"The retention of manufacturing jobs... EEEARGGHHHAAEEE!!!... should remain a top prioritEEEEEEAAAARRREAAAAYYY!!!"

DUMB, DUMB, DUMB

Oh man, where are his campaign advisors?

You scream, I scream...

Rattling off the list of ways they can't attack him like other Democrats, the only thing that came to mind was "well, Joe, you're barely a Democrat."

I was really disappointed in Dean from what I saw - he'd get killed in a one-on-one debate with Bush. He's very rigid and clipped, almost mumbling (too many statistics, Howard!) - when Bush screws up he has folksiness going for him. Kerry looks like a great debater, but I still can't imagine "northeastern liberal machine politician" (but not all that liberal and doesn't really excite the party base, may in fact be pissing some off with his conduct) will be anything but Dukakis Vol. II.

Debate Grades:
Lieberman: A (made his case clearly and was almost likable, wtf)
Kerry: A- (maintains; no bugs on him; still boring though)
Edwards: B+ (besides the flubs, a solid performance)
Dean: B+ (a bit too halting, but serious and effective communication)
Kucinich: B- (again with the charts, but stood up for himself)
Sharpton: D (Slipping into demagoguery, unaware of what the Fed does)
Clark: F (on to Oklahoma)

Sharpton is a mental lightweight and always has been. The further along that Clark goes, the less smart he looks (even though I think he is smart.)

I wish Kerry had a spark to him, something compelling that was telegenic.

What I saw of the debates last night reinforced my disappointment that Kucinich doesn't stand a chance of being elected. I honestly think he's way more charismatic/likable than any of the other candidates, displays more of an aura of actually-having-his-shit-together, not to mention his complete lack of being-full-of-shit.

But back to my main point, I can't see Lieberman or anyone else changing the overall political picture much either, but with tensions being what they are it seems a Jewish president might have a tougher time than a non-Jewish one. This isn't a big elephant in the room that no one's talking about, but it doesn't seem completely irrelevant given US-Middle Easter foreign policy and Lieberman's support of Bush's initiatives.

It's not the leaders of foreign countries that are particularly the problem--it's the rogue states and their fanatics that can make a mountain out of a molehill. To the reasonable, his faith matters not at all. It's the wackos that worry me.

Anyway, got this in my inbox this morning from the Illinois Kucinich guy:

Dear Supporter,

Iowa was a success when you consider that we forced Howard Dean into 3rd place and caused a media uproar.

Because Edwards is so much better, right?

So fuck Kucinich. I know grass roots politics and those people have no right to act as if they invented it, and then hold a grudge against Dean for going grass roots. Also, the Kucinich people threw a tantrum when I told them I wouldn't go to Iowa for them. Even if I hadn't shifted my support, I have a life and work to do, you know. Which 'progressive' types ought to understand.

I'm fuming about this shit. It's pure pettiness is what it is.

http://128.255.244.60/graphs/graph_DConv04.cfm

I don't know how seriously to take these numbers, since there aren't really very large sums of money involved (the maximum account is $500), but they do seem to be a pretty fair reflection of the conventional wisdom. It's interesting to see, for example, that Dean's shares starting falling a couple of days before the Iowa caucuses. Right now, Kerry is looking almost as invincible as Dean was before Iowa, and the IEM rates even Edwards' chances higher than Dean's, but look for the share prices to undergo another jolt after the NH primary.

You should open an account on IEM. At $0.20, Edwards' shares are looking pretty cheap right now. If you put in the maximum ($500), you could make a $2000 profit if you're right.

This afternoon: The market hits a 31-month high, reaching back almost to the beginning of the Bush administration.

Coincidence?

(Gallup also shows that Dean is the choice of a plurality of respondents when asked which candidate is in touch with ordinary Americans, stands up for what he believes in, and has new ideas to help solve the country's problems)

also...

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/1971/db711022.gif

and go dean!!

Coincidence?

I'd say it has much more to do with Greenspan's comments today. Also, the report on Existing Home Sales was excellent today and the Consumer Confidence levels are predicted to be much higher than expected in the report tomorrow.

Do you really think Dean can beat Bush without changing his position on the Bush tax cut, or is your support for him on issues first and beatability second? Do you really think Dean's position on repealing the tax cut can outlast a firefight with Rove and the incumbent's war chest? (I'm asking this out of complete honesty, not trying to make it a question of political ideals or economic philosophy.)

Issues? There are issues in this primary election? Like what? My support for Dean is probably equal parts electability, intangible affinity, and quality as a President, which last prong doesn't have much to do with issues. I trust his sense of the possible, his recognition of the reasonableness of contrary arguments and his judgment about where to compromise, and his willingness to stand firm and/or push hard against the opposition.

And I think he can beat George Bush six ways from Sunday. I find "his position on the Bush tax cut" (which, as Dean explains, is in fact a tax increase given the corresponding rise in state taxes) almost wholly irrelevant to his prospective success as a nominee. Do you really think Bush can beat Dean without any position on Dean's deficit reduction program?

Yes. Incumbency power and a head to head campaign hasn't reared its ugly head yet, for one. Also, not every state has raised taxes or went into deficit, so I don't see that as particularly convincing to anyone already not on board with Dean. As for Dean's deficit reduction program, he's also proposed a lot of new spending which will be attacked. You can raise taxes and raise spending, but there will be economic slowdown in return. The Bush team will raise that spector and club Dean over the head with it.

