The Washington Post's Dana Milbank: "If Sen. John F. Kerry's presidential aspirations melt like a dollop of Cheez Whiz in the sun, the trouble may well be traced to an incident in South Philadelphia on Monday. Here, the Massachusetts Democrat went to Pat's Steaks and ordered a cheesesteak - with Swiss cheese. If that weren't bad enough, the candidate asked photographers not to take his picture while he ate the sandwich; shutters clicked anyway, and Kerry was caught nibbling daintily at his sandwich - another serious faux pas." This is one of these little things that can end a campaign. Yes, being the richest man in the Senate by far with a $675 million fortune and getting $75 haircuts didn't prove to people that Kerry is "out of touch with the common man," but Cheesesteakgate did! Craig LaBan of the Philadelphia Inquirer said that this "will doom" Kerry in Philadelphia and called ordering swiss cheese "an alternative lifestyle." Kerry puppetmaster Robert Gibbs tried to weasel out of his boss' misstep this way: "I suspect that Kerry was thinking about provolone cheese, but became distracted by thinking of the more than three million jobs that have slipped through the holes of George W. Bush's economic plan." You might ask, "What's the big deal?" The big deal is these are the guys who tell you that they are at one with you, that they understand the plight of the middle class, feel your pain, etc. In truth, they're far removed from you - and they don't want to be anywhere near common folk. They think they're better than all the people in "flyover country." You can tell that this cheesesteak looks very foreign to Kerry. It's like he's eating a bug. That's why he loaded it up with so many tomatoes. He looked very queasy about touching the sandwich, as though to say, "What is this, and where did it come from? Has an animal passed by here recently?" Common man my foot-long hero.
Silver spoon, meet John Kerry. Oh, I'm sorry, you two already have an intimate knowledge of one another. DUKAKIS REBORN
Amazing Bush-Boy.....Just cuz dubbya drives his truck on his "ranch" and talks about how he is a simpleton...I mean a "simple" man makes him MORE with the common man? Honestly, I'm sorry to drag Bush into this but how do you be-little a canidate for being exactly what your president is??!! At least Kerry actually served his country with distinction....
This is the sort of stupid thing that people relate to, though, and base their opinion of a candidate on. Most of the important stuff is too boring or complicated. But stuff like high-dollar haircuts or boucing checks to the House bank or not shaking your opponent's hand - those are things the electorate can wrap their minds around.
Little silver spoon, meet George W. Bush's nose! By the way...PAT'S STEAKS ROCKS!!! And a bad faux pas on Kerry's behalf while in Philly....ordering swiss cheese on a Philly Cheesesteak is like walking into the Second Avenue Deli in New York and ordering a corned beef sandwich on white bread with mayonnaise!
Oh, good lord, as if any politician can claim to be some blue collar man of the people. For Jeebus sake, Bush went to freakin' Yale, not exactly welding school. Remember when Bush Sr. didn't know how much a gallon of milk cost and had never seen a scanner at a grocery store? There are more millionaires in Congress than you can shake a stick at. Who cares how the guy eats a sandwich? All I care about is his opinions on the issues. I could care less if Kerry prefers Perrier to Peligrino or Bush likes to get pedicures. What are they going to do for the rest of America? This just really pisses me off. We all complain about the seriousness of politics and how important it is to America, yet we can't stomach a candidate who orders the wrong cheese with his sandwich. How pathetic have we gotten as a country that the way someone wears a tie or the food he eats or how well his wife can back cookies makes any difference to us when it comes to hiring a person for the most important job in the world?
