Dave Cullen: Clark

Wes Clark does the right thing

Wed, 11 Feb 2004 04:13:11 GMT

AP reporting Clark is calling it quits.

Good move, Wes. I feel bad for the guy, cause I would have loved to see him president, but he had not yet learned to be a candidate. I was hoping he could have turned into a formidable adversary for Bush, and in time that may or may not have happened, but he's just not ready yet. Great Veep, though. Sure hope Kerry picks him.

Best line I've heard in awhile, Jeff Greenfield explaining the rationalle for his exit, without visciousness, just matter-of-factly: " 'I almost finished second in Tennessee' is not a rallying cry."

No, it's not.

I was not actually rooting for this event, because it's best for the Dems to keep the race alive a little longer. Although perhaps this will help John Edwards mount a reasonable challenge, narrowing this to a two-man race. (Sorry Howard. I still love you and can't wait to see you return somehow someway down the road, but for this race you're invisible. Right now you're sort of embarassing yourself.)

Wes Clark is a very good man. And he realized when it's over, and he's doing right by himself bowing out when it's appropriate. Brings to mind a great opening/closing line from a great little Vonnegut story: "I grasp your hand."

Format Changes -- Good or Bad?

Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:42:37 GMT

Or unnoticable?

I cleaned up the sidebars a bit, cleared out some old junk (sorry Wes Clark), and moved my blogroll and featured sites to the right side, so you can get to them more easily.

Let me know if you like the change better or worse, or it's too trivial to notice. And while I'm at it, I'm open to suggestions for other changes.

This change will also allow me to add more sites to my blogroll, so I'm soliciting nominations now. (And an offer to exchange links never hurts, folks.)

And what do you think: should the blogroll be above the featured sites on the right or below? Which do you use more? Or does anyone actually ever use any of those links?

(And I was just kidding about Wes Clark being old junk--I just couldn't resist the chuckle. He did have to go. I actually intended to take his picture down after I got off the Dean/Clark fence and swore my full allegience to Dean last month. But I can only make these changes from my main PC in Denver, and I haven't been here much. The truth is, I still love Wes Clark and admire him something fierce, and hope to God if Dean or Kerry get the nomination they choose him for Veep. And if Dean can't get the nom, he's still my second choice as well, though it's starting to look a little iffy for him. Farewell General Clark. You're a good man, and I'll miss seeing your smiling face on my homepage every day.)

'Iraq didn't work for Dean'

Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:49:26 GMT

The "Iraq didn't work for Dean" meme has been playing heavily in the media the past two weeks. It was the basis for his appeal, and yet voters shunned him on it, they say. Therefore, his constituency has deserted him.

There are a few gaping problems with that logic:

First, the Dean phenom never had much to do with Iraq. That was a part of the appeal for sure, but a small part. The media seized on that early, because that was the only explanation they could come up with--at least one they could spit out in a single sentence. How the rest of the country went along with this, I'll never know. Oh, because the media always wins when they start their chants.

(The funny part is, Dean's main appeal COULD be summed up in a single word: McCain. He had the same appeal of candor/honesty/integrity that voters found so refreshing in McCain four years earlier. But McCain was able to shoot that down with the ludicrous argument that he didn't like Dean, that he thought Dean's views were alarming. BFD. The comparison had nothing to do with their policy stances. Why the press should give McCain the right to veto that label was preposterous, but that's the press.)

The fact that Iraq did not work for Dean is easily explained by the exit polling. It wasn't a major issue for people. It was way, way down the list of concerns. The newsmodels have taken glee in pointing to exit polling showing that voters opposed to the war voted more for Kerry. But when Iraq is fourth or fifth on your list of concerns, it's not a deciding factor in who you voted for.

But here is the crucial point: Just because Iraq didn't play a role in January, does not mean it won't play a role in November. And just because the issue did not work against another Dem who merely went along grudginly for the ride, does not mean it won't work against the president who planned the whole scheme and lied to us about his rationale.

We are in something of a lull in Iraq right now, at least in media coverage, since Saddam was captured. Unfortunately for Howard Dean, the primaries came at the wrong time for that to be an issue.

