2/3

i read about this somewhere else, and there's speculation that some clinton ops are in on it, in cahoots w/ kerry.

 

MSNBC debate observer poll has Clark (23%) and Kerry (22%) winning the debate. Would you agree?

I did not see a clear winner last night.

Clark is becoming less stiff and more viable as a candidate. I still have significant doubts about his domestic agenda, though his heart is in the right place.

Kerry came across as a Country Cub Democrat. It will be interesting to see how well his "New England" personality plays in the South (same goes for Dean). Kerry made a counterpoint to Dean that he knew how to get legislation through Congress. I see this as both a plus (will get things done) and a minus (may have to compromise his ideals). I still do not like Kerry's war vote explanation. It was crystal clear to me that GWB would f-u the war, given GWB's prior nine month track record leading up to the vote. And the Democrats failed to admend the war vote to include language directly GWB to play well with others. I just can not see how anyone could expect GWB to change his course.

Dean has done better in debates in NH andd SC now that he is no longer the front runner. He still appears to be relunctant to go hard after Kerry, especially on Kerry's war vote, where Kerry seriously compromised his ideals. Pundits are starting to write Dean off, but I am not so sure. He is the only candidate to be a governor, which the electorate seems to favor in the general election. Dean also appears to be the most credible candidate wrt health care reform and balancing the budget.

Edwards did nothing to help himself. If I had not know that he was leading the polls in SC, I would come away from the debates thinking that he was a marginal candidate. I mean Brokaw asked him if he would drop out if he did not win SC, with the implication being that he would not. BTW Edwards' explanation of his Iraq war vote (misled by intel more than expecting a better behaved GWB) wears better than Kerry.

The rest who have no realistic chance:

Lieberman is such a pill. I like some of his positions and can understand/respect his explanations of poistion I oppose, but one needs a strong injection of caffeine to stay awake when he speaks.

Sharpton as usual is a vey engaging speaker. He is currently second on the SC pools, but you would have never known that from the questions he got from Brokaw. I expect after 2/3 that Sharpton will no longer be invited to the debates.

Kucinich should get credit for sticking to his far left liberal viewpoints. His big plan is to hang tough until the convention, which he expects to be brokered, where he can then get the nomination. Nonsensical.

 

Ya know, there's an editorial over on command post that reads remarkably like this post...

looks like Batman has infiltrated the opposition! nice work dude! ya'll need to step up, 'cause he's gettin hammered by people spouting!

 

batman, it looks like someone at campaigndesk.org, or at least the times, agrees w/ you on the dean effect:
http://campaigndesk.org/
--
In an incisive analysis in this morning's New York Times, Robin Toner captures the particular zeitgeist fueling the Democratic candidates and their supporters this time around.

Toner notes that the candidates as a whole are appealing "to a far more polarized, us-against-them electorate" than existed during the centrist Clinton administration and the kinder, gentler 1990's.

And Toner points out that, even as Howard Dean was losing in Iowa and New Hampshire, he was winning in another way.

In a sense, Toner writes, all of the Democratic candidates have become Howard Dean -- or at least adopted his antipathy towards the current administration, his condemnation of the Iraq occupation and his populist demand that it's time for common folks "to take this country back" from the "special interests" and "corporate cronies" that the Democrats perceive to be running the federal government.

That's the sort of synthesis that helps readers form a coherent overview of what to date has been a hectic and chaotic primary season.

That kind of deft, insightful "let's-make-sense-of-all-this-static" observation is the reason that, in an age when so many don't, we still read newspapers.

-- S.L.

 

rimrocker:

I understand that in many cases we are forced to choose the lesser of evils and vote against someone rather than for someone, and I am often able to do that. It was easy for me to vote Brown over Mosbacher or Sanchez even though I thought Brown was an idiot and that he was bad for Houston. I was able to do it because I thought Mosbacher and Sanchez held incredibly dangerous positions and would have been disastrous for the city. And because while I thought Brown was inept, I didn't think he was a fundamentally bad person and I didn't think his positions were fundamentally bad. I had a problem with basically endorsing ineptness, but I never endorsed deeply wrongheaded positions with those votes.

Conversely, whatever I thought of Bush I, Dole or Perot, I was never able to vote for Clinton. And while I thought Clinton did many good things, I'm glad I never voted for him. I don't have that awful welfare reform bill on my hands and I don't have that wag the dog Iraq bombing on my hands. I take voting very seriously and I will not be a party to voting for someone for whom I have strong disdain. The Democratic party cannot count on my vote simply because they're not the Republican party, no matter how dangerous I might find the Republican party to be. They have to ask for it and they have to earn it. I am not alone in this. In fact the people who feel exactly as I do on this could easily make up the margin of victory one way or the other.

