John Edwards, North Carolina's senior senator (not too senior, having only been there since 1998) and a trial lawyer, declares, quite self-righteously, that he's been a passionate advocate of the "common man" for years. You know, the kind of common man who spills hot coffee on himself and then sues McDonald's for millions (of which a hefty percentage ends up in the lawyer's pocket). It's also interesting that not too many "common men" have contributed to Edwards' campaign: personal injury trial lawyers account for more than four out of every five dollars he's raised for his hard money political action committee.
Massachusetts' junior senator, John Kerry, at least looks presidential, and did, indeed, fight heroically in Vietnam. But after returning from the Far East, Kerry fell in with the fad of the times: protesting the war. In a show of defiance, he even tossed his medals onto the steps of the Capitol. It later leaked out that they weren't his medals. Where are the originals now? Rumor has it that they still adorn his office. Kerry himself says that they're in "safekeeping."
Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, seems to have created some momentum over the summer. For the life of me I can't figure out why. It can't be experience: he governed a state for 11 years with the population of Monmouth County, New Jersey. He did his best to wreck health care in Vermont; his attempt to move towards a single-payer system caused health insurance premiums to skyrocket, sending private insurance companies out of business and putting heavy costs on providers. He's an unabashed hypocrite: complaining ceaselessly about the Bush deficit in one breath and then advocating government health insurance for all in the next. And he's out of touch with most Americans with his extreme stances on the Bush tax cut and the war in Iraq.
I won't go into the comical candidacies of Al Sharpton, Carol Moseley Braun and Dennis Kucinich (that last one might be a bit unfair, so feel free to write me).
I thought at the beginning that Joe Lieberman would be the strongest candidate, but the last few months have proven me spectacularly wrong. What does he stand for? He supported vouchers back in the 1990s, but then changed his stance at Gore's request in 2000. He supported a limited investment of Social Security in the markets back then too but reversed his position on that one as well. He didn't like affirmative action in the heyday but now supports it. And he endorsed a tax cut in 1991 to pull America out of recession but now criticizes Bush II's tax break designed to do the same thing.
Dick Gephardt, leader of the Congressional Democrats for the past decade or so, is an anachronism. Tried, tested and rejected Gephardt-as the Republican National Committee aptly describes him-has reintroduced the tried, tested and rejected idea of single payer health care. He sticks doggedly to organized labor, despite the clear evidence that unions destroy jobs and force non-members out of work. At least he's consistent: he will never vote for a tax cut or against an increase.
I don't know enough about Bob Graham, so I'll spare him from further scrutiny. I guess the upshot is that I'm honestly confused: what on Earth was Clinton talking about?