I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
"But aides to most of the other candidates say he is too late to have a good shot at the nomination, and they view him more as competing for a second spot on the ticket."
Well, of course they would say this!
I'm going on the roof and screaming for joy if Clark decides to run. This guy will kick the hell out of Bush.
I wonder if the Dems will ever catch on that, whatever they're thinking, they should stop whining to the whores in the press.
No, you can't win if all you do is whine that you can't win. That was true in 1992, and it's true today.
Nagourney seems to have all the political savvy of your average third-grader.
I thought Mondale and Harkin's statements were interesting. I wonder if they're playing the low expectations game. After all, the GOPers say the same things.
Seems the smart money would be for a Dem candidate to get Clark in the fold as #2 ASAP. Even before primary season is over, if possible. Clark's been making noises about running for months now, and I don't think anyone believes he's running for anything but VP. Dean's perceived pugnacity and the stars on Clark's epaulettes would make a strong ticket.
Why should a "lack of foreign policy experience" hamper any Democratic candidate? Advocating positions that are in direct contradiction to what W has done would seem to be a winning strategy.
"[I] don't think anyone believes he's running for anything but VP."
Well, I do. I might be wrong. But all the Draft Clark people do. Some Democratic big-wigs seem to.
Now, the other candidates would surely want Clark to be a VP, as he'd be able to trump them just as he could trump Bush. But that doesn't make it so.
History suggests that 2004 will be a strongly Democratic year. Nevermind the 36-year electoral cycles (the current one ends next year); just look at the work Pollkatz has done:
http://
www.pollkatz.homestead.co...llupcharts2.gif
The presidents who polled poorly for most of their first terms rallied in their fourth year and won re-election (Reagan and Clinton).
The presidents who polled well early in their first terms lost (Carter, Bush I).
Further, Dubya's numbers are steadily falling.
I think that by Christmas we're going to see Republicans starting to actively distance themselves from Bush.
-D.
So now the line is that Bush is beatable, just not by any actual person.
Oh, ok.
The only thing more sad than Adam Nagourney's "reporting" is the fact that some democrats actually have this fatalistic attitude.
The article treats the fact that there are a lot of contenders as some sort of unique, horrible, crippling thing. As if it doesn't happen every four years.
And look, the NYT selective wisdom strikes again: Dean is a "liberal." Keep thinking that, guys.
I wonder why nobody counters the "lack of foreign policy" meme with the fact that Bush hadn't even left the Western hemisphere before he was elected? (Not to mention that Bush's foreign policy has failed!)
I also wonder about the relevance of Harkin's statement: "It's going to be very, very difficult to defeat Bush next year. He will have more money than any candidate in history." This concedes that votes are bought and issues don't matter.
"lack of foreign policy experience"
This is the stupidest argument. This criticism was, I'm sure, used against Clinton and probably, Bush. The man who becomes president has to have the intelligence and a realistic sense of America's position in the world. How does he want the country to be viewed by others? Clinton did a good job. Bush?
Bush has failed miserably for many reasons. I would trust the judgment of almost any Dem candidate over his cowboy approach. Wisdom is a word that will never be used in the same sentence with George W. Bush.
Before I die, please God, let me see W. go face-to-face with Clark on foreign policy and national security.
Anyone who walks that Texas bullshit walk but won't climb up on a horse is a coward to his very core.
On the "no foreign policy experience" matter: in 1980, Reagan not only had none such, the views he did express struck many Americans as borderline terrifying. In the end, however, voters chose him, because the incumbent had engineered what seemed a massive foreign policy screw-up. I expect the decision to be made much the same way next year. (I also think Dean's purported "anger" helps him here. It'll be tough to simultaneously portray a candidate as angry and weak-willed)
A few months back, I laid out what I thought would be the media progression in reporting on the '04 race. So far, they're adhering to script. My full scenario:
Summer '03 - Bush is unbeatable
Fall '03 - Bush is marginally beatable, but no Democrat has The Stature to take him on
Year End '03 - Bush is surprisingly vulnerable, but the Democrats are squabbling amongst themselves and killing their chances
Spring '04 - Bush is very vulnerable, but Democrats have nominated the one candidate who can't beat him
Summer '04 - the Dem candidate leads the polls, but that will change after the GOP convention
Fall '04 - the Dems continue to lead in polling, but on Election Day, that nation's "natural" Republican majority will assert itself
Election Day '04 - how the fuck did that happen?
