I feel pretty sorry for the Deaniacs out there. I really do. Last night was maybe my first full-on immersion in the new “Dean sucks” media angle, and boy, is it terrible. CNN could not stop showing Dean taking off his clothes, they replayed his being called a “prairie dog on speed,” his “woo-ah”ing got lots of heat, and the anchors could not stop giggling about it. It was all very sad, and I can see why Deaniacs would complain that the nomination is being stolen from them by a lazy press.
Well, they’re half right. The press is lazy. But this stolen nomination is another thing entirely. During the coverage, it became clear that many concerns about the Dean campaign remain concerns: his twentysomethings and political neophytes apparently flaked, as he was unable to even carry collegetown counties. It’s always risky, hoping that you’ll win since a lot of people who’ve never gone to a caucus before will suddenly go, and then shout down their neighbors to support the guy who is getting ready to strip for more of your internet bucks. Howard Dean is a myth, I’ve been saying, and yesterday showed that, to a degree.
That it goes so far, as it did for Bob Novak, to signal that “there is no Howard Dean movement,” I don’t know. But I’m listening to opinions.
In any case, Dean maintains a lead in NH, and he’s very likely to win there, I think, still. So, no, the campaign is not over. Deaniacs can still breathe. And if Dean wins NH, he’ll be the front-runner again. CNN could not stop itself from reminding us that Iowa and New Hampshire seldom have a lot of overlap in their decision making. NH is Dean’s backyard, the people are more Deanish, and he holds a lead in a primary state, where it’s easier to predict victory.
But Deaniacs, I feel your pain. But I feel most comfortable now than I have in months about Dean’s not getting the nomination.
Now let’s talk about serious stuff. John Kerry, you are my hero. I am totally ausgeflippt over the thunderous chants of “Bring it on! Bring it on!” But, well, that’s to be expected. I guess I’m not totally surprised by any of this. I knew all along that he’s simply the best candidate, and it was actually pleasant to see that the people of Iowa started thinking the same thing, too. It sort of showed a resiliance, maybe, to media portrayal. Fine, his coverage got better as Dean’s got worse, but Kerry had his own slings and arrows to suffer over the summer, too. I had extended periods of depression related to how the campaign was being run. In any case, I think my contribution put them over the top.
So now the question, to follow CNN’s readymade script, is how will Clark play. I’m totally unsure, and would probably not even really venture a guess. To me, though, a lot of Clark’s popularity has probably grown out of his being played as the anti-Dean–and that’s tacitly understood since the genesis of the campaign. Well, now there are three anti-Deans, and two have a handful of delegates already. I don’t really buy that it’s military service that will split votes between Kerry and Clark–a whole bunch of things will, as they are generally very similar candidates, as is, of course, Edwards.
However, given how important electability seemed in Iowa, Clark’s role now gets very interesting. A lot of slobbering over his electability has been attributed to his outsider status, which he tweaks when he brags about his national security skillz, but whatever. Yet a lot of excitement over Kerry’s electability seems to grow out of his insider skillz. And this is rather funny. If Clark is stealing lines from Kerry–how he can stand toe to toe with Bush on security and then proceed to beat up on him, then he’s not really the outsider he claims to be, right?
Also what might be interesting here is to see who has a better veterans organisation. I haven’t heard much about Clark’s vets org, but I also haven’t looked. Yet Kerry’s vets org was crucial to his success–and if he can keep using that, then it might be stronger than any union endorsement (and probably already is, given what little good union endorsements did in Iowa).
Clark still has to figure out how he can get photographed so that he doesn’t look like he’s sitting on a table to try to seem taller. Every shot of him looks like he’s shrunk 2 inches since the previous one. Maybe then, that’s how the campaign will end–eventually he’ll be anti-matter.
January 21st, 2004 at 17:38
One final thought…
I dont ‘hate’ kerry. One good thing about him is that he seems skilled at taking/stealing ideas from the other campaigns. So if he wins hopefully he will be a pretty polished candidate that combines the best messages we got.
January 21st, 2004 at 17:16
Let me get to the point: for me, kerry jumped the shark when he gloated about saddam’s capture and tried to slam dean.
I could have overlooked the youthful indiscretions of his voting record. But this was just too much for me. It will be hard for him to convince me he isnt just a plain politician.
How is he going to go after bush, having said that the removal of saddam has made the world safer? And if you want to parse what Kerry exactly said, then why dont you expect the same from kerry when looking at dean’s words?
i dont see how this can just be ignored and swept under the rug. He shifted his ‘meta message’ for temporary political advantage. and dont give me this nuance stuff, cause intentional political messages are just that.