Countercyclical strategies? Anyway, all Bushco has done is raise spending but without raising taxes.

You mean like right now? As far as most Americans are concerned the pace of the economy = the job numbers. What new spending "spector" will Bush raise? The health care that Americans are demanding? Not very compassionate. Let's compare the records - Dean balanced the budget every year for 12 years; Bush gave us a $500 billion deficit in three. He's not a real conservative either.

(anyway, the polls are converging and making clear that Kerry's going to win this thing by a good margin over Dean, who will end up mid-20s. Kerry's mo and Democrats' hara-kiri herd mentality will give him at least one or two Feb 3 states, so he looks headed for the nomination unless we get buyer's remorse, which probably won't happen unless the Rethugs help us, which they probably won't. Clark's showing will be terrible, though I don't think he's dropping out given the possibility of taking OK and maybe AZ. Lieberman might if he doesn't break 10%.)

You mean like right now?

Um, you're not serious about this are you? I guess you don't count GDP or virtually every economic trend.

As far as most Americans are concerned the pace of the economy = the job numbers

That's debatable. I'd say Consumer Confidence is just as reliable an indicator, which has been going up for almost a year now and is predicted to keep rising. See today's report for more details.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/27/news/economy/consumer/index.htm

What job numbers do you refer to, anyway? You might want to check this:

http://jec.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Charts.Detail&Image_id=46

This chart is also highly relevant:

http://jec.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Charts.Detail&Image_id=47&ImageGallery_id=9

Typically, it's the BLS survey that is most widely reported, but the Household survey is highly conflicting with what the BLS shows; the two have the same trends (a positive forecast and a trend upward) but the Household survey shows a lot of job growth. The truth of actually joblessness is probably somewhere in between. Also, the number of discouraged unemployed people is falling.

My point is that there is hardly consensus on the economy being bad or getting worse. I think there is more empirical evidence suggesting the opposite--7 of the 10 leading indicators, for example--but in the end what I'm trying to say is that lacking conclusive evidence that the economy is shitty, it makes the political situation much easier for the incumbent than the challenger.

Dean also has signalled a possible proposal to cut the payroll tax, which will help create jobs better than the Bush tax did.

The jobs creation from this is debatable, and again, in the confines of the campaign it would be hard to sell conclusively. Plus, it would be very hard to cut payroll taxes--I welcome the idea, of course, but I can't imagine even the Republicans pulling that one off in Congress.

I was stating, I thought clearly, that Americans' impression of job growth, to which I referred in the next sentence, is de facto the state of the economy. Especially for purposes of moderate to liberal electoral politics.

That's debatable. I'd say Consumer Confidence is just as reliable an indicator

I'm not informed enough to say. I wonder what contrary argument you would not find "debatable".

What job numbers do you refer to, anyway?

The loss, per the BLS statistics, of 2.7 million jobs during the Bush Administration, each month of which has seen further cuts in manufacturing payrolls.

Typically, it's the BLS survey that is most widely reported, but the Household survey is highly conflicting with what the BLS shows; the two have the same trends (a positive forecast and a trend upward) but the Household survey shows a lot of job growth. The truth of actually joblessness is probably somewhere in between.

This report from the Federal Reserve indicates that the sampling method used by the BLS survey renders it more reliable than the Household. (which may be why, as you recognize, the BLS is the most widely reported)

Also, the number of discouraged unemployed people is falling.

What that number is doing at this moment, or what your source is, I'm not sure, but the Labor Department reported three weeks ago that 300,000 people gave up looking for work in December.

Actually, you didn't have the qualifer "Especially for purposes of moderate to liberal electoral politics" in your previous post, which is much more descriptive than "most Americans."

As for the BLS vs. Household, it's open to debate. I fully recognize that BLS numbers are the most widely used (or at least, the most historically used, certainly by the mainstream press if nothing else) but the discrepancy is so large right now between those two statistics that I have not come across anyone who can explain it. But, I might add, the trend for both is positive--a big advantage for the incumbent.

Also, manufacturing payrolls have been falling since 1998. Unemployment has fallen by nearly 8% since September and is continuing to fall--it's very likely to be at the same level it was for Clinton's relection. In the last 11 years, since Clinton became president, the labor force has declined on a month to month basis 38 out of 132 times, or 28.8% of the time. Under Clinton, this happened 24 of 96 times (25%), while under Bush it has happened 14 of 36 times (39%). The largest monthly decline under Clinton was 739,000 or 0.56% from April to May 1995. The largest decline under Bush was 527,000 or 0.37% from December 2001 to January 2002.

My point is that the trend remains downward, and if you fish through this

http://www.bls.gov/data/home.htm

you can find out the downward trend of discouraged unemployed, too. I couldn't find it in a cursory glance, but that's where I originally found it.

