Clark/Dean 2, DLC and Lieberman/Gephardt 0
When it comes to questions of war and milarty, who do you trust, a retired 4 star general and a governor of a tiny rural state, or a bunch of military experts who never served in a war and never worked for the Clinton Administration (even though the other half of the office did)?
On the war resolution and the $87 billion approperation, Clark and Dean took the same position, despite contrary belief. Clark and Dean support the Biden-Lugar version of the resolution, that would have had Bush come back to the Congress if the UN/NATO didn't work out. Instead, Gephardt and Lieberman short curcuited the process and the resolution was much more of a blank check for Bush.
Having learned their lession, Edwards and Kerry didn't vote for another blank check, this time a $87 billion one. Clark and Dean had said no to both blank checks, and Lieberman Gephardt and the DLC said yes to both. The DLC went so far as to call those who didn't support the money irresponsible and lacking leadership. Now look what happened.
"Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz last week directed a newly formed inspector general's office in Iraq not to request sensitive information about Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) activities related to intelligence or operational plans." The CPA was supposed to insure that there was no price gouging or anything fishy going on with the money. And the activities that the CPA was restrained from looking into are "initiating, carrying out, or completing an audit or investigation, or from issuing a subpoena, which requires access to sensitive operation plans, intelligence matters, counterintelligence matters, ongoing criminal investigations by other administration units of the [Defense Department] related to national security, or other matters the disclosure of which would constitute a serious threat to national security."
In short, Wolfowitz, who just said "No contracts for you, Old Europe," is saying you can be an inspector general as long as you don't do any inspecting.
Those who aspire to lead the country should show some backbone to the man that has walked all over Congress like the legislative branch doesn't matter, who has disrespected allies of over 50 years (and destroyed most of those relationships), hides information and lies to the general public and the press. Bush has no respect for anything except money and power, and not even the money or power of the US Congress, so why should members of the US Congress trust him? Why should a center-left think tank trust him? Bush has proven is untrustworthiness over and over, from basically January 20, 2001 onwards. Get a clue guys.
This is why outsiders and executors (governors generals etc) win the nominations for president and become president, not Senators and Representatives.
Friday, December 12, 2003
Thursday, December 11, 2003
Dean says he can beat Bush, but what do the polls say?
NEW HAMPSHIRE (4 EVs): Bush Leads Generic Dem By 17; Leads Dean By 27
An American Research Group poll; conducted 12/7-10; surveyed 600 adults; margin of error +/- 4%. Subsample: 450 regis. voters; margin of error +/- 4.6% (release, 12/11).
WH '04 General Election Matchups (asked of RVs only)
All GOP Dem Ind 9/03 All GOP Dem Ind
Bush 51% 88% 5% 47% 50% Bush 57% 94% 14% 63%
Dem 34 6 76 32 36 Dean 30 - 67 11
Undec. 15 6 19 21 14 Undec. 13 6 19 26
Bush Job As President Bush Job Handling The Economy
All GOP Dem Ind 9/03 All GOP Dem Ind 9/03
Approve 58% 94% 5% 58% 51% Approve 54% 88% 5% 53% 44%
Disapprove 34 6 81 26 43 Disapprove 40 6 81 42 48
Bottom line: even in a state where he is well known, well liked and killing his opponnets in the primary, Dean is badly losing to Bush in a must win state. Remember, if Dean holds every state Gore did in 2000, he is still 11 electoral votes short. If Dean is losing a state by 27 points when Gore lost it by a few thousand votes, what does that say for the other swing states, including the ones Gore barely won, like PA?
Not good news for the "Howard is electable" meme or the "GOPers are truely afraid of Dean" meme.
NEW HAMPSHIRE (4 EVs): Bush Leads Generic Dem By 17; Leads Dean By 27
An American Research Group poll; conducted 12/7-10; surveyed 600 adults; margin of error +/- 4%. Subsample: 450 regis. voters; margin of error +/- 4.6% (release, 12/11).
WH '04 General Election Matchups (asked of RVs only)
All GOP Dem Ind 9/03 All GOP Dem Ind
Bush 51% 88% 5% 47% 50% Bush 57% 94% 14% 63%
Dem 34 6 76 32 36 Dean 30 - 67 11
Undec. 15 6 19 21 14 Undec. 13 6 19 26
Bush Job As President Bush Job Handling The Economy
All GOP Dem Ind 9/03 All GOP Dem Ind 9/03
Approve 58% 94% 5% 58% 51% Approve 54% 88% 5% 53% 44%
Disapprove 34 6 81 26 43 Disapprove 40 6 81 42 48
Bottom line: even in a state where he is well known, well liked and killing his opponnets in the primary, Dean is badly losing to Bush in a must win state. Remember, if Dean holds every state Gore did in 2000, he is still 11 electoral votes short. If Dean is losing a state by 27 points when Gore lost it by a few thousand votes, what does that say for the other swing states, including the ones Gore barely won, like PA?
Not good news for the "Howard is electable" meme or the "GOPers are truely afraid of Dean" meme.
so much for loyality
Gore thought that his brazen political move to endorse Dean would force people like Lieberman to drop out sooner. So much for that, according to the New Haven Register, Lieberman's campaign "received twice as many online contributions as any other day in the current quarter," and the rate of online donations "is 10 times above average." Translation: you helped him, you didn't hurt him.
All the pundits are saying now there is a Gore/Dean/Moveon.org wing of the party and a Clinton/Clark/Lieberman wing of the party, with Gephardt/Daschle/Kerry/Edwards wing being the loser congressional Democrats that have never done nothing. The proxy fight between Clinton and Gore is on, with Dean and Clark as the main protagonists. We shall see who pervails. It used to be that Clinton could always be counted on having the upper hand in fundraising, but with Dean's "$100 revolution" that may not be the case any more. Who would you rather have 10 $2,000 donors or 2000 $100 donors? Pretty simple answer when you think about it, beyond the pure math, becuase you could always talk the $100 people to give more later, where as the $2,000 folks simply can't by law.
The White House thinks the Dems have their nominee already, according to the Times: "President Bush's political advisers are now all but certain that Howard Dean will be the Democratic presidential nominee and they are planning a campaign that takes account of what they see as Dr. Dean's strengths and weaknesses, Republicans with ties to the White House said."
....
"Throughout the year, many Republicans have been longing for a Bush-Dean matchup, saying Dr. Dean's opposition to the war with Iraq, his call for rolling back Mr. Bush's tax cuts and his support for civil unions between gay people would open the door to a Republican landslide in November.
Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's senior adviser and political strategist, was reported by The Washington Post this summer to have exhorted the crowd at his neighborhood Fourth of July parade to cheer for marchers wearing Dean T-shirts and carrying Dean signs. People close to Mr. Bush, who prides himself on his personal and political discipline, describe Dr. Dean as a sloppy candidate who gets himself in trouble too often by shooting from the hip and who is slow to clean up messes."
I know Dean is going bring in new voters into the process, according to his campaign. But I will not hold my breath. Most of these folks are the 18-24 crowd who, although they really might hate Bush, might flake out and not show up when it matters in January or, for that matter, November. Lets just wait for people to actually vote, shall we?
Gore thought that his brazen political move to endorse Dean would force people like Lieberman to drop out sooner. So much for that, according to the New Haven Register, Lieberman's campaign "received twice as many online contributions as any other day in the current quarter," and the rate of online donations "is 10 times above average." Translation: you helped him, you didn't hurt him.
All the pundits are saying now there is a Gore/Dean/Moveon.org wing of the party and a Clinton/Clark/Lieberman wing of the party, with Gephardt/Daschle/Kerry/Edwards wing being the loser congressional Democrats that have never done nothing. The proxy fight between Clinton and Gore is on, with Dean and Clark as the main protagonists. We shall see who pervails. It used to be that Clinton could always be counted on having the upper hand in fundraising, but with Dean's "$100 revolution" that may not be the case any more. Who would you rather have 10 $2,000 donors or 2000 $100 donors? Pretty simple answer when you think about it, beyond the pure math, becuase you could always talk the $100 people to give more later, where as the $2,000 folks simply can't by law.
The White House thinks the Dems have their nominee already, according to the Times: "President Bush's political advisers are now all but certain that Howard Dean will be the Democratic presidential nominee and they are planning a campaign that takes account of what they see as Dr. Dean's strengths and weaknesses, Republicans with ties to the White House said."
....
"Throughout the year, many Republicans have been longing for a Bush-Dean matchup, saying Dr. Dean's opposition to the war with Iraq, his call for rolling back Mr. Bush's tax cuts and his support for civil unions between gay people would open the door to a Republican landslide in November.
Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's senior adviser and political strategist, was reported by The Washington Post this summer to have exhorted the crowd at his neighborhood Fourth of July parade to cheer for marchers wearing Dean T-shirts and carrying Dean signs. People close to Mr. Bush, who prides himself on his personal and political discipline, describe Dr. Dean as a sloppy candidate who gets himself in trouble too often by shooting from the hip and who is slow to clean up messes."
