In 2008, It's the Competency, Stupid!

[JCMach1]

During the election cycle of 1992, James Carville (one of Clinton's election team at the time) hit upon the single issue that was driving voters. In 1992, it was the economic mess created under Bush, Sr.

During the election cycle of 2008 things are once again focusing on a single issue. This time:

It's the Competency, Stupid!

The 8 years under GHW Bush have brought leadership disaster after disaster. Failure has piled upon failure to the point it has slipped beyond the normal political games of issues and ideology. Competency is the issue driving the election in both political parties. In both parties, the national front-runners have not been the ideological candidates, but the candidates that have projected the IMAGE of competency... of getting things done. In that environment, Rudy and Hillary have thrived up until now. Where they have stumbled have been when they have done things, said things, or had stories in the media that have undermined the issue of competency. The Kerik story may be a deal breaker for Giuliani and the Republican electorate. Who will win then on the Republican side: the candidate who can perceive and project the image of competency. This could be a huge opening for candidates like McCain and Huckabee.

So, why have the Democratic challengers faltered so far?

Obama- Has focused his campaign on CHANGE. Sorry, but that's not the issue this time.
Edwards- Has focused his campaign on ideology... his two America's meme. Sorry, not going to work.
Kucinich- Pure ideology.
Biden- Policy wonk. Needs to hitch wagon to the competency thing ASAP.
Dodd- Policy and ideology... not this time.
and so forth.

If anyone is going to challenge Hillary Clinton, they are going to have to convince people that they would be more competent for the job than her. If they can't make the switch to this tack, Hillary will be the nominee as long as she keeps on the competency message.

[cali]

1. Baloney.

No it's not all about competency and HRC doesn't have a corner on the market of competency anyway. I'd take Joe Biden on competency over HRC any day. Why should I be convinced that HRC is so damned competent? And competent to do what exactly? Competent to rein in corporate power and influence? Why would I think that? What has she said or done to persuade me that she has any interest in doing that?

This election will not focus solely on competency, but on a number of interconnected issues.

[JCMach1]

2. It's about the IMAGE of competency

Other Dems are making the mistake and not picking up on this!

[cali]

3. Joe Biden hasn't picked up on it?

Looks to me as if he has. And whoever the dem nom is will certainly stress this.

[JCMach1]

4. If he is to challenge at all, he must... Hillary has created the full package

based on this idea and has managed to stay mostly on-message.

Party and other activists (like most of DU) find this particularly irritating about Hillary's run. We get turned-on by policy and ideology...

I firmly believe those are completely secondary in this election.

Also, this idea needs to be a warning to whoever the nominee is... if our nominee strays too far from this message, it may be the one way the Dems can lose in 2008... :(

[Lancer1701]

6. Is Biden really any better than Clinton?

He supported the war resolution, has continued to vote for the funding and while he talks big about his plan that Iraq should be partitioned, what has he actually presented in the form of legislation to actually get the Bush white house to do change course? He's also voted for republican judges and even presided over the committee hearings that eventually put Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. He's also voted consistently with Republicans against reforms of the bankruptcy laws. And he's been a Washington politician for 34 years which is waaaaay more than Hillary and in that time, he hasn't exactly been a champion for major reform of the legislative logjams has he?

I just don't understand why a guy who has been on the side of republicans on many issues for over 30 years and polling in the single digits somehow deserves more support that Hillary Clinton who, while not perfect by ANY means, certainly isn't a shy flower on certain issues and was pushing for major health care reform, a current major campaign theme, over a decade ago when no one seemed to want to do anything.

I mean it seems to me that Clinton's biggest fault (or at least what she gets bashed for most) is her support of the war. But she's not alone in that, is she? I just think it's very hypocritical for people to have goes at Clinton on an issue that several of the other candidates are equally guilty of.

As for her pandering or playing to the middle on certain issues? well, unfortunately, that politics. How many things did Bill Clinton fail to get through or compromise on and yet no one would call his presidency a complete sell-out would they?

Bottom line: what are all the Clinton bashers going to do if she actually does get the nomination? or will this be a repeat of 2004 where everyone criticised the Kerry campaign until Dean got knocked out and Kerry became the candidate and suddenly everyone rallied behind the white knight that was to save us from Bush? Will that be the same here? bash Clinton but if she wins sing her praises and defend her to the hilt against Giuliani or Romney?

