First casualty of NH: Not Joe-mentum Lieberman, as popularly surmised, but Joe Trippi, the wizard of the failed Dean revolution. Trippi resigned late afternoon, after Dean brought in Gore-man Ron Neel. History may well look back on Trippi kindly, seeing his Dean campaign as the "prime mover" of a new method of campaigning. But the Dean campaign has failed because politics is still about winning over the disengaged, which Trippi, caught in the blogforamerica echo chamber, failed in winning over.
Most pathetic performance of the night: Joe Lieberman on "Hardball". Matthews hammered away at the Bush Administration's credibility, but Mr. Integrity kept sticking up for the prevaricating Bushies, then pathetically tried to spin his single-digit fifth place finish as a "virtual tie for third". Time to hang 'em up, Joe.
Mr. Electable? TNR doesn't think Kerry's got a good jaw. We'll see. I find him tiresome to listen to, and his Boston Brahmin/Skulls pedigree doesn't help his message, but he's a cautious mainstream Democrat who looks and sounds presidential. Given Bush's vulnerabilities, that may be enough.
The new "electability" calculus. Everyone assumes electability appears in a vacuum, but why should it? Let's factor in Bush's strength in order to come up with a preferred candidate, shall we?
- Bush unbeatable, go with Dean (think Goldwater 1964 to realign the party and energize the base).
- Bush strong, go with Clark (potential for grabbing the most voters, but also potential for self-detonation.)
- Bush even, go with Edwards (best campaigner with safe, broad appeal.)
- Bush weak, go with Kerry (safe guy who won't self-destruct and will grab all the Gore votes.)
Stop yelling buddy. Clark needs to tone down on his stump speeches. His handlers are still not making a case for his candidacy beyond "last month I was the anti-Dean, this month I'll be the anti-Kerry." This "Family Values" angle he's got working on may work, but I'd try every answer in tomorrow's debate to (1) experience as a general running his squad; (2) his tax plan; or (3) his opposition to the war.
Cable TV pundits. Absolutely clueless, as always. I should block MSNBC from my cable system. However, there might be room for Ron Reagan, Jr. to step into politics.
Feb. 3. Win or fold time for the pretenders except for Dean, who's aiming at Michigan and Washington four days later. Kerry will have to fight "guerilla" operations by the other candidates hoping to steal some primaries and stall his momentum. None of the following is remotely correct, by the way:
Kerry
Realistic scenario: Wins Missouri, which press declares to be the main contest. 1st in Arizona, NM, competitive everywhere. Retains front-runner status.
Poor-case scenario: Stumbles during the week after intense press scrutiny, only wins one contest next week and finishes third in OK and SC. Press declares Kerry a wounded frontrunner.
Dean
Best-case scenario: Good week means a strong showing in Arizona and NM, and Kerry's stumbles help insure a Michigan and Washington victory, making him a viable contender again.
Realistic scenario: Places 2nd or 3rd in the Southwest, 4th in the southern states, 2nd to Kerry in Washington and Michigan and drops out after March 7.
Clark
Best-case: Strong debate performance, better press coverage, Native American support and good ads help Clark take OK, ND, NM. Finishes a strong second in AZ, SC, and MO, and becomes annointed as the anti-Kerry as Dean endorses him.
Realistic: Takes OK, has a smattering of 2nd place finishes, so his campaign survives, but just barely.
Edwards
Best-case: Strong debate performance helps Edwards take not only SC, but OK. Finishes a strong second in the Southwest, and buyer's remorse on Kerry makes Edwards everyone's favorite alternative. Gets momentum by winning Feb. 10 primaries in neighboring Virginia and TN.
Realistic: Wins SC, 2nd in OK and MO, and continues to limp along, short on cash but in position in case Kerry stumbles.
You're never wrong betting against the pundits. So I imagine one or more of these guys survive Feb. 3 to take on Kerry.
More Deaniacs like this please.
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
Short Oscar thoughts
Good: CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS nod, Johnny Depp!, multiple props to MASTER & COMMANDER, surprise showing for CITY OF GOD, Johnny Depp!
Bad: SHITBISCUIT, no Russell Crowe, SHITBISCUIT, no Peter Skarsgaard, SHITBISCUIT, no SHATTERED GLASS anywhere, SHITBISCUIT, not enough SCHOOL OF ROCK, SHITBISCUIT, nothing for THE COMPANY, SHITBISCUIT, nothing for SECRET LIVES OF DENTISTS.
Awful: SHITBISCUIT robbing COLD MOUNTAIN for best picture.