I know Dean is going bring in new voters into the process, according to his campaign. But I will not hold my breath. Most of these folks are the 18-24 crowd who, although they really might hate Bush, might flake out and not show up when it matters in January or, for that matter, November. Lets just wait for people to actually vote, shall we?
Wednesday, December 10, 2003
Hypocrisy 101
Will Saletan of Slate made an excellent point about Gore's speech when he endorsed Dean: the same man who in December 2000 said we should wait until every vote is counted in December 2003 says he doesn't want to wait for a single vote to be counted.
Elections should be determined, Gore said, "by the votes cast by the people, not by politicians." Gee, I wonder which one of those he is.
By telling everyone to get out of Howard's way and shut up, Al and Howard just made us all louder. I think it will be harder for some folks to raise money and get support and ultimately win and thus the process will be accelerated to be Dean and someone else, but what right does Gore have to tell us Democrats what to do? Unlike Republicans, we don't take marching orders well.
as Saletan said "Who decided Dean was the strongest candidate? Not the voters: They haven't voted. Not the polls, either: They've shown Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, and Wesley Clark scoring better than Dean in hypothetical match-ups with President Bush." In fact, even in national polls Dean by be leading but not by much, most of the time it is within the margin of error. Sure, he has a commanding lead in NH and is up in IA too, but how much of the party (or the country) really is behind or even knows who this guy is? Not much, that's because we haven't voted yet. And I for one am not voting for Howard Dean.
Did anyone notice where the announcement was held? In Cedar Rapids IA and Harlem NYC, a few feet away from President Clinton's office and a few more from Senator Clinton's New York district offices. But back to the point, no one doubts Dean is #1.
So who is that number 2 going to be, now that Dean is solidly number 1? I say Clark, and I am not the only one.
"Who's really still in this race?, Josh Marshall asks, "....Gephardt and Kerry can be effectively knocked out of the race by losses in Iowa and New Hampshire, respectively -- eventualities which now seem quite likely....Lieberman isn't closely tied to success in either of those states. But his campaign has just never taken off... Lieberman is the only major candidate in the race for whom there is a significant core of Democratic primary voters who find him an unacceptable nominee. ...
In any case, that leaves Clark.
Add to this two other factors.
1. Clark is raising money at a better clip than any of the other candidates beside Dean.
2. Clark has a clearer raison d'etre for his campaign than that of any of the other candidates, save Dean: namely, his national security credentials as a retired general...Many presidents have been governors with no prior foreign policy experience. So Dean's in good company. But it's a clear distinction between Dean and Clark in what is sure to be a general election fought heavily on national security issues."
Finally, I would like to quote from David Letterman: "Al Gore has endorsed Howard Dean for president. That's pretty fitting, the guy that didn't beat Bush endorsing the guy who won't beat Bush" ("Late Show").
Will Saletan of Slate made an excellent point about Gore's speech when he endorsed Dean: the same man who in December 2000 said we should wait until every vote is counted in December 2003 says he doesn't want to wait for a single vote to be counted.
Elections should be determined, Gore said, "by the votes cast by the people, not by politicians." Gee, I wonder which one of those he is.
By telling everyone to get out of Howard's way and shut up, Al and Howard just made us all louder. I think it will be harder for some folks to raise money and get support and ultimately win and thus the process will be accelerated to be Dean and someone else, but what right does Gore have to tell us Democrats what to do? Unlike Republicans, we don't take marching orders well.
as Saletan said "Who decided Dean was the strongest candidate? Not the voters: They haven't voted. Not the polls, either: They've shown Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, and Wesley Clark scoring better than Dean in hypothetical match-ups with President Bush." In fact, even in national polls Dean by be leading but not by much, most of the time it is within the margin of error. Sure, he has a commanding lead in NH and is up in IA too, but how much of the party (or the country) really is behind or even knows who this guy is? Not much, that's because we haven't voted yet. And I for one am not voting for Howard Dean.
Did anyone notice where the announcement was held? In Cedar Rapids IA and Harlem NYC, a few feet away from President Clinton's office and a few more from Senator Clinton's New York district offices. But back to the point, no one doubts Dean is #1.
So who is that number 2 going to be, now that Dean is solidly number 1? I say Clark, and I am not the only one.
"Who's really still in this race?, Josh Marshall asks, "....Gephardt and Kerry can be effectively knocked out of the race by losses in Iowa and New Hampshire, respectively -- eventualities which now seem quite likely....Lieberman isn't closely tied to success in either of those states. But his campaign has just never taken off... Lieberman is the only major candidate in the race for whom there is a significant core of Democratic primary voters who find him an unacceptable nominee. ...
In any case, that leaves Clark.
Add to this two other factors.
1. Clark is raising money at a better clip than any of the other candidates beside Dean.
2. Clark has a clearer raison d'etre for his campaign than that of any of the other candidates, save Dean: namely, his national security credentials as a retired general...Many presidents have been governors with no prior foreign policy experience. So Dean's in good company. But it's a clear distinction between Dean and Clark in what is sure to be a general election fought heavily on national security issues."
Finally, I would like to quote from David Letterman: "Al Gore has endorsed Howard Dean for president. That's pretty fitting, the guy that didn't beat Bush endorsing the guy who won't beat Bush" ("Late Show").
Tuesday, December 09, 2003
Al Gore sold out
Gore 10.0 is out, and he decided to endorse Howard Dean. Everyone is talking about it. But why don't we stop and think about what Gore has to gain by this, because we know what Dean gains from this.
Al, after losing the election in 2000, has tried to stay relevant and a leader in his party. Even though he wisely chose not to run against Bush again, he managed to do that by hooking up with MoveOn.org and moving to the left. He wailed against the war in Iraq and called for then Majority Leader Sen. Trent Lott to step down first. His VP pick has sucked all year and made him look like a bigger fool that when Lieberman lost the VP debate to Cheney. In 2002, Al decided to abandon the DLC, a group which he helped found and was a chairman of. Al supported some folks for higher office in 2002, and the results were down right sad, I can't think of one that won that wasn't in a safe seat and even his picks in the primary didn't work out too well. 2003 wasn't much better, about even in terms of endorse and win Mayor Street (good) and Governor Davis (bad). Why should Gore, the ultimate insider, go for the outsider?
I'll tell you why. Al, like Hillary, decided that 2004 was unwinnable, and Bush was not someone they could beat. Those two will be fighting in 2008 for the nomination, and they know this because if Dean wins, we all lose. Why back a general election disaster? Because you want to shore up your liberal base and pant the seed for a comeback against Governor Jeb Bush or Senator Bill Frist. Running against Cheney would be too much fun.
Shame on you Al Gore. Have some faith in Democrats to pick a winner. Have some sense of country to pick a candidate who can turn this country around. Don't be Nader 2004, and hand the country over to Bu$h Co. We can't wait 4 more years for you and Hillary to rescue us off your white horse. If you think things are bad now, they will only get worse with more power and no accountability for GW Bush. We need leadership, not opportunists.
Who knows? Maybe winning the Gore primary will be like winning the Shrum primary, something you don't want to meet.
Gore 10.0 is out, and he decided to endorse Howard Dean. Everyone is talking about it. But why don't we stop and think about what Gore has to gain by this, because we know what Dean gains from this.
Al, after losing the election in 2000, has tried to stay relevant and a leader in his party. Even though he wisely chose not to run against Bush again, he managed to do that by hooking up with MoveOn.org and moving to the left. He wailed against the war in Iraq and called for then Majority Leader Sen. Trent Lott to step down first. His VP pick has sucked all year and made him look like a bigger fool that when Lieberman lost the VP debate to Cheney. In 2002, Al decided to abandon the DLC, a group which he helped found and was a chairman of. Al supported some folks for higher office in 2002, and the results were down right sad, I can't think of one that won that wasn't in a safe seat and even his picks in the primary didn't work out too well. 2003 wasn't much better, about even in terms of endorse and win Mayor Street (good) and Governor Davis (bad). Why should Gore, the ultimate insider, go for the outsider?
I'll tell you why. Al, like Hillary, decided that 2004 was unwinnable, and Bush was not someone they could beat. Those two will be fighting in 2008 for the nomination, and they know this because if Dean wins, we all lose. Why back a general election disaster? Because you want to shore up your liberal base and pant the seed for a comeback against Governor Jeb Bush or Senator Bill Frist. Running against Cheney would be too much fun.
Shame on you Al Gore. Have some faith in Democrats to pick a winner. Have some sense of country to pick a candidate who can turn this country around. Don't be Nader 2004, and hand the country over to Bu$h Co. We can't wait 4 more years for you and Hillary to rescue us off your white horse. If you think things are bad now, they will only get worse with more power and no accountability for GW Bush. We need leadership, not opportunists.
Who knows? Maybe winning the Gore primary will be like winning the Shrum primary, something you don't want to meet.
Friday, December 05, 2003
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.
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.