January 21st, 2004 at 16:46
bullshit is not the same as lying.
You logic about the IWR is flawed. Has it not passed, the president would not have had the legal authority to go to war. Period. So is not true that without the bill, bush would have waged war without going to the UN first…
Another resolution would have had to be passed. And it would have been a shitload more controversial without this ‘going to the un’ as a cover! Cant you see thats what the game was! It was yet another of these bait and switch operations.
Look, it is a Big Fucking Deal that the congress punted on its consistutional responsibilities. Result: we went to war on false pretenses. I hope clark holds up the IWR when he debates bush and reads the language authorizing the circumstances under which war can be started. Kerry might be able to do the same, but the bill is the definition of bad law – and he voted for it.
Here is a fun fact: Kerry talks a lot about being able to go ‘toe to toe’ with bush on FP. In fact he talked a hell of a lot about in in iowa. And i say thats bullshit. He neither has the moral authority, nor the communication skills, nor the good arguments to explain why shrub has done wrong. Ok, i might be proven wrong, but hes not as good at it as other candidates that i know.
I cannot believe you are defending the congress. They are pathetic. ‘the bullies beat me up and there is nothing i can do about it’ . Its easy for me to bash them since i wasnt making the choices. But i dont ask for the responsibility of leading the country, either. It is too much to ask to have leaders that do the right thing, or , you know, actually figure out solutions to difficult problems? Fight against adversity, and perhaps sometimes even win?
no, its ok, ill just continue being a victim.
January 21st, 2004 at 15:33
donut accuse me of lies and then participate in your own sloppy shit in the meantime.
I will consistently argue–and have–that I disagree with Kerry’s reasons for voting for the resolution (and with the Patriot Act). And, fine, it was political. BFD. That’s my point here–it’s very easy to heckle from the sidelines when you don’t have to cast the vote. That’s why I could never be in the Senate–I don’t understand how people can compromise, how bipartisan stuff can ever work. Somehow it does. Those people have a different relationship to the political process than I do, and that’s all there is to it. If you think that Clark has never made (or will never make) a politically expedient (though “morally” inconsistant) decision, then you might as well go join the far left flakes and enjoy isolation from the process. Kerry’s against gay marriage. Am I, therefore, going to vote against him? Ha.
He makes political decisions–to cover his own ass. Fine–but not always, and not in the most important situations, either. He has made unpopular votes (that I like), too. In a way it was much bolder for him to vote against Gulf War I, even.
You suggest that the war resolution would still have passed. Kerry obviously agreed with it in part–and he said that from the get go. He did it because of questions of solidarity and because he felt that if it didn’t get passed, the UN would be taken out of the process entirely. Turns out he was wrong. Yeah, I suspected he was wrong at the time, and so did a lot of people. But he didn’t. He felt, paradoxically, that the best chance for rational behavior was behind the Resolution. What he didn’t know (and no one did) was the degree to which arrogance and litism was running the show in the Oval Office. Wait–one person knew: Wesley Clark. But he kept his mouth shut.
And that’s as big a crime. He knew the war was being waged under false pretenses. But he kept his mouth shut, deciding to wait until he could splash around in a “cesspool of capitalism” (as Alan Simpson referred to post-political life on Modnay) as an analyst before reigniting a political career.
Furthermore, Kerry did send a message. He didn’t huddle down. He was the only Senator persistently calling for more accountability. He felt that the vote was the right thing to do–but that war wasn’t. This is a tricky line to follow, but not impossible. Though not frothing at the mouth while trying to follow it probably helps.
I would argue, by the way, that supporting Nixon under any circumstances automatically disqualifies someone from a leadership position, if we’re painting with broad strokes here.
Furthermore, I sincerely doubt the degree to which Kerry’s campaign would have been actually helped. It seems like a lot of the Dean fervor would not have kicked in with Kerry had he not run. Kerry never made the war the center of his campaign (and now he is only because Shrub clearly will), and nor did he think he had to. He perceives Bush as beatable on the economy and on health care–not on the war. People like the war, as a whole. They like that Saddam is gone. That’s not how Bush will be beat.
Next, you call into question the leadership in Congress. Pray, what do you have in mind? What the hell could Congress have done since Sept. 11 that would have been different? The democrats had a razor thin margin that they lost (in part because of startlingly dirty tricks from the GOP) in the Senate, and have generally been hobbled by bad leadership within the party (Daschle, Gephardt). The party has to work to a degree as a unit, and saying something like “Kerry, as a member of Congress, has no leadership skills because the Democrats’ leadership in Congress has sucked for the past decade” is just totally unhelpful–or the sign of buying into the “if he’s in DC, he’s corrupt–we need a neophyte who blusters through press conferences” rationale that give loons like Perot viability.