I should point out that even though I'm an Australian, I actually am more of an Edwards supporter even though it looks unlikely that he will win either. He was the first to admit his vote was a mistake and he was the first current candidate to unveil a healthcare reform plan. he's been leading while the others played catch-up. But it doesn't mean that I think the other candidates suck as seems to be the prequisite.

Plus, let's drop this whole doomed Kucinich for President crusade shall we? I think the country would be better of with him as Speaker than President anyway. the Congress is the more powerful branch, his talents in terms of government oversight and constitutional protections are put to better use there and he might actually get some real reform happening.

(sigh) ok, you may now commence with the newbie-bashing. heheheheheheh

[cali]

7. Welcome to DU!!

I'm not going to bash you for being new, and furthermore I largely agree with your post. I don't bash any of the candidates. I do criticize them. In fact, I take heat for defending Clinton from the repulsive bullshit charges thrown at her; I'm continuously being accused of supporting her because of that- as if it were akin to supporting cheney.

I'll vote for whoever the dem candidate is. Period.

Now, how are things going in the Australian elections? Howard still going to lose?

:hi:

[Lancer1701]

10. We hope so. :)

Yep, Howard has got about 3 or 4 days to make up about 6-10% in the national polls where his party is trailing badly and has for about 10 months. The way it's going, he could end up losing his own seat to a former journalist who is running against him. If that happens, he'll be the first sitting PM to lose his own electorate since 1929.

and it doesn't look good for the seat (district) of Wentworth in Sydney's eastern suburbs. It has been a Liberal (howard's party) stronghold since the earliest days of our Federation and it looks like it could go to labor. Overall victory will probably be slim but there could be some major symbolic losses for Howard.

key seat is Eden-Monaro. Since 1972, whichever party won that one went on to win the election. It's sort of like our Ohio only it's tiny. :)

Then when Rudd wins comes the hard part of getting him to stick to his promise to ratify Kyoto and pull out of Iraq.

but enough about Australia. :)

Thanks for the welcome, btw. :)

[JCMach1]

9. No bashing... and Welcome!

As for me, I am still undecided...

In my OP, I just wanted to give my reasoning behind the success of Giuliani and Clinton up to this point.

[Mythsaje]

5. Competent for WHAT job?

Competent to continue the war? To win it? To bring our people home?

Competent to deal with the climate crisis?

Competent to restore the civil liberties stolen away by the Bush regime?

Competent to restore the balance of power between the three branches?

Competent to work to bring good paying jobs back INTO the country?

Comptent to restore faith in our government to do the job it was elected to do?

If America is seeing flat statements of "I'm the best choice" as evidence of competency, with no declaration of HOW one might go about doing that, then America is in far, far more trouble then we realize.

[JCMach1]

8. It is about perceptions of competency

all of those other things you mentioned are secondary I believe...

As long as the electorate feels the candidate is competent to deal with these issues, they will be successful.

It is a grave mistake to forget how important image and perception/projection of image have been to the electoral process since the 1950's (and even before).

[mmonk]

11. It's not about that no matter how much some would like it to be.

One can compently do the wrong things for this country. When I hear someone say the administration did the Iraq thing wrong instead of the Iraq thing itself was wrong, then I know that person is on the opposite side of politics than me.

[JCMach1]

12. Of course, it pisses me off too... but the rest of the electorate

is not wholly being driven by an issue or ideology right now.

I would still hazard a guess that their is still a majority in the US that believes that the Iraq war is wrong specifically because it has been botched by the Bush administration... not the ideological position on war in general, war powers, or the policy decision of wrong war (wrong place and time).

I think most (even now) are seeing the Iraq war issue through the lenses of the competency issue.

So, 2008 is about Bush obliquely... i.e. competency (the opposite of Bush) is seen as the primary issue.

[mmonk]

13. Therein the problem for me.

I can't support lies. Being right cannot be made out of doing wrong or giving it countenance. I have to know what someone stands for and what they will do. Trust is at zero for me for politicians that double speak.

[JCMach1]

14. I have become more pessimistic over the years

ALL POLITICIANS DOUBLE SPEAK!

But that's just me...

There are no knights... white, or otherwise in this race

[mmonk]

15. Not all double speak but those that don't

are intentionally marginalized.