Bad: SHITBISCUIT, no Russell Crowe, SHITBISCUIT, no Peter Skarsgaard, SHITBISCUIT, no SHATTERED GLASS anywhere, SHITBISCUIT, not enough SCHOOL OF ROCK, SHITBISCUIT, nothing for THE COMPANY, SHITBISCUIT, nothing for SECRET LIVES OF DENTISTS.
Awful: SHITBISCUIT robbing COLD MOUNTAIN for best picture.
Monday, January 26, 2004
Hastily Composed Random Thoughts
* I've been pulling for Dean to rebound some in NH, mainly because I think he's been unfairly beaten up by the media (aka "so-called liberal media") and partially because I'd like to see him stay alive in this campaign. The biggest reason, though, is I'd hate to see his campaign derail on the basis of one speech that's been blown way out of proportion. How many times do we have to see that concession speech (which I found funny the first twelve times I saw it) before the talking heads can figure that THE MAN'S NOT ANGRY! The guy's just excited. Yeah, so he shouldn't have done it, but that doesn't make the guy fucking Gen. Jack D. Ripper.
* Dean = Worthy of respect. Deaniacs = Annoying as fuck. [Added! link to good Saletan article discussing the Deaniac echo chamber.] First, I have some good friends who are bl...Deaniacs. Seriously, most Dean supporters are probably perfectly reasonable. And they're right to be scornful of the media attacks on Dean, which has only added to Dean's "authentic" maverick appeal and their own alienation from the "Establishment." But a bunch of the more nutty variety have taken over political discourse in the middle-left blogosphere, exasperating the non-True Believers. As Eric Alterman notes, anybody who disses their godhead, however legitimately, is villified as a sell-out or "in league with Kerry, or a right-wing stooge. Included among this company are The New Republic, The Post editorial page, the terrific blogger Josh Marshall, etc. The way these guys go on, these wingnuts really deserve no more intellectual respect than "Freepers" on the right. And their unblinking cultish devotion to their Great Leader makes supporting Dean a tough proposition, even if he ends being the anti-Kerry. Hardcore Deaniacs: Case No. 102,883 demonstrating the boomerang effect of militant activism. Too bad, because there's much to admire about Dean, though I'd never support him because I'm an unapologetic pragmatist.
* Clinton astutely observed that Democrats want to fall in love [with their nominee] while the Republicans just fall in line. And it wouldn't work any other way, really, given how differently liberals and conservatives generally approach the world. But perhaps out of desperation (coupled with a disastrously-conceived compacted primary season that does a disservice to primary voters), Democrats are falling in line with the resolutely unlovable John Kerry, who's poised to take NH in a cakewalk. I still think a Clark/Edwards or Edwards/Clark ticket is preferable (electability-wise) to Al Gore redux, but seeing Bush's ever wobbly poll standing, it might be better to field the safest candidate available. John Kerry, the insurance salesman of presidential contenders, is the guy you fall in line with. And at the end of the day, if Kerry survives, why not? As much as it resembles sports, politics is about power, and power comes from winning. It's strange to me that so many are invested in certain candidates as if they're favorite sports teams. Seems to me being a fanboy is exactly the wrong approach to go about following politics and voting. What are your goals and who has the best chance of actualizing some of these goals, shouldn't that be the question?
* Is there a right-wing conspiracy to derail Wes Clark, presumably the candidate Bush fears most? Those ridiculous gotcha questions directed at him (while Kerry got softballs) during last week's debate *sponsored by the Fox News Channel* hints at something strangely nefarious. Clark can seem completely at ease talking domestic policy in certain settings (the town hall, radio call-in shows) while stammering his way through other forums, like last week's debate. It would've been nice if he boned up a little bit and learned to change the question as Edwards had done so smoothly. If he falters, he'd have to blame (1) the decision to not campaign in Iowa; (2) the uninspired debate performance. He's got a famously quick learning curve, but he hasn't found the right *tone* to strike as of yet.
* Admission that eliminates my viability as a bachelor: Yes, I'm a fucking geek. I watch about eight hours of TV a week now, and they're almost all pundit shows ("Hardball" especially), C-Span, or The World Series of Poker re-runs on ESPN. When you think about it, is there anything more pathetic than a poseur pundit?
* PLAYTIME (restored). As I suspected, I hadn't actually seen PLAYTIME. And you haven't actually seen Tati's satire of modern design culture gone amok unless you saw it in glorious 70 mm. A singular fusion of performance art, architecture, and interior design, PLAYTIME's clockwork setpieces and multi-eye-point compositions remain unparalleled in cinema. A knockout.