But it was red hot last fall, and it likely will be again next fall. We will have been occupiers for well over a year, the body count will likely continue unabated, and there will be no military exit in site. Worse, there will be a civilian exit completed or in progress. We will face the twin horrors of turning it over to a presumably enemy Shiite government, and still mired in a military occupation. It could get very ugly.

There is no way to know for sure what Bush's biggest weakness will be for the Dems to attack, but I will lay money it will be Iraq.

And Dean and Clark are the only ones in a position to fully exploit that weakness.

If primary voters are concerned about electability--and they appear obsessed with it--they need to look past the current lull in Iraqi coverage and take their best guess at how the situation will deteriorate in nine months.

And then they will see one inevitable conclusion: Nominate Howard Dean.

The big night begins

Fri, 23 Jan 2004 01:21:38 GMT

Great opening by Dean. Thank God.

Laid it all on the line in the starkest terms I can remember any politician stating his case.

Incredible tag line: "There was no middle class tax cut."

If New Hampshire voters can look past all the hoopla and just consider what it is they really want, I think they can still fall in love with this guy.

Or am I just projecting.

(Clark had a great opening, too, though nothing on the level of Dean's. His: I'm a Democrat now, and I can attract a lot of people to the Democratic party was pretty powerful. That boy is still my fallback.)

Wow, Kerry is not acting like such a windbag. I think I missed his first response, but on the second one, he ditched all the bullshit language and equivocation. Still rambled into minutae and put me to sleep a little, but he's ten times better than I last listened to him, which was a few months ago.

Blogs vs Media Whores

Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:03:46 GMT

I did not see Meet the Press yesterday, but lots of reports about them trashing the blogs for trashing the press, including this transcript snippet on Kos:

MR. TODD: [...] They're very anti-media. Reading the Dean blog is like reading Republican message points from years past and they're anger toward the media. They felt very mad at NBC News and Lisa Myers over the last couple of days over the story, felt like somehow NBC News took his comments out of context. So it is a little...

MR. RUSSERT: Which Lisa Myers did not...
MR. TODD: No, not at all, but it was...

(And Russert is such a lying sack of shit for defending her. Check out Atrios on last Friday to see for yourself how she edited the tape.)

But the joke may soon be on them. This new poll shows the number of people getting their news from the web rising sharply, while TV news continues to fall. My favorite quote from the story:

Four years ago, young people were far more likely to have said they learned about the campaign from nightly network news, 39 percent, than the Internet or comedy shows. Now, all three are cited about equally as sources of campaign news.

Yes, the nightly network news is right up there with the web and comedy shows (The Daily Show, Saturday Night Live, etc.) Heeheehee. Now that's justice. When the network news becomes a joke, the public turns to the comedians.

Sounds reasonable. If you're going to get your news from a clown, may as well get it from a funny one.

Clark's surging poll numbers

Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:52:45 GMT

We may be getting a two-man race after all.

While Dean looks more and more inevitable under most reasonable scenarios, Wes Clark is finally making his moves in the polls--nationally, and in New Hampshire.

The latest national poll showing striking gains comes from Rasmussen (via Kos -- Kos has everything politico). Dean is still ahead, but not by much. In the past week, Clark has gained four points--from 13-17--but it's mostly been at Dean's expense. They've gone from a 10-point gap to just 4.

And Clark is definitely solidifying his position as The Dean Alternative. A week ago he was just a point ahead of two rivals, now he's virtually double the closest competitor (other than Dean).

In New Hampshire, Clark is way, way further behind, but gaining much faster. The ARG tracking poll shows him gaining 8 points in the past week, from 12% to 20%. A bit of that has come from Dean, who dropped from 39% to 35%. Dean still holds an extraordinary margin of nearly two-to-one, but that's a lot better for Clark than more than three-to-one.

Perhaps more importantly, he has also emerged as the clear Dean Alternative in New Hampshire. He finally passed quasi-favorite-son Kerry for second place in the past week, and already commands double his support (20% to 10%). Voters there seem to be giving up on Kerry, and flocking to Clark.

You can see the latest numbers and a little analysis from ARG here, or the day-by-day movement here.