And how do you want to go up against the Rove squad on this?
http://www.conference-board.org/economics/press.cfm?press_ID=2284

Or that Bush got handed a bad economy that was made worse by 9/11?
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20031210_868.html

Again--the economy will always be a debatable subject, but we're not talking about the economy of 2001 or 2002, or even last year. The most relevant year for voters will be 2004, and as of now all indicators and trends favor the incumbent. Yes, things could change. But right now the incumbent has a huge advantage, and when all trends are pointing up, it's much harder to campaign against it. I will say that if BLS unemployment numbers do not trend upward significantly by July that Bush will have a much bigger fight on his hands.

Actually, you didn't have the qualifer "Especially

It's facially not a qualifier, but a reference to a subset in which the conventional wisdom identified is more pervasive than it is in the larger set.

And how do you want to go up against the Rove squad on this?

Don't know, necessarily, but we'll see if those predictions pan out or if they go against all expecations like last month's job growth numbers.

Or that Bush got handed a bad economy that was made worse by 9/11?

You are well aware that that's a partisan revision of the historical numbers, one of many that the administration has engaged in, that does not change the non-partisan conclusion that the recession began after Bush took office. If it's going to have some impact on the electorate, it's going to have to go up against the fact that per the latest CBS/NYT, 57% of the public is uneasy about W's administration of the economy, and according to the latest ABC/WaPo, the public trusts Democrats in Congress over Bush by 3 points on taxes, 7 points on the economy, and 16 points on the deficit, while on taxes and the deficit, Bush has disapproval margins of 6 and 23 points, respectively.

I'm not really sure how this is partisan:

http://www.forbes.com/home_europe/newswire/2003/12/10/rtr1176418.html

(and sorry I'm too lazy to figure out how to put the links in my text...I really don't even have the time to be debating you today, but you have sucked me into your vortex)

I'm not ignoring current polling, but when RoveCorp begins to take aim in late spring and the head to head competition gets going in summertime, those numbers will change a lot--most economists think the economy on every indicator will change in Bushie's favor during 2004. (Of the numbers you cited, only the deficit sway is statistically notable, and politically the deficit has never been much of a voting motivator. And I think you and I both know where, say, Bush 41 was at in the polls in June of 1992 or in June of 1988.)

My overriding point is--and I'm sure I haven't been clear enough on this--that it takes a lot for Americans to fire the president. The power of the incumbency is huge, and at this juncture it seems to me that it will only be a more difficult challenge in the face of current economic trends.

And even though I don't think Dean can change without altering his tax repeal plans, I think he would make a WAY better candidate than Kerry or Edwards.

ABC
Kerry 37
Dean 31

LA Times
Dean 34
Kerry 33

National Review, meanwhile, says that "sources say," without specifying the underlying poll(s), that in "early returns," it's Kerry 36, Dean 31.

This bodes quite well for Dean fans, as his numbers are above any number he reached in post-Iowa tracking polls (although they are consistent with the trend of many of the polls). Moreover, CW has older voters voting earlier in the day, so if there is a large younger voter turnout, and the timing of that turnout follows CW, Dean may go even higher (assuming that it is not swallowed by a large late-in-the-day turnout of middle-aged Kerry supporters).

MSNBC will have further results at 4.

and sorry I'm too lazy to figure out how to put the links in my text...I really don't even have the time to be debating you today, but you have sucked me into your vortex)

Sorry about that. Let us cease and desist until a more convenient time. (links in text as follows: textgoeshere)

(except remove all spaces other than the one between "a" and "href")

i didn't know where else to post this

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4057645/

{tracy morgan voice): Dr J gun' show that Paris chick how it get done RIGHT!(/morgan)

This is a tracking poll of results from Sunday and Monday, not an exit poll. MSNBC has not yet released any exit poll. The results here accord with those in other NH polls, though Dean's downward trend in this poll is inconsistent with his upward trend in the others (and in this and other polls, the up or down trend is the reverse of prior days' tracking polls).

$10 sez this is just bullshit disinfo, but we'll see.

* rich lowry numbers, cough cough

Carville opines that two of the big five will drop after today. I'm assuming he means Clark in addition to Lieberman, but I'm not sure. He also says that Kerry's performance should be measure by whether he's over or under 35.

I think we conservatives should be careful, if he wins the primaries, he will give Bush a run for his money, and may have more than the slick charm to compare with Clinton.

"PEASANT"!!!

never mind, it'll never sink in ... he'll find a way to blame clinton's penis.

Sym OTM. Kerry, to me, is the least likely of the viable candidates to beat Bush. "New England liberal"+"base doesn't like him/doesn't care"+"beltway insider"+Bush's folksiness = 1988 repeat, only worse.

I figure the elections are rigged, but that has nothing to do with 2000. Another 'terrorist attack' in August or September, maybe just before the conventions. Or we'll capture/kill Osama, etc.

If she is half as involved as they believe her to be in all things political, woman is runnin' shit!

I like the ABB slogan that was going around NH... Anyone But Bush.

"• Sen. Joseph Lieberman calls fifth-place finish a "three-way split decision" with Clark, Edwards"

--CNN

"I'm not dropping out because there's a virtual split decision for third and no one thought that I would have ended up this close to Wes Clark and John Edwards," he told CNN.

Lieberman
http://www.joe2004.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5295
"Increased funding for nanotechnology -- a technology with a potential impact comparable in scope to electricity, antibiotics, and the transistor. In particular, the United States has the potential to lead in the "virtuous cycle" of innovation at the intersection at nanotechnology, biotechnology, and information technology. For example, nanotechnology may transform biology by allowing us to observe the biochemical reactions inside a living cell, or sequence an entire human genome in hours rather than months. In turn, biology may provide the inspiration needed to create nanosystems using "self-assembly.""

