Clark Speaks English, part II

I watched only bits and pieces of the CNN.com - Transcripts
">Democratic debate (which is how most voters watch debates, so it's sometimes useful), and I thought everyone handled themselves well, and even Kerry seemed to have the tone right. But once again, Clark demonstrated exactly why he can pull this off. It is not, pace Kinsley that we love a man in a uniform. It's the ability to put forward clear liberal principles in ways that are fresh, persuasive, not mired in Washington crap or hedging, and reasonably comprehensible.

Exhibit A: Toward the end of the debate, a question about "what role do unions play in your vision?" Lieberman responded that unions had created the middle class, then went into an obligatory attack on the administration's labor record, then promised labor law reform, said something about worker safety, then something about the Department of Homeland Security. Edwards named all his relatives who were union members, declared himself in favor of locking up corporate crooks, and supported first contract arbitration and banning striker replacements. (I can't believe we never got that passed in the Clinton years.) All good answers, but both much too packed with scraps of different things the candidate wanted to say, and both with two references to unfamiliar, unexplained legislation

Here's Clark:

CLARK: I think unions are key in the new economy, and I'll tell you why, because unions not only help workers capture the wages that they deserve, but they also support training and mobility and make sure that someone is there as a voice for ordinary Americans.

What we've got to do is prepare our work force in this economy to be able to move from job-to-job, from skill-to-skill.

The unions are going to have a bigger role in this economy in the future than they have ever had in the past. That's why I strongly support the union movement and I believe we need more support for unions and more union members and not less in this economy.

That's a damn good answer. Serious, provocative, substantive without getting into unnecessary legislative detail, easy to understand, and totally, totally true. Only three candidates took on the question, so I can't say for sure that none of them could answer the question quite as well. But I doubt it. The person who could come closest to answering the question in that way is Robert Reich, and he couldn't do it without leaving a little sense that he was lecturing a student.

This is all I look for in a candidate. I'd be happy with a Senator, a congressman, a corporate leader, or an ex-hippie who could frame issues in a simple and persuasive way.