Why the sudden surge? I can't explain the timing, but I've always thought Wes Clark was a force to be reckoned with, and perhaps he finally got his pitch right and started connecting. (Or maybe it's those new sweaters that so much of the media seems to be mesmerized by. They made the front page of the Times last week.)

It probably also has something to do with all the flack Dean has been taking. The competition finally circled him this month and trained all the ammo they had on the same guy. And maybe supporters of the other guys have finally realized how hopeless their candidacies are and moved on to someone with a plausible chance to beat Dean--or Bush. Or was it the Madona endorsement?

In New Hampshire, Kos has been offering another reason the past several days: aside from the impotent force of Joe Lieberman, Clark has the whole state to himself. The rest of the pack is battling it out in Iowa, and those two skipped the state to focus on New Hampshire. Sounds reasonable. Doesn't account for his entire pickup--especially since everyone is still running TV ads--but some of it.

But one week from today, Iowa could change everything. If Dean can upset Gep on his home turf, he'll get a huge boost going into New Hampshire, and may well stop Clark's rise dead in its tracks. If he fails, the Stop Dean idea could gain momentum. He'll suddenly look much less invincible.

Either way, Clark will be frozen out of the media coverage, unless the press decides to run with the Dean Is Crumbling storyline, and chooses Clark as his potential vanquisher.

Every day the picture changes, but every day it leads more to the same conclusion: everything could hinge on Iowa.

Which leads me to one more plug for joining me in Iowa to make sure Dean wins. I had not intended to do it in this post, but since I ended up here:

Go here to sign up to join the Iowa assault, whether or not you want to be part of my (gay) subgroup. Then, if you want to join our big gay army (for dean), use our GROUP ID NUMBER is 1121 and our GROUP NAME RAINBOW STORM. Or read my pitch on why I'm going here.)

___

Note: Edwards has also surged out of obscurity in the national, NH and Iowa polls the past week, but he's still far behind a shitload of others. Way too little, too late for him.

Update:

Kos just added new poll numbers from SUSA adding more confirmation to Clark's rise.

They show Clark leaping ahead by seven points in Arizona--a key primary the week after New Hampshire--and a much tighter race than the other polls in New Hampshire. There they have Dean falling ten points since Dec 14-16, and Clark rising 15 in the same time. SUSA's latest NH results (previous results in parenthesis:

Dean 35 (45)

Clark 26 (11)

Kerry 13 (15)

Stopping Dean by helping Gephardt in Iowa

Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:57:49 GMT

DailyKos throws out a fascinating Stop Dean scenario this morning. (And if you're not reading Kos every day, you're missing out. He has emerged as the best politican writer in the country this season, without ever writing for a "real" publication.)

It starts with this quote from a pretty shitty Washington Post story this morning by the highly uneven Dan Balz:

Bill Carrick, one of Gephardt's advisers, said all the other candidates should be rooting for Gephardt to stop Dean in Iowa. "Every one of them needs us to win," he said. "We have to win Iowa. For better or worse this is Dean-Gephardt right now for the other candidates."

Hard not to see a lot of truth in that one, right? So Kos starts thinking: what if the other campaigns grasp the same truth by Iowa--as Dean looks more and more inevitable, and then:

The Iowa Caucuses are a peculiar beast. People cast an initial ballot for their guy. But, if their guy doesn't break the 15 percent barrier, they can change their vote to a more viable candidate. In essence, supporters will work hard to garner the votes of the other caucus goers to get their guy as many votes as possible.
In the past, each caucus was a self-contained election. There was little the candidates could do to sway the votes of their supporters. But we now have a dandy new tool called the cell phone, and the caucuses may never be the same.
In short, campaign organizers can now call each individual caucus and attempt to move their supporters en masse to whatever candidate they choose.

He fleshes out the scenarios quite nicely, and it might only take one campaign doing it--or even lots of caucusers knowing it--to eke out a victory for Gephardt in a close contest.

Scared me for a minute, but I was buoyed by the fact that a group of Dems are about as likely to get that organized and work together that well to defeat a common adversary as the outcasts on Survivor are to topple an alliance. You can watch week after week and scream at the television: "You can stop them! All you have to do is work together--it's so obvious!" until you're blue in the face. (Almost) never happens.