Kerry is not Dukakis, and he is a good nominee. But I have no idea how he plans to keep us on the offensive for the next six months. Maybe he's going to have to put Dean on the ticket to do it? My gut just tells me Dean would be a better candidate and President. Maybe I'm wrong. Richard Goldstein in today's Voice tells me what I suspected but hadn't quite yet articulated about one reason why Kerry is doing well and could conceivably be a better nominee than Dean - in the butchstakes, Dean's passion - or at least the spin of it - comes off as too feminine ("hysteri[cal]" says Goldstein), allowing Kerry's veteran/stand-and-fight (like a bore)/bomber jacket/Cam Neely/chopper (both kinds) shtick to secure an edge with regular guys, who like macho but are still scared of standing out too much.

But I don't see how anyone who watched Dean's speech and Kerry's speech tonight can really believe that the latter is going to be our nominee. I was at a bar with some typical Kerry-Edwards demographic mainstream Dem frat-type dudes who were talking about how great Dean's speech was and how he would have won Iowa if only he had spoken like that (of course, the speech is the exact same one he gives at every appearance, pretty much). Que sera sera. I don't decide who sells 6 million records, so I guess I'll settle and help elect the Dave Matthews Band.

"America’s energy security depends on domestic, renewable energy sources. The Apollo Alliance is setting a course to that independence. In contrast, the Bush administration is continuing to take America down a path of dependence on foreign oil and failing to invest in new energy technologies. As president, I will reverse the Bush assault on our environment and end the control the energy lobby has over our government."

Dean - These guys are morons; I can do better because I'm no ideologue.
Lieberman - Exciting things are happening in the world! Let's throw some money their way! Bad stuff doesn't exist!
Kerry - My fellow Am-, friends, some other guys have ideas and initiative and I associate myself with them.

2,500 registered New Hampshire Republicans wrote in the names of Democratic candidates on the Republican primary ballot.

I have to admit that even I was curious about running a Reagan Democrat against Bushie, but after seeing him try to discuss the issues one time I knew this guy was a total political pretender. Clark only knew he wanted to be the most powerful person in the world--he never really had any idea why. His lack of political acumen is pretty stunning and the most telling thing is that he's barely improved at refining and discussing issues beyond Iraq over the past few months.

Kaus notes today that "with the proportional allocation of delegates, it's possible to actually win the nomination without ever winning a primary. All you have to do is finish second in a lot of contests and accumulate delegates while the other candidates perform inconsistently."

They were specified to be writeins. A lot of Republicans showed up thinking that they could vote in the Dem primary and were told that they could not but that they could write in their choice on the Rep ballot

Sounds like the ideal anti-Bush candidate to me.

Also thank you Don for bringing up the proportional allocation thing; it's the one aspect of the race that isn't being talked to death on cable.

x-post thanks for the clarification gabbneb.

Enrique, I don't understand your comment "Sounds like the ideal anti-Bush candidate to me." Why would a political moron be ideal to replace the current office holder?

I'm not so much arguing for Clark here as saying he does have a lot going for him if you did care to argue for him, and Bush (as a singular entity, that is to say without his support staff) doesn't, so why do people like Bush so much?

112 people wrote in Bush.

what a good boy. he loses the butchstakes. Dean might be a poor nominee because he comes off as too smart; Clark might be a poor nominee because he is too smart. if the personal arc is so important, why isn't Edwards the frontrunner? Clark is also more of an amateur politician than Dean, and even more disturbingly touchy. that Noonan article is right on. a terrible nominee.

Also, well, my impression of Kerry at the beginning of the campaign is quite different than the impression I had - very positive - upon hearing him talk and answer questions at a fire hall in Hamilton, NH. Plenty of voters make up their minds quite late in the process and they're not going to remember (or even know much about) how Kerry appeared a year ago. He was actually quite funny and likeable in person. And he's improved a lot as a candidate since last fall, and the ability to listen and adapt (and borrow the best of your opponents' messages) is a strength - and I think the inability to do this hurt Dean more than anything. I read an article the other day saying that after Iowa Dean finally started listening to his advisors. That's not a good sign.

Clark is useless, frankly. The man scares me and I wouldn't vote for him even if he were the nominee, and I don't like a single thing about George W Bush. But the devil you know is still better than the one you don't.

Does Momus still have a frou-frou wig for Dubya? They can try out powedered wigs together, and he can write about it in Vice.

I don't see the economy moving enough to start adding jobs in any number to be significant.

I don't see the situation in Iraq moving to any sort of postive conclusion.

I don't see any changes occuring that will make health care more affordable. In fact, I would imagine most working people will have to endure another large rate raise between now and the election.

I also think that people who are looking for relief with prescription drugs are realizing that the bill that was passed was pretty much worthless and sees the Bush Whitehouse as being WAY too friendly to drug companies.

I think the contant yelping about tax cuts is holding less and less water as a message.

I also think it is very possible that either Bush or a member of BushCo. could do or say something really stupid in public, especially if things start getting hairy in Iraq.