Thursday, December 04, 2003
Headline in 54 days: Dean wins NH
If you had hopes that Kerry could stage a come back in NH, or that anyone might give Dean a scare up there, you better give up now. Not one but two polls show Dean destroying everyone and Kerry flopping further and Clark ticking up to be close to 2nd place, thanks to a $221k ad buy.
A Zogby Int'l poll, conducted 12/1-3, surveyed 503 likely Dem primary voters (302 Dems; 201 indies); margin of error +/- 4.5% (release, 12/4).
Dem Primary Matchup Now 10/03 9/03 Dem Ind Fav/Unfav
Howard Dean 42% 40% 30% 44% 39% 78%/12%
John Kerry 12 17 20 15 9 64 /28
Wesley Clark 9 6 n/a 9 9 50 /23
Joe Lieberman 7 3 5 6 9 55 /35
John Edwards 4 6 2 4 4 52 /16
Dick Gephardt 3 4 6 2 4 52 /31
Dennis Kucinich 2 0 1 2 1 21 /25
Al Sharpton 0 1 1 0 0 12 /58
Carol Moseley Braun 0 0 0 0 0 25 /27
Not Sure 19 19 22 18 22
An American Research Group poll, conducted 11/30-12/3, surveyed 600 likely Dem primary voters (430 Dems; 170 indies); margin of error +/- 4% (release, 12/4).
Dem Primary Matchup
Now 11/20 11/5 Fav/Unfav
Dean 45% 38% 38% 69 / 7
Kerry 13 17 24 57 /18
Clark 11 7 4 43 /12
Gephardt 5 4 3 51 /22
Lieberman 5 5 4 43 /38
Edwards 3 4 4 42 /18
Kucinich 2 3 1 23 /17
Braun 0 1 1 21 /15
Sharpton 1 0 0 15 /46
Undec. 15 21 21
OK in the 40s with 9 people in the race? Its over baby. Even if Kerry can get 2nd in IA (see yesterday's post), which isn't going to happen, he still has no chance in NH. And I don't know how Kerry can think that he can get enough money or support if he can't win the state that has seen his TV ads for over 20 years. And if he is losing his own state to Dean. Quit while you are behind Senator. Its beginning to look like a Greek Tragedy for Sen. JFK. Now I see it as a race between Gephardt Edwards and Clark on second fiddle to Dean. Who will it be?
Gephardt, even if he wins IA, won't have any $ left. Will the cash come when he wins? Maybe, but will it be enough to keep him afloat? I doubt it.
Edwards has as many ifs as Clark: both have to place so high in IA (or in Clark's case NH) to have a shot at SC. or do they? Could they all just leave NH and IA for Dean and make sure they beat him on Super Tuesday Jr. ? The problem with that idea is Dean has sooo much money, he can do both (win IA and NH and put up ads in 2/3 states). I wish it weren't true but unless they clobber Dean in 2/3 and or Gephardt wins IA, don't see how Dems are going to stop the train wreck that is Dean from being the nominee. Gulp
If you had hopes that Kerry could stage a come back in NH, or that anyone might give Dean a scare up there, you better give up now. Not one but two polls show Dean destroying everyone and Kerry flopping further and Clark ticking up to be close to 2nd place, thanks to a $221k ad buy.
A Zogby Int'l poll, conducted 12/1-3, surveyed 503 likely Dem primary voters (302 Dems; 201 indies); margin of error +/- 4.5% (release, 12/4).
Dem Primary Matchup Now 10/03 9/03 Dem Ind Fav/Unfav
Howard Dean 42% 40% 30% 44% 39% 78%/12%
John Kerry 12 17 20 15 9 64 /28
Wesley Clark 9 6 n/a 9 9 50 /23
Joe Lieberman 7 3 5 6 9 55 /35
John Edwards 4 6 2 4 4 52 /16
Dick Gephardt 3 4 6 2 4 52 /31
Dennis Kucinich 2 0 1 2 1 21 /25
Al Sharpton 0 1 1 0 0 12 /58
Carol Moseley Braun 0 0 0 0 0 25 /27
Not Sure 19 19 22 18 22
An American Research Group poll, conducted 11/30-12/3, surveyed 600 likely Dem primary voters (430 Dems; 170 indies); margin of error +/- 4% (release, 12/4).
Dem Primary Matchup
Now 11/20 11/5 Fav/Unfav
Dean 45% 38% 38% 69 / 7
Kerry 13 17 24 57 /18
Clark 11 7 4 43 /12
Gephardt 5 4 3 51 /22
Lieberman 5 5 4 43 /38
Edwards 3 4 4 42 /18
Kucinich 2 3 1 23 /17
Braun 0 1 1 21 /15
Sharpton 1 0 0 15 /46
Undec. 15 21 21
OK in the 40s with 9 people in the race? Its over baby. Even if Kerry can get 2nd in IA (see yesterday's post), which isn't going to happen, he still has no chance in NH. And I don't know how Kerry can think that he can get enough money or support if he can't win the state that has seen his TV ads for over 20 years. And if he is losing his own state to Dean. Quit while you are behind Senator. Its beginning to look like a Greek Tragedy for Sen. JFK. Now I see it as a race between Gephardt Edwards and Clark on second fiddle to Dean. Who will it be?
Gephardt, even if he wins IA, won't have any $ left. Will the cash come when he wins? Maybe, but will it be enough to keep him afloat? I doubt it.
Edwards has as many ifs as Clark: both have to place so high in IA (or in Clark's case NH) to have a shot at SC. or do they? Could they all just leave NH and IA for Dean and make sure they beat him on Super Tuesday Jr. ? The problem with that idea is Dean has sooo much money, he can do both (win IA and NH and put up ads in 2/3 states). I wish it weren't true but unless they clobber Dean in 2/3 and or Gephardt wins IA, don't see how Dems are going to stop the train wreck that is Dean from being the nominee. Gulp
Wednesday, December 03, 2003
Iowa end game
Al of a sudden, the Hawkeye State became important for 2 other candidates, or at least they suddenly realized it.
Ok reality check time: the most recent Zogby Poll Sez: Dean 26, Gephardt 22, a difference within the margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. (The poll of 501 voters who say they are likely to participate in the caucuses was taken Monday and Tuesday. )
In the latest poll, almost three in 10 voters, 28 percent, were undecided -- close to the level of undecided voters in October. And the rest? Single, laughable digits:
Kerry 9 ; Edwards 5; Clark 4. Kucinich and Lieberman 1 percent. Moseley Braun and Sharpton were at 1 percent or less.
So what's going to happen? Either a Dean blowout or a narrow Gephardt win. This is because each caucus group gets to convince the undecides to join with them, and Dean has a huge org network to babysit for caucus goers, drive them to and from and lots of supporters in every single one of IA's 99 counties. Gephardt has risidual support from his '88 days and his career as a labor man in the House...
As for third place? Clark could sneak up on Kerry or Edwards with volunteers, you never know. the fact that he is even within striking distance of those two (w/ the MOE) is a sad statement to those two who have blown, I mean spent 100s of thousands on TV and so on there. Clark spent like $50 in comparison.
Al of a sudden, the Hawkeye State became important for 2 other candidates, or at least they suddenly realized it.
- Kerry figured out he has to do well in IA to have a prayer in NH, and since he wasn't getting much traction in the "Live Free or Die" State (great motto by the way), and was closer to Dean in IA than NH he might as well try for 2nd/"1st" since his campaign spin is still that he will win IA and NH and the nomination (riiight).
- Edwards figured out that if he had a strong 3rd and knocked out Kerry, he could get a strong 3rd or 2nd in NH and all of a sudden be in shape to win the whole thing. Look where his ad budget and visits are going. Not a bad idea, since Kerry was sinking faster than Michael Jackson record sales.
Ok reality check time: the most recent Zogby Poll Sez: Dean 26, Gephardt 22, a difference within the margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. (The poll of 501 voters who say they are likely to participate in the caucuses was taken Monday and Tuesday. )
In the latest poll, almost three in 10 voters, 28 percent, were undecided -- close to the level of undecided voters in October. And the rest? Single, laughable digits:
Kerry 9 ; Edwards 5; Clark 4. Kucinich and Lieberman 1 percent. Moseley Braun and Sharpton were at 1 percent or less.
So what's going to happen? Either a Dean blowout or a narrow Gephardt win. This is because each caucus group gets to convince the undecides to join with them, and Dean has a huge org network to babysit for caucus goers, drive them to and from and lots of supporters in every single one of IA's 99 counties. Gephardt has risidual support from his '88 days and his career as a labor man in the House...
As for third place? Clark could sneak up on Kerry or Edwards with volunteers, you never know. the fact that he is even within striking distance of those two (w/ the MOE) is a sad statement to those two who have blown, I mean spent 100s of thousands on TV and so on there. Clark spent like $50 in comparison.
Tuesday, December 02, 2003
No rest for the week
Appologies for the lack of posting over the Holiday. I needed to relax and read some books, watch some movies and only take one practice LSAT. I have at least 2 this week and then the big kakuna on Saturday morning. But after that, I am free man...sort of.