I read the cheesesteak incident yesterday, and although it's silly... we've elected weaker men (ie Bush) for worse reasons. I imagine Kerry will be reborn, complete w/ a Texas BBQ soon. We can predict the scene now, including food all over Kerry's helmet and hands. But rebirth or not, Kerry will not be the nominee. Dean is dropping the other candidates in the dust. Who cares if Kerry is a war hero (well, me, but that's besides the point)? Bush was AWOL and the veterans did not penalize him. Hell, the enlisted people voted for him en masse. The only way that Kerry would ever be elected is if we had blind elections, where voters chose CVs and not names. Right now, this is Dean's puppy to lose. Clark is a tease; Kerry is a disappointment; Edwards is constrained by NC's electorate. Lieberman is a republican and Graham (a qualified candidate for sure) just doesn't have the organization. I have a suspicion that Dean is an *******... but as far as assholes go, it's exciting to realize that he'll be the next President of the United States.
Extremely Pathetic! This all goes back to a post I made in another thread here about six months ago. Everything is Entertainment Let me repeat that for the T_Js among us: Everything is Entertainment Politics is Entertainment Journalism is Entertainment News is Entertainment Sex is Entertainment Sports always was Entertainment Economics is Entertainment Science is Entertainment Nature is Entertainment Weather is Entertainment And on and on and on, ad nauseum. The moment that everything became entertainment in America, which to me was sometime between 1983-1985, was the moment that America started going downhill.
Achebe, damn good assessment of the Dem field. I agree with every word. Jorge, was the Dukakis reborn thing an admission that he lost mostly due to these sort of superficial qualities rather than on the issues? Aside from diversionary personality issues (and does any Bush backer actually have the gall to mention silver spoons? I guess so, but it's just Jorge and he's just joking, the big stinker!), I fail to get the comparison. Bush the draft dodger in flight gear > Dukakis in a tank. By a mile.
I still think it's WAY too early to handicap the field. I don't think we'll really be able to start making predictions until after New Hampshire (and even the results of the New Hampshire primary might not be all that relevant. I recall one Paul Tsongas winning it in 1992), and that's 23 weeks away. There was a time leading up to the 1996 primaries that Phil Gramm was considered the front-runner.
Thanks Batman; we agree on most things. It is a product of the incredibly high IQs that we both possess. btw, leave it to Will to rain on the Dean parade (actually I assume that he'll just harrass the candidacy of any viable Democrat): Slate continues its short features on the 2004 presidential candidates. Previous series covered the candidates' biographies, buzzwords, agendas, and worldviews. This series assesses the story that supposedly shows each candidate at his best. Here's the one told by supporters of Howard Dean—and what they leave out. The story: "Six months before my last re-election [in 2000] I signed a bill into law that made Vermont the first state in American to guarantee equal rights to every person under the law. … That bill was called the civil unions bill. And it said that marriage is between a man and a woman, but same-sex couples are entitled to the exact same legal rights as I have—hospital visitation, insurance, and inheritance rights. … This bill was at about 40 percent in the polls when I signed it. Sixty percent were against it, six months before the election. I never got a chance to ask myself whether signing it was a good idea or not because I knew that if I were willing to sell out the rights of a whole group of human beings because it might be politically inconvenient for a future office I might run for, then I had wasted my time in public service. I looked in the mirror, and I knew that if my political career were about myself, then I would not have signed that bill. But my political career has never been about getting elected. … My political career is about change." (Dean speech, Feb. 21, 2003) Reality check: Dean had no choice but to accept such a bill. In December 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that Vermont was "constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law." The court instructed the legislature to grant gays "inclusion within the marriage laws themselves or a parallel 'domestic partnership' or some equivalent statutory alternative." Given that choice, Dean took the more conservative option. According to the Associated Press, Vermont's lieutenant governor and House speaker supported gay marriage, but Dean didn't. Gay marriage "makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else," Dean said at the time. He did encourage the legislature to pass a civil unions bill. But the alternative he averted was legalizing gay marriage, not preventing gay domestic partnerships. Many supporters of the bill criticized Dean for signing it "in the closet," in private and without a ceremony. The reason Dean looks bold on this issue is that conservatives attacked him for supporting and signing the bill. In 2000, his Republican opponent accused him of threatening and bribing lawmakers to vote for the bill. Dean got so many threats that he had to wear a bulletproof vest. And the issue did sharply reduce his margin of victory.