The second problem is that while stopping Dean has to be the #1 priority for every other campaign, they also know that the press is dying to turn this into a two-man race. That will happen eventually, but the real question is whether it will happen to late for any of them. But the only thing worse for them than a delay is to get boxed out as the alternative.

If Gep wins Iowa and the press--stupidly, but just watch them--christens the nom a Dean-Gephardt race, then they're really screwed.

So they might be more afraid of getting squeezed out before they get their shot at Dean than they are at Dean surging ahead a little longer.

No smearing required

Sat, 27 Dec 2003 05:38:30 GMT

A good friend of this site who switched from Dean to Clark awhile back--mirroring my own dalliance, they I came out on the other end--wrote me several weeks back about an ex deaniacs for clark site he was building.

Sounded intersesting and I intended to plug the finished product, but I didn't find the message again in my ever-exploding inbox again until tonight. (A fringe benefit of sickness is all this time on your hands with no ability to go out an play or do anything too taxing. So you clean out your inbox, at least I did.)

Hennyway, what a sad coincidence that I read it just after publicly declaring my unabashed love for Dean, all the way. So I just didn't feel right linking to a site trying to persuade you guys away from him.

But here's the thing. I like this site. (At least as far as I've gone, which I admit it only moderately far.) It's actually a really nice example of a way Democrats can disagree on their candidates without ripping each other--or the potential nominee--a new one.

This is especially important now that we have gotten to the point where there is about a 95% chance that either Dean or Clark will be the nominee (with the bulk of those odds going to Dean. But there will be a period where the opposition clusters around one opposing candidate, and it's hard to see it being anyone other than Clark. So there you go.)

The site in question is thoughtful and tasteful and non attacking. And I really enjoy the big graphic it starts with, even if I don't agree with it. No smearing involved, because no smearing is required.

Refreshing, actually. So here's the link.

Update: I screwed up the link. Fixed it Saturday night. Sorry.

Dean piling up endorsements

Wed, 17 Dec 2003 05:16:34 GMT

From AP:

[New Jersey] Gov. James E. McGreevey plans to endorse Howard Dean for president and has asked state Democrats to begin campaigning for the former Vermont governor, state Democratic officials said Tuesday.

Officials said McGreevey's endorsement, which he plans to announce Friday, is part of a broader push by Dean to gain backing of Democratic governors and other party leaders. . . .

Campaigning Tuesday in Arizona, Dean won the endorsement of former Arizona Gov. and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt. With a Feb. 3 Democratic primary, Arizona will be one of the first western states to vote in the race.

Dean's campaign plans to announce an endorsement from the leadership of the Democratic National Committee Hispanic Caucus on Tuesday as well as the backing of Peg Lautenschlager, attorney general of Wisconsin. That state holds a critical primary in February.

Dean has won praise -- but not endorsements -- from Govs. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin, Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania and Bill Richardson of New Mexico. His campaign manager, Joe Trippi, meets with Michigan Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm on Thursday.

It all continues falling nicely into place. Things will only escalate, as he appears more inevitable.

Meanwhile, Madonna endorses Wesley Clark.

Dean can't win in the south?

Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:02:55 GMT

One of the major knocks about Dean is that he'll get shellacked in the south, which the Dems supposedly cannot afford.

Then why is he pulling ahead in one southern poll after another, in the Dem primary race? The latest polls are from Arizona and Texas (Clark in second in both; Dean leads in Texas by 2, Arizona by a whopping ten).

Yes, these are just against Dems, but he's doing better down there than the southern Dems--Edwards is barely on the map in his own turf.

Nice analysis and more numbers from Kos.

Bad timing for Wes Clark

Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:08:01 GMT

Wesley Clark didn't ask to testify at Slobodan Milosevic's war crimes trial, he was called by the prosecution. But he will be the most senior U.S. official to testify, and it did offer a nice boost for his campaign--well beyond the price of losing a few days during a crucial month.

