I drove over fourteen hours today, but the soul-sapping monotony of freeway driving is no match for the soul-sucking political establishment in Washington, D.C. - which is revealing it's true colors as the presidential primary campaigns get underway. They see every god damn thing through the lens of their own patronizing, self-depracating, elitist insiders club! The more I hear these talking-heads say how surprised and impressed they are by Dick Gephardt, or how they think Joe Lieberman took a bold new stand on homeland security, the more upset I get. Who appointed them spokesman for the American electorate? Who voted them into office as official filters of the voting process? Why do they get to decide what or who is important and what or who is not? Is the party apparatus so weak that it has no power to control the public debate, and just turns it over to these self-proclaimed experts, most of whom work for a handful of multinational corporations?
Apparently the DNC really is that weak. How else can you explain a bunch of lifetime Washington insiders, most of them old enough to be my parents or even my grandparents, getting to decide who is "first tier" and who is "second tier" when 66% of Democratic voters can still not even name any of the candidates at all? Surprise, surprise, these lifetime Washington insiders like the candidates who are Washington insiders themselves, and have paid their dues in the Washington establishment, especially Kerry, Gephardt, and Lieberman. If the DNC lets their presidential candidate selection process be influenced by these people, they will be in for a rude awakening in November 2004.
Why? Because much, much less than 1% of voters are Washington insiders! Most could careless if you have "paid your dues" inside the beltway. Especially younger voters. Don't tell us what you've done, tell us what you can do now. In fact, many voters - especially swing voters, prefer someone who has not be in Washington twenty years. They want real solutions, new solutions, answers to the problems no one in Washington has made a real effort to solve. They want someone to restore their faith in government and give them a reason to vote at all. As much as I despise Ralph Nader and what he did to our country in 2000, he did give some a reason to vote when they might not have otherwise. As a young voter myself, here is what I see when I look at the candidates:
Let's call the first group the "dues", who've served decades of Washington.
1-Kerry (Senator for twenty years).
2-Graham (Long time Senator and former governor of Florida).
3-Lieberman (Third term Senator and former attorney general in Connecticut).
4-Gephardt (Former Speaker of the House and long time congressman).
Let's call the second group the "don't"s who don't have the Washington status.
1-Edwards (First term Senator).
2-Dean (Former governor of Vermont).
3-Braun (One term Senator followed by scandals).
4-Sharpton (Has never won an elected office).
5-Kucinich (Loud, fanatical congressman from Ohio).
I really think Edwards and Graham are the only ones who can beat Bush. Lieberman and Gephardt are so tired and rehashed they couldn't create excitement if they wanted to, which they don't. Dean and Kerry are people swing voters might vote for, but they are just not appealing public personas and to be President of the United States, you had better be a capable public figure. Kerry is aloof, hymns and haws, always trying to play both sides of an issue. Dean thinks he knows everything, is loose with with his positions, the facts, and his accusations about other candidates. I think many voters would sum him up in one word if he wins the nomination: "Jerk!" Edwards gets my nod over Graham. He is also a "don't" not a "due". See the first few paragraphs for details on why those who "don't" have certain Capitol Hill credentials will have an advantage over those who've paid their "dues" in Washington. Guess which type of candidate Bush will claim to be in 2004? Not a "dues", that's for sure.