Looks like its anybody's ballgame

Dean has by far the most complete and aggressive ground operation in Iowa. I think that will pull him through. If it does, the inevitability tag will get stronger.

I still haven't figured which way I'm going when the circus comes to NM. My top four are Dean, Clark, Edwards, and Kerry. Over the last few months, I've flipped Dean and Clark a few times and Edwards and Kerry a few times. All I know for sure is I'll work for and send money to the Dem Nominee.

 

Edwards will be the big winner if he can land 15% of the Iowa vote (which I think is the cutoff for getting delegates). Edwards would then definitely have the momentum. A strong finish in New Hampshire would put him into the race.

I also see a "clinton" quality in Edwards. His posiitve message is now setting him apart form the other candidates. This may be a good thing for the Democratic primaries, but I am unsure if this is the right tact for the general election. We will see.

 

A Dean loss may be a good thing for his candidacy. Say Kerry wins. Going into NH, the other will then have to split their attack ads between both Dean and Kerry.

Last night on MSNBC Hardball, they had a focus group of Dem caucus voters. Dean was losing support and the attack ads appear to be working (which always a sad thing).

 

Dean is still the favorite, but it could be interesting to see how things work out. Clark is coming on very strong, and Edwards and Gephardt are making a play for an upset.

Ah, I love horseraces, I mean politics.

 

-Gephardt: must win Iowa, but he won't, coming in a disappointing 4th, and his candidacy will rapidly fade after the caususes. he'll eventually pull out and throw his support to Kerry. Retires from congress and eventually becomes president after all, of the AFL-CIO.

-Dean: finishes second in Iowa, which is seen as definite setback following all the press and great expectations. The pressure mounts for a big win in NH. He wins NH, but not by much and his candidacy follows the primaries south in the coming weeks. eventually takes his ball and goes home, becomming the Liberal Rush Limbaugh on Al Gore's new radio network.

-Kerry: Surprise winner in Iowa, which gives his campaign a huge boost going into NH, where he breaks into tears when James Taranto suggests he bears a slight resemblance to Ed Muskie. Still manages to finish second, but the campaign falters in the south, where they just don't like the french very much.

-Clark: Fourth in NH, but he hangs on through Super Tuesday. the electorate soon tires of his hectoring style, and he quits in a huff and moves to The Hague where he becomes Chief Justice of the International Criminal Court.

-Edwards: Runs a strong third in both Iowa and NH, then cleans up in the south. He wins the nomination by acclamation, and he an W run one of the cleanest campaign in US history. He loses however when, responding to a question during the last debate about which was hotter Christina and Madonna, or Britney and Madonna, replies, "neither, I prefer
Jennifer Beals and Mia Kirshner ."

 

It's going to be a 4-horse race until they have a debate on prime time. Right now, it seems like the public doesn't have enough facts to distinguish between the candidates, hence the parity shown in the polls.

It's interesting that Wesley Clark's picking up steam in New Hampshire, yet people don't give a damn about him in Iowa.

 

That's because he chose not to run in Iowa.

 

My wife and I were talking about Dean today... both of us being political junkies, and we realized that we just don't like Dean. I'm not talking about his stand on the issues, I'm talking about the same feeling we had about Dukakis, to a lesser extent about Gore, and how I felt about McGovern. We just don't like him.

It crystallized for me when I was watching Dean standing behind Braun's left shoulder while she was giving her endorsement. He looked bored and like he would rather be anywhere but there. Now I know that Harkin gave a half hour speech "introducing" Braun that seemed like an hour and a half, but if you're running for president you have to be "up" for events like this.

Anyway, I was watching him and started thinking, "This might be our nominee??" Which led me to think about why I was thinking that way. That's when I realized the other times I felt like this. I'm more than willing to change my mind if Dean can manage it, and will certainly vote for him if he gets the nod.

I'm for Clark and then Kerry, with Edwards being someone I would need to learn more about. Let's have a Democrat who can win, people! Bush is becoming like an overly ripe fruit about to fall off a, uh, bush. I think he is very beatable with the right person at the head of the ticket. Dean just doesn't look like that to me.

 

I'm not really a democrat, but I do like Dean as candidate. I like Kerry's issues but over the years I like him less than I used to.

Just judging for the way that candidates have campaigned I really like Edwards. He seems to shy away from the negativity. In the national election that might not work, and it might not even work for him in the primaries, but I do admire him for it never-the-less.

 

Have you heard many of Dean's stump speeches?

The only reason I ask is that Dean is completely different on the stump than in the debates. I was completely unimpressed with Dean in the debates that I have seen. Conversely, I have liked Dean stump speeches.

I currently liike Edwards the best. My one reservation like yours is that running a positive campaign may not be good in the general election. But MoveOn.org et al may cover the negative side well enough.