* Dean = Worthy of respect. Deaniacs = Annoying as fuck. [Added! link to good Saletan article discussing the Deaniac echo chamber.] First, I have some good friends who are bl...Deaniacs. Seriously, most Dean supporters are probably perfectly reasonable. And they're right to be scornful of the media attacks on Dean, which has only added to Dean's "authentic" maverick appeal and their own alienation from the "Establishment." But a bunch of the more nutty variety have taken over political discourse in the middle-left blogosphere, exasperating the non-True Believers. As Eric Alterman notes, anybody who disses their godhead, however legitimately, is villified as a sell-out or "in league with Kerry, or a right-wing stooge. Included among this company are The New Republic, The Post editorial page, the terrific blogger Josh Marshall, etc. The way these guys go on, these wingnuts really deserve no more intellectual respect than "Freepers" on the right. And their unblinking cultish devotion to their Great Leader makes supporting Dean a tough proposition, even if he ends being the anti-Kerry. Hardcore Deaniacs: Case No. 102,883 demonstrating the boomerang effect of militant activism. Too bad, because there's much to admire about Dean, though I'd never support him because I'm an unapologetic pragmatist.
* Clinton astutely observed that Democrats want to fall in love [with their nominee] while the Republicans just fall in line. And it wouldn't work any other way, really, given how differently liberals and conservatives generally approach the world. But perhaps out of desperation (coupled with a disastrously-conceived compacted primary season that does a disservice to primary voters), Democrats are falling in line with the resolutely unlovable John Kerry, who's poised to take NH in a cakewalk. I still think a Clark/Edwards or Edwards/Clark ticket is preferable (electability-wise) to Al Gore redux, but seeing Bush's ever wobbly poll standing, it might be better to field the safest candidate available. John Kerry, the insurance salesman of presidential contenders, is the guy you fall in line with. And at the end of the day, if Kerry survives, why not? As much as it resembles sports, politics is about power, and power comes from winning. It's strange to me that so many are invested in certain candidates as if they're favorite sports teams. Seems to me being a fanboy is exactly the wrong approach to go about following politics and voting. What are your goals and who has the best chance of actualizing some of these goals, shouldn't that be the question?
* Is there a right-wing conspiracy to derail Wes Clark, presumably the candidate Bush fears most? Those ridiculous gotcha questions directed at him (while Kerry got softballs) during last week's debate *sponsored by the Fox News Channel* hints at something strangely nefarious. Clark can seem completely at ease talking domestic policy in certain settings (the town hall, radio call-in shows) while stammering his way through other forums, like last week's debate. It would've been nice if he boned up a little bit and learned to change the question as Edwards had done so smoothly. If he falters, he'd have to blame (1) the decision to not campaign in Iowa; (2) the uninspired debate performance. He's got a famously quick learning curve, but he hasn't found the right *tone* to strike as of yet.
* Admission that eliminates my viability as a bachelor: Yes, I'm a fucking geek. I watch about eight hours of TV a week now, and they're almost all pundit shows ("Hardball" especially), C-Span, or The World Series of Poker re-runs on ESPN. When you think about it, is there anything more pathetic than a poseur pundit?
* PLAYTIME (restored). As I suspected, I hadn't actually seen PLAYTIME. And you haven't actually seen Tati's satire of modern design culture gone amok unless you saw it in glorious 70 mm. A singular fusion of performance art, architecture, and interior design, PLAYTIME's clockwork setpieces and multi-eye-point compositions remain unparalleled in cinema. A knockout.
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
The Dean of Oz
Wow. Waited a few hours to reflect before posting this, as I'm still reeling from the results. I had previously bought into the conventional wisdom that the Iowa results would not shift the dynamic of the race between Dean and anti-Dean (i.e., Clark). But it's clear now that because the candidates all have such "soft" support, both Dean and Clark's strengths are overstated and it's still anyone's game. And obviously I was a jackass to pronounce Kerry's demise. But at the risk of more embarrassment, some post-Iowa tea-leaf reading:
The key question: Can Dean recover from this drubbing?
I think it's highly unlikely.
It's hard to exaggerate the significance of what happened in Iowa. Dean's entire campaign is built on the idea of a movement -- that the people belong to something larger than themselves. They "have the power" to "take back America." However, unlike most political movements, it's not based on an actual cause (e.g., civil rights, sufferage) but on its own success. Or specifically, the Dean movement is based on (1) the authenticity and purity of the struggle; (2) the revolutionary change the movement will help usher in. Dean can still ride the authenticity angle a little further, but the Dean Revolution is now the political equivalent of WebVan -- a great theory that has crapped out in practice. Remember, Dean campaigned for two years in Iowa, a small, comparatively anti-war state that a natural for the kind of grass-roots mobilization that Dean's campaign has championed. To that end, the guy has outspent everyone, and bussed in thousands of volunteers from out-of-state to GOTV. What does he get for this? 18%. Kerry beat him among both first time caucus-goers *and* anti-war people. What we're left with is a guy better suited to be a high school football coach.