Kerry has a distinguished service record in the Senate of independent thinking; he has made a name for himself in there by carving out issues and finding things on his own–especially in holding government accountable. That can’t be discounted. And for his most problematic votes, he’s offered explanations. And, for how much I dislike Daschle, he at least managed to get the Dems together enough to block judicial nominations–that was a very risky move, but the democrats showed some fight. Maybe it’s too little, too late, but you have to remember that America hates filibusters, and that’s all the democrats can now do.
What the hell would you have rather had the democrats do since September 11? Or since the Bush ascendancy? There’s hardly anything they could. They do not–and cannot–have the apparatus the GOP does for manipulating message. Similarly, they’ll never be able to construct an organisation like the Christian Coalition to engineer a radical takeover of both houses. That’s not how the party works ideologically.
Finally, if you’re only reading headlines, then don’t, please, continue “contributing.” Kerry’s main problem is that he’s a nuanced politician–but that’s also something that plays very well one-on-one. People don’t like nuance when they’re lazy. But when they’re an Iowan who cares, then they can see the nuance and understand the value and the sum good of the package.
January 21st, 2004 at 14:52
put politely: BULLSHIT BULLSHIT
There is only 1 reason why kerry and others voted for IWR: to cover their political ass.
Fact: If kerry had voted against it, it would have still passed. Whatever ‘good’ the bill was supposed to do will still be accommplish, and he would have been sending a message. And sending a message is exactly what he did not want to do.
None of the candidates are perfect, but this is a serious flaw in someone who wants to be the leader of the free world.
Imagine if he had voted against it, and against the patriot act. He would be a hero and have wrapped up the nomination already. He could stand across the stage from shrub with real moral authority.
There are 3 kinds of candidates: those who voted for, those against, and neither. I dont think you can casually equate the ‘for’ and the ‘neither’ category, for it is precisely the sitting leadership in congress which has failed so pathetically since 911.
We need a higher standard of leadership.
ps. this is the first google kerry patriot act
http://www.iowastatedaily.com/.....c1c6b9cb1c
the headline says it all.
January 21st, 2004 at 10:14
I have no real concern with the recent hate-filled smear tactics. Bring it on.
Hater, I’m not going to sit around and do the research to show you what “really” happened c. Iraq war. If your take on it is that Kerry was at Bush’s feet ready to placate the man, then you’re beyond hope. Kerry was at least as anti-war as Clark was from the get go–I don’t recall the good general leading any marches before boots were on the ground. This is provable. Kerry persistently was the loudest voice in the Senate calling to slow down the process, let inspections go further. At times, in fact, he was the de facto minority leader, because Daschle had lost his voice.
I’m not going to defend his vote–I think it was a mistake–but he did at least go through the effort of publishing an extended piece about why he thought it was the right thing to do, despite the fact that he was, still, against any military intervention in Iraq at that time figured in the way Bush wanted it to happen. And, since, he has defended it essentially as a flawed vote, but one that made sense at the time.
As for the Patriot Act, go google “John Kerry patriot act.” Kerry is a firm believer in civil liberties. And before you offer your smug elf in comparison, remember–always remember–that he didn’t have to vote for it. He also didn’t have to vote for the war resolution. So his criticisms smack of convenience–just like they did when Dean made the same ones.
Clark can say (now) all he wants about how he would never have voted for either bill, but the fact remains that he didn’t have to cast a ballot one way or the other.
As for other Kerry accomplishments, go read some propaganda.
January 20th, 2004 at 23:45
i just read kerry’s platform on the environment and energy and it looks REAL good.
KYOTO KYOTO KYOTO
January 21st, 2004 at 2:43
Moacir, i think the case for kerry needs to be made. I am ignorant of his vast record of accomplishment. Blinded by fury, all i can think about is his lying down at bushes feet during the country’s hour of need by voting for the IWR and the patriot act. The vietnam stuff was great, but what has he done for me lately? Does it not bother you that he switched gears from bashing the war to gloating about saddam’s capture?? That he is using ugly smear tactics against dean and clark?
January 20th, 2004 at 22:41
And don’t think that I’m not going to get back to you on that phillipic you posted on my blog in defense of HP.
January 20th, 2004 at 23:29
Its safe to say that the debate on thursday is all important. But here is how i handicap things now: Edwards is not going to get traction in NH. And kerry isnt going to get an infinite bounce – he is not a great communicator, and will be a tough sell on feb 4. There are only two candidates with national organizations – clark and dean. A NH win will generate money for either kerry or edwards but not both – and a knockdown of one of the two is what clark needs.