From an AP story just posted about his first day of testimony:

"The fact that Wesley Clark is going to testify in the middle of the primaries is fairly amazing," said professor Michael Scharf, the author of several books on the tribunal.

"Clark is gambling that this will give him national and international press attention just at the time he needs it for the primaries. It will enable him to look very patriotic, very presidential," he said in a telephone interview.

But timing is everything. A week ago, it might have grabbed major press attention. The morning after Saddam's capture, a footnote.

Major bummer for him. But the story is kind of interesting, by AP standards. (It's mostly about the trial, not the campaign). You might have a look.

Clark says Dean can't win

Mon, 15 Dec 2003 19:38:04 GMT

Mildly disturbing/annoying Salon cover story today, titled:

Clark: Howard Dean can't win

Key quote:

"I don't think the Democratic Party can win without carrying a heavy experience in national security affairs into the campaign," he told Salon in a phone interview last week. "And that experience can't be in a vice president."

I don't think that's going to help us beat Bush, but I guess he's gotta do what he's gotta do. The electability issue is about the only card Wes Clark seems to have at the moment. Not a strong card, but maybe a card.

All locked up for Howard Dean?

Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:17:11 GMT

Interesting that we're now getting some news analysis pieces--at least from places like Salon--asking whether Howard Dean has the whole race wrapped up.

(But Salon, of all places, again makes the eggregiously wrong statement that New Hampshire is the first primary. For God's sake, it's DC!)

According to Mario Cuomo, every insider he talks to says Dean already has it won.

I never believe anyone telling me anything is certain, but the odds for the others continue dwindling by the day. (It's been the same story since July. Dean's odds improve a tick or two every week, the window for the others just gets narrower and narrower.)

Interesting quote from Marist College Institute pollster Lee Miringoff:

. . . the more non-Dean folks who stay around, the better Dean is likely to do in the post-New Hampshire climate. The worst thing that can happen for Dean is to have a clear challenger. Either Dean has to falter early or people like Gephardt and Kerry have to disappear very fast." He paused for a moment. "But then," he said, "if Dean knocks them out clean after the first two rounds, it's going to be very hard for anyone to stop him at that point, because there will be two big nights with balloons and everyone rallying to the front-runner.

My main quibble with the piece: it lays out scenarios for gephardt, clark, edwards and clark with pretty equal disregard. (And doesn't even mention lieb, appropriately.) That is kind of silly, I think. Clark is the only one I can see with a reasonable scenario, and Kerry's is almost to silly to commit to print. The other two are in the middle.

That Wesley Clark, though. You never know.

How come no one copied the Dean plan?

Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:45:53 GMT

The Trippi plan?

The Dean phenom has amazed me the past six months, but the thought that keeps perplexing me is how come no one has copycatted? Not run off with his policy agenda, but with all his clever campaign innovations? He's really revolutionizing the road to the White House, and he's doing it in plain site. So?

The current little flurry in my little brain kicked off when Calpundit linked to my post on Dean's latest clever campaign tactic last night. Quite the lively discussion has emerged in his comments thread, with about three dozen responses so far. Thought you might find it interesting.

This one from "Steady Eddie" caught my attention, for reasons which will be clear in a moment:

Dave Cullen -- Your blog update on this identified what many of us (including formerly-cynical oldsters like me) find so exciting and energizing about Dean's campaign. It's not solely about Dean, though his openness to embracing this kind of unconventional creativity is itself exciting and important. But the whole use of the Internet to engage and empower millions of disaffected citizens is a much bigger deal which is potentially revolutionary -- if Dean and Trippi continue to make it real and genuinely value it.

Caught my attention not just because my name was mentioned, but because of the copycat question so implicit here. I responded there directly, but figured it was just as pertinent here:

Thanks Eddie.

Did you have the same fear I did last fall? As soon as things really started taking off in July, it seemed like everyone was jumping on the bandwagon and would steal all the innovations immediately. Kerry had a growing meetup, Kuchinic was surprisingly strong there, everybody was working on their websites, looking into meetups and blogs . . .

But nobody really pulled it off. Kerry had some meetup growth for awhile, but did you see the numbers on how quickly it fell off in the early fall. Without the enthusiasm, the whole thing just crumbles.