Can anyone now take seriously the idea that Dean's ragtag army will pull millions of new voters into the voting booth in November? Watching one of those caucus re-runs on C-SPAN brings me back to college, where some well-meaning dweeb would try to guilt me into becoming a vegan. If I want to institute a ban on, say, the illicit posting of distortedly effeminate pictures of dapper Asian men, I'd try to get a bunch of well-meaning college students to go around protesting against the ban. No group is less persuasive than college activists, and anecdotal evidence suggests Dean's "Perfect Storm" activism backfired as Iowa voters got fed up with aggressive telemarketing pitches from Wesleyan punks.
But the bubble has burst. Many Deaniacs are disillusioned.
Dean's now being compared to tech stocks -- a tale of the bubble bursting from inflated hype. That's about right. The Dean campaign is all about buzz generating more buzz. Folks who weren't interested in politics were talking about Dean. You hear his name uttered by punk kids in Seattle and arty hipsters in Silver Lake. When you lose the buzz -- when you're deemed a has-been, it's hard to recover. I think Dean's lost "it", and now he's just like the other guys. And when Dean's pitted against Clark, Edwards, and even to some degree Kerry on a level playing field, it's clear he's just not as formidable a candidate.
But that doesn't explain why Dean did so badly. Beyond the negative media coverage and the "angry candidate backlash," another good explanation is that voters are burnt out on Iraq. If that's the case, the best scenario for a Dean comeback is Iraq to get worse, fanning the flames of voter outrage. Otherwise, I don't think his attempt at being a sober issues candidate will work (Edwards has that beat covered), though he obviously should start pinning his campaign to something substantive, to something other than the "movement" and his own authenticity. Health care, perhaps? The good doctor still has money, organization, die-hard supporters, and some admirable and appealing qualities that make him a good candidate. He's got numerous tangible advantages, but it's just that there are better candidates. And today, it looks very much like Governor Dean will playing Governor Moonbeam to Clark/Edwards/Kerry's Bill Clinton.
That development, for those of us who want Bush defeated the worst way, is a good thing.
p.s. E.J. Dionne has a very nice piece that explains Dean's current plight: he played a necessary role in moving the candidates into a stronger, more combative stance against Bush, but now he's becoming obsolete as more electable pseudo-Deans have emerged. Solution: make Dean DNC head or HHS Sec!
The key question: Can Dean recover from this drubbing?
I think it's highly unlikely.
It's hard to exaggerate the significance of what happened in Iowa. Dean's entire campaign is built on the idea of a movement -- that the people belong to something larger than themselves. They "have the power" to "take back America." However, unlike most political movements, it's not based on an actual cause (e.g., civil rights, sufferage) but on its own success. Or specifically, the Dean movement is based on (1) the authenticity and purity of the struggle; (2) the revolutionary change the movement will help usher in. Dean can still ride the authenticity angle a little further, but the Dean Revolution is now the political equivalent of WebVan -- a great theory that has crapped out in practice. Remember, Dean campaigned for two years in Iowa, a small, comparatively anti-war state that a natural for the kind of grass-roots mobilization that Dean's campaign has championed. To that end, the guy has outspent everyone, and bussed in thousands of volunteers from out-of-state to GOTV. What does he get for this? 18%. Kerry beat him among both first time caucus-goers *and* anti-war people. What we're left with is a guy better suited to be a high school football coach.
Can anyone now take seriously the idea that Dean's ragtag army will pull millions of new voters into the voting booth in November? Watching one of those caucus re-runs on C-SPAN brings me back to college, where some well-meaning dweeb would try to guilt me into becoming a vegan. If I want to institute a ban on, say, the illicit posting of distortedly effeminate pictures of dapper Asian men, I'd try to get a bunch of well-meaning college students to go around protesting against the ban. No group is less persuasive than college activists, and anecdotal evidence suggests Dean's "Perfect Storm" activism backfired as Iowa voters got fed up with aggressive telemarketing pitches from Wesleyan punks.
But the bubble has burst. Many Deaniacs are disillusioned.