Dude, how the hell can they say the Dem field is weak?! Save Al Sharpton, everybody in the field had at least twice as much experience in government than aWol!
I would pay a lot of money to see a Sharpton vs. W. Bush debate. Never gonna happen, but that would be one of the greatest spectacles of all time.
Nagourney's article is as usual amazing. Why do Democrats talk to him in the first place? Or is it just that he always takes hours to comb out the most depressingly defeatist comments from amongst the dozens he gets?
Yes the Democratic leaders are "fearful" where Republican leaders are only "concerned." And all us sheep all wear Birkenstocks...
I think that by Christmas we're going to see Republicans starting to actively distance themselves from Bush.
I'd take that bet, and give you odds. Of course there are already *some* republicans who distance themselves from Bush. Mostly those who are so hard-core right-wing that they think Bush is a liberal. They'll vote for him anyway of course.
By Christmas the economic recovery will be stronger, and by the middle of next year it will be a "jobfull" recovery. I've seen some pro-Dem analysts say the recovery will be too late to help, based on past recoveries that happened close to an election. Feiler Faster will win again.
WMDs will be "found". (Does anyone here think the Bush admin is above planting evidence?) No matter how shaky the evidence it will let the Pubs breathe a sigh of relief for vindication. Or close enough to vindication for an election year.
More than likely the Dems will clinch a Bush win by not running the "too liberal" Dean (who isn't really liberal at all) and instead running one of the Bush-lite candidates.
demtom: Did you bug Rove's office? This sounds like their "strategery".
Another Chris nails what I have been suggesting for months...
Who cares what AnotherChris or RF thinks, two grains of sand on a beach...
I have heard rumblings of this paired tix on this and at other blogs,,, the day I wake up, and it is true, and the day I learn Dean/Clarke are spending $$$ on security for themselves on the campaign trail, is the day I will believe we stand a shot at ending this phucking nightmare...
But till then,,,
This story could have been written months ago, as far as the new news in it. This is a rehash. The whores like to pretend the Dems are just going to roll over for DimSon. Dean, for one, will tear the sumbich a new asshole. Bush will be able to put forth excrement in all directions. I am beginning to lose the point of stories like this one. It isn't new, all of it has been said before, and by better writers. Maybe Adam and friends figure if they repeat a lie enough times, someone will start to believe it.
I'll take the low expectations. Its the one thing I've learned from W.
When the polls report that more voters would pick any Democrat over Bush you have to realize that Nagourney isn't reporting news as much as trying to influence it. The trend is anti-Bush. Sure, a lot could happen in a year such as more invasions or a stock market rebound (and yes, if it can be gimmicked it will be right before the election) but we could also have investigations into 9/11, energy, Iraq war intelligence and so on. Can't take anything for granted now.
A question: if Clark can't make up his mind about running, or even commit to a party, why should we depend on him to make the decisions required by the highest public office?
My greatest fear is that if pissant's numbers tank enough, al Queda will be "discovered" in Syria or Iran, making it necessary to "protect our troops" with an invasion. Or, worse yet, another spectacular terrorist attack will occur, timed to call off the election in the name of "stability in this time of peril to our homeland".
I wouldn't put it past this gang of thugs, would you?
Selah.
Well Ron Paul sure won't vote for Bush. And he's even from the same state!
Wisdom is a word that will never be used in the same sentence with George W. Bush.
Whoops! :P
Hey, Snark, LOL!
Wisdom is a word that will not be used in a sentence that descibes George W. Bush.
Most Democrats that I know believe that Bush will be defeated in 2004.
describes. Arrrgh!
" But they said he could be unseated only by an aggressive, partisan challenge that builds on Democratic anger lingering from the 2000 election, and by a nominee who somehow managed to survive a complicated nominating fight that was pulling their party to the left."
