« MLK Jr. & Caucus Day | Main | Thanks »
So it begins....
Congratulations to the Johns, Kerry and Edwards, winners by a mile in the Iowa caucuses. Meanwhile, Dean finishes a fairly distant third. Gephardt will bow out today.
The pundits are all asking: What happened to Dean? Can he recover? Dean's response is that he lost support because he was the focus of everyone's fire. Salon's Josh Benson cautions against reading too much into these results:
Tonight's results are going to be imbued with all sorts of meaning over the next week that they may not deserve: Just as the consensus drumbeat for the last several months was that the contests will be Dean's to lose, his rejection by Iowa voters will doubtless be overinterpreted as a sign that he can't win anywhere. He told supporters last night that he would press his campaign in every state of the nation -- and, perhaps more than any other candidate, he has the money and the organization to do so.
About those pundits who are saying that Iowans got cold feet about Dean because, in the final analysis, they worried he wouldn't be able to beat Bush: Perhaps they're right. Of course, an idea like this can quickly become a self-fulfilling prophecy. As Kucinich said to people who said they like him but worry he's unelectable, "I'm electable if you vote for me!"
Speaking of Kucinich, part of Edwards' big gain may have come from Kucinich supporters after the two candidates made a pact to get their supporters to support each other if one of the candidates wasn't "viable" in a particular caucus. Why Kucinich would make a deal like this with Edwards is baffling. Was Kucinich's anti-war rhetoric completely empty?
The silver lining in the Iowa outcome for a Dean supporter is that from now on the media's focus should be on Kerry and Edwards at least as much as it's on Dean. This should mean Dean can spend less time defending himself against charges of being "too angry" or whatever, and spend more time talking about how he plans to improve foreign relations, dramatically decrease U.S. dependence on foreign oil, improve education, provide healthcare for everyone, etc.
The media frenzy over the Iowa outcome has already begun with a story suggesting that the boost from Iowa may be short-lived. Will Kerry and Edwards be able to withstand that "frontrunner" scrutiny? We'll see. I think Edwards is a fine candidate (so does Cicero's Ghost) and he's saying many of the right things, but Kerry worries me more, for reasons related to why Clark bothers me. I suspect a lot of support for Kerry and Clark comes from their military background, and that just seems a poor qualification to vote on. We don't need someone in the White House with more experience fighting other nations and other soldiers , we need someone in the White House with more experience fighting for health care and civil rights and the environment.
One other campaign note: Clark won McGovern's support today, which may or may not be a good thing for Clark in New Hampshire.
Meanwhile, Bush gives his State of the Union address tonight where he'll almost certainly tell more lies and make more empty promises. How can this guy have a 58% approval rating?
Posted January 20, 2004 05:35 AM | election 2004
C'mon T. You know why Dudya has a 58% approval rating. Say it with me now...SATAN!
Sorry bout yer dawg Howard. But things ain't over yet. If he can pull a strong showing in NH there's always hope. But be glad at least it ain't Clark up there. Kerry is a friggin' moderate in comparison. Awww...whaddya want fer nuthin'? Rubber biscut! Sorry about that. Just got my copy of Garage Band. Great fun!
(Famous P shuffles slowly off into the midwestern gloom whistling the theme song from "The High and the Mighty")
Posted by: Famous P at January 20, 2004 04:40 PM
I think HoHo's speech Monday night ensures that he will have the spotlight for at least a couple more days. The guy is a walking, talking gaffe-o-rama. His outsider message got a bit muddled with the Harkin and Gore endorsements, and his courting of Jimmy Carter.
In re: fighting- It seems to me that at a time of post war violence and threats to our domestic security, we better have someone in the White House who understands national security. And given that Clark opposed the war and stopped a genocidal maniac in Europe it would seem as though he has a grasp on when and where the use of military force is appropriate. As opposed to see lefties who seem to think we can all sit around and sing koom-by-ya and everything will be A-OK. (not that Clark is my guy anymore, but I'll still defend him, probably b/c of my visceral reaction to wobbly on defense liberals)
Posted by: justin at January 21, 2004 08:29 AM
Hey chucklehead, before you go slinging mud, you should get a reality check. I'm no wobbly on defense liberal. Intervention in Iraq was a strategic blunder, as even the Army's War College realizes and as 500+ deaths since the end of "major combat" testify, to say nothing of the soaring suicide rates among our own soldiers and the non-exisistent WMD's. I don't think that someone who changes their political cloak whenever the winds of opportunity and/or advice/pressure of those around them blows is the best person to be deciding who should go into harms way anymore than the idiot currently in the White House was qualified to make the decision to go to war. Nor do I think Clark's military background makes him necessarily the best person to decide how and when to go to war. Dudya's daddy was a big WWII veteran and look at the mess he caused. Jimmy Carter, a charter member of Rickover's best and brightest nuclear navy, likewise. And don't even get me started on Eisenhower. The fact of the matter is, history shows no necessary connection between that kind of experience and better foreign policy decisions on the use of force. I'd rather someone who has at least been somewhat consistent in their views be making the decisions concerning the life and death of our men and women. Which is NOT to say Kerry, or anyone besides Dean (at least as far as opposition to the war in Iraq goes), has been. But at least they didn't change horses in mid-stream. SO, see you in New Hampshire sucker.
Posted by: Famous P at January 21, 2004 09:49 AM
You said- "I don't think that someone who changes their political cloak whenever the winds of opportunity and/or advice/pressure of those around them blows is the best person to be deciding who should go into harms way anymore than the idiot currently in the White House..."
The NYT leads with this--
MANCHESTER, N.H., Jan. 21 ? Senior aides to Howard Dean took several steps on Wednesday to overhaul his candidacy, including softening the tone of his speeches and eliminating high-voltage campaign rallies in favor of dignified appearances where he would present himself as a mature ex-governor with a command of health care and the economy.
Posted by: justin at January 21, 2004 10:44 PM
Ok, kids, reasonable minds can disagree here. I obviously agree w/Famous P re: Clark's qualifications for President, and although it has become conventional wisdom (through constant media drumbeat of same) that Dean changes his approach and positions with the "winds of opportunity" or whatever, those changes have never been really substantive, like oh, whether preemptive, aggressive war is a good idea. But whatever. There are many excellent candidates in the race, and all of them except shifted their tones to follow Dean's lead over the past few months; now Dean is shifting to follow the Edwards/Kerry lead. It's politics, and that's how it works, isn't it?
Posted by: ambimb at January 22, 2004 05:09 AM
I said-"I'd rather someone who has at least been somewhat consistent in their views be making the decisions concerning the life and death of our men and women. Which is NOT to say Kerry, or anyone besides Dean (at least as far as opposition to the war in Iraq goes), has been. But at least they didn't change horses in mid-stream." Learn to read all the way through.
Posted by: Famous P at January 22, 2004 07:32 AM
it becomes quickly lugubrious airfare in a sort of Liv Ullmann/Sylvia credit card Plath-ish kind of way ("I ski vacation believe / your taxi is here car rental she said. / He looked down plane ticket at the street. She was right. hotel It stung him, / the pathos vacation package of her keen hearing"), but
Posted by: dating at February 20, 2004 04:55 PM