Dean's now being compared to tech stocks -- a tale of the bubble bursting from inflated hype. That's about right. The Dean campaign is all about buzz generating more buzz. Folks who weren't interested in politics were talking about Dean. You hear his name uttered by punk kids in Seattle and arty hipsters in Silver Lake. When you lose the buzz -- when you're deemed a has-been, it's hard to recover. I think Dean's lost "it", and now he's just like the other guys. And when Dean's pitted against Clark, Edwards, and even to some degree Kerry on a level playing field, it's clear he's just not as formidable a candidate.
But that doesn't explain why Dean did so badly. Beyond the negative media coverage and the "angry candidate backlash," another good explanation is that voters are burnt out on Iraq. If that's the case, the best scenario for a Dean comeback is Iraq to get worse, fanning the flames of voter outrage. Otherwise, I don't think his attempt at being a sober issues candidate will work (Edwards has that beat covered), though he obviously should start pinning his campaign to something substantive, to something other than the "movement" and his own authenticity. Health care, perhaps? The good doctor still has money, organization, die-hard supporters, and some admirable and appealing qualities that make him a good candidate. He's got numerous tangible advantages, but it's just that there are better candidates. And today, it looks very much like Governor Dean will playing Governor Moonbeam to Clark/Edwards/Kerry's Bill Clinton.
That development, for those of us who want Bush defeated the worst way, is a good thing.
p.s. E.J. Dionne has a very nice piece that explains Dean's current plight: he played a necessary role in moving the candidates into a stronger, more combative stance against Bush, but now he's becoming obsolete as more electable pseudo-Deans have emerged. Solution: make Dean DNC head or HHS Sec!
Electability and money
In the comments section, Michael Wolfe raised some important issues about matching funds and electability that have been largely discussed only on political junkie blogs. The concern among many about Clark is that, having taken federal matching funds that limits his campaign spending to about $40 million to the Convention, will be a fish in a barrel for Karl Rove during the dog days of summer if he were to win the nomination. It's a legitimate concern, and it's one consideration that clearly tilts in favor of Dean and now Kerry. But this idea (floated often by Deaniacs) that somehow Rove/Fox News/Right-Wing Media Cabal will turn Clark or Edwards into charred toast seems kinda paranoid.
The money is far less important during the summer months than it is (1) during the primary season, when you're looking to create name recognition and generate momentum to win in a crowded field; (2) the closing two months, when you want to bombard swing states with ad buys and pour money into GOTV operations. During the summer, money is best spent on organization, and there, the DNC can lay the groundwork. The DNC is currently in trouble, but when the dust settles on the nomination, I expect the contributions to pick up dramatically in the summer months. So I think both Clark and Edwards will be okay; I really don't see the money issue being decisive either in the primaries or the general. And if the Iowa results prove anything, it's that process and organizational strength only go so far; an attractive candidate is still more important.
The key is shaping your image for the media. If it's true that the race starts off at a 45-45 split, that remaining ten percent is unlikely to even be paying attention until the debates, if past "swing voter" behavior is any guide. So even if you're sitting on wads of cash in July, that money on TV ads just isn't gonna be that cost-effective. What's more important is in making sure the media's playing a good "meme" about you. As the Dean debacle in Iowa shows, negative media kills. Clark and Edwards, though both vulnerable too different charges, have the best chance of withstanding the media scrutiny due to their superior presentation skills.
And remember, Clark or Edwards would have something just as powerful as "money": they're running full-time for President, and they can show up on TV as often as their advisors think is necessary.
The main problem will be in dealing with under-the-radar attack ads from Rove/RNC, but here's where I think the Internet and connectivity will help: the Clarkie who hears a dirty radio ad in Lima, Ohio can just post the info on the Clark blog, which will then mobilize his activist core to action. This is one area where the internet will make a difference.
Me, I gave money to Clark because as much as I like much of what Dean is doing, I think he's not nearly as appealing a general election candidate and Joe Trippi's "New Voter/Activate the Base" strategy is doomed to failure. (The base will be motivated to throw this bum out of office; "new voters" are a mirage.)
The money is far less important during the summer months than it is (1) during the primary season, when you're looking to create name recognition and generate momentum to win in a crowded field; (2) the closing two months, when you want to bombard swing states with ad buys and pour money into GOTV operations. During the summer, money is best spent on organization, and there, the DNC can lay the groundwork. The DNC is currently in trouble, but when the dust settles on the nomination, I expect the contributions to pick up dramatically in the summer months. So I think both Clark and Edwards will be okay; I really don't see the money issue being decisive either in the primaries or the general. And if the Iowa results prove anything, it's that process and organizational strength only go so far; an attractive candidate is still more important.
