I drove down to Fullerton at lunchtime Tuesday to watch Meg Whitman make the official announcement of her candidacy for governor.
It should have been a ho hum day. But Whitman’s political opponents and critics in the press took it as an opportunity to renew once again their demands that she produce more policy specifics and join in debates. Watching Whitman speak for more than half-an-hour in quite a bit of detail convinced me that this line of criticism is strategically foolish.
In action, Whitman reveals herself to be what she is: a grind, the sort of A student who triumphs not necessarily on brain power but by doing all the homework and the reading twice. The speech was dutiful but not exciting. It suffered from a desire to be careful, cover every base, and be complete in every way. She seemed, if anything, hyper-prepared. That can be problematic in a candidate, but over-preparation is an attractive quality in a governor.
So what’s wrong with the criticism that she’s not detailed enough and won’t debate? It’s dumb because such criticism is so easy to neutralize. In fact, it’s a sure thing it will be neutralized. By the time voters start to tune into the race next year, Whitman will be (happily, by my reading of her) suffocating voters with detail and debating all over the state. Voters who see her then will quickly discount the criticism that she’s not specific enough.
The same criticism – he’s not specific, he’s avoiding debates – was aimed at Schwarzenegger when he ran for governor in 2003. It didn’t stick either, because he ultimately released some policy positions (none of them nearly as detailed as what Whitman has already said) and because he participated in a memorable, high-profile debate.
If you’re going to attack Whitman, it would be much more productive to dispute her on the details of what she says – and to pick at her record as a corporate executive, or to criticize her infrequent voting or recent conversion to Republicanism, or to blast her as rich and out-of-touch billionaire from swanky Silicon Valley. (Yes, I know, rich and out-of-touch may not be the sort of criticism that hurts one in a Republican primary, but it’s certainly a better line than screaming, ‘she has no specifics’).
One unsolicited piece of advice for Whitman: flexibility is important. On a day of triple-digit temperatures and at a venue where most of her audience was standing in the sunshine, she spoke too long (more than half an hour). She also wore a black suit. Maybe that shows toughness or seems businesslike, but it didn’t seem sensible and made me wonder about her willingness to adapt to changing conditions.
A lighter color or short sleeves would have been just fine.
We Southern Californians understand that soft coastal Bay Area types (a category that includes all five leading candidates for governor) aren’t going to do well in our inland heat. So on behalf of my fellow voters south of the Tehachapis, I hereby grant all visiting gubernatorial candidates permission to dress in whatever is most comfortable.