And I checked out his blog a few times. Mostly whining, hardly anything constructive. I don't think he had attracted the kind of people Howard Dean had, who would take the ball and run with it. That may be half of it.

Wes Clark did attract a lot of those people--I know, I went to a few of his meetups, even before the announcement. It was electric, and I have to say, more bursting with action than the Dean sessions. But his campaign chose to go conventional, looked on them as a minor appendage. None of the entrepreneurial, "just go out and do it" attitude emanating from Trippi. More reminiscence of Perot. (And believe me, that is Perot. I worked at EDS for five years. That attitude really drove him, that's what made him his billions.)

And the others. Did they even try? Nothing even noticalbe.

And Bush. Have you seen his blog? I mean his "blog"? It's so completely impersonal, slathered in such unabashed spin . . . All that's going to do is win a round of applause from the people who read Ann Coulter's books. It's never going to mobilize anyone to do anything.

Amazingly, no one else has figured this stuff out. Even with the successful model right there in front of them. I guess it's a lot harder than it looks. It's just tickles me to death that Joe can run the whole thing there right out in the open, and nobody can figure out how to copy it.

New ads for Wes Clark, big push on Feb 3 strategy

Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:41:42 GMT

Wesley Clark is really counting on winning a bunch of the Feb. 3 primaries. Big new ad-buy continues to indicate that strategy.

He must be praying Gephardt will deprive Howard Dean of a one-two Iowa-New Hampshire punch, or at least that he doesn't use it to roll over the next round. It could get really interesting if Dean wins the first two, but then Clark wins several the next week.

Of course the problem of that scenario is this is such a momentum game, it's going to be very hard for Clark to pull that off if Dean gets both the first two. Maybe he thinks that if he goes into NH night leading enough in following-week states, the press won't write him off and his lead won't crumble.

Risky strategy, but all he's got at this point.

Highlights from AP:

Clark's campaign is spending about $200,000 in each state -- South Carolina and Oklahoma beginning Tuesday and Arizona later this week -- to run his 60-second biographical ad that highlights his military career. . .

Campaign advisers say internal polling shows Clark either tied with or leading candidates at the top of polls in those states, and the ads are meant to boost voter knowledge of Clark, who entered the campaign Sept. 17.

Dean and Clark battling for the Big Hollywood Money

Tue, 02 Dec 2003 07:29:09 GMT

Kind of an interesting Salon cover story on the race to win Hollywood's heart in this year's campaign. Pretty much mirrors the rest of the campaign:

Edwards had a great early start that dried up completely, Kerry raised a lot of money for awhile, but the spigots have stopped as he heads toward loserdom, and it's mainly coming down to a battle between Howard Dean and Wesley Clark. With Gephardt holding down a somewhat smaller contingent, that could gain momentum if he beats Dean in Iowa. (Another reason Dean needs to beat him in Iowa.)

The writing is nothing special, and it's kind of a skim piece, but it's a little different than I've seen lately.

I'm back

Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:39:07 GMT

The blog inside the Comment Thread--back Nov 28

Sun, 16 Nov 2003 21:06:54 GMT

Remote access still not working. Leaving for nearly two weeks.

Will return the day after Thanksgiving, Nov 28.

While I'm away, I'll post away in the comments thread to this blog.

You can comment there, too. See you inside.

The only exception is Survivor. Everything about Survivor goes in the following post.

An hour of Wes Clark on Meet the Press

Sun, 16 Nov 2003 19:32:44 GMT

Just watching now, more in a few minutes. Clark definitely starts off well, making a strong case on various aspects of Iraq.

Definitely presidential.

I'm beginning to endure a full hour of that pretentious blowhard Tim Russert for you people. You owe me.

Update:

Well it's over, and Clark did really well, though Russert was . . . well he wasn't nearly as full of himself as usual, but his questioning was really lame. All old stuff that has been rehashed over and over. Almost all foreign policy, which we know, we know, we know. Almost nothing about domestic issues, where we really want to know what Wes Clark has to offer. Just stunning how dumb his line of questioning was.

