There's a scene in the political drama Primary Colors where, after a multi-candidate Democratic primary debate, the Carville-esque political consultant played by Billy Bob Thornton rhetorically asks his staff: "Did you see any other presidents on that stage tonight?" While I sat in the auditorium of Morgan State University during last night's Democratic debate, sponsored by Fox News Channel and the Congressional Black Caucus, that question stuck in my mind. Were there any presidents on the stage last night? Or, were those in attendance nothing more than standard-bearers in waiting?
It's more than an issue of Bush's perceived indestructibility; it has to do with who you can picture grabbing a party that is on the brink of irrelevancy by the horns. Who can you picture standing down terrorists, being firm when necessary and knowing when finesse is the more appropriate course of action? Who can sit in the situation room and be commander-in-chief of a military that is almost instinctively suspicious of the Democratic Party?
I decided not long ago that evaluating presidents based on issues, while being the most obviously intellectual method, might not be the best. Issues may change, or in the case of President Bush, emerge without getting very much press during the campaign. Compromise is inevitable and desirable in our system of government, so choosing a candidate based on his support of issues you care about will almost always lead to disappointment.
I agreed with a lot, if not all, of what was said on stage last night, as I suspect most Democratic voters did. But what the Democratic party needs now is not someone who can articulate the party position, but someone who can be an effective president. Who has the combination of strength, intelligence, executive ability and good instincts necessary to turn campaign promises into policy initiatives and eventually law? That's the only relevant question, and after last night, it remains unanswered.
Tony
