though it’s not a weak point.
<
p>
3. I agree that your boy Richardson generally speaks well on foreign affairs and I find his sophistication very refreshing — if there’s one thing we need right now it’s nuance.
<
p>
4. I’m surprised none of the Dem candidates has a tab about domestic terrorism — one that anticipates another major domestic incident before the election.
<
p>
Something like “I still worry a LOT about the risks of attacks on our soil. If elected, I’d do X, Y, Z. Meanwhile, I think the Republican plan is to continue to undermanage Homeland Security and underdevelop intel sources with Muslim allies, and then — if anything happens on our soil — roll out a plan to restrict civil liberties.”
<
p>
Dems are more succeptible to fallout here; partial innoculation is available by speaking on the issue now.
Sorry if I didn’t read your post clearly enough to “get” your de-emphasis on issue ranking. But it still implies prioritization.
<
p>
Agreed on the domestic terrorism thing. And I have to say that it really worries me that “Iraq” and “foreign policy” seem to be separate tabs on the candidates’ sites. Because our stance in Iraq has a bold impact on our foreign policy — everything from our relations to NATO countries to our vanished credibility as peacebroker in Israel/Palestine.
<
p>
I’m just trying to take your second point deepr — candidates tell voters what they want to hear. And what voters want to hear is that candidate X isn’t really that clueless about issue Y — which is why issue Y is prominently displayed on their website. Why else would Giuliani have a Greatest Hits of the Culture War theme to his issues page?