I am undecided as to whether or not I can support Kerry, but you'd better believe I will not support him simply on the grounds that he's not Bush. This is an extreme example, but I wouldn't vote for Strom Thurmond over Hitler either. I would wish that Strom would win, since he's nowhere near even approaching as bad as Hitler, but a vote for Strom would still be a vote for Strom and I would never support him. I just couldn't.

If Bush wins because I find myself unable to support Kerry, so be it. I hope I won't feel that way when it all comes down but if I do it's on him and the Dems, not on me.

 

Has anyone seen a shred of real evidence that the Kerry camp is guilty of this? That's a hell of an assumption. I would find it just as easy to say that Rove and company are behind it. And there is no proof of that, either.

 

That would be dumb of you to believe this . If an Iowa Democrat is willing to spend a whole night at a caucus, and stand up and publicly support a candidate , I seriously doubt they would not know where their caucus site was. Even if they did go to a wrong one, they could just turn the car around and drive to the correct place . I think John Kerry's staff is smart enough to know this.

This is a last desperate attack by the Deanheads who are still in denial. Polls before the caucus showed Kerry and Edwards surging. These people talked to pollsters over the phone, noway to confuse them here.

The fact that Trippi is calling Kerry people "assholes" should be reason enough to question his conspiracy . Maybe he was just trying to save his job.

 

I'm not saying that the Kerry people did this, but I don't know what Trippi's calling people on the other campaign "assholes" has to do with anything. Campaigns are very intense, and you're at war with the other camp. there's always bad blood. Some reporter just happened to be in the room when Trippi used some colorful language.

I'm sure you've called an opposing basketball player a four letter word once or twice during a pickup game. You don't just refer to them as your "honorable opponents." It's just that reporters weren't present when you said it.

Anyway, somebody was up to dirty tricks, and that somebody had resources. It's not like Kucinich had extra cash laying around for something like this. And it certainly wasn't the GOP -- they were drooling at the prospect of running against Dean. So, in the heat of the moment, of course he would lash out at the Kerry camp.

Speaking of Dean, here's the latest strategy (I somehow ended up on his mailing list even though I'm not a supporter.)

I do think WI and MI could have been winnable if Dean hadn't done his bellyflop the past few weeks. It's too late now -- he's damaged goods.

Not a bad Hail Mary pass as far as strategy goes, though. The 2/3 states aren't really winnable for him.

Dear Supporter,

This campaign has always defied conventional wisdom. Our extraordinary rise last year defied conventional wisdom—so did our fall in Iowa, and so did our comeback in New Hampshire after most pundits predicted Howard Dean was finished.

Conventional wisdom has been consistently wrong about this race.

So when conventional wisdom says a candidate must win somewhere on February 3, or that John Kerry will have wrapped up the nomination after fewer than 10% of the delegates have been chosen, we disagree.

Our goal for the next two and a half weeks is simple—become the last-standing alternative to John Kerry after the Wisconsin primary on February 17.

Why Wisconsin? First, it is a stand-alone primary where we believe we can run very strong. Second, it kicks off a two-week campaign for over 1,100 delegates on March 2, and the shift of the campaign that month to nearly every big state: California, New York, and Ohio on March 2, Texas and Florida on March 9, Illinois on March 16, and Pennsylvania on April 27.

In the meantime, Howard Dean is traveling to many of the February 3 states, sending surrogates—including Al Gore—to most, and conducting radio interviews in all. We believe that one or more of our major opponents will be eliminated that day, and that the others will fall by the wayside as our strength grows in the following days. As a result we have elected to not buy television advertisements in February 3 states, but instead direct our resources toward the February 7 and 8 contests in Michigan, Washington and Maine. We may not win any February 3 state, but even third place finishes will allow us to move forward, continue to amass delegates in Virginia and Tennessee on February 10, and then strongly challenge Kerry in Wisconsin.

Regardless of who takes first place in these states, we think that after Wisconsin we’ll get Kerry in the open field. Remember one crucial thing about the 2004 calendar—in previous years a front-runner or presumptive nominee would typically emerge after most of the states had voted and most of the delegates had been chosen. The final competitor to that candidate, even if he won late states, as many have done, has not been able to win a majority of delegates under any scenario.

