The Day Before NH

Today is a Snow Day here in D.C. and it would be hard for me to be more pleased since I spent too much time this weekend watching the news that wasn't, and too little time writing the brief that isn't. (If anyone wants to send me a nice, tidy, post-trial motion to acquit on charges of "using" guns in connection with a drug trafficking crime after the D accepted a gun as payment for marijuana, just let me know.)

In 36-40 hours, we should know what NH voters think of the Democratic candidates, and that may or may not mean much for what happens next week in the overall race. In their most recent poll (released this morning) Zogby's calling it a statistical dead heat between Kerry and Dean (more info), while yesterday's polls show wider margins.

Of course, NH is supposedly "the graveyard of pollsters," so who knows? Whatever happens, the Repubs are looking forward to running against a "liberal, liberal, liberal." It's telling that Republicans say that Lieberman would be the biggest threat to Bush; they're just spinning. Most of the 2002 Dems took the Lieberman "centrist" approach and were beaten soundly. If it comes down to Kerry, he'll lose for the same reasons Gore lost—he's easy to lock up in a "boring liberal" box. If it comes down to Edwards, he'll have a challenge to stay out of the "eager and energetic but too young and inexperienced" box. And, of course, if it comes down to Dean they're already trying to lock him into the "angry and unpresidential" box, but that's the becoming a huge strength for Dean: If he beats that rap with a comeback in the next few weeks, the Republicans will have to come up with a new weapon against him because the "angry" one will be pretty well defused.

Bush got into the act yesterday with jabs along the above lines at both Dean and Kerry. About "the speech," Bush said:

Boy that speech in Iowa was something else," a guest at the no-media-allowed Alfalfa Club dinner Saturday quoted Bush as saying, The Washington Post reported.

"Talk about shock and awe. Saddam Hussein felt so bad for Governor Dean that he offered him his hole."

Ha ha ha. Very nice. Of course, if the Dems compared Bush to Saddam in this way, we'd probably hear indignant outrage from the Right, but whatever. Bush wasn't finished:

Then we have Senator (John) Kerry. I think Kerry's position on the war in Iraq (news - web sites) is politically brilliant. In New Hampshire yesterday, he stated he had voted for the war, adding that he was strongly opposed to it," Bush reportedly said.

At least Bush is sticking to the facts on this one. I saw an interview yesterday where Ted Kennedy tried to explain how he could support Kerry, despite the fact that Kerry voted for the most recent Iraq war, while Kennedy has been staunchly against it. Kennedy said that he and Kerry were actually of like mind about the war, they just voted differently. Hmm. And that makes sense how?

But the Republican's can also attack Kerry for other reasons, including the fact that he's got a seriously questionable record on important votes, including the fact that in 2003 he only managed to be present for 28% of his Senate votes. Wow, that's certainly the record of a dedicated representative. Not. But he can ice-skate, windsurf, and ride a Harley, so who cares about his record, right?

I think the Washington Post's John Harris sums up the last week pretty well when he writes:

Tuesday's vote has come down to a classic contest of novelty vs. convention.

It's exactly what Dean has been saying for the last year. Now the question is: Will primary voters (the "base" of the party) give general election voters a candidate they can be excited about and find a reason to vote for (Dean) or a candidate who will bore them to death and encourage them just to continue their pattern of not voting (Kerry)?

Dave Winer has been making some great comments on the media circus, the Democratic primaries and the, Dean campaign. See most of Saturday's posts, and several of yesterday's, including this gem:

Watching Tim Russert interview Wesley Clark this morning, it occurred to me how dysfunctional the system is. I saw the Great Dean Scream another dozen times. I heard the chief of the Democratic Party asked if he thought it was the end of the Dean campaign and he said the obvious -- it wasn't, and it should't be. Then they asked if Clark had screwed up by letting Michael Moore call the President a deserter. Later Russert repeatedly asked Clark to denounce Moore for saying that, but he wouldn't. The system is so perverse that Clark just danced instead of coming out and saying the obvious, yes, he's President, and yes, he got elected without his character getting the kind of examination the Democrats are getting. "So Tim, let's turn it around," Clark might have said, "Why didn't you grill Bush on that during the 2000 election? How did he become President without that getting vetted?" I might go further and wonder how he got the nomination without his military service being fully examined. And then to nail it, ask Tim to play the Dean Scream a few more times. (I'm starting to like it.) If the Republicans cry bloody murder, let's go back and figure out who painted Dean with "angry" label. Yeah, it was the Republicans, in case you were wondering.

With brilliant concision, Winer hits the nail on the head. We need candidates who approach the media with precisely this sort of aggressive quick thinking that turns their questions right back on their hypocrisy and failures—not to pick on the media, but to force them to do a better job, for all our sakes.

(BTW, I also saw that Russert interview with Terry McAuliffe and I was glad to see him standing firm on the fact that Bush went AWOL in 1972 when he simply didn't show up for a year of Air National Guard service. Maybe "deserter" is the wrong term; I don't know. What would be more appropriate?)

Posted 07:05 AM | Comments (2) | election 2004