In the meanwhile, Dean is getting hit hardest on where he is weakest, hipocracy and national security. The whole Aspen-skiing-with-a-bad-back-draft-dodging makes Clinton look good. Now I wonder, do people really care about that. After all, most men that age either tried to get out of it or lucked out when their number wasn't called. Maybe those who had to go because they were poor, etc will resent him, but clearly those people aren't giving money to Democrats now and are most likely not voting in IA or NH in January. Will Kerry or Clark be able to use it to their advantage with Vets? Maybe in SC or AZ, but those are later and Kerry will be gone by then if he doesn't win NH...so these are only helpful to Clark other than making Dean look bad.
In a unsurprising move, Lieberman is attacking a fellow candidate, Dean, this time on his poor record of hiding his records. In a Bush-like move, Dean has sealed records on his 10 years as governor, keeping Gephardt's, Kerry's and maybe Bush's oppo researchers at bay. Look for a possible court order if it gets really ugly. My quib is this, if you go around bragging about what you did as governor, why on Earth would you want to hide the records? Its like the Senators/Congressmen sealing their voting records or Clark his military records or Sharpton sealing his court/criminal records. Its just pretty indefensable, but lets watch him try.
"I'll unseal mine if he will unseal all of his," said Dr. Dean, about Bush's Texas records. Gee, this is another one of those things in common with Bush you don't want to have or want to compare yourself with, like his national security/foriegn policy experience. Dumb all around.
According to the Times, Judicial Watch plans to file a lawsuit, perhaps as soon as this week, to gain access to the records, which were sealed under the executive privilege exemption to the Vermont Public Records Act and include reams of correspondence with the state staff.
"He has been acting like he has something to hide," said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, who went after Clinton in 90s and has gone after Cheney's energy commission.
Dean had wanted a 24-year seal, because "we didn't want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time in any future endeavor." Could 'future endeavor' be code for 'Presidential Run'? Gee, that's a tough one.
Appologies for the lack of posting over the Holiday. I needed to relax and read some books, watch some movies and only take one practice LSAT. I have at least 2 this week and then the big kakuna on Saturday morning. But after that, I am free man...sort of.
In the meanwhile, Dean is getting hit hardest on where he is weakest, hipocracy and national security. The whole Aspen-skiing-with-a-bad-back-draft-dodging makes Clinton look good. Now I wonder, do people really care about that. After all, most men that age either tried to get out of it or lucked out when their number wasn't called. Maybe those who had to go because they were poor, etc will resent him, but clearly those people aren't giving money to Democrats now and are most likely not voting in IA or NH in January. Will Kerry or Clark be able to use it to their advantage with Vets? Maybe in SC or AZ, but those are later and Kerry will be gone by then if he doesn't win NH...so these are only helpful to Clark other than making Dean look bad.
In a unsurprising move, Lieberman is attacking a fellow candidate, Dean, this time on his poor record of hiding his records. In a Bush-like move, Dean has sealed records on his 10 years as governor, keeping Gephardt's, Kerry's and maybe Bush's oppo researchers at bay. Look for a possible court order if it gets really ugly. My quib is this, if you go around bragging about what you did as governor, why on Earth would you want to hide the records? Its like the Senators/Congressmen sealing their voting records or Clark his military records or Sharpton sealing his court/criminal records. Its just pretty indefensable, but lets watch him try.
"I'll unseal mine if he will unseal all of his," said Dr. Dean, about Bush's Texas records. Gee, this is another one of those things in common with Bush you don't want to have or want to compare yourself with, like his national security/foriegn policy experience. Dumb all around.
According to the Times, Judicial Watch plans to file a lawsuit, perhaps as soon as this week, to gain access to the records, which were sealed under the executive privilege exemption to the Vermont Public Records Act and include reams of correspondence with the state staff.
"He has been acting like he has something to hide," said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, who went after Clinton in 90s and has gone after Cheney's energy commission.
Dean had wanted a 24-year seal, because "we didn't want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time in any future endeavor." Could 'future endeavor' be code for 'Presidential Run'? Gee, that's a tough one.
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
What the Zell is wrong with you, Miller?
Thank you Ed Kilgore. He finally answered the riddle to me on why Zell decided to out Republican the GOP: he hates Washington. This ol' boy from Georgia feels like he is being talked down to all the time, and doesn't like is more liberal party-mates from the likes of San Francisco.
Kilgore, then-Gov. Miller's federal-state relations director from 1992 to 1994, certainly knows the man of which he speaks when he reviews his book in this month's Blueprint, a rag that let me get a byline or two.
"Sadly, Miller's perverse and premature endorsement of Bush, and his adoption by the right-wing media machine, will all but guarantee that few if any Democrats will pay attention to the nuggets of sound advice he offers his party. Most of the book simply warns Democrats that they cannot remain competitive in the South if they abandon traditional party commitments to mainstream cultural views and to the economic aspirations of the middle class. He repeatedly praises the Democratic Leadership Council for offering the right advice to Democrats, even as he endorses Bush administration positions on economic, fiscal, and foreign policies that the DLC consistently opposes. At a time when centrist Democrats are fighting insidious claims that its positions are no more than Bush Lite, Miller offers Bush Heavy as an alternative."
The real question this book doesn't answer then is, why did Zell become a Senator if every time he went to DC, as Ed claims, he got all tense and defensive? His sense of duty to the party? And since not all democrats are not New Democrats, Zell thought: 'to hell will ya'll' and let the right-wing pander start.
"In the first chapter of A National Party No More, Miller compares himself to Jimmy Stewart's Mr. Smith, and sadly says: 'What I discovered in Washington was truth, and truth did not set me free. It simply made me mad.'
That's vintage Zell, but he's got it backward: He came to Washington and got mad, and his anger has bent him against the real truth, and driven him into the arms of people with little but contempt for his old-fashioned Democratic values. "
Thank you Ed Kilgore. He finally answered the riddle to me on why Zell decided to out Republican the GOP: he hates Washington. This ol' boy from Georgia feels like he is being talked down to all the time, and doesn't like is more liberal party-mates from the likes of San Francisco.
Kilgore, then-Gov. Miller's federal-state relations director from 1992 to 1994, certainly knows the man of which he speaks when he reviews his book in this month's Blueprint, a rag that let me get a byline or two.
"Sadly, Miller's perverse and premature endorsement of Bush, and his adoption by the right-wing media machine, will all but guarantee that few if any Democrats will pay attention to the nuggets of sound advice he offers his party. Most of the book simply warns Democrats that they cannot remain competitive in the South if they abandon traditional party commitments to mainstream cultural views and to the economic aspirations of the middle class. He repeatedly praises the Democratic Leadership Council for offering the right advice to Democrats, even as he endorses Bush administration positions on economic, fiscal, and foreign policies that the DLC consistently opposes. At a time when centrist Democrats are fighting insidious claims that its positions are no more than Bush Lite, Miller offers Bush Heavy as an alternative."
The real question this book doesn't answer then is, why did Zell become a Senator if every time he went to DC, as Ed claims, he got all tense and defensive? His sense of duty to the party? And since not all democrats are not New Democrats, Zell thought: 'to hell will ya'll' and let the right-wing pander start.
"In the first chapter of A National Party No More, Miller compares himself to Jimmy Stewart's Mr. Smith, and sadly says: 'What I discovered in Washington was truth, and truth did not set me free. It simply made me mad.'
That's vintage Zell, but he's got it backward: He came to Washington and got mad, and his anger has bent him against the real truth, and driven him into the arms of people with little but contempt for his old-fashioned Democratic values. "
Monday, November 24, 2003
Right-Wing Hippocrite of the Week
Louisville anti-porn activist John Riddle was arrested for soliciting a prostitute. He had "a bottle of Viagra in his possession," according to the Louisville Courier-Journal.
and Picture of the day It wasn't this year, but in the spirit of Thanksgiving, I give you this; enjoy
Louisville anti-porn activist John Riddle was arrested for soliciting a prostitute. He had "a bottle of Viagra in his possession," according to the Louisville Courier-Journal.
and Picture of the day It wasn't this year, but in the spirit of Thanksgiving, I give you this; enjoy
Kerry's bleeding more than Ketchup
MASSACHUSETTS (3/2 primary): Two New Polls Show Dean Leading Kerry
A Boston Globe/WBZ-TV poll; conducted 11/19-22 by KRC Communications Research; surveyed 400 likely Dem primary voters; margin of error +/- 4.9% (Boston Globe, 11/23).
WH '04 Dem Primary Matchup
Dean 27%
Kerry 24
Clark 6
Which Do You Agree With?
Kerry's campaign is moving forward, even though he has faced
recent rough spots 46%
Kerry's candidacy is floundering and he should drop out 25
And This One Has Dean Up Nine
A Boston Herald poll; conducted 11/19-21 by RKM Research and Communications; surveyed 424 "probable" Dem primary voters; margin of error +/- 4.8% (Boston Herald, 11/24).