That sounds about right to me. I certainly have the anger. Unfortunately, I live in NC and My vote will not count to the overall total, but it will in the statewide (all Democratic where it councts) and local (wingnuts presently leaping about gibbering things like "no invreases in taxes while taxburden is devolving to the states thanks to whistle-asses handlers' tax cuts.)
That should be: "no increases in taxes" while taxburden is devolving to the states thanks to whistle-ass's handlers' tax cuts.
Too much alky-haul.
Anyone who walks that Texas bullshit walk but won't climb up on a horse is a coward to his very core.
Amen. To be scared of HORSES even as you're busily trying to portray yourself as a Steely-Eyed Jet Pilot is just laughable.
the fact that Nagourney dismissed the Clark question in two sentences - well, one, actually -- speaks volumes about ... Nagourney.
democrats have no chance?!? has he paid ANY attention to what has been going on since 01???
If I had a dollar for every NYT thumbsucker in 1991 that wrote the Dems' Whie House chances off for the rest of the century, I'd be about $365 richer (plus interest) than I am now.
Old SCLM dog, new tricks...
I've told my Nagourney story on Kos, but here goes:
Edwards had a townhall meeting in Raleigh to keep in touch with the homefolks back in April.
Nagourney and Cathy Crowley came along. (Crowley, by the way, is enormous and appears to be on the verge of a stroke or heart attack at any moment). Nagourney sat down in a chair and started clacking away on his keyboard.
I approached him because I recognized him from Nightline. His suit was wrinkled and he was hunched over like he ate too many cherries for dessert.
I said "Mr. Nagourney, we don't want you to go back to New York and write about how North Carolina doesn't want him to run. And we don't want you writing about how we're mad about his war vote."
Nagourney, petulantly: "Well, I had no intention of doing anything like that."
Guess what his article was about the next day? Edwards grilled at home by North Carolinians concerned that hgis race is taking his attention away from being Senator, and Edwards questioned by anti-war constituents.
No mention of Edwards call, which he has repeated three times since, for full public financing of federal campaigns. No mention of his discussion of the FCC hearings. No mention of his really aggressive moves on the Bush administration.
Just process process process.
Nagourney isn't worth his ten dollar suit.
By Christmas the economic recovery will be stronger, and by the middle of next year it will be a "jobfull" recovery.
Care to put some metrics and some money on that statement? I say bs, there is no reason for the economy to "recover" any time soon with the current economic policies.
Just another whore.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/2...CLAR.html?
fta=y
I have a serious question - when reading articles, like today's NYT article on Wesley Clark, of late - ther is this repeated sensibility, slightly rephrased, but always the same:
WASHINGTON, Aug. 27 — Wesley K. Clark, the retired four-star general who has been contemplating a run for president, has told close friends that he wants to join the Democratic race and is delaying a final decision only until he feels he has a legitimate chance of winning the nomination.
[Endquote]
- - - - - -
Wtf is his thinking? Will it ever get better than yesterday, or three months ago? If he enters, it will be as an attempted spoiler -and I will be pissed.
NO MORE GENERALS, Please?
No disrespect intended, honestly. Any serious responses welcome.
Cheerio, mates.
complicated nominating fight that was pulling their party to the left
leeeeft, leeeeeeeft, toooooo faaaar, heeeeelp, heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelp!
I think this is more nitpicking on the New York Times. I felt the article was neutral, and raises good points about the potential weaknesses of the Democratic Party and the nominees. It's almost as if people consider the NYT just another right-wing rag. Jeez.
Pie. "George W. Bush has no wisdom." There, using "wisdom" to "describe" him. :P
It's almost as if people consider the NYT just another right-wing rag
The NYT is DOA, they just don’t know it yet.
No. That's not it either.
The "wisdom of George W. Bush" is an oxymoronic phrase.
The appearance of "moron" is an added bonus.
The one useful moral to derive from the article is that Democrats would indeed be foolish to go with any candidate other than their very best shot at beating Bush.
It may happen that Bush's Presidency will implode under the pressure of his lies and his bungling; but it may not.
I personally have zero patience with Democrats who focus on any other characteristic than electability in choosing their candidate, given the stakes. And it is equally bad for a Democrat to delude themselves into thinking that, simply because THEY respond to a candidate, that means everybody will.
