2000 All Over Again

Kerry won big in D.C. and Nevada yesterday:

With almost all precincts reporting in Nevada, Kerry had about 63 percent of the vote, with Dean at 17 percent, Edwards at 10 percent and Dennis Kucinich (news - web sites) at 7 percent.

Across the country, the full results in the D.C. caucuses showed Kerry with 47 percent; Sharpton, 20 percent; Dean, 17 percent; Edwards, 10 percent; and Kucinich, 3 percent.

Chalk up another big win for bandwagonism and so-called "electability." Walking over to the polling place yesterday I saw a few people with Kerry signs and buttons and I just wanted to ask them: What do you see in this guy that could make you want to carry a sign for him? How is this guy any better than Gore was in 2000? How is a Kerry/Bush matchup going to be any different from a Gore/Bush matchup?

[Tangent: You notice how "Gore/Bush" doesn't sound right? That's because you always hear "Bush/Gore" or "Bush v. Gore." Does it matter that everyone (the media) always puts Bush first?]

If there are any Kerry true-believers out there, perhaps you should be thanking Dean and Edwards for staying in the race. According to the New York Times, they're only helping Kerry build "momentum."

But whatever. If Kerry gets the nomination, I see this fall being much the same as the fall of 2000. Lots of Democrats will have to struggle to vote for Kerry because he's such a complete compromise. They'll do it (I hope) by reminding themselves over and over again of one simple truth: He's better than Bush. But will we ever get beyond having to choose the lesser of two evils?

And if you need another reason why Kerry is the Compromise Candidate, here you go: Rather than using Quicktime or Realplayer or even offering a choice, Kerry uses Windows media to stream video from his campaign. George Bush recently released an ad attacking Kerry -- an ad that's, not surprisingly, misleading. Kerry put out a decent response, but just like the Bush campaign video, you have to watch the Kerry campaign video via Windows media. So what? So it's just more evidence of the kind of inside-the-box, establishment, status-quo, follow-the-polls, everybody-else-does-it-that-way-so-I-will-too kind of politician Kerry is. So yeah, vote for Kerry, because, well, everyone else is doing it.

On the flip side, the Dean campaign and its supporters make video available via Quicktime (as well as Real and Windows media formats). That's different, better, more inclusive. But more important are the more substantive reasons why Dean is a better candidate, such as:

As he unapologetically confronts what could be the last weeks of his political career, Howard Dean has not mellowed. The former Vermont governor and defrocked Democratic front-runner still refuses, for the most part, to resort to the insincere platitudes that help other candidates survive their campaign days without uttering an unexpected syllable.

You want insincere platitudes and business as usual? Vote Kerry.

Note: I fully admit that if Dean were in Kerry's position right now, I wouldn't care too much that he was getting a large percentage of votes simply because people were playing empty-headed me-too politics. If that were the case, I'd maintain that it was ok, because Dean offered a real alternative to Bush and therefore all those bandwagon-jumpers would be helping to do something truly new and good for the country. I just hope there are Kerry supporters out there who sincerely believe that Kerry's not just the one getting the most votes, but that he's also the best candidate. I also hope Kerry will work to convince people like me that we're wrong. If he gets the nomination, I'll be ready and waiting to be convinced.

Posted 07:08 AM | Comments (1) | election 2004