Nobody ever gave Tsongas a shot at the nomination. That stuff happens in New Hampshire all the time. Meant more for the guys who lost than for the guy who won. But you're right in that it dealt a bad blow to Kerrey and Harkin. And nobody ever called Gramm the frontrunner. All he won was the money race. He got a lot of props for that, but that never made him the frontrunner. I agree with you that it's too early to handicap it with any success, but I think Achebe's take on the current state of the field is dead on. Especially the part where he left out Gephardt.
mrpaige, you are of course correct. If you get a chance, you should read Mark Shields' latest piece on asinine attempts such as my own, to handicap the field: an article on cnn WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- The race for the 2004 Democratic nomination remains, as Labor Day approaches, unsettled and without any front-runner. No clear favorite has yet to emerge from the nine-pack of candidates. This deprives those of us in the political press of a campaign narrative we like to tell every four years: "The Front-Runner Stumbles" story. That is because, with rare exceptions, Democratic primary and caucus voters reject the candidate who leads in the polls and nominate, instead, some semi-unknown underdog. Let's look at the record. Only twice in the last 44 years has the Democratic nominee for president emerged in the year before the election as the clear front-runner in the Gallup Poll: Former Vice President Walter Mondale in 1984 and then-Vice President Al Gore in 2000. By contrast, every other eventual Democratic presidential candidate since (with the obvious exception of uncontested incumbent President Bill Clinton in 1996) has trailed -- often badly -- in surveys the year before the election. Consider the polling record of the only Democrat since FDR to win two White House terms -- Bill Clinton. In August 1991, the Arkansas governor was running fifth with 11 percent, badly trailing New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, U.S. Sen. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas and former California Gov. Jerry Brown. By that October, just 13 months before he would defeat President George Herbert Walker Bush, Clinton had slipped to a discouraging 6 percent in the Gallup. Yes, John F. Kennedy was running second to two-time nominee Adlai Stevenson in polls conducted in January, April, May and November of 1959. But JFK looked like a world-beater compared to other eventual Democratic standard-bearers. Vice-President Hubert Humphrey, the 1968 nominee, was the first choice of just 6 percent of Democrats in September 1967. Four years later, Sen. George McGovern went from 5 percent support in January all the way to 5 percent support in December, when he still trailed both senators Edmund Muskie and Ted Kennedy by more than 20 points. Former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter, who won the presidency in 1976, did not register -- not even in single digits -- in any of the four 1975 polls. By August 1979, President Carter was again the underdog, trailing Sen. Kennedy by 63 percent to 25 percent before the Iranian hostage crisis rescued his political career. Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis ended 1987 tied with Illinois Sen. Paul Simon with 10 percent each and behind Jesse Jackson and Colorado Sen. Gary Hart, who led with 31 percent. Republicans are the polar opposite. As the respected Lydia Saad, senior editor at Gallup, has observed, "In almost all cases, the Republican presidential nominee led his opponents continuously from well in advance of the election year, right through the primary season." Republicans Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole and George W. Bush all held what would qualify as commanding leads the year before each man was nominated. The only exception to Republicans nominating the established front-runner was in 1964, when eventual nominee Sen. Barry Goldwater began 1963 behind New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller and ended it (after Rockefeller's divorce and remarriage) behind Richard Nixon. Why the difference between the two parties? Republican voters are far more respectful of the choices and knowledge of their party leaders and office-holders than are Democrats, who are more unruly. I remember one Iowa GOP county chairman in 1995 who explained his endorsement of then-front-runner Bob Dole, "It's his turn." Democrats pay almost no attention to any endorsement by a major Democratic Party figure or office-holder of presidential candidates other than to occasionally ask, "Who the hell does he think he is telling me who(m) to vote for?" Democrats seem to like the candidate who just wandered in the back of the room. What's your name? Carter? McGovern? Dukakis? Clinton? Dean? Edwards? It's an advantage to be a longshot, a previously unknown. If history turns out to a reliable guide, Democratic voters in 2004 will not nominate the eventual front-runner, whoever he or she turns out to be, but will instead confound us by falling in love, once again, with an embattled underdog.