 

Caught alittle of Edwards on CSPAN this evening... he was in the zone.

 

Although not a Democrat, I feel qualified to respond to this because Bush's actions have frightened and saddened me so much that I am desperate to see him replaced before he does further harm.


Dean- I am not going to help my friendship with Batman here, but I really hope Dean isn;t the guy going up against Bush, for several reasons. FIrst and foremost, whenever I see him speak, he comes across as defensive, bordeline petulant/sarcastic, and doesn't deomstrte a great sense of command. That said he seems bright, informed, and I agree that part of his persona is dictated by being under attack so often. I just think that the way he responds to being attacked, while understandable as a human being, doesn't instill an overall sense of leadership and confidence. I really want to get Bush out, and am unsire if Dean's the guy to do it. Like a lot of his positions, and not evaluating him on what kind of political leader he makes, more as what kind of opponent to Bush he makes; beats him in debates, but who doesn't? And how many will Bush agree to? 1 at most, I'd say...


Kerry- Before Clark joined he was my early favorite, but I can't get a solid grasp on him. At times he seems like a cookie cutter politican; too rehearsed and processed, not comfortable in his own skin,somewhat like Al Gore...but every time I rule him out, he then impresses me later on. Sildi if unspectacular candidate, IMO.

Gephart- Best pure Washington politician of the bunch, and makes great use of Clinton style political positions and record. On camera he can come across a bit fake, but people I hear who meet him in person say he is a straight shooter. Not sure how well he matches up with Bush...not saying it's a bad matchup, just don;t get a feel.

Clark- To me, he's the wildcard. Dissapointed me a little in first debate, and has had a couple of stumbles, but considering he came into this on the fly, has the best resume by far for the job, has moments where he seems to easily be the most Presidential, and has maintained relatively high numbers on a national level while ( to a degree intentionally) dropping out of the scene in some localities says that, at the end of the day, he's still the guy with, to use a sports analogy, has the greatest 'upside', and if he starts to get momentum, stands the greatest chance of really beating the hell out of Bush. Has to improve on domestic, but as Bush sucks there too, not that big of a deal. Seeing them denate on foreign affairs would be a laugher, and I think Bush would be seriously embarrassed.

Edwards- If Clark weren't in the running, Edwards would be the wildcard. Sort of pushes the " Aw shucks, ma'am' angle a tad too much for my liking, sort of has moments og cookie cutter politician, but a solid, engaging politician whose youth could develop something of a Kennedy/Clintonesqu late momentum as a sign of change if he gets rolling.

 

Debates don't shine kindly on Dean's personality. He nails all the questions, but his passion makes him look uncomfortable up there.

But his rallies and stump speeches are genuinely inspiring. He's a totally different guy. His passion works for him.

 

I should have clarified, although it should be obvious, that I evaluated the candidates, not on their positions or what kind of Presidents they'd make, but on their electorability, and how they match up with Bush.

Any and all, excepting possibly Lieberman,whom I'm starting to despise, would make better Presidents than Bush...much better.

 

My Favorites...in order:

Clark <--- Great presence. Good charisma. Speaks well. Has real leadership and military experience; especially on forgien policy.
Dean <--- I like his fire and passion. He's not afraid to talk about the issues that many Americans are concerned about. Wants real change.
Edwards <--- Likable. Southern candor. Has a consistent democratic record with the Senate. Speaks well.

If any of the above three win the presidency, I'm fine with that.

 

I haven't seen him at a rally in person, like I did here in Austin when Clinton was running for his first term. Clinton really impressed me and it made a difference in how I looked at him after that. Maybe seeing Dean in person would have a similar affect... I don't know.

But Clinton was terrific on the stump and in the debates and other functions like Dean had with Harkin and Braun. Dean isn't nearly as effective... not even close, and we need someone who can connect on the tube like a lazer beam and grab your attention. Kerry has his moments, like Gore had on those very rare occasions, but they are few and far between.

But the camera loves Clark and he is getting very comfortable with the political/media mix that they all have to juggle. He's spent his whole life dealing with situations during his service that has and will serve him well when he gets the kinks out of his message. The RNC and friends are busy trying to tear him down before he connects with a wider and wider audience... becoming the real threat that they fear most. And you can't blame them. You can blame them for the way they are attempting to do it, however.

Edwards, like I said, is someone I need to learn more about. As things start to shake out, if Edwards does pretty good, then I should get the chance.

Frankly, I keep salivating over the idea of seeing Clark debate Bush. If Clark makes it that far, he'll be polished, forged in the process that got him to that point, and he will reduce Bush to an irrelevance... a bad four years the country was forced to endure that will be a god-send for graduate students and their dissertations... a bad memory for a country awakening from a nightmare and finding itself again. It's what I hope for.

 

I think Edwards will sneak up on them all.