ambivalent imbroglio home

« The Nation's First Primary: DC | Main | Welcome Back »

January 14, 2004

Dean wins D.C.

The results are in from D.C.'s first-in-the-nation, nonbinding, protest primary designed mostly to bring national attention to the problem of lack of congressional representation for District voters. With 16% of registered Democrats voting, the totals were:

  1. Dean: 43%
  2. Sharpton: 34%
  3. Mosely-Braun: 12%
  4. Kucinich: 8%
The other major candidates did not participate in deference to the whines of the DNC, which was miffed because D.C. was usurping its role as the supreme authority in the Democratic party by holding the D.C. primary before New Hampshire's. Whatever. It's still a good thing for Dean:

Dean thanked his campaign workers in a speaker-phone call from Vermont that was amplified to about 150 supporters in a Connecticut Avenue bar. He reiterated his support for giving the city voting rights in Congress and called it wrong that five of his rivals opted out of the contest.

He also said he won the vote among an electorate with a majority of African American voters -- defying critics and some political analysts who questioned his appeal to this historically crucial voting bloc for Democrats. Vermont has few minorities and little representation of blacks in its state government, as Sharpton has pointed out in recent days.

"We're going to build a rainbow coalition to take over this country for the people who own it," Dean told his supporters.

In Iowa, where the votes will count next Tuesday, the campaigns are trotting out new ads against each other and trying to solidify whatever support they've got. A lot of Iowans probably won't be too sad this time next week when all the hullaballoo is over. Neither will I.

Dean may get another little boost when he gets some words of praise (but no actual endorsement) from Jimmy Carter on Sunday. Will this help or hurt in New Hampshire, where Dean's been slipping and Clark's been gaining?

On the other side, Bush still trusts his teflon—no matter what happens, Bush can count on the love, affection, worship, and positive spin he's gotten from the media since, well, forever. Still, almost everyone seems to be pointing out the sharp contrast between the administration's response to recent criticisms from former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and its response to an earlier scandal:

The administration responded with alacrity [to O'Neill's allegations]. Only a day [after the allegations went public] it called for a probe into how government documents labeled "secret" could be aired on the O'Neill interview on national network TV in prime time.

But this response contrasted strikingly with the far slower response the White House had in approving a probe on who leaked the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak last July. The issue flared again last week when Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York claimed the White House had so far only "partially cooperated" with a Justice Department probe into the affair.

Perhaps Wes Clark had the best spin on it:

"They're not concerned about national security, but they're real concerned about political security," Clark said.

Thank goodness for teflon, huh?

Posted January 14, 2004 05:09 AM | election 2004 general politics

As part of my kinder, gentler persona I offer these few words that are not ciritical of Ho Ho.
(1) What is with the media's obsession with his lack of overt religiosity? I could really care less what somebody says with respect to their religious beliefs/values. I want to see how s/he acts to others for those actions truly do speak louder than words. Especially in comparison to some self style Christians who seem to always forget the meanings of "let he who is without sin..." and "judge not".
(2) What is with the punditcoracy kvetching over his wife's lack of involvement with the campaign? Is Dr. Steinberg supposed to leave her patients high and dry for the course of the campaign so she can trot around the country with her husband, smiling pretty for the cameras? Do we expect the wives of CEOs to jet off with their husbands on every business trip? Are we in the 1940's or the 21st C?

Posted by: justin at January 15, 2004 05:08 PM

So maybe I ought to use the preview button and pick up on my typos.

Posted by: justin at January 15, 2004 05:09 PM

about   ∞     ∞   archives   ∞   links   ∞   rss
This template highly modified from The Style Monkey.