WH '04 Dem Primary Matchup
Dean 33%
Kerry 24
Clark 7
Lieberman 4
Gephardt 3
All of a sudden, Lieberman's tiny lead over Dean in CT doesn't look so bad. I don't care what you say to try and spin this, you are weak, you are in bad shape, you are toast if you are losing your own state in the primary. How can you expect to beat George W. Bush, if you can't even win Massachusetts, Senator? It is like McCain topping Bush in Texas in 2000. Or Bradley beating Gore in Tennessee.
Go back to your mansion on Beacon Hill and listen to the Democratic nominatee's speech from there, because that is as close as your are going to get. Add Kerry going to play dress up ala Bush.
MASSACHUSETTS (3/2 primary): Two New Polls Show Dean Leading Kerry
A Boston Globe/WBZ-TV poll; conducted 11/19-22 by KRC Communications Research; surveyed 400 likely Dem primary voters; margin of error +/- 4.9% (Boston Globe, 11/23).
WH '04 Dem Primary Matchup
Dean 27%
Kerry 24
Clark 6
Which Do You Agree With?
Kerry's campaign is moving forward, even though he has faced
recent rough spots 46%
Kerry's candidacy is floundering and he should drop out 25
And This One Has Dean Up Nine
A Boston Herald poll; conducted 11/19-21 by RKM Research and Communications; surveyed 424 "probable" Dem primary voters; margin of error +/- 4.8% (Boston Herald, 11/24).
WH '04 Dem Primary Matchup
Dean 33%
Kerry 24
Clark 7
Lieberman 4
Gephardt 3
All of a sudden, Lieberman's tiny lead over Dean in CT doesn't look so bad. I don't care what you say to try and spin this, you are weak, you are in bad shape, you are toast if you are losing your own state in the primary. How can you expect to beat George W. Bush, if you can't even win Massachusetts, Senator? It is like McCain topping Bush in Texas in 2000. Or Bradley beating Gore in Tennessee.
Go back to your mansion on Beacon Hill and listen to the Democratic nominatee's speech from there, because that is as close as your are going to get. Add Kerry going to play dress up ala Bush.
Friday, November 21, 2003
Wes, then the K's
OK, so I am a biased, but after watching Dan Rather's interview with Clark on 60 Minutes II, I am more convinced than ever that this guy would make the best president of them all. After reading the transcript which is the unedited interview, it gets even better. If you were a doubter before, try that on for size (warning, 3 part interview).
On the scary side, check out a computer model of what President Kennedy would look like if he were alive today. Boy he really does look like Teddy. I think I would rather remember him in his prime now. I can't help but think about how different the world and country would have been if either one of the slain Kennedy boys hadn't been shot.
No Watergate. The Vietnam war would have been smaller, over sooner, if not never really happened if you believe Ted Sorensen. No Ford Aministration, no Cheney, no Rumsfeld, or half the Bush cabinet. No one for Reagon to beat up on in 1976, and maybe no Reagan in 1980, and 84. The ripple effect would have been huge. And I forgot this key back, the world and country would have been much better off.
Sure, Jack was on all kinds of drugs, he had more affairs than Clinton (like that WH secretrary that wasn't there to type), etc. But look at his legacy: Man on the Moon, Nuclear detante and reconsilation, the Peace Corps (and AmeriCorps via Kennedy-inspired Clinton), the Civil Rights Act, etc. Of course, one could argue that if it weren't for his slaying and his super competent VP LBJ, all this wouldn't have happened. Perhaps. But we do know that in 1968, RFK would have won. The nation would have been spared Ratf*cking, Ford, Agnew, Watergate, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al.
The beginning of Nixon also spelled the downfall of the Democratic party too. It became the party of Congress. Clinton tried to bring it back in 1992, but they all shot themselves in the foot. By 2000, the Democrats became the whinny party of sizable minority in Congress, who, when they had power in the Senate, did nothing with it. Now we need a new leader to revive the party. Some say it is Ho Dean. I say he is the inverse of Bush, which is just as bad. Others Gephardt, Edwards, and crazed ones say Lieberman or Kerry. Sorry too insider too much of the failed past. Edwards, as much as I like him, doesn't seem up to the job.
Clark is the answer. Who else can make our party the responsible party of security? Who else has credibility to truly "change the tone in Washington?" Who has the dream of real, Kennedy-sized change? Bush maybe, but not the kind of change that will make this country better. The Wes is the best.
OK, so I am a biased, but after watching Dan Rather's interview with Clark on 60 Minutes II, I am more convinced than ever that this guy would make the best president of them all. After reading the transcript which is the unedited interview, it gets even better. If you were a doubter before, try that on for size (warning, 3 part interview).
On the scary side, check out a computer model of what President Kennedy would look like if he were alive today. Boy he really does look like Teddy. I think I would rather remember him in his prime now. I can't help but think about how different the world and country would have been if either one of the slain Kennedy boys hadn't been shot.
No Watergate. The Vietnam war would have been smaller, over sooner, if not never really happened if you believe Ted Sorensen. No Ford Aministration, no Cheney, no Rumsfeld, or half the Bush cabinet. No one for Reagon to beat up on in 1976, and maybe no Reagan in 1980, and 84. The ripple effect would have been huge. And I forgot this key back, the world and country would have been much better off.
Sure, Jack was on all kinds of drugs, he had more affairs than Clinton (like that WH secretrary that wasn't there to type), etc. But look at his legacy: Man on the Moon, Nuclear detante and reconsilation, the Peace Corps (and AmeriCorps via Kennedy-inspired Clinton), the Civil Rights Act, etc. Of course, one could argue that if it weren't for his slaying and his super competent VP LBJ, all this wouldn't have happened. Perhaps. But we do know that in 1968, RFK would have won. The nation would have been spared Ratf*cking, Ford, Agnew, Watergate, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al.
The beginning of Nixon also spelled the downfall of the Democratic party too. It became the party of Congress. Clinton tried to bring it back in 1992, but they all shot themselves in the foot. By 2000, the Democrats became the whinny party of sizable minority in Congress, who, when they had power in the Senate, did nothing with it. Now we need a new leader to revive the party. Some say it is Ho Dean. I say he is the inverse of Bush, which is just as bad. Others Gephardt, Edwards, and crazed ones say Lieberman or Kerry. Sorry too insider too much of the failed past. Edwards, as much as I like him, doesn't seem up to the job.
Clark is the answer. Who else can make our party the responsible party of security? Who else has credibility to truly "change the tone in Washington?" Who has the dream of real, Kennedy-sized change? Bush maybe, but not the kind of change that will make this country better. The Wes is the best.
Thursday, November 20, 2003
Quote of the Day
"Dear Sir/Madam; I want waste much of your time..."--Ray Cox of Northern Virgina (just south of DC), to Massachusetts Legislators on the SJC's ruling allowing same-sex marriages. Of all the openers to form letters from people in other states who write against the ruling, this one is the most honest and direct.
Hats off to Ray. Oh here's his phone number: 703-392-7691 Harrass back if you wish :)
"Dear Sir/Madam; I want waste much of your time..."--Ray Cox of Northern Virgina (just south of DC), to Massachusetts Legislators on the SJC's ruling allowing same-sex marriages. Of all the openers to form letters from people in other states who write against the ruling, this one is the most honest and direct.
Hats off to Ray. Oh here's his phone number: 703-392-7691 Harrass back if you wish :)
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
"The New Abortion"
If any readers were wondering why I failed to post yesterday, it was due mostly to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's sweeping ruling, which basically mandates Cities and Towns in the Bay State to issue marriage lincenses to same-sex couples in 180 days (or six months from today).
According legal experts, such as the future head of Human Rights Campaign (a gay-rights advocacy group based in Washington DC) Massachusetts State Senator Cheryl Jacques, the legislature really can do nothing to stop this ruling until 2006 at the earliest. Under the Commonwealth's constitution, two consecutive sessions of both houses of the legislature must overwhelmingly agree to do a DOMA change to the constitution, AND the voters must then, two years later, approve the change. Which means in effect, the change can't come until 2006 at the earliest, 3 years after the law goes into effect.
On a political side, I think this helps Republicans more than it helps Democrats and hurts both. Our mailboxes have been overflowing from Red States demading we change the constition in MA, and relatively few calls (5 at most) have come in from real constituents. While GOPers may look insensitve and biggoted for passing a DOMA, the upside for rallying their base is huge. Whereas, the Democrats are trying to to seem beholdant to these gay rights advocates, and all of the serious Presidential candidates have said in effect, "yes Civil Unions, no Gay Marriage."
This a wedge issue, which will be used to further divide the country like Abortion has done, between the Gore America and Bush America and our so-called 50-50 nation. This is going to get ugly.
How do I stand? I think every state should get to decide on the marriage issue, but I think nationally there needs to be a law that gives same sex couples the same rights to insurance, inheritance, hospital visitation etc that hetrosexual couples get. I get the "separate but not equal" argument against civil unions but I feel uncomfortable with shoving down marriage into people's throats that vehemitly oppose it. Let every state and church decide what they want to do marriage-wise but rights wise, there should be no difference between hetro- and homosexual couples, in my view. Also, I am concerned about the court deciding this and the state legislature being unwilling to take action in this regard. Just goes to show that legislators are cowards in general. I would have rather the legislature decided this, but at least statewide polling says that the decision will be supported (except for those who are over 65 and over evangelical christians, surprise surprise) in the high 50s.