If I say it's safe to surf this beach...

I'm sure there is going to be some vets rotating home in the next few months from Iraq that are going to say some things that will be suprising.

If I was a betting man, I'd say Iraq is getting ready to blow into a civil war. The main three groups just don't like each other enough to want to build a government together.

http://www.freedomforum.org/graphics/2000/09/photos/lieberman.joe.mediaviolence.9.14.00.jpg

No doubt this is a liability in the primaries. Though ironically in the general election, Kerry's greatest liability could be that he does have a resume as a Democrat. This is not to say that Clark is the best alternative to Kerry, but anyone who has been in the Senate as long as Kerry is bound to have some votes on his record that will make him look more liberal than he is, and you can be sure that Rove & co. will have a field day with them.

Clark is too green. He's never been elected to anything in his life, and it shows. Could he be a good, competent president? Sure he could. It's just the little problem of getting elected that is in his way right now.
It's too bad though, as he does seem (to me) like a genuinely good guy. Which would be nice. It's just that he hasn't learned to articulate his positions and that leads into stupid gaffes.

This is because I don't actually have TV. I've just been reading what's been going on on the net.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040129/ap_on_el_pr/dean&cid=694&ncid=716

: At a firehouse in Hampton yesterday, a man told Kerry that he thinks it's unfair that people say a New Englander can't connect with people from varying backgrounds. And to prove that you can do it, he says, explain the importance of the icon on my hat. Kerry is mystified. "The Latin? The Ten?" he asks. Malcolm X, the man explains.

So it was kind of mystifying. Not that Malcolm X isn't well known, but he isn't part of the current cultural vocabulary as much as he was about a decade ago. Anyway, Kerry know plenty about who Malcolm X was and gave a pretty long and interesting (and careful) answer talking about anger and frustration expressed in political movements of the 60s and the failure of politics to respond to what was happening in society. The writer left that part out, though. I sent him a congratulatory e-mail for leaving out the context and the rest of the story.

slate's got kind of a hardon for kerry that's a lil odd, esp. since they're not actually doing any hard 'exposes' or anything - it's just all their pundits going 'ugh this guy's a dork'

My plans to construct a Voltron style robot candidate were foiled.

Kerry - Strong on foreign policy/security issues, opted out of matching funds so can raise and spend the $$, solid and reliable network of supporters in the party, experience/gravitas (I think this matters if you're trying to unseat an incumbent during the war on terrah etc.) vanished off the radar screen for months and returned to kick Dean's ass in Iowa and nobody saw it coming, I can respect that. He's not cool and the campaign has done some cheesy things, but his wife is cool.

Edwards strikes me as a guy with a great message and delivery (though it seems a little phoney to me) but ultimately too much of a lightweight and pretty vulnerable when he has to go off-script.

Daria - what exactly do you like about TH-K? I gather she's very smart, but she strikes me as enormously condescending in the same manner as her husband. And while I don't take at face value the dkos rumors that her money is funneled through 527s to do the hits on Dean (including the ones repeating his wife's religion), The Note on Wednesday seemed to suggest the possibility in republishing after NH those Kerry "staff memos" (they are fictional works, for those who don't read The Note) from the Fall, which contained references to the 527 use of her money, urgent advice to get ahold of Michael Whouley, and repeated (if subtle) insistence that Kerry go negative on Dean.

My chief problem with Kerry - I can't make a positive argument for why he would be a good President. Not one. Hiring Bob Rubin, I guess. Then again, this election is about obstruction, not construction, I guess. Funny that Dean gets taken out as the guy who's all about "anger." Anyway, much as I have distaste for him, I still think he's a better candidate than Edwards, who's slightly too phony and too easy to play as inexperienced, or the politically green Clark, though evidently the latter was much improved in the debate last night. And I'm still a Dean guy. Bitter end.

oh, and Don, on those GDP expectations - like I was saying

Actually, I can make an argument about why Kerry is good - he's very prepared and capable and smart (Paul O'Neill to thread). I just need to start lying to myself and other people about the fact that he never gets anything done. And from what I'm hearing about the strong-arm tactics and go-with-the-winner sentiment of some of his male supporters, maybe he really is the most electable.

http://blamblamblam.blogspot.com/

I don't get what you mean by this.

I'm still worried about the long-term effects of the budget deficit, which is one of the reasons why I still want a change of administration

All current candidates are proposing enormous amounts of new spending, either levels Bush is proposing or even higher. No one is talking seriously about reforming Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid. The entitlements are a very serious problem.

Oh, and should we bring up the fact that only a few weeks after Bushie signed off on the free drugs program it's now announced that it will cost at least 33% more than originally projected. Funny how that works.

Who gives a fuck if Kerry had Botox treatments? What's next, giving a shit if someone colors their hair?

ARGYLE SWEATERS, PEOPLE!

8:30 pm: Sen. Edwards attends a concert by Hootie and the Blowfish at Jillian's, Columbia, S.C.

As if on cue

What if a potential First Lady had a boob job? Or a reduction Imagine the Farkness of that Internet photo comparison. Come to think of it, there probably is something at Fark right now on the Botoxness of John Kerry.

Who is the highest ranking political trophy wife of all time?

