sozobe wrote:nimh wrote:There doesnt seem to be anything bigger than himself driving him, as there was with Gephardt (health insurance, workers rights) or Dean (grassroots activism, Iraq).
Electability will drive him, big time, if it continues. How much of the Dean people thing is an upswell of activism, just plain activism, just plain, "This is not right, this needs to be stopped"? If people smell blood, sense that he can really fell Bush, that will be the drive.
I wasnt so much alluding to what drives his
supporters, though thats a good point, too, but what drives
him.
I think a candidacy driven by more than the guy thinking he'd make such a swell president holds up better under duress. And thats exactly whats been lacking with Kerry: there's not a whole lot of a sense of what he stands for, and by consequence, he is prone to a lot of flip-flopping. And with a twenty-year record of that, a lot of those flip-flops are going to be used against you quite effectively.
But you reminded me; the supporters are an issue too. If most of Kerry's supporters ended up in his camp cause they consider him the best bet they got, or the least bad alternative or something, how are they gonna hold up when news turns bad? The ABB drive will be all he can count on, without many 'true believers'. Course, that goes for Clark too.
sozobe wrote:In the short term, Dean vs. Kerry, I think the patrician thing is to his advantage. He's more presidential. I don't think the Dems should try to out-Bush Bush, find someone even more back-slappy and nick-namey, but should try to settle the unease people feel with having such a gauche cowboy in such a powerful office. I think his whole "aloofness" can be turned to "This guy is going to take the office seriously and restore some dignity."
Hmmm ... coupla problems I have with this one.
First, though you and I and a bunch of other people here may agree that Bush has un-dignified the Presidency, I havent really gotten much of a sense of that being very widespread. People may think he's a polarizer, that he favours the rich and doesnt care (or know) enough about domestic politics - all that - but "restoring dignity", as such, an issue?
I mean, its always clever if you can use someone's slogans against him, but after the Clinton/Monica soap I dont think a great majority feel that it's
Bush's nick-nameyness that has particularly shamed the dignity of the office - not of those who wouldnt already be on your side anyway.
Second, I get your point about not wanting to out-Texify the Texan. But to then go, well, in that case its good to be the opposite, like, to pose a stark contrast - that kinda reminds me too much of Deanie logic. You know, as in - well, Rove is going to paint us in the ultra-liberal corner anyway, so we might as well stand tall and proud about being radically Progressive! That doesnt work, not unless (which in the Dean case at least seemed a tentative possibility for a while) you draw a whole new crowd into the elections.
People want a President they can identify with a little, who seems 'close' to them, they dont want an aloof man who seems more concerned with abstract, higher issues than with their problems. The impersonal, stateman approach failed every time in recent times against down-home folksiness: Gore lost to Bush, Bush Sr lost to Clinton, Reagan won against everybody, Carter won against Ford. That the patrician thing will help Kerry against
Dean, I agree. But against Bush, imho, it will be fatal.
sozobe wrote:I dunno about his speeches. Could he really be worse than Bush, though? Gawd he's horrible.
He was worse back in 2000, & still won against Gore cause he seemed more sympathetic ... does Kerry seem that much more sympathetic than Gore?
Clark doesn't, either, imho ... thats why I'm leaning more towards Edwards now.
sozobe wrote:nimh wrote:3)There is a reason why not many experienced congressmen become presidents. There is simply too much 'dirt' to be dug up. (Dean has already started by deftly pointing out that Kerry opposed the Gulf War, but supported the Iraq war, going something like, "way I see it, that makes him wrong twice".) The Bushies will do everything to make this a populist campaign about common folk, capitalising on the smoldering culture wars, and a long stint as Mass senator makes for especially plentiful "dirt" in that context.
Yeah. I dunno. I think that the Bushies will do everything to damage whomever is the Dem nominee, and there will be fodder for each of the big four. Having 20 years' experience is one of the least harmful types of fodder I can think of, generally speaking.
<grins> - well, sure, but you know that I wasnt talking about the 20-year experience in
itself ... I was talking of all the stuff that's in there and can be used. Defending partial-birth abortion. Sponsoring the first federal gay civil rights bill. Supporting a 50-cent gas tax increase. Voting to eliminate a $500-per-child tax credit. Voting to impose a surtax on Medicare recipients of up to $800 per year (taxes, taxes, taxes). Opposing the Gulf War. Opposing the death penalty for terrorists caught abroad. Opposing mandatory minimum sentences for selling drugs to chidlren. Defending state cash benefits for addicts. And most of all, the almost utter inability, it seems, to come up with effective one-liners in defence.
I know, it aint fair - you work your ass off for a decade or two, and it only works
against you. (The rundown, again, is
here.) (Oh, and for the record, I
agree with most of these stances - but I dont think they make for much of an
electability rationale behind the Kerry campaign).
With Clark, he has the advantage that there isnt a lot there to dig into, just cause he had a military, not a political career. The Rep-switching-to-Dems thing wont work well as a reproach in the general elections, cause most voters have done the same thing or vice versa. There's the Shelton insinuation about his 'integrity', but that should be put to rest quite quickly with the line of defence
Newsweek is suggesting: point out that Shelton actually works for the Edwards campaign now, and that, if at any time Clark didnt follow Pentagon orders by the letter, it was because as NATO Supreme Commander, you know, he also was obliged to consult both State and the allies. Let them retort to
that <grins>
Anyway, main point here is that recent Senators like Edwards or people from the outside like Clark dont have the kind of "20 years of bleeding-heart liberalism" track record that a long-standing Bay State Senator kinda by definition has. It probably woulda been less bad if he'd happened to be Senator for say, Missouri or S.C. Yeh, its not fair ;-)
