Batman, I hope things go well in Albuquerque. I went there years ago and remember it as a pretty nice place. Good luck. Wow, you really don't like Clark, do you. You know my feelings about him (and Dean, I guess... could never "get" what was so appealing. Maybe because I never saw him in person), but, honestly, I think Kerry would make a great president. If he gets the nod, I'll be pleased. I remember that you were very high on Kerry quite a while back. He's starting to find his stride. And Edwards just makes things that much more appealing for the party. The guy might balance a Kerry ticket more than he would help Clark. Ironically, Kerry would make a great running mate if Clark should win. I'm just excited, although it's still so early, that Dean seems to be toast. Burnt toast, after one of the worst concession speeches I've ever heard. It seems to be turning into a 3 man race pretty early, which surprises me. Lieberman, thank god, has no chance. I'm still high on Clark, but the other two, especially Kerry, who I know more about, would be great on the ticket. The main thing is to beat Bush and save the country from 4 more years of the worst president, in my opinion, since Nixon... and Nixon was much more moderate. (oh, it's strange saying that, but true) I haven't felt this strongly about the danger to the country presented by a sitting president since Tricky Dick... and in many ways, he's worse. I just glad Dean appears to be finished, whether he knows it or not. I think he was who the Administration and the RNC were panting over. They aren't going to get their wish. And I love it. Like Kerry said tonight... bring it on!
What about Clinton's 2nd run? What won it for him??? (sorry for the questions, but I haven't voted since 86 - I've ignored politics until Bush the 2nd got into office).
Anti-Dean. As seen in Iowa, it is extremely important to about half of this country that Bush not be re-elected. A goodly number of those people were nervous about Dean and nobody seemed able to beat him. So far two people have (not three, you'll notice - not yet). Kerry and Edwards will get another look now. And if Clark stays high in the polls, he'll get his first scrutiny. My take: he won't wear it well. Kerry's been through the wars several times. Tonight people were talking about his debates with William Weld, which they regarded as some of the best debates in our modern political history. Kerry kicked Weld's ass. Edwards knocked off the Helms machine -- something no one had been able to do forever. He's a natural debater from his years as a trial lawyer. Clark's a great thinker, but not on his feet. And he's gotten a total pass so far, as everyone's been focused on Dean. Main answer to your question though is that on a national scale people haven't been paying close attention. And Clark looks great on paper. It's the same reason I hoped like hell he'd run. But on all accounts (other than NH where they've been looking for an anti-Dean and national polls where Lieberman also runs well) he's disappointed in disturbing ways.
Deckard: Wow, you really don't like Dean do you? As I keep saying, I want to like Clark. I want him to save the day. But my very favorite hobby is following politics and everything since his resume has let me down. I want to win too -- my point is I don't for a minute think Clark's the guy to do it. On paper, there's almost no one better. On the stump or in a debate or a TV interview, there's almost no one worse. Everything out of his mouth reminds me of Bush's line about "being a leader... cause that's what a leader does.... a leader leads...." I feel like he's saying nothing and he's not even saying it in a compelling way. I feel like he'd play Bush even, while Kerry or Edwards or Dean would make him answer those hard questions he owes us answers to. I almost want those good debates as much as I want to win. But I want to win more. That's the main reason Clark's my fourth choice for nominee. He was fifth, but Gephardt's out.