Keep those emails coming, Texas!
If any readers were wondering why I failed to post yesterday, it was due mostly to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's sweeping ruling, which basically mandates Cities and Towns in the Bay State to issue marriage lincenses to same-sex couples in 180 days (or six months from today).
According legal experts, such as the future head of Human Rights Campaign (a gay-rights advocacy group based in Washington DC) Massachusetts State Senator Cheryl Jacques, the legislature really can do nothing to stop this ruling until 2006 at the earliest. Under the Commonwealth's constitution, two consecutive sessions of both houses of the legislature must overwhelmingly agree to do a DOMA change to the constitution, AND the voters must then, two years later, approve the change. Which means in effect, the change can't come until 2006 at the earliest, 3 years after the law goes into effect.
On a political side, I think this helps Republicans more than it helps Democrats and hurts both. Our mailboxes have been overflowing from Red States demading we change the constition in MA, and relatively few calls (5 at most) have come in from real constituents. While GOPers may look insensitve and biggoted for passing a DOMA, the upside for rallying their base is huge. Whereas, the Democrats are trying to to seem beholdant to these gay rights advocates, and all of the serious Presidential candidates have said in effect, "yes Civil Unions, no Gay Marriage."
This a wedge issue, which will be used to further divide the country like Abortion has done, between the Gore America and Bush America and our so-called 50-50 nation. This is going to get ugly.
How do I stand? I think every state should get to decide on the marriage issue, but I think nationally there needs to be a law that gives same sex couples the same rights to insurance, inheritance, hospital visitation etc that hetrosexual couples get. I get the "separate but not equal" argument against civil unions but I feel uncomfortable with shoving down marriage into people's throats that vehemitly oppose it. Let every state and church decide what they want to do marriage-wise but rights wise, there should be no difference between hetro- and homosexual couples, in my view. Also, I am concerned about the court deciding this and the state legislature being unwilling to take action in this regard. Just goes to show that legislators are cowards in general. I would have rather the legislature decided this, but at least statewide polling says that the decision will be supported (except for those who are over 65 and over evangelical christians, surprise surprise) in the high 50s.
Keep those emails coming, Texas!
Monday, November 17, 2003
Is it over yet?
A Marist Inst. poll, conducted 11/11-13, surveyed 711 "interested" Dem primary voters; margin of error +/- 4%. Subsample: 447 likely voters; +/- 5% (release, 11/17). Note: all results are w/leaners. The demo breakdowns are among the entire sample, not the LVs.
2nd
Dem Primary Matchup LVs RVs 9/03 Dem Ind Men Wom 18-44 45+ Choice
Howard Dean 44% 40% 35% 38% 44% 39% 41% 40% 42% 20%
John Kerry 23 25 22 28 21 25 25 26 24 22
John Edwards 7 7 4 7 6 8 6 6 7 9
Joe Lieberman 6 6 6 6 7 7 6 8 6 11
Dick Gephardt 6 6 3 6 5 7 5 4 7 10
Wesley Clark 3 4 11 3 5 4 4 4 4 11
Dennis Kucinich 3 2 1 1 3 3 1 2 2 3
Al Sharpton 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Carol Moseley Braun 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
DK/Other 7 9 16 10 8 6 11 9 7 12
Describe Your Level Of Support For Your Candidate (LVs)
Dean Kerry
Among LVs Supporters Supporters
Strongly Support 46% 54% 38%
Somewhat Support 32 31 38
Might Vote Differently 21 14 23
Has The Campaign Focused Mainly On...
Candidates Talking Issues 54%
Candidates Attacking Each Other 39
Have You Seen/Met Any Of The WH Dems In Person
RVs LVs
Yes 19% 24%
No 81 76
Which One Of The Following Is Most Important To You
In Deciding Whom To Support All Dean Kerry
LVs Supporters Supporters
Is Closer To You On Issues 25% 42% 22%
Can Beat Bush In Nov. 21 49 25
Has Values Like Your Own 20 38 22
Stands Up For What They Believe In 18 38 30
Has Experience To Be POTUS 8 25 36
Is Not A Typical Politician 6 49 23
Which Of These Issues Are You Most Interested
In Hearing About During The Campaign
Domestic Issues Like Health Care/Educa. 49%
Economy 27
Iraq 13
Homeland Security 5
War Against Terrorism 4
Are You More Likely To Vote For A Candidate Who...
All Dean Kerry
LVs Supporters Supporters
Support The War With Iraq 35% 28% 34%
Opposed The War With Iraq 56 51 20
Unsure 9
UNH Poll Got Lots More Local Promotion
A Univ. of NH poll, conducted 11/6-13 for WMUR, surveyed 445 likely Dem primary voters; margin of error +/- 4.6% (release, 11/14).
Dem Primary Matchup Now 10/03 7/03 2ndChoice Fav/Unfav
Dean 38% 30% 16% 17% 75%/12%
Kerry 16 17 18 21 68 /20
Clark 5 10 3 14 45 /21
Edwards 5 5 2 11 48 /16
Lieberman 4 6 11 11 48 /33
Gephardt 3 5 3 10 51 /25
Kucinich 1 3 0 23 /22
Sharpton 0 1 1 13 /56
Braun 0 1 1 26 /21
DK/Other 17 20 45
The 2nd Choice Picks By Candidate
--Among Those Who's 1st Choice---
Dean Kerry Clark Edwards Lieb Gep
Dean -- 39% 50% 38% 5% 17%
Kerry 30% -- 18 14 37 0
Clark 17 15 -- 10 5 8
Edwards 12 3 9 -- 26 42
Lieberman 7 15 9 24 -- 33
Gephardt 13 7 9 5 11 --
Regardless Of Who You Like, Who Will Win The NH Primary
Now 10/03
Dean 61% 51%
Kerry 14 12
Clark 2 5
Lieberman 2 2
Gephardt 1 4
Edwards 1 1
DK 19 23
Electability Over Issues
PoliticsNH.com's Pindell reports, A dozen interviews with "undecided" NH Dem voters in the past week "showed a growing pattern away from concern over how candidates stood on the issues like the economy and the Iraq war to the candidate's ability to defeat" Pres. Bush in '04. It is part of a "maturing process of the primary," where the concerns of "everyday" Dems "begin to lead the discussion over activists representing certain groups wanting to hear positions on specific issues." Electability is "an issue very prevalent" to NH Dems, who "notice their entire" cong. delegation and statehouse are dominated by GOPers. This shift "may begin to explain" why campaign arguments, especially by Dean and Kerry, "all seem to center around the electability component."
A 11/14 UNH poll showed a "larger number of voters find themselves undecided," while campaigns "are increasing their door knocking effects to levels not seen before this election cycle" and Dean's lead grows.
Yet at the same time, Clark supporters spoke to over 8k NHities and found out that +95% are still undecided-- a much larger, abeit perhaps unscientific sample than these polls. So which one is wrong? Is it over, or has it just begun? My bet, a bit of both. I think people have chosen Dean because he offered the best critique of Bush and most exciting, energenic campaign. Clark stumbled out of the gate, Kerry has dug himself in a huge hole, Lieberman is standing in quicksand (he is sinking by the minute), Gephardt never really bothered, and Edwards' bus is spinning its wheels. Besides all that money/gas, itsn't moving. They could still move away from Dean like the plauge.
It still remains that NH is a must win for Dean and Kerry. Clark has to do well to show that he is for real after a bad start and lost possibilities. SC is a must win for Edwards, and possibly Clark. OK and or DE is a must win for Lieberman, because he has wrote off almost every other state. Gephardt has to win IA 0f course but also MO and MI to stay viable. Some Dems are hoping that Kerry and Gephardt be the next Max Cleland (no, not they get compared to Saddam and Osama): that they jump on top of the hand genade known as Dean and aborb the blow so that other campaigns, particularly in the House and Senate in the South can be viable. If they do it sucessfully, look for a President Clark or Edwards to appoint Gephardt the sec. of Labor and Kerry to be a point man in the senate.
Meanwhile, Clark is in the news: his campaign expects to rake in no less than $12 million by the end of year, it seems to be the time to start showing everyone the money with their New Hampshire media buy of $1.1 million for two months. Reaching out to voters who very well may not have heard of him, odds are good that your average New Hampshire TV watcher may get hit with a slick look at the general’s military credentials. And South Carolina and Arizona ads buys are not far behind.
Steve Bouchard, New Hampshire state director expects to be opening at least four more regional offices around the state in the next 10 days and are looking for a few more after that. Also, they are expecting the campaign-proclaimed “Student Invasion” this weekend where college students from a number of other states head to New Hampshire to help get the word out door to door.