Anyway, this just landed in my inbox:
http://us.gq.com/plus/content/?040127plco_trippi
Cortez the Killer is a really good song.

That frickin Trippi story

Roy Neel: Where We Go From Here
This campaign has always defied conventional wisdom. Our extraordinary rise last year defied conventional wisdom--so did our fall in Iowa, and so did our comeback in New Hampshire after most pundits predicted Howard Dean was finished.

Conventional wisdom has been consistently wrong about this race.

So when conventional wisdom says a candidate must win somewhere on February 3, or that John Kerry will have wrapped up the nomination after fewer than 10% of the delegates have been chosen, we disagree.

Our goal for the next two and a half weeks is simple--become the last-standing alternative to John Kerry after the Wisconsin primary on February 17.

Why Wisconsin? First, it is a stand-alone primary where we believe we can run very strong. Second, it kicks off a two-week campaign for over 1,100 delegates on March 2, and the shift of the campaign that month to nearly every big state: California, New York, and Ohio on March 2, Texas and Florida on March 9, Illinois on March 16, and Pennsylvania on April 27.

In the meantime, Howard Dean is traveling to many of the February 3 states, sending surrogates--including Al Gore--to most, and conducting radio interviews in all. We believe that one or more of our major opponents will be eliminated that day, and that the others will fall by the wayside as our strength grows in the following days. As a result we have elected to not buy television advertisements in February 3 states, but instead direct our resources toward the February 7 and 8 contests in Michigan, Washington and Maine. We may not win any February 3 state, but even third place finishes will allow us to move forward, continue to amass delegates in Virginia and Tennessee on February 10, and then strongly challenge Kerry in Wisconsin.

Regardless of who takes first place in these states, we think that after Wisconsin we'll get Kerry in the open field. Remember one crucial thing about the 2004 calendar--in previous years a front-runner or presumptive nominee would typically emerge after most of the states had voted and most of the delegates had been chosen. The final competitor to that candidate, even if he won late states, as many have done, has not been able to win a majority of delegates under any scenario.

This year is very different. The media and the party insiders will attempt to declare Kerry the winner on February 3 after fewer than 10% of the state delegates have been chosen. At that point Kerry himself will probably have claimed fewer than one third of the delegates he needs to win. They would like the campaign to be over before the voters of California, New York, Texas and nearly every other big state have spoken.

Democrats in Florida, who witnessed a perversion of democracy in November 2000, will not have a choice concerning the nominee if the media and the party insiders have their way.

We intend to make this campaign a choice. We alone of the remaining challengers to John Kerry are geared to the long haul--we've raised nearly $2 million in the week after Iowa, over $600,000 in the 48 hours since New Hampshire. No candidate--not even Kerry, who mortgaged his house and tapped his personal fortune to funnel $7 million into his campaign --will have sufficient funds to advertise in all, or even most, of the big states that fall on March 2 and beyond. At that point paid advertising becomes much less of a factor.

And we alone of the remaining challengers offer a clear choice to Kerry. Howard Dean is no Johnny Come Lately to the message of change--he has actually delivered change in Vermont. Howard Dean has the courage and conviction to stand up for what's right, even when it's not politically popular, as opposed to the cautiousness, compromise and convenience that has characterized John Kerry's 19 years in the Senate.

We believe that when the voters of the post-Wisconsin states--which constitute 75% of the delegates that will be chosen in the states--compare Howard Dean and John Kerry, they will conclude that Dean, not Kerry, has the best chance to beat George Bush, because only Dean offers a clear vision of change and a record of results that contrasts against the rhetoric emanating from Washington. We believe they will increasingly reject the rubber stamp presented to them by the media.

Has such a strategy ever worked before?

No. It's never been tried.

But prior to this year, no candidate had ever raised $46 million dollars, mostly from ordinary Americans giving $100 each. Prior to this year no candidate for President had ever inspired the kind of grass-roots activity that has been this campaign's hallmark. Prior to this year no candidate for President had so clearly revitalized his party, allowed it to reclaim its voice, and shifted the agenda so clearly to a call for change.

Let the conventional wisdom and the media declare this race over. We're going to let the people decide.

Roy Neel
Chief Executive Officer
Dean for America

All current candidates are proposing enormous amounts of new spending, either levels Bush is proposing or even higher. No one is talking seriously about reforming Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid.
Yeah. Messing with Social Security/Medicare = a third rail in Democratic primaries, definitely. When I was supporting Dean I thought there was this tacit understanding that when he got elected he'd actually cut spending on domestic programs to balance the budget as soon as possible, thus pissing off his own party like he did in Vermont.

That Trippi story annoyed the sh!t out of me. He is a super unprofessional drama queen and has a massive martyr complex. If he had such a problem with Dean not listening to him, well, quit the campaign - and why didn't he know to train those volunteers on how to work the caucus system in Iowa? why did he act like other campaigns' under-the-radar attack tactics were something new and unexpected?

Oh, and thanks for the link above to the Kerry profile. I'd read it a while back but it's more interesting now.

"I knew the songs I knew," Kerry recalled.

"MARACAS!"

Maybe it's time for Thread 3.0.

okay, this part i didn't know.

say, did anybody else hear the rumor about Sharpton being encouraged to run just to take away support & attention from Carol Mosely-Braun?