Man, I don't know anymore. I think any of the big four or five could make it a horserace against Bush, depending on how well they can exploit the issues that are important to Americans and come across as a candidate who has a plan to change those things. It's a tightrope the candidate will have to walk, having to be both negative and positive at the same time. They have to convince the electorate that things are bad enough to need to be changed (being negative) while also convincing them that they are the person who has the plan to change it (being positive). Dean has got the negative part down. But that will only take him so far. In the end, people want to feel good. That's why all the movies have happy endings. The electorate may be mad, and a candidate can get some mileage out of that for a while, but eventually, they want hope. The idea that the candidate can and will turn it around, rather than just be someone who agrees that things are bad enough to be mad about. Kerry kind of has some Al Gore issues to me. He comes across a bit stuffy. A bit boring. Americans don't mind wealthy New Englanders if they're dynamic. But Kerry is too often not dynamic. Plus, I think he looks sleepy a lot of the time. Fortunately for him, though, GWB is not always that dynamic. But evne though GWB also lived the wealthy New Englander lifestyle growing up. GWB does not come across as a stuffy New Englander. Edwards is sure handsome, but other than that, I don't really know anything about him. I think he's got a better chance to unseat the President than it seems right now. I think he realizes my maxim on being both positive and negative in the campaign. He's pointing out problems while offering solutions. If he can get through the primaries, I think he has the potential to be a tough competitor. I agree that Clark is kind of creepy. I also think he's not nearly the candidate he's made out to be. Every so often, the Democrats talk about wanting some big military guy so they can be strong on foreign affairs or national security. But I disagree with this being an advatange. First off, the people who hold those issues as their highest priority are, by and large, not going to vote for a Democrat no matter how big a general he is. And secondly, I think a lot of people don't like generals, unless that general is something of a real straight shooter (like Schwartzkopf was). If they don't feel like they could go have a beer with the guy, then he's just some 'superior officer' type like John Larroquette in Stripes. To me, a Democrat running a campaign of "I'm a former general, therefore I know about national security and world affairs" would be running the campaign that the Republicans would want to see run. That's playing to an area where the President does get high marks. Better to run a campaign that plays to the strengths of Democrats already. Sometimes you have to tell voters what's important. Running on what Bush says is important is, in my opinion, a recipe for disaster. But that's just what I think.
He was the sitting President up against a doddering old man who, as far as I could tell, never really came up with a campaign at all and who certainly wasn't very likeable. It surprised me that Dole did as well as he did (and he didn't do very well).
MELTDOWN Dean Loses It Yes, the caucus — and his self-control, too. Finishing third in a contest that just a few weeks earlier he had been expected to win handily is surely a setback for the campaign of Howard Dean. But in the long run, Dean's Iowa concession speech, in which he appeared to lose control of himself and began screaming at supporters — all in front of dozens of television cameras — may be even more damaging. Dean's speech, delivered at his headquarters in Des Moines, stunned even some observers used to his displays of anger on the campaign trail. And in the days after the caucuses it is sure to spark discussion of Dean's emotional intensity and whether such intensity should be a disqualifying characteristic for a potential president. The speech didn't start badly. Although Dean appeared oddly exuberant after what was an extraordinarily disappointing finish, that might easily be attributed to a politician's desire to put a publicly positive face on bad news. "You know something?" Dean asked his fans. "If you had told us one year ago that we were going to come in third in Iowa, we would have given anything for that." That was a perfectly reasonable gloss for a candidate to put on unfavorable election results. But Dean quickly took on a red-faced, shouting, teeth-baring, air-punching demeanor unlike any of his performances during the campaign. "Not only are we going to New Hampshire," he said, his voice rising. "We're going to South Carolina and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we're going to California and Texas and New York. And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then we're going to Washington, D.C. to take back the White House." Then he let out a strange, extended, yelp that seemed to come from deep within him: "YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!" Dean resumed his roll of states. "We will not give up! We will not give up in New Hampshire! We will not give up in South Carolina! We will not give up in Arizona or New Mexico, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan! We will not quit now or ever! We'll earn our country back for ordinary Americans!" As the crowd began to applaud, Dean recited still more states. "And we're going to win in Massachusetts! And North Carolina! And Missouri! And Arkansas! And Connecticut! And New York! And Ohio!" — the home states of Dean's rivals for the Democratic nomination. At times in his speech, Dean's demeanor seemed that of a man who was not aware of how he looked to outside observers. In the last days of the Iowa contest he had undergone the extreme stress of a candidate losing control of a campaign he had once dominated. His reaction to the loss in Iowa brought to mind statements Dean made on January 8, in an interview with People magazine, in which Dean discussed