A Marist Inst. poll, conducted 11/11-13, surveyed 711 "interested" Dem primary voters; margin of error +/- 4%. Subsample: 447 likely voters; +/- 5% (release, 11/17). Note: all results are w/leaners. The demo breakdowns are among the entire sample, not the LVs.
2nd
Dem Primary Matchup LVs RVs 9/03 Dem Ind Men Wom 18-44 45+ Choice
Howard Dean 44% 40% 35% 38% 44% 39% 41% 40% 42% 20%
John Kerry 23 25 22 28 21 25 25 26 24 22
John Edwards 7 7 4 7 6 8 6 6 7 9
Joe Lieberman 6 6 6 6 7 7 6 8 6 11
Dick Gephardt 6 6 3 6 5 7 5 4 7 10
Wesley Clark 3 4 11 3 5 4 4 4 4 11
Dennis Kucinich 3 2 1 1 3 3 1 2 2 3
Al Sharpton 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Carol Moseley Braun 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
DK/Other 7 9 16 10 8 6 11 9 7 12
Describe Your Level Of Support For Your Candidate (LVs)
Dean Kerry
Among LVs Supporters Supporters
Strongly Support 46% 54% 38%
Somewhat Support 32 31 38
Might Vote Differently 21 14 23
Has The Campaign Focused Mainly On...
Candidates Talking Issues 54%
Candidates Attacking Each Other 39
Have You Seen/Met Any Of The WH Dems In Person
RVs LVs
Yes 19% 24%
No 81 76
Which One Of The Following Is Most Important To You
In Deciding Whom To Support All Dean Kerry
LVs Supporters Supporters
Is Closer To You On Issues 25% 42% 22%
Can Beat Bush In Nov. 21 49 25
Has Values Like Your Own 20 38 22
Stands Up For What They Believe In 18 38 30
Has Experience To Be POTUS 8 25 36
Is Not A Typical Politician 6 49 23
Which Of These Issues Are You Most Interested
In Hearing About During The Campaign
Domestic Issues Like Health Care/Educa. 49%
Economy 27
Iraq 13
Homeland Security 5
War Against Terrorism 4
Are You More Likely To Vote For A Candidate Who...
All Dean Kerry
LVs Supporters Supporters
Support The War With Iraq 35% 28% 34%
Opposed The War With Iraq 56 51 20
Unsure 9
UNH Poll Got Lots More Local Promotion
A Univ. of NH poll, conducted 11/6-13 for WMUR, surveyed 445 likely Dem primary voters; margin of error +/- 4.6% (release, 11/14).
Dem Primary Matchup Now 10/03 7/03 2ndChoice Fav/Unfav
Dean 38% 30% 16% 17% 75%/12%
Kerry 16 17 18 21 68 /20
Clark 5 10 3 14 45 /21
Edwards 5 5 2 11 48 /16
Lieberman 4 6 11 11 48 /33
Gephardt 3 5 3 10 51 /25
Kucinich 1 3 0 23 /22
Sharpton 0 1 1 13 /56
Braun 0 1 1 26 /21
DK/Other 17 20 45
The 2nd Choice Picks By Candidate
--Among Those Who's 1st Choice---
Dean Kerry Clark Edwards Lieb Gep
Dean -- 39% 50% 38% 5% 17%
Kerry 30% -- 18 14 37 0
Clark 17 15 -- 10 5 8
Edwards 12 3 9 -- 26 42
Lieberman 7 15 9 24 -- 33
Gephardt 13 7 9 5 11 --
Regardless Of Who You Like, Who Will Win The NH Primary
Now 10/03
Dean 61% 51%
Kerry 14 12
Clark 2 5
Lieberman 2 2
Gephardt 1 4
Edwards 1 1
DK 19 23
Electability Over Issues
PoliticsNH.com's Pindell reports, A dozen interviews with "undecided" NH Dem voters in the past week "showed a growing pattern away from concern over how candidates stood on the issues like the economy and the Iraq war to the candidate's ability to defeat" Pres. Bush in '04. It is part of a "maturing process of the primary," where the concerns of "everyday" Dems "begin to lead the discussion over activists representing certain groups wanting to hear positions on specific issues." Electability is "an issue very prevalent" to NH Dems, who "notice their entire" cong. delegation and statehouse are dominated by GOPers. This shift "may begin to explain" why campaign arguments, especially by Dean and Kerry, "all seem to center around the electability component."
A 11/14 UNH poll showed a "larger number of voters find themselves undecided," while campaigns "are increasing their door knocking effects to levels not seen before this election cycle" and Dean's lead grows.
Yet at the same time, Clark supporters spoke to over 8k NHities and found out that +95% are still undecided-- a much larger, abeit perhaps unscientific sample than these polls. So which one is wrong? Is it over, or has it just begun? My bet, a bit of both. I think people have chosen Dean because he offered the best critique of Bush and most exciting, energenic campaign. Clark stumbled out of the gate, Kerry has dug himself in a huge hole, Lieberman is standing in quicksand (he is sinking by the minute), Gephardt never really bothered, and Edwards' bus is spinning its wheels. Besides all that money/gas, itsn't moving. They could still move away from Dean like the plauge.
It still remains that NH is a must win for Dean and Kerry. Clark has to do well to show that he is for real after a bad start and lost possibilities. SC is a must win for Edwards, and possibly Clark. OK and or DE is a must win for Lieberman, because he has wrote off almost every other state. Gephardt has to win IA 0f course but also MO and MI to stay viable. Some Dems are hoping that Kerry and Gephardt be the next Max Cleland (no, not they get compared to Saddam and Osama): that they jump on top of the hand genade known as Dean and aborb the blow so that other campaigns, particularly in the House and Senate in the South can be viable. If they do it sucessfully, look for a President Clark or Edwards to appoint Gephardt the sec. of Labor and Kerry to be a point man in the senate.
Meanwhile, Clark is in the news: his campaign expects to rake in no less than $12 million by the end of year, it seems to be the time to start showing everyone the money with their New Hampshire media buy of $1.1 million for two months. Reaching out to voters who very well may not have heard of him, odds are good that your average New Hampshire TV watcher may get hit with a slick look at the general’s military credentials. And South Carolina and Arizona ads buys are not far behind.
Steve Bouchard, New Hampshire state director expects to be opening at least four more regional offices around the state in the next 10 days and are looking for a few more after that. Also, they are expecting the campaign-proclaimed “Student Invasion” this weekend where college students from a number of other states head to New Hampshire to help get the word out door to door.
Friday, November 14, 2003
surprised, shocked....not
In a stunning move that everyone and their mom, including me, predicted, John Kerry is opening up the Ketchup Bottle and refusing to abide by any spending limits in any states....like oh say New Hampshire were he is down 15 points.
also, ultra-unshocking, Lieberman attacked a fellow candidate, trying to be Zell Miller-lite, by saying "Limiting the amount of money in campaigns is an important principle that I have spent years fighting for. It's unfortunate that John Kerry has joined Howard Dean in abandoning that important principle"
On the wierd side, Clark is having trouble rescheduling a fundraiser during an important NH TV debate, and has yet to say he will attend the debate (he is the only one, unfortunately who won't be attending so far--- please kick people off) ... all this while AP's Thiemer reports Wesley Clark announced 11/13 he will "give his campaign a cash infusion by accepting public financing for the primaries." Clark will "be limited" to spend $45M in the primary and will "face state-by-state spending caps." He will be eligible for $19M in govt funding. Clark spokeperson Kym Spell: "We're raising money at a significant clip, which was why we waited so long to make the decision." She also said Clark "ultimately decided" to use public finanacing "out of repect for the system." If Clark gets the Dem nod, "there is a risk he will be near the spending limit" while Pres. Bush has "millions left to spend next spring and summer, before the general election season starts" (11/14). The goal? $10M by New Year's. I think you can do it without missing a debate in NH in December General.
In a stunning move that everyone and their mom, including me, predicted, John Kerry is opening up the Ketchup Bottle and refusing to abide by any spending limits in any states....like oh say New Hampshire were he is down 15 points.
also, ultra-unshocking, Lieberman attacked a fellow candidate, trying to be Zell Miller-lite, by saying "Limiting the amount of money in campaigns is an important principle that I have spent years fighting for. It's unfortunate that John Kerry has joined Howard Dean in abandoning that important principle"
On the wierd side, Clark is having trouble rescheduling a fundraiser during an important NH TV debate, and has yet to say he will attend the debate (he is the only one, unfortunately who won't be attending so far--- please kick people off) ... all this while AP's Thiemer reports Wesley Clark announced 11/13 he will "give his campaign a cash infusion by accepting public financing for the primaries." Clark will "be limited" to spend $45M in the primary and will "face state-by-state spending caps." He will be eligible for $19M in govt funding. Clark spokeperson Kym Spell: "We're raising money at a significant clip, which was why we waited so long to make the decision." She also said Clark "ultimately decided" to use public finanacing "out of repect for the system." If Clark gets the Dem nod, "there is a risk he will be near the spending limit" while Pres. Bush has "millions left to spend next spring and summer, before the general election season starts" (11/14). The goal? $10M by New Year's. I think you can do it without missing a debate in NH in December General.