This year is very different. The media and the party insiders will attempt to declare Kerry the winner on February 3 after fewer than 10% of the state delegates have been chosen. At that point Kerry himself will probably have claimed fewer than one third of the delegates he needs to win. They would like the campaign to be over before the voters of California, New York, Texas and nearly every other big state have spoken.

Democrats in Florida, who witnessed a perversion of democracy in November 2000, will not have a choice concerning the nominee if the media and the party insiders have their way.

We intend to make this campaign a choice. We alone of the remaining challengers to John Kerry are geared to the long haul—we’ve raised nearly $2 million in the week after Iowa, over $600,000 in the 48 hours since New Hampshire. No candidate—not even Kerry, who mortgaged his house and tapped his personal fortune to funnel $7 million into his campaign —will have sufficient funds to advertise in all, or even most, of the big states that fall on March 2 and beyond. At that point paid advertising becomes much less of a factor.

And we alone of the remaining challengers offer a clear choice to Kerry. Howard Dean is no Johnny Come Lately to the message of change—he has actually delivered change in Vermont. Howard Dean has the courage and conviction to stand up for what’s right, even when it’s not politically popular, as opposed to the cautiousness, compromise and convenience that has characterized John Kerry’s 19 years in the Senate.

We believe that when the voters of the post-Wisconsin states—which constitute 75% of the delegates that will be chosen in the states—compare Howard Dean and John Kerry, they will conclude that Dean, not Kerry, has the best chance to beat George Bush, because only Dean offers a clear vision of change and a record of results that contrasts against the rhetoric emanating from Washington. We believe they will increasingly reject the rubber stamp presented to them by the media.

Has such a strategy ever worked before?

No. It's never been tried.

But prior to this year, no candidate had ever raised $46 million dollars, mostly from ordinary Americans giving $100 each. Prior to this year no candidate for President had ever inspired the kind of grass-roots activity that has been this campaign’s hallmark. Prior to this year no candidate for President had so clearly revitalized his party, allowed it to reclaim its voice, and shifted the agenda so clearly to a call for change.

Let the conventional wisdom and the media declare this race over. We’re going to let the people decide.

Roy Neel
CEO, Dean for America

 

i tried posing the question "will kerry be the dem nominee?" to spike's magic eight ball and got the response: "don't count on it!"

so perhaps we're in for a surprise tomorrow...

 

I have a feeling Kerry's gonna sweep tomorrow. According to the latest Zogby numbers, he's close in South Carolina and Oklahoma, and winning convincingly in Arizona and Missouri.

 

Kerry's also got commanding leads in New Mexico, North Dakota and Delaware.

In NM, he's got 31 to Dean's 15 and Clark's 14.

In ND, he's got 31 to Clark's 15 with no one else in double digits and 40% undecided.

In Delaware, he's got 42 to a four way race for second (Dean 12, Edwards 11, Lieberman 10, Clark 9). This was supposed to be Lieberman's good one, by the way.

All polls except NM: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/february_3_polls.html

NM poll:
http://www.abqjournal.com/elex/140220elex02-02-04.htm

 

see...that disappoints me....of those guys, i really like edwards. who do you like, RM95?? or who would you be most excited about?

 

did you catch dean in NM? how was he?

 

Yes. He was great.

 

interesting article on the contrast between Kerry and Edwards in the Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/polipro/pp2004-01-26.htm

--
The Real Real Deal

While John Kerry suffers from "terminal Senatitis," John Edwards exudes life and optimism

.....

ver two days I saw John Edwards and John Kerry speak at Dartmouth College. Edwards exhilarated my wife and me and the rest of the audience. We left the Kerry event before it ended and would have gone earlier if we had not hooked a ride with a more-patient friend—for we were bored, disappointed, and angry. Kerry has congratulated himself for abandoning "Washingtonese," but he was premature.

How, we wondered aloud driving home, could a man in public life for decades, running for President for more than a year, not do better than this? How could he say things like, "Two-hundred percent of poverty" or refer to his chairmanship of a Senate committee as—if I heard correctly—"Foreign Ops"? When he was served up a home-run pitch, "Why is this election so historic?", how could he begin so promisingly—"Three words. The Supreme Court"— but then maunder on inconsequently, satisfied with hitting a single? Why, above all, is he still running on his résumé? We know he's qualified to be President; his job as a candidate is to make us want him to be President.