The key is shaping your image for the media. If it's true that the race starts off at a 45-45 split, that remaining ten percent is unlikely to even be paying attention until the debates, if past "swing voter" behavior is any guide. So even if you're sitting on wads of cash in July, that money on TV ads just isn't gonna be that cost-effective. What's more important is in making sure the media's playing a good "meme" about you. As the Dean debacle in Iowa shows, negative media kills. Clark and Edwards, though both vulnerable too different charges, have the best chance of withstanding the media scrutiny due to their superior presentation skills.
And remember, Clark or Edwards would have something just as powerful as "money": they're running full-time for President, and they can show up on TV as often as their advisors think is necessary.
The main problem will be in dealing with under-the-radar attack ads from Rove/RNC, but here's where I think the Internet and connectivity will help: the Clarkie who hears a dirty radio ad in Lima, Ohio can just post the info on the Clark blog, which will then mobilize his activist core to action. This is one area where the internet will make a difference.
Me, I gave money to Clark because as much as I like much of what Dean is doing, I think he's not nearly as appealing a general election candidate and Joe Trippi's "New Voter/Activate the Base" strategy is doomed to failure. (The base will be motivated to throw this bum out of office; "new voters" are a mirage.)
Wednesday, January 14, 2004
2004 Dem Also-Rans
An improbable outcome is at hand...or is it? The latest tracking polls show that formerly dead-in-water John Kerry might actually win Iowa, which may change the dynamic of this race. It seems likely that Dean's more energetic supporters will come out and defeat Gephardt and Kerry in Iowa, but who knows? Regardless of what happens in Iowa, I still think it'll come down to a Dean/Clark race and so will have something more extensive to say about them individually. (I keep swinging back and forth on Dean, and so the anti-Dean draft I had written two weeks ago is functionally worthless...)
As Iowa approaches and pretenders drop by the wayside, a breakdown of the non-Clark/Dean Dems (excluding no-hopers Al Sharpton, Carol Mosely-Braun, and Dennis Kucinich), many of whom will then fade into Paul Tsongasland:
John Edwards
Strengths: Most detailed and thought-out domestic policies; ties policies and biography ("son of a mill worker") seamlessly into the most compelling Big Theme ("Value Work, Not Wealth") of any of the candidates; the most natural politician of the group, engaging and charming; Clintonesque; woulda cleaned Bush's clock in 2000.
Weaknesses: This is not 2000; does not project strength on foreign policy; too youthful-looking and pretty, aka "Breck Girl" -- 'nuff said.
Past Dem candidate he most resembles: Al Gore, 1984, Bill Clinton 1992
Fantasy scenario: Finishes over 16% in Iowa, generating buzz and momentum, does respectably in NH, wins South Carolina, and becomes the press and pundit's choice to be the Anti-Dean, riding money and momentum to a long, hard-fought nomination win, possibly at the Convention.
Likely scenario: Does well in Iowa, but finishes second to Clark in SC, effectively ending his candidacy; becomes popular media choice as VP choice for Clark or Dean.
More electable than Howard Dean?: Yes.
In a nutshell: Great candidate, wrong year.
John Kerry
Strengths: War hero; stature on nat'l security issues; experienced; tall, commanding presence; strong command of the issues.
Weaknesses: His initials are "JFK"; speaks like a pompous debate club nerd doing mock Lincoln-Douglas; looks (a) "too French"; (b) like a talking cadaver; (c) like a squished grape; about as "everyman" as Chris Eigeman; stock "condescending, blow-dried, Ivy League, Yankee" liberal out of casting call -- at least he's not "effete".
Past Dem candidate he most resembles: Joe Biden, 1988; Bob Kerrey, 1992
Fantasy scenario: Wins Iowa, becomes "comeback kid" and finishes a strong second in NH, knocking out Clark; convinces rich wife to front him some dough and rides "anti-Dean" sentiment to a win, possibly at the Convention.
Likely scenario: Less committed supporters mean a close 3rd in Iowa, with Edwards and a wounded Dean becoming the story; does not close the gap on Clark in NH and drops out after Feb. 3.
More electable than Howard Dean?: No.
In a nutshell: schizophrenic campaign (JFK highminded rhetoric w/ Everyman pandering and anti-Dean lowblows) lost me.
Dick Gephardt
Strengths: Strong labor support; established Democrat; triangulated on Iraq War; gaffe-free.
Weaknesses: See line below + creepy eyebrows.