Democrats who support a candidate mainly because he makes them feel good are nothing more than politically incontinent.
And let's just say that I see a bunch of these people running around the blogs.
Democrats who support a candidate mainly because he makes them feel good are nothing more than politically incontinent.
It's hardly a characteristic typical of Democrats.
frankly0, you seem like a nice guy, but your statement makes you sound like an idealist. That IS one reason people vote. There are better ones, to be sure. There are also far worse.
And then there are those who can't find any reason at all.
If your favorite doesn't win the nomination, are you going to vote next November?
em, get a grip:
``I wonder if the Dems will ever catch on that, whatever they're thinking, they should stop whining to the whores in the press.''
One way the press whores is by dredging up the few morons in the crowd who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground and then quote them as though it means something. Of course Mondale and Harkin are right in saying it will be hard to beat even a jerk like Bush if the jerk has $220 million to piss away. But I f**ing guarantee that neither of those guys think that Bush is unbeatable, not with the twin albatrosses of Iraq and 2 million lost jobs hanging around his neck already and potential scandals around the corner that even the moribund press of our time is actually starting to sniff out: lying to New Yorkers about post-9/11 air quality; the energy policy coverup; the lies leading to the war; the lies about the cost and the length of the war.
There are a minimum of three strong candidates who can potentially retire Bush among the Democratic possibles: Dean, Kerry and Clark.
I agree, "electability" is a stupid prerequisite for a candidate. It's because they have a skewed view of what constitutes "electability". They're afraid of looking too extreme, so a moderate like Dean who dares to say bad things about Bush is "dragging the Democratic Party into the wilderness." Instead, electability should mean someone that motivates the base of the Democratic Party to go out and vote.
I'm an unabashed moderate, no doubt about it. One of the biggest successes that Neocrapservatives have pulled off is skewing the political spectrum to the right. A moderate like Clinton is bashed as being a liberal and the smear campaign served to create a perception that progressives were traitors that wanted to dismantle the US bit by bit with their communist ideals.
But I don't think the majority of Americans are fooled. We've now experienced first-hand the slings and arrows of outrageous neo-crapservatism, and it's not pretty. People need an alternative. To go centrist now would not create an alternative, and many people will just think "No sense changing horses in midstream." Remember, centrist now = traditional conservative.
I personally have zero patience with Democrats who focus on any other characteristic than electability in choosing their candidate, given the stakes. And it is equally bad for a Democrat to delude themselves into thinking that, simply because THEY respond to a candidate, that means everybody will.
Indubitably frankly0, I for one do solemnly pledge to hold myself to a high standard of political continence.
This is starting to sound like a commercial for diapers.
frankly0, you seem like a nice guy, but your statement makes you sound like an idealist. That IS one reason people vote. There are better ones, to be sure. There are also far worse.
If Democrats (or Republicans for that matter) vote for a candidate solely on the basis of whether he makes them feel good, it is a recipe for doom. The simple fact is that if most Democrats vote for a candidate most aligned with their own views (assuming that's what "feeling good" can be taken to mean here), then the resulting candidate will most likely in the center of the Democratic parties political spectrum, which is well to the left of the center of all American voters. Such a candidate has far less chance to win than a more moderate candidate, nearer that center. It's not hard to grasp this. Telling people not to pay attention to electability is both childishly naive, and destructive to the purposes of the Democratic party.
As for your claim that people don't pay attention to electability, I think that is obviously false. One reason people back one candidate rather than another is frequently that one of those candidates is "catching on", and voters want to vote for someone who has a real prospect of success. And I think that MANY voters choose their candidates in a primary based on their belief that that candidate stands a good chance in the general election. They quite explicitly DON'T want to back a loser.
The real question is, should Democrats be encouraged to take into account electability, which to a good degree voters naturally do, or discouraged, as I see so many on the blogs advocating?
I think that it is completely irresponsible to downplay the importance of electability. As I said, those who don't take it seriously into account are politically incontinent.
While we should never continence incontinence it may be preferable to refer to those so afflicted as continentally challenged. What was the question?
And, frankly0, what about the answer to my question? Will you still vote if your candidate doesn't win the nomination? (How can that be? You will have explicitly backed a loser.)