As a personal-injury trial lawyer, John Edwards has made millions from his ability to persuade juries of ordinary Americans—by stirring their hearts with words, gesture, and sincerity. In contrast, John Kerry suffers from terminal Senatitis. Senators speak to themselves. Their colleagues don't listen to them. They can't see a single face in the galleries. The tradition of unlimited debate encourages prolixity. Senators talk (and talk) not to persuade but to justify their votes, and they inveterately sound defensive. Asked how an advocate of programs to help children could "favor ... partial birth abortion," Kerry caviled that he did not "favor" it; then he quoted the exact language of a resolution he supported allowing the practice under narrowly delineated conditions—in short, he justified his vote. Edwards would have evoked the agony of a woman faced with severe harm if she carried her baby to term—wanting that baby more than anything in the world and then being told that bearing it could kill or maim her. That is the stuff of tragedy, not legislation-speak. Kerry was asked why so few Senators have been elected President, and his answer on abortion showed why.

Again and again, in his Dartmouth speech, Edwards created waves of applause with his precise darts of language—"It's wrong!", "We can do better than this!", "Join our cause!". Kerry, who buried his applause lines in the gray lava of his monotone, got his loudest cheers when he entered the room. Once he opened his mouth the energy began to seep away—at any rate, in the "overflow" room from where we watched Kerry on a giant screen. Listening to him, I saw a long line of Democratic bores—Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Bradley, Gore—who lost because people could not bear listening to them. John Kerry belongs in their dreary company. I fear he could talk his way out of victory—that, excited by his résumé, his panache as a war hero, Americans from coast to coast will be disappointed in the real man; that, just as we did at Dartmouth, they will long for him to stop his answers at the one-minute mark and by minute two will have tuned out and by minute three will pine for the terse nullity of George W. Bush.

Kerry has a campaign slogan, The Real Deal, that—so he told a voter at a Claremont town meeting who'd asked if he meant to evoke FDR's New Deal—refers to himself. He's the real deal. But Edwards is the first Democrat in my lifetime who has a campaign theme, the Two Americas—"one for the privileged who get everything they want, and one for everybody else who struggle for the things they need"—that is at once a moral X-ray of American society and a political cudgel to beat that son and symbol of privilege George W. Bush.

Two Americas, with two economies. Over the past twenty years, Edwards writes in a sixty-page pamphlet outlining his positions, the economy has divided, with the top 1 percent flourishing and the middle class "sinking"—"one in seven families with children will go bankrupt this decade." Two Americas, with two tax systems. "Thanks to tax loopholes, the 400 top-paid Americans in 2000 paid only 22 percent of their income in taxes, about the same as a person making $125,000. Meanwhile, George Bush is shifting the tax burden from wealth to work." Two Americas, with two school systems—"one for the affluent, one for everybody else." And with two health systems—"unlimited care for the privileged, rationed care and rising costs for everyone else." Two Americas, with two governments—one for insiders and big campaign contributors, who get what they pay for; the other for the rest of us, who get ignored. Edwards's metaphor is proof against a rising stock market and buoyant but jobless growth. The Two Americas theme speaks to an abiding condition. Edwards's pamphlet abounds in proposals to end this division in life-chances and make America one.

Presidential politics turns on personality. Kerry—haggard, a knight of the woeful countenance—lacks vitality, the aura of promise. Edwards's campaign pitch is all about optimism—"We can do better, you and I. We can change America!"—and he exudes life. Message and messenger fit. By a gift of grace, Edwards's capacity for hope survived the death of his sixteen-year-old son. John Edwards's suffering, like his rearing as the son of a Carolina mill-worker, connects him to the trials of most Americans. He gets it. Kerry has read about it. Bush hasn't a clue. "You give me a shot at George W. Bush," Edwards declared at the end of his Dartmouth speech, "and I'll give you the presidency." I believe him. He's the real deal.

 

If Kerry is the Democratic nominee, don't expect him to blow Bush out of the water with his acceptance speech in Boston, but as soon as they debate, you'll see the REAL John Kerry. I'll bet if Kerry is the nominee , Bush will push for one debate only. If you dont know what I'm talking about, call C-Span and see if you can get a copy of any of the 96' Senate campaign debates he had with Gov. Bill Weld. Some say those debates (im not sure how many they had, I know it was more than 5) will go down as some of the best this country has ever had.

Right now though, I would be happy with either John Kerry or John Edwards. I like them both as people and politicians. I like Wes Clark as a person, not so much as a politician, and Dean....well, I'll say no comment to either.