Past Dem candidate he most resembles: Walter Mondale, 1984
Fantasy scenario: Finishes 1st in Iowa, becomes anti-Dean after defeating him in Michigan; wins the key industrial states in March and becomes nominee at a brokered Convention.
Likely scenario: Finishes 2nd or 3rd in Iowa and drops out after Feb 3 when he runs out of cash.
More electable than Howard Dean?: No.
In a nutshell: Has "respectable loser" written all over him. Dislike his paleoliberal inclinations and labor pandering ("global minimum wage" -- wtf?) -- I'd rather lose with Dean or Edwards.
Joe Lieberman
Strengths: Most moderate Dem; high name recognition; neutralizes Bush by taking him on from the right on foreign policy; TNR endorsement.
Weaknesses: wimpy, schoolmarmish Uncle vibe belies tough man rhetoric; no presidential presence; hated by the Dem activist base; TNR endorsement.
Past Dem candidate he most resembles: Earnest Hollings, 1984
Fantasy scenario: Dean, Clark, Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry all perish after terrorists attack a Dem debate in SC; Lieberman, who missed the debate due to a fundraiser with an anti-Hollywood values group, becomes nominee by default.
Likely scenario: No traction anywhere, Lieberman, tired of getting booed, drops out after Feb. 2.
More electable than Howard Dean?: a resounding No.
In a nutshell: Shut up you scolding bitch.
As Iowa approaches and pretenders drop by the wayside, a breakdown of the non-Clark/Dean Dems (excluding no-hopers Al Sharpton, Carol Mosely-Braun, and Dennis Kucinich), many of whom will then fade into Paul Tsongasland:
John Edwards
Strengths: Most detailed and thought-out domestic policies; ties policies and biography ("son of a mill worker") seamlessly into the most compelling Big Theme ("Value Work, Not Wealth") of any of the candidates; the most natural politician of the group, engaging and charming; Clintonesque; woulda cleaned Bush's clock in 2000.
Weaknesses: This is not 2000; does not project strength on foreign policy; too youthful-looking and pretty, aka "Breck Girl" -- 'nuff said.
Past Dem candidate he most resembles: Al Gore, 1984, Bill Clinton 1992
Fantasy scenario: Finishes over 16% in Iowa, generating buzz and momentum, does respectably in NH, wins South Carolina, and becomes the press and pundit's choice to be the Anti-Dean, riding money and momentum to a long, hard-fought nomination win, possibly at the Convention.
Likely scenario: Does well in Iowa, but finishes second to Clark in SC, effectively ending his candidacy; becomes popular media choice as VP choice for Clark or Dean.
More electable than Howard Dean?: Yes.
In a nutshell: Great candidate, wrong year.
John Kerry
Strengths: War hero; stature on nat'l security issues; experienced; tall, commanding presence; strong command of the issues.
Weaknesses: His initials are "JFK"; speaks like a pompous debate club nerd doing mock Lincoln-Douglas; looks (a) "too French"; (b) like a talking cadaver; (c) like a squished grape; about as "everyman" as Chris Eigeman; stock "condescending, blow-dried, Ivy League, Yankee" liberal out of casting call -- at least he's not "effete".
Past Dem candidate he most resembles: Joe Biden, 1988; Bob Kerrey, 1992
Fantasy scenario: Wins Iowa, becomes "comeback kid" and finishes a strong second in NH, knocking out Clark; convinces rich wife to front him some dough and rides "anti-Dean" sentiment to a win, possibly at the Convention.
Likely scenario: Less committed supporters mean a close 3rd in Iowa, with Edwards and a wounded Dean becoming the story; does not close the gap on Clark in NH and drops out after Feb. 3.
More electable than Howard Dean?: No.
In a nutshell: schizophrenic campaign (JFK highminded rhetoric w/ Everyman pandering and anti-Dean lowblows) lost me.
Dick Gephardt
Strengths: Strong labor support; established Democrat; triangulated on Iraq War; gaffe-free.
Weaknesses: See line below + creepy eyebrows.
Past Dem candidate he most resembles: Walter Mondale, 1984
Fantasy scenario: Finishes 1st in Iowa, becomes anti-Dean after defeating him in Michigan; wins the key industrial states in March and becomes nominee at a brokered Convention.
Likely scenario: Finishes 2nd or 3rd in Iowa and drops out after Feb 3 when he runs out of cash.
More electable than Howard Dean?: No.
In a nutshell: Has "respectable loser" written all over him. Dislike his paleoliberal inclinations and labor pandering ("global minimum wage" -- wtf?) -- I'd rather lose with Dean or Edwards.