The problem with choosing your candidate on the basis of "electability" is, as William Hurt said (in a different context) in Broadcast News, "The little sucker keeps moving". Best example: A sunbelt right-winger is a sure 45-state loss (1964)...er, make that a 44-state win (1980).
Yes, we have the examples of previous, recent elections, but, as Elizabeth Drew drily observed after 1988, Everyone had a theory about how that election turned out, and by remarkable coincidence, each corresponded exactly to the theory they brought in. Just go back to 2000, an election we all watched in real time. The commonly held feeling is, given the peace-and-prosperity of the time, Gore should have won it by a wider margin. But ask people why he didn't, and you get: He should have run further away from Clinton; he should have embraced Clinton; he shouldn't have talked populist (DLC theory); he should have been MORE populist (Naderite theory); he shouldn't have tried to please the press; he should have tried MORE to please the press; he shouldn't have picked an orthodox Jewish running mate; or, it was hopeless, given how the press hated him. If we're so divided on an event so recent, how can anyone throw out their prescription for electability and expect it to be taken as gospel?
frankly0, I know from seeing you on other blogs that you're firmly in the Dean is poison/we must nominate a southerner camp. I respect your right to hold that opinion. Please respect the rights of others to weigh other factors, specifically including the ability to move crowds (which worked pretty well for Reagan, even though he was, on paper, the least elecatble Republican in 1980). Don't assume we're indifferent to seeing a Democrat elected. We're just calculating the race differently from the way you are.
I meant countenance, oh dear.
Regarding economic recovery...
With this deficit, I see no way that the economy grows at any appreciable rate without inflation to match.
-D.
How do you determine 'electability' prospectively? Isn't it a quality that can only be determined in retrospect?
And, frankly0, what about the answer to my question? Will you still vote if your candidate doesn't win the nomination?
Certainly I'll vote for the Democratic nominee no matter what.
How will I feel about it?
Not bad, in fact probably very good, if he looks likely to win on November 4.
Very very pissed if he looks like he's going to lose, and it seems like he's going to lose for all the reasons most sensible people were pointing out from day one.
The problem with choosing your candidate on the basis of "electability" is, as William Hurt said (in a different context) in Broadcast News, "The little sucker keeps moving". Best example: A sunbelt right-winger is a sure 45-state loss (1964)...er, make that a 44-state win (1980).
I'll be the first to admit that there's no particularly good test for electability, and that it is a very elusive animal. That does not mean, however, that we just have to give up on the notion as useless.
It's pretty clear that political extremism is generally a pretty bad sign. In some cases, such as Reagan, the opponent is so very weak, and the candidate sufficiently charismatic, that the extremism can be overcome. It may be that Bush will be so besmirched by his bungling that he will be ready to fall, as Carter was in his day, and just about any Democrat will do. But, as they say, that is a hope, not a plan.
Here's what bugs me. People on the left confuse their own enthusiasm for a candidate, which is likely to be based on some distinctly leftist views of the candidate, and his eagerness to denounce Bush, with the sort of enthusiasm they might expect from the American public at large. In my view, if you can't make a distinction between what makes you enthusiastic, and whet makes the American public enthusiastic, you need extensive political therapy sessions.
You speak as though people who support Dean in fact are quite explicitly calculating his chances in the general election, rather than simply giving in to their own desires. Suffice it to say, I think that that belief is pretty groundless. For the most part, what I seem to be seeing is something quite different: people feel for their own reasons a great response to a candidate, then, after the fact, they rationalize that that somehow must mean the candidate is eminently electable. This is something short of true rational thinking.
Are you really asserting that it is implausible that the radical element of a party might ever embrace a candidate who is unelectable? Is that really what you are claiming? And if that scenario IS possible, why do you believe that that is NOT exactly what may be going on in the current Democratic race?
Actually, Nagourney's article isn't so much full of shit as some of you want to think it is. It might be 50 percent okay, and 50 percent bullshit.
Bush is beatable, but if Democrats go down the road and put in somebody truly horrendous, we are sunk, perhaps permanently.
