Goodbye, Senator

What I failed to mention in my post yesterday, was some think that Mickey Kaus pointed out in such harsh, but true prose:

"The more I think about it, a turning point in the Democratic presidential campaign has to come with the first N.H. poll showing Clark ahead of Kerry and in second place. It could come any day now. Clark's only three points behind in one poll and only two in another. [well within the margin of error; see yesterday's post] And Kerry's fading while Clark is rising. ... When the lines cross, several things will happen: 1) The main surviving rationale of Kerry's campaign--"I'm the electable alternative to Dean"--evaporates. It turns out there's a more electable alternative. Kerry's vote asymptotically approaches zero. 2) The #1 versus #2, Dean versus Clark match up will get lots of play in the press because Clark's strengths are Dean's weaknesses, yielding a story line that is simple and compelling: "Peacenik McGovern II versus Electable Military Man. Which will the Democrats Choose?" ... 3) Clark will get a lot of favorable treatment in this new round of coverage--in part because the press feels guilty about giving Dean (as The Note notes) a relatively easy time so far, in part because the press wants a close race. If Clark's ready with an appealing message when the spotlight turns to him, he could give Dean a scare and at least come close enough to winning to get a boost for the post-N.H. primaries. ... "

Earlier, Kaus tries to think up good withdrawal speeches for John Kerry. I feel sorry for Kerry, about the same why I feel sorry for Al Gore...What a nice smart man, who is a horrible candidate with lots of woulda coulda shouda. True, Kerry is dead because of Dean's rise, but Dean rose because he was pointing out Kerry's flaws, the ones that make him unelectable even in Massachusetts in the primary (Dean leads him in two polls).

In truth, Kerry's campaign collapsed in October 2002, when he voted for the war because he thought that would be politically expedient. He was trying to make up for a bad vote on the 1991 war in Iraq, but instead, he voted the wrong way both times. The Gulf War was justified (Iraq had violated the sovereignty of, happily for us an oil-rich country, but a country nonetheless, which violates the most basic part of the UN charter) whereas "Operation Bush/Cheney 2004" was not. Even Al Gore figured that out, having voted for the Gulf War and opposed the current one.