The primary offenders today are Fox News and the conservative talk shows. They work on creating stories and bouncing them until the story gets legs. This is typical. Kerry is a target, so the story is promoted. They love creating the BIG LIE and pushing it. Al Gore said he invented the internet. (he said he was in congress and on a key committee pushing it in its earliest days.) Al Gore claimed to be the character LOVE STORY was based upon (he was, in part, as confirmed by the author). They like to take one small thing and magnify it as if that is the person. I don't care if a guy eats a Philly steak with chop sticks. I do care how his votes have been and whether he is aligned with interests detrimental to the health of the nation. Kerry passes on the points that count, and has for a long time.
That Mark Shields article is good. I read it a few days ago. I've been reading Will's stuff lately too, partly cause of the BBS, partly cause I recently found out he's my friend's brother, partly because I stumbled onto an anti-Dean piece by him a while back and wanted to figure out who he liked. My take on Will's take (and I'd love it if he commented as to the rightness or wrongness of it) is that he's pretty much a DLC style guy -- likes the New Dem philosophy, likes Lieberman's positions but thinks he's a lousy candidate (this is directly lifted from a recent piece) and seems to be for Edwards as of now. His piece on Edwards' populist message was the first thing I read that made me favorably consider him. His beef with Dean seems mostly personal -- like he mostly just rubs him the wrong way -- but maybe I'm not getting the whole picture. He has certainly given him some hell on foreign policy, but it still feels mostly like he just doesn't like him. The thing about Dean's positions is there are people on both sides trying to turn his ideology into a liability (he's too liberal/he's not really a real true liberal) and they really ought to be careful they don't turn it into a strength. There was a good article a while back (maybe Newsweek) that suggested Kerry's strategy against Dean would be making the case that he's not as liberal as primary voters think he is. The Dean counter would be, that's right, I'm more centrist than you think I am and that's why I'm electable. He's going to be hard for establishment Dems to beat, but I'm not at all ready to give him the nod yet. And MacBeth's right. Lieberman needs to just shut the hell up or switch sides.
' Perhaps you are confused about some facts. John Kerry, unlike George Bush, was not born into a wealthy family. He married into it.
Batman, did you read &c (tnr) earlier? Though &c is in lockstep w/ the DLC I read their articles religiously. The argument today was that Lieberman might tar Kerry, only to vault Dean to the top of the ticket. I would suggest that muddying up Kerry will also further Edwards' campaign... if only b/c an anxious Iowa and NH will look anew upon his campaign (at least those amenable to Kerry/Gephardt etc.). It is so wide open that I do not expect any candidates to step down of their own volition... but I can pray that a Gephardt or Lieberman or Graham would step back to let Edwards' campaign a little breathing room (not that I'm terribly taken w/ him yet... but he is one of the few candidates that would actually make Rove sweat). All of that said, and w/ my concession to mrpaige, as well as the link to Shields' article... I still do not see how Dean will miss out on being nominated. It's not as if the voters were amenable to the war, and then later found out that "oops, we were misinformed". The core felt betrayed by the inadequate discussion by all of the Senators turned candidates save Graham. We may find WMD. Incredibly good things may come out of an illegal war... but there's no way in hell the party will sit quiet when they feel that they were correct all along. Dean is the only one that is telling them "yep, you were right". He is serving meat, he is serving old time religion. In an atmosphere of the party a) feeling neutered in 2002 and b) being furiously arrogant b/c 1) they complained about shadey evidence 2) we went to war 3) now everyone admits that there is shadey evidence... I. cannot. see. how. any. candidate. other. than. Dean (or Graham). will. be. the. nominee. Whether the party's arrogance neuters us again in 2004 or not... I don't know. But, I have a hard time imagining that anyone other than Dean will be the nominee.