It makes me mad to no end to see everybody crowning Dean the nominee when not a single vote has been cast. As I have loathed this man almost from the first time I ever saw him, I hope the other eight candidates knock him on his insurgent ass. They absolutely have to do it for the sake of the party, and Dean's record will give them plenty of red meat.
The only thing I find objectionable about Nagourney's article is that he, like so many of the media mavens, thinks the Democratic nomination boils down to just Kerry and Dean.
I fully expect one of them to be knocked out after NH and the other severely weakened. That's the best the party can hope for, as no person from New England can possibly win the presidency for the Democrats in this current political climate.
And thank you, Susan, for reminding us all of the term "circular firing squad."
Bush is such an inept moron that anyone (and I do mean anyone) can win against him. Just like his father.
The Democrats could, at this point, run a ham sandwich against that swaggering idiot and come out with 60% of the vote.
I don't really give a crap about Nagourney writing an article like this. What pisses me off is Democrats acting like losers before the first ballot is even cast.
If all you can think about is how tough it is going to be to beat Bush then could you kindly leave the game and let the rest of us who actually want to win get the job done?
Thank you!
FranklyO: as a pretty much agnostic so far, as far as the 9 (or 10) go....
What the hell are you talking about? What the hell is "electability"? Is it simply finger-to-the-wind pollwatching bloodless pandering? Tried that in 2000. Didn't work. (well, did work really but not as much as it shoulda but still they cheated god i hate even thinking about that election.)
Might it have something to do with the organization(s) behind the candidate, the grassroots effort (s)he can command?
Might it be money?
Might it be an ability to make a convincing argument?
Might it be (& I think it mostly is) the ability to charm folks through the tube?
Here's my superficial thumbnail on the field's "electability":
Gephardt: No eyebrows. iffy speaker.
Edwards: looks like he's 12 years old.
Graham: somehow projects boring and weird at the same time.
Lieberman: zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Kerry: handsome but maybe shifty
Dean: Fiery/angry/passionate depending on where you're coming from. May scare folks but could maybe give a bangup convention speech.
Clark: too smart/just smart enough?
From what I can tell in your post, you seem to think "electability" is whatever the pundits tell you it is. Well, they're wrong way more often than they're right.
I want Bush out as much as you do, but if we each spend all our time trying to play Dick Morris/Karl Rove, how're we gonna get anything done? Cynicism is the Bushies game. I don't like the Dem's odds trying to play it.
Frankly0:Dunno if you'll get this, but you need to get off that electability thing. Seriously. Ok, you have a point. If we were playing that old game, then yes. Dean would be a toss-up against Bush. So would anybody. Those old numbers are just TOO close.
We're tired of playing that game anymore.
Forget "triangulation". It's about winning. Remember? Winning, as not meaning squeaking out an election victory, only to lose it to someone even WORSE than Bush 4/8 years later.
No, winning as in convincing an overwhelming majority that we're right and they're wrong. Fractally. America can not survive another Bush.
The Dean campaign has several goals.
#1. To reawaken American interest in both their local community and the political world. Not just a superficial R/D world, but a more nuanced, policy wankish type world.
#2. In this way, to increase the voting ranks to the good side.
We actually have the infrastructure in place to do this now. (Hint: You're sitting on part of it)
Education Education Education. That's the key. Not as in schools, but in countering the stupidity that's been going around for decades now.
So realize. When we're supporting Dean, the ideals are going much deeper. The old rules NEED to be broken. The Dean campaign gets that, and is actually doing it.
(BTW..that is why most smart greenies I know support Dean and what he's trying to do. The only way to a more progressive future is to break the ideological power struggle, and move to actually getting to solutions to problems.)
frankly0, I'd gone to bed by the time you responded.
All I can do is repeat: you have your opinion, many of us have a different one. I have a long history of supporting the centrist choice in Dem primaries: Carter in '76 and '80, Hart in '84, Gore in '88 (and '00), Clinton twice. I have made my choice of Dean on precisely the same grounds -- that I think he is the best candidate to take on Bush, both on matters of policy and personal charisma. Yet according to you, I've suddenly become something I've never been: a wild-eyed radical enthusiast, backing some unelectable loony.
Respectfully, that's a load of crap.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