Joe Lieberman
Strengths: Most moderate Dem; high name recognition; neutralizes Bush by taking him on from the right on foreign policy; TNR endorsement.
Weaknesses: wimpy, schoolmarmish Uncle vibe belies tough man rhetoric; no presidential presence; hated by the Dem activist base; TNR endorsement.
Past Dem candidate he most resembles: Earnest Hollings, 1984
Fantasy scenario: Dean, Clark, Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry all perish after terrorists attack a Dem debate in SC; Lieberman, who missed the debate due to a fundraiser with an anti-Hollywood values group, becomes nominee by default.
Likely scenario: No traction anywhere, Lieberman, tired of getting booed, drops out after Feb. 2.
More electable than Howard Dean?: a resounding No.
In a nutshell: Shut up you scolding bitch.
Thursday, January 08, 2004
Tracking poll/Movie Club
A couple of interesting links of note:
For political junkies, The American Research Group has daily tracking polls posted for the New Hampshire primary. In the last couple days, Clark is now poised to become the anti-Dean candidate by overtaking Kerry in New Hampshire and gaining momentum for a strong second finish. Of course, wacky results from the Iowa caucus, which will be held a week before New Hampshire, might shake NH up. (Late addition!: Kerry is (shockingly) surging in Iowa, which would turn the NH race upside down.) But if we assume Dean or Gephart wins a close race, the dynamic will remain constant. And right now, we're heading towards a Dean/Clark showdown. Why? There are three crucial elements to winning the nomination: (1) money; (2) organization; (3) momentum. Only Clark can compete with Dean on the first two. And momentum depends on largely on "expectatations" (read: media-determined conventional wisdom). If there's any crack in the "inevitability" armor of Dean's, you can bet the media will capitalize on it to shake up the race (if to generate excitement). For the media, who better to annoint as the savior of the Democrats from the Dean Disaster than the Clinton-supported General, who is clearly finding his voice and gaining ground among the grass-roots. All that's needed is an opening. If Clark breaks 23% or so in NH, the media will open a big hole for him to run through.
This year's Movie Club (a discussion of critics run by David Edelstein on Slate) has been quite fun, though not quite as contentious as some years, when Jonathan Rosenbaum would throw bombs at the media establishment. Manohla tries for provocation, but she doesn't have J-Ro's self-righteousness. Anyway, I especially like the sober intellectualism of A.O. Scott, whose hiring by the NY Times a couple years back I had derided on a movie nerd discussion group.
* Got a lot of drafts in the queue, but haven't had time to finish 'em. Included will be a review of SECRET THINGS, a long piece on Howard Dean, and diaries of my trip to Shanghai and Taipei. But between work pile-up and new personal developments, all of this will be dribbling out pretty slowly, I'm sure.
For political junkies, The American Research Group has daily tracking polls posted for the New Hampshire primary. In the last couple days, Clark is now poised to become the anti-Dean candidate by overtaking Kerry in New Hampshire and gaining momentum for a strong second finish. Of course, wacky results from the Iowa caucus, which will be held a week before New Hampshire, might shake NH up. (Late addition!: Kerry is (shockingly) surging in Iowa, which would turn the NH race upside down.) But if we assume Dean or Gephart wins a close race, the dynamic will remain constant. And right now, we're heading towards a Dean/Clark showdown. Why? There are three crucial elements to winning the nomination: (1) money; (2) organization; (3) momentum. Only Clark can compete with Dean on the first two. And momentum depends on largely on "expectatations" (read: media-determined conventional wisdom). If there's any crack in the "inevitability" armor of Dean's, you can bet the media will capitalize on it to shake up the race (if to generate excitement). For the media, who better to annoint as the savior of the Democrats from the Dean Disaster than the Clinton-supported General, who is clearly finding his voice and gaining ground among the grass-roots. All that's needed is an opening. If Clark breaks 23% or so in NH, the media will open a big hole for him to run through.
This year's Movie Club (a discussion of critics run by David Edelstein on Slate) has been quite fun, though not quite as contentious as some years, when Jonathan Rosenbaum would throw bombs at the media establishment. Manohla tries for provocation, but she doesn't have J-Ro's self-righteousness. Anyway, I especially like the sober intellectualism of A.O. Scott, whose hiring by the NY Times a couple years back I had derided on a movie nerd discussion group.
* Got a lot of drafts in the queue, but haven't had time to finish 'em. Included will be a review of SECRET THINGS, a long piece on Howard Dean, and diaries of my trip to Shanghai and Taipei. But between work pile-up and new personal developments, all of this will be dribbling out pretty slowly, I'm sure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)