Thursday, April 03, 2003

To Ann Marie's friend - everything she told you is true. =)
3:27:06 PM p e r m a l i n k trackback [] say something []

US Central Command say that there is "increasing evidence the [Iraqi] regime cannot control [their] forces." Meaning what, exactly? Unless the cut-off Iraqi forces surrender en masse as a result of not being controlled by the regime or whatever, does this really make any difference? It's not like the Iraqis were going to win in a straight-up fight, and it sure looks like plans have been in place to shift to a decentralized guerilla form of fighting. Does it really matter whether Saddam Hussein directly ordered that Black Hawk to be shot down, or if the soldiers on the ground did it on their own initiative?

8:35:54 AM p e r m a l i n k trackback [] say something []

My five-minute analysis of the Democratic presidential field: Kerry's gonna win the nomination. Shocking, huh? I know, he's the frontrunner by fiat, someone could come out of nowhere, etc, etc, but let's look at his competition... Lieberman - a Republican in Dem clothing. No way can he get enough of the party faithful (unions, minorities, old-school liberals) to come on board. The fact that he's Jewish won't help him or hurt him that much in most states, though it could cause problems in the South - but the South also happens to be the most conservative region, even in the Democratic party. Once he gets clobbered in New Hampshire (and he will get clobbered - more on that later) he's more or less done, no matter how much cash he can raise from insurance executives. Gephardt - let me count the ways...he's old. I know, he's not actually that old, but this is a guy who ran for president in 1988 and has had more or less the same job since that time. In the House. Woo. How exciting. No one's going to look to Dick Gephardt for anything new, and no one's going to expect anything much out of him. He's strong with labor, it's true, but labor is a less signficant piece of the puzzle now - and nearly irrelevant in New Hampshire. His pro-war stance hurts him in the primaries - if I remember correctly, over 50% of Democrats oppose the war (while 90% of Republicans support the war). What's more, his support for the war can be tied to his general lack of resistance to Bush's agenda...and the party faithful don't much care for Bush, thank-you-very-much. If he doesn't win Iowa, he's done. And if he *does* win Iowa, he then has to place third in New Hampshire, and then win Missouri by a landslide, AND place well in South Carolina. In other words, not bloody likely. Edwards - ha. Ha ha. I'm sorry, but HA. Edwards' appeal seems to be that people feel like he should be telegenic - but then he isn't. He's trying to position himself as Clinton II, but it's just not working. He's got next to no experience, he's not assured of winning re-election to the Senate, he's bungled TV appearences...oh, and there's another Southerner in the race now, meaning he won't get all of the vote-for-a-Southerner-by-default vote in South Carolina and Missouri. Clinton even said that Edwards isn't ready yet. Nah - he's not really a significant player this time. I think he may be mainly angling for VP now. Graham - he's oldish, he's from Florida, he's got health problems, and he's not very well known. I almost feel like he's in the race just to kill off Edwards, but the more likely scenario is that he's looking at the VP slot, too. Sharpton - do I even have to say anything? Luckily, Carol Mosely-Braun will split enough of Sharpton's target audience away that Al won't have enough delegates to cause a ruckus at the convention. Mosely-Braun - My second choice, actually, even though she's most likely running mainly to cripple Sharpton, as Donna Brazile planned. Kucinich - my man, even though there's no way he'll win. But he'll do well in Iowa and other states where anti-war sentiments are strong in the Democratic base. Dean - ah yes, Howard Dean. He's polling in a dead heat with Kerry in New Hampshire right now, and I'd be absolutely shocked if they didn't end up 1-2 there come next February. Dean's close enough to what I look for in a candidate that I'd support him in the primaries - if I thought there was a snowball's chance in hell that he could win the nomination. His best case scenario is being '04's Democratic equivalent of McCain - the guy who says what people really want to hear but gets beaten out by the much richer, party-machinery-supported frontrunner, i.e. Kerry. He's not going to do near as well outside of New England, though he stands a chance at placing top 3 in Iowa. We'll see, though - Dean definitely has the best chance of anyone not named John Kerry, and I think he may actually be more electable in the general election than Kerry is. So yeah. I expect Kerry to get the nod. The question is how does he win? I don't see the economy recovering particularly well by Nov. 2004, which gives the Dem nominee an automatic leg up on economic issues - party out of power always benefits from a recession. But I think the deciding factor will be foreign policy and national security, which we've seen the Bush administration use as a smokescreen for domestic problems their entire time in office. How do the Democrats beat the Bushies there? Well, Bush failures in foreign policy don't exactly make Bush look better - and I don't see him doing particularly well, shall we say. Iraq may not be in full war mode by election time, but I doubt it'll be quiet. The Democratic ticket will have to be able to criticize Bush without sounding like peace activists, because the majority of the country won't buy that. So who do I think Kerry will go to as VP? Wesley Clark. A Kerry/Clark ticket is actually a stupendous foreign policy/national security ticket in any circumstances, and as a counterpoint to the Bush/Cheney ticket, they just look better. Clark has criticized the Bush policies and strategies, but it's awfully hard to tar him with the "anit-American" slur, on account of that whole career soldier thing, while Kerry's got the medals and experience in the Senate. If Kerry just grows a spine, that ticket could whomp Bush all over the place - and I think Kerry may be getting there. The Boston Globe reported today on a speech made by Kerry in New Hampsire in which he said "What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the Uinted States." That's what he has to say to get Bush out of office.

8:29:29 AM p e r m a l i n k trackback [] say something []