I would vote for him.

Yeah, he should have found a good DNC church to preach at!

Lieberman is way behind in Delaware... which will HOPEFULLY mean he drops out very soon.

I wonder if I can still vote in the Michigan caucus! I'm still registered there and they have online voting.

The Secrete Society That Ties Bush and Kerry

If Kerry is the nominee, Dean should be the figurehead of Dean For America, a (527?) organization devoted to building the party with young voters, net users, independents and disaffecteds.

I'm going just to get an "Al Sharpton for Prez" t-shirt.

spit out Kerry as the best "realistic" match for me (meaning after Kucinich and Sharpton). I totally would've expected Dean to be before him there. I think it was the gun stuff that probably did it... Anyway like I said it's a bullshit test and I'm kind've embarrassed that I even mentioned it.

If Dems win...

Wesley Clark should be Sec. of State or Defense.

I take Bill Richardson back. That Los Alamos thing set him back for Gore, so he's out of the picture.

Graham and Rockefeller and Fritz Hollings(LOL) were once governors.

I like Harold Ford from Tennessee, but he might be President one day anyway in a better world.

the place was PACKED.

my search for an Al Sharpton for Prez t-shirt continues, unfortunately...

I also really like how Kerry and the Dems are saying if the Republicans want to turn the election into a contest about political records, go for it, because it will shine an even harsher light on the Bush administration's last 3+ bungling years.

Plus, Kerry just looks presidential.

But it will be a proverbial LONG 8 months.

I think the two main things that Kerry has over Edwards are his extensive government experience (particularly in foreign policy) and his distinguished military service record. Both of these will be key to defeating Bush, the "War On Terror" president.

(no, i'm not really that naive, but isn't it a question worth asking in this day and age?)

Well, I can imagine it would save some time, since the primary season would be a lot shorter, but I'm not so sure it would save money. For one thing, the thing about starting with primaries in a few smallish states, is that it allows candidates who may not have a lot of money to spend on TV ads to still be competitive. Since everyone is focussed on these smalls states, candidates can get a lot of free coverage just by making speeches, shaking hands, and doing the typical "retail politics" type of activities. If there was one mega-primary day for all 50 states, then the only way a candidate could be competitive would be with a massive advertising budget, since reaching enough voters with "retail" strategies would be impossible.

Harold Ford is inelgible to run for veep this year. He doesn't turn 35 (the minimum age to be president) until after January 20, 2005.

he even got 10% of the repub vote in oklahoma, too!

I'd probably vote for The Rock before Harold Ford, Jr. I am turning into Mickey Kaus.

Edwards & Kerry both seem to have strengths, but I think Edwards would be better for the electoral mathematics; he would like Clinton be in with a shot of taking a few southern states, which would really tip the balance... The north-east and increasingly the mid-west seem to be swinging against Bush, so these would likely go to either candidate. I don't believe Kerry could win a state in the south (Florida and Tennessee might be the closest). Things would turn the Dems way anyway, though, if they could win Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia, New Hampshire or Nevada, or a conjunction of these.

About how Kerry won the 1996 senate election:
http://nytimes.com/2004/02/07/politics/campaign/07KERR.html

About Kerry's voting record:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/08/politics/campaign/08KERR.html

When I did it as me, I got Kucinich followed by Kerry, Clark, Dean and Edwards - even though I'm obviously not going to get the chance to, I probably wouldn't vote Kucinich anyway.

When I did it again using pretty much exact opposites to my real political views, apart from checking the Dems box, I got Edwards. So does that make him wolfboy in sheep's clothing?

That's my point

he said he'd cut taxes and did. he said he'd strengthen the military and did. he said over and over he'd fight communism and he did.

he also said he would make the government smaller, and didn't.

Kucinich might be 'the best' candidate based purely on issues questions for me, but I don't like him. I don't like his history, I don't like his abortion flip (I'd respect a pro-life position held honestly more than a pro-choice position held for political gain -ala Gore)

Republicans don't face a revolt from their base. In 2000, Pat Buchanan polled sub-.5% nationally, with much greater funding and press exposure than Ralph Nader. The conservative Christian base knows that their agenda is going to be pursued post-election, regardless of how the candidate presents himself ('compassionate conservative'). And the fiscal 'conservatives' know that the GOP will push for cuts to government services and tax cuts to the upper end of the spectrum. Many are angry that he's pushing the debt up now - but are there any real signs of revolt?

The angered will still vote for Bush because they don't see an alternative, and still believe he'll push most of their agenda.

The Democrats don't have that kind of trust with the liberal/progressive/left base. They sat through 12 years of the Democrats being led by Reagan and Bush I without really fighting, and they sat through eight years of Clinton which weren't measurably better than Bush I. Real wages declines, the income gap widened, no major advances in civil rights for homosexuals. The Democrats and their figureheads are the party of the status quo and of band-aid solutions to real problems - gun violence won't be solved by 'gun control,' poverty won't be solved by the EITC or welfare (much less welfare 'reform'), so on and so on.

Sym: Reagan revolutionized the political nature of the Federal Court bench for the good of cultural conservatives, and that's been longer lasting and more effective than any legislative efforts could have been.

There's more to a politician than how their issues match up with your issues - how much do you trust the candidate, how effective do you think the candidate's going to be, do you like the candidate? Kucinich fails all three for many people.