the emotional difficulties he has sometimes had dealing with stressful situations. In the interview, Dean discussed how, as a medical student, he encountered difficulties when he had to treat a nine year-old victim of a drive-by shooting. Dean denied suggestions that he froze up, but said, "I discovered that my really intense emotional empathy just made it hard for me to do the things that had to be done." People reporter J. D. Heyman then asked about later anxiety attacks Dean had suffered. "What were those like?" "It was not a big deal," Dean responded. "I was just anxious and I didn't know why." "So it was a paralyzing — " "No, not a bit," Dean answered. "I didn't miss a day of work. I didn't worry about what was going to happen. I just wasn't sure what was going on and then I traced it to my brother [who had disappeared in Laos]." "Through counseling?" Heyman asked. "Yeah," Dean said. "Was it just talking it through or were you ever medicated?" "No. It was just anxiety." "Well, today, you say the word 'anxiety' and there are eight or nine different anti-anxiety drugs — " Heyman said. Dean explained that he is "not a big fan of most anti-anxiety drugs." He said he occasionally takes "stuff for sleep," but "anti-anxiety drugs and sleep drugs were essentially the same thing when I was practicing. And my experience was whenever I took a sleeping pill, there would be rebound insomnia and so I didn't like to take them." Heyman asked, "And since then, it was as if you went in, you took care of the problem and that has never been a problem since?: "No," said Dean. "That was in the early eighties." "It sounds as if you had a little bit of an anxiety attack when you got the word that you were now governor," Heyman said. "I did," Dean answered. " I hyperventilated and I started hyperventilating and I thought, 'You better stop that or you won't be much good to anybody.'" "Has that happened since, or before?" "No." "Why was that such a — " "To suddenly get told that you have responsibility for 600,000 people — it provokes a little anxiety." "But now you're asking for responsibility for 250 million and then, the global reach of the U.S. presidency. That doesn't provoke a little anxiety?" "No," Dean answered. "I mean I wouldn't be doing it if I didn't — First of all, I think everybody has a little anxiety when they approach a job like that." Dean then explained that as a doctor and as governor, he had made many hard decisions, sometimes involving life and death. Throughout his campaign, Dean has been an emotionally volatile candidate. He has made anger a feature of his campaign, with the exception of a few days toward the end of the Iowa contest when he tried to adopt a more statesmanlike approach (a strategy he soon abandoned). In the face of questions about his tone, Dean denied that he was angry and claimed that his campaign was in fact about hope. But now, following his nearly over-the-top performance in his concession speech, the questions will return.
watching howard dean last night gave me dual feelings. i was moderately disappointed he didn't win...because i really think this guy would get smoked in a national election with the spotlight on. at the same time, i took a certain sigh of relief. because if you asked me to choose between Kerry and Dean, I'd choose Kerry every day.
here is a link to the story T_J posted http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200401200904.asp of course it is from the national review, i suppose that is why T_J never documents his sources
Since I am not a native speaker, I did a little Google search for the expression "getting hammered" and got some surprising results .
i didn't read the story...but if it's about his blowup last night, who needs to read a story? we all saw it. the thing that's driving me crazy is that i'm a liberal nut and think we need some help with healthcare. i don't know if that means a fully nationalized system, or what...kerry touched on it briefly in his speech last night and it resonated with me.
Wll, T_J, at least you stopped using the "M word"! My feelings run parallel to MadMax on this one. I feared Dean being the Dem nominee, because I consider him to be unelectable. Since the main goal for the Dems is that GWB loses in November, I feel it is imperative for them to nominate the most electable candidate, and to me, Dean ain't it. I do think that the one great thing Dean has done is, though his speeches and actions, he energized the other candidates and made them unafraid to speak the truth about Dubya. That to me is a positive, because before this, I considered the Dem candidates to be afraid of standing up to Dubya. As I posted in another thread, I believe the Dem nominee will be either John Kerry or Wes Clark. John Kerry would be a great candidate and would run a strong campaign, but I believe that ultimately he would lose to Dubya in November. Wesley Clark, IMHO, would beat Dubya in November. Clark would make Dubya look like the lying, inept, disconnected sack of sh*t that he is. I would love to see a debate between Clark and Dubya. It would be a match between the valedictorian and the malaprop. Clark would beat Dubya in November. That is why I hope he gets the nomination. If Dubya gets re-elected, it would take twenty years after he is gone to fix all the crap he would screw up during a second term.
"Then he let out a strange, extended, yelp that seemed to come from deep within him: 'YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!'" That is seriously funny.
I think I'm the last Dean supporter left on this board. This campaign's still very early. He's still got a very good chance of winning in New Hampshire, which borders Vermont. Dean has far more personality than any of the other candidates. I loved his "YAAAAHHHH!" shout last night. The guy is hungry, and gives awesome speeches. Meanwhile, Edwards' experience as a trial lawyer will help him tremendously in any debates. I'm pretty neutral on Kerry at this point. I guess I just need to pay more attention to him. Is anyone else going to show up for the Texas primary on March 9?