Thursday, November 13, 2003
Yo, yo, what's the scenario
Time to theorize:
These are the probable scenarios, in my book. If you, dear Readers, can explain how anything else can happen (like Dean winning SC or Kerry winning more than NH if he is very lucky) in real plausible terms, I would be happy to add them to the list. Notice I am not explaining Clark's winning strategy is the most likely but possible, if SC becomes the stop Dean event that it is shaping up to be.
Time to theorize:
- Dean wins IA, NH: OUT Kerry and Gephardt IN Edwards or Clark WHO CARES Lieberman and the jokesters. SC determines who is going to be No. 2 to Dean and try to run the table with him in the south and Midwest, look for Clinton associated money to come pouring into the winner and Dean to be attacked.
- Gephardt wins IA, Dean wins NH: OUT Kerry IN E or C WHO CARES L, M-B, S, and K. Same as above in terms of SC but now Gephardt can try to stop him with an econ message in SC and many other states, possibly dragging down Dean lower in southern states. No. 2? G E or C
- Gephardt wins IA, with Edwards in 3rd, Dean wins NH with Edwards in strong 2nd: OUT Kerry in IA IN maybe C maybe, G WHO CARES (see above). Now, Edwards is in the driver's seat and is the clear No. 2, if not No. 1 in terms of raw delegates going into super Tuesday. Watch Clintonestas to coalesce behind Edwards and leave Clark for dead. A united push to destroy Dean.
- Gephardt wins IA, with Kerry in strong 3rd. Kerry slugs out Dean in NH Clark/Edwards in third. OUT Dean ! IN Kerry Edwards Clark....Even in this dream scenario for J. Forbes K., I don't know how he would win any 2/3 states, he will be all spent after killing Dean. Maybe some one give him a VP slot as a thank-you gift for killing Dean's candidacy. Or maybe it energizes him to do well in some other states, but never SC.
These are the probable scenarios, in my book. If you, dear Readers, can explain how anything else can happen (like Dean winning SC or Kerry winning more than NH if he is very lucky) in real plausible terms, I would be happy to add them to the list. Notice I am not explaining Clark's winning strategy is the most likely but possible, if SC becomes the stop Dean event that it is shaping up to be.
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
Pass the Ketchup on the Titanic
OK, I got one more corny joke, John Kerry's campaign is like that movie about capital punishment "Dean Man Walking;" put the man out of his misery.
Kerry is going to have to announce soon whether or not he will take public financing (my guess is no) and still be able to "compete" with Dean in NH. Kerry, the richest man in the Senate at like $600 million, is going to tap the few million that he and his wife jointly own and dump it into NH in a last ditch effort to save his candidacy.
Good luck. Key staffers are fleeing like rats from a sinking ship (no offense guys, you are good, not rats). I used Titanic because I think the analogy is apt. Once thought the best and unsinkable ship, this baby is going down slow and steady as she pleases to be bottom of the North Atlantic.
Now, waaaay back when, in January, I liked Kerry. Not as much as the dream of Clark, perhaps, but I never thought we would be able to get him to run at that point. Then again, waaaay back in January Dean was this Kucinich-like candidate going around the country with press traveling with him to show that they were cool enough to know who he was. I think people know who he is now, or at least think they do.
If you thought Lieberman, Edwards, or Clark were in trouble, I've got news for you, Kerry's in worse shape. Which is odd considering he is 3rd in IA and 2nd in NH. But his gaps are huge and he used to be in 1st in NH for months. I can't see one state that Kerry has locked up or a good shot at after NH. SC is going to be either Clark or Edwards, Lieberman might get OK or some state. Gephardt gets MO and maybe more. AZ and MI are going to be momentum/front runner states (i.e. Dean or his beater) and then the next month, its all over.
Please, don't tell me Dean will be it, or that people like Lieberman and Kerry will still be dogging his tail. Lieberman is shaping up to be the DLC's Kucinich, a protest candidate of his own. Kerry, a sacrificial lamb of Washington-insiders (why not Gephardt? Because at least he takes stances, like what do so and say....Kerry seems so very, wishy-washy on everything) .
Who's to blame? Well, Bob Shum folks say.... But ultimately, the fault lies with the Junior Senator from Massachusetts, who, as he likes to say often enough, is running for President of the United States.
OK, I got one more corny joke, John Kerry's campaign is like that movie about capital punishment "Dean Man Walking;" put the man out of his misery.
Kerry is going to have to announce soon whether or not he will take public financing (my guess is no) and still be able to "compete" with Dean in NH. Kerry, the richest man in the Senate at like $600 million, is going to tap the few million that he and his wife jointly own and dump it into NH in a last ditch effort to save his candidacy.
Good luck. Key staffers are fleeing like rats from a sinking ship (no offense guys, you are good, not rats). I used Titanic because I think the analogy is apt. Once thought the best and unsinkable ship, this baby is going down slow and steady as she pleases to be bottom of the North Atlantic.
Now, waaaay back when, in January, I liked Kerry. Not as much as the dream of Clark, perhaps, but I never thought we would be able to get him to run at that point. Then again, waaaay back in January Dean was this Kucinich-like candidate going around the country with press traveling with him to show that they were cool enough to know who he was. I think people know who he is now, or at least think they do.
If you thought Lieberman, Edwards, or Clark were in trouble, I've got news for you, Kerry's in worse shape. Which is odd considering he is 3rd in IA and 2nd in NH. But his gaps are huge and he used to be in 1st in NH for months. I can't see one state that Kerry has locked up or a good shot at after NH. SC is going to be either Clark or Edwards, Lieberman might get OK or some state. Gephardt gets MO and maybe more. AZ and MI are going to be momentum/front runner states (i.e. Dean or his beater) and then the next month, its all over.
Please, don't tell me Dean will be it, or that people like Lieberman and Kerry will still be dogging his tail. Lieberman is shaping up to be the DLC's Kucinich, a protest candidate of his own. Kerry, a sacrificial lamb of Washington-insiders (why not Gephardt? Because at least he takes stances, like what do so and say....Kerry seems so very, wishy-washy on everything) .
Who's to blame? Well, Bob Shum folks say.... But ultimately, the fault lies with the Junior Senator from Massachusetts, who, as he likes to say often enough, is running for President of the United States.
Monday, November 10, 2003
Gep takes a wobbly lead in IA
Although Dean's support is stronger than Gephardt's, Dick beats Howard 27-20 with Kerry at a distant third with 15 (the rest are in 5% or less land, sorry Edwards).
Geppy's support is broader however, and to me the most telling stat is "Dean has a significant lead among likely caucus participants with incomes topping $70,000 and those with college degrees, winning the support of 27 percent in each group. He also leads among those who are ages 18 to 44." So much for Dean's claim that he wasn't the candidate of the elite. As Jay Jaroch of Real Time with Bill Maher said "Dean went back to being the candidate for guys with 'Free Tibet' stickers on their Subarus."
Geps got the 'fogies, men, women, unions, and catholics. It will be interesting to see if Gephardt's old school GOTV or Dean's GOTV will be more sucessful in organization-centric Iowa. It is a good first test for the Dean Machine. If Dean clobbers Gephardt, Kerry better just take it like a man, because his ship is sinking faster than the Titanic. He fired his campaign director, maybe so he would have one more thing in common with Clark. Senator, that is not the thing you wanted in common. Oh well.
I now see the race as Dean, Gephardt if he wins, and Clark, because the rest are finished. If Clark can hold the South, and Gephardt can win the Midwest, then Dean will be left as the candidate of New England and other liberal bastions, which will make his case for nominating very tough. All of this is, of course, speculation until the real voters vote.
Although Dean's support is stronger than Gephardt's, Dick beats Howard 27-20 with Kerry at a distant third with 15 (the rest are in 5% or less land, sorry Edwards).
Geppy's support is broader however, and to me the most telling stat is "Dean has a significant lead among likely caucus participants with incomes topping $70,000 and those with college degrees, winning the support of 27 percent in each group. He also leads among those who are ages 18 to 44." So much for Dean's claim that he wasn't the candidate of the elite. As Jay Jaroch of Real Time with Bill Maher said "Dean went back to being the candidate for guys with 'Free Tibet' stickers on their Subarus."
Geps got the 'fogies, men, women, unions, and catholics. It will be interesting to see if Gephardt's old school GOTV or Dean's GOTV will be more sucessful in organization-centric Iowa. It is a good first test for the Dean Machine. If Dean clobbers Gephardt, Kerry better just take it like a man, because his ship is sinking faster than the Titanic. He fired his campaign director, maybe so he would have one more thing in common with Clark. Senator, that is not the thing you wanted in common. Oh well.
I now see the race as Dean, Gephardt if he wins, and Clark, because the rest are finished. If Clark can hold the South, and Gephardt can win the Midwest, then Dean will be left as the candidate of New England and other liberal bastions, which will make his case for nominating very tough. All of this is, of course, speculation until the real voters vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