Paul Wellstone would have been my ideal candidate, but I doubt we'll see another Wellstone any time soon.

Sym: to the extent that tons of subsequant legislative policy changes would have been impossible without the conservative revolution on the Federal benches, Reagan was the father of them all.

proof: colin, connect the dots between wes clark and that army war college report reaming bushco a month or so back. use proper nouns.

GIVE ANYONE A REASON TO TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY (HINT: THE VITRIOL AIN'T WORKING)

To that end, Suzy and Colin please make sure your absentee ballots are clearly and correctly postmarked. Please.

x-post: the vitriol came from Suzy. What IS with y'all's reading comprehension?

bad way: declare opinion as fact and when others call you on your bullshit say anyone who doesn't agree with you is clearly an idiot/jerk/piece of shit.

"I was going to vote Dem, and then there were all these mean people screaming at each other on some weird internet site, and it turned me into a Republican!"

OK, let's do this again slowly: it is a FACT that "so many" people who agree with Kucinich on the issues will not be voting for him. I've spoken to ten or so and a bunch of folks have said as much on this thread. "So many" is a deliberately vague expression, but that actually ENHANCES the factual basis of the claim.

My OPINION is that this factual situation is symptomatic of the Democratic Party's problems. My sentence has been parsed incorrectly and I have been told to fuck off; I shall valiantly fight for all that is good in English grammar (if not spelling) and hold fast to my sentence.

I am not married to the opinion I expressed in my much maligned sentence, but I can't see that anyone's actually attempted to ask me about it in any coherent way that I could respond to. I think the stuff I wrote later (about Democratic Party contempt for its own left wing) is much closer to the point anyway; I also think that Kucinich's status as an utter non-starter (less impressive candidates have become president) is symptomatic of this contempt.

The fact that so many folks who line up with Kucinich on nearly every issue would never actually vote for him is the reason why the Democratic Party is over and done with.

To say I found this sentiment - and that's all it is - hyperbolic is something of an understatement. As if we should just all roll over and suck up what the GOP are doing to the US. And the sloppy reliance on 'the fact that' is just poor writing; flagging that up wasn't the personal attack Colin took it to be. Too much hubris in Deutschland this AM.

Democrats vote for who they think non-Democrats would vote for...

Again, a matter of opinion, and kind of like saying Dems all have webbed feet or something. I'm a Democrat and in primary season, I vote for the candidate who has the right combination of issues and momentum for me. I'm going to caucus tonight in London and as much as I'm warming to Kerry as a Bush beater, I'm wary because of his position on free trade, but I'm not writing him off totally. Kucinich is like Sharpton to me: someone trying to get his issues on the ticket because the man sure as hell won't be part of it.

Republicans know how to get them to hate "Liberals", real lefties stay home in droves. Will the last American Leftist please bring the flag?

More hyperbole. By staying home on Election Day you leave the nation more open to abuse from the Right (I've started calling them the Wrong) which I see as the Left's dereliction of duty.

Suzy, your suggestion that voting for Kucinich is "roll(ing) over and suck(ing) up what the GOP are doing to the US" makes my brain hurt. Not least because, last I looked, a lot of Democrats voted for some (a lot) of this shit.

We do agree that not voting is dereliction of duty. I also think that holding your nose when you vote and losing one way or the other each time you do (because the candidate loses, or because he wins and the Rightward March continues) is also a deriliction of duty.

However, Kerry's flip on the war will echo the feelings and beliefs of many Americans with moderate beliefs who gave GWB the benefit of the doubt when it came to Iraq but soon came to believe that the doubt outweighed all possible benefits. This is the America that says sorry when it fucks up.

My original reason to post waaay above was to say that people should go back and take that match a candidate test to find the least palatable centrist Democrat and eliminate them from yr own personal 'running'. When I did this I got Edwards, of whom I remain very suspicious.

You know what you got there? You got one of them all-time classic vicious circles! (For Blount: please pretend I wrote "viscous".) And both sides are going to have to move towards the other to make any difference. I don't see that happening anytime soon, and I don't think Kucinich's campaign is making all that much difference -- especially after what happened/what was done to Dean, who isn't all that Leftist any way.

Sym: *I* used to spend all day suing corporations. Do you trust me?

??????????????????????????????????????????

By the way, we should be starting a new primary thread soon. Perhaps when there is a natural break in the discussion.

The problem is that if every progressive or leftist rolls over and votes for whomever the Democrats nominate, then the Democrats have no reason to listen to their issues. By and large, progressives aren't going to have the money to buy a candidate, like the DLC. Their only power is in their numbers and their ability to organize (not that they've demonstrated an ability to organize anytime lately) - their only power is literally their vote. When Democrats can count on that vote without even having to pay lip service to workers' rights, civil rights, reforming trade, real universal healthcare and other progressive causes, then nothing will change.

They have to make the Democrats come to them, rather than propping up whatever status-quo/electable candidate is out there.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think what really needs to happen is for people who consistently vote Democratic to -wake the fuck up- about this and at least make some noise. Which is why I chose to support Dean.

Yeah, but it's a THREAD. Not everything revolves around you.

i still think we can learn a lot from this thread

YAHH!