Wes was very strong most of the time, came across as senisible, likeable and solid. Unfortunately, I had heard nearly all of it before, because of the goofball conducting the interview. Clark has definitely gotten his act together though, and is more solid and sure of himself than the first weeks of the campaign.

I'd give Clark an A-, Russert a D-.

More Kerry wisdom from the Comments threads

Fri, 14 Nov 2003 21:26:59 GMT

I asked if I was being too hard on Kerry.

Response from recent frequent commentor Nevsky42 (a self-described Deaniac, but hasn't drunk the koolaide, based on his/her thoughtful, balanced comments):

No, you're not being too hard on Kerry. Unlike Lieberman (who really should have known better), Kerry had been given the front-runner mantle by the press and had every opportunity and an electorate begging for someone to stand up to Bush. Kerry's got no one to blame but himself for making Dems look to Dean, Clark, and Gephardt . . .

That's pretty much the story. I was all set to support him myself last spring, but then I started listening to him. Good guy, I've got nothing but respect for him as an individual, but not even close to the communication skills to be president.

Why I don't get--what I will never, ever get about the press, is why the hell can't they ever see that? They never, ever see that. All they ever look at are the guy's resume, his geography, his potential appeal to various interest groups or power brokers, his chances in key states, blah blah blah.

They look at all the stupid details, and never stop to notice the big things. Can he talk? Can he hold an audience? Can he deliver a clear message, can it deliver it strongly enough to shatter through the information roar at the national level? Does he relate to people the way they want a president to relate to them?

Good God, how freaking hard is it? I talked to a Dean staffer I know way back in April or May, when Kerry was still touted as the frontrunner, and he said nobody in the Howard Dean camp was worried about Kerry. Really? I was astounded. "Have you seen him talk?" my friend asked.

Not really. I'd seen him over the years, but never in a situation where I listened to him as a potential president. Any fool could have seen he would never develop a national following. Why couldn't the press? Because they never ask themselves the right questions. The obvious ones.

Kerry foregos public money, using his own

Fri, 14 Nov 2003 21:07:10 GMT

Well here's a twist. Kerry is joining Dean in opting out of the public money, and--let me quote from AP here, because I love the way the characterization at the end: "will take out a personal loan to help fund his struggling White House bid."

It's nice to be a millionaire. He can't get his hands on all his wife's Heinz fortune though, unless he can show she gave it to him before the campaign, which his people admitted they can't. But:

Kerry advisers have said he has several million dollars of his own money he could tap for his race

Now here's the odd part, and it's apparently the gist of what Kerry is proposing to do:

. . . unlike rival Howard Dean, he plans to keep his spending to the $45 million limit the program imposes for the primaries. He will not follow its state-by-state limits.

Odd and bullshit. Those pledges never mean anything. He'll change it again later if it becomes convenient. If he had taken the money, he'd be stuck with the decision by law. This way he can/will do whatever he wants.

I can see the April speech already: Since the race is decided, and Bush is now the enemy, and spending all he wants, we will no longer be bound by the limits either. Too bad the "we" won't be Kerry.

I wonder what Kerry is hoping to accomplish with this? I imagine he thinks he can bash Dean for ruining the system by jumping ship, while he stays within the main framework. He's out of his mind if he thinks voters are going to split those hairs.

But that's one of the fundamental problems with John Kerry. He shows little grasp of how to communicate with a national audience.

The crowded field hurts Clark

Fri, 14 Nov 2003 20:51:35 GMT

Good insights from Josh (a zealous Wes Clark supporter) in the comments:

as long as the race remains crowded, it's bad news for clark. gephardt is still seen as the trusty, insider's anti-dean, and clark's competing for military support with john kerry.

Exactly. Not to mention the whole lost in the crowd problem for everyone in the field. That's more of a problem for Wes Clark than, say, John Kerry, because only one of those people has more than one chance in a thousand of beating Howard Dean. And it sure as hell is not John Kerry.

(Poor Kerry. Am I picking on him too much? Same for John Edwards, and Joe Lieberman, who's he kidding? Dude, you picked the wrong party.)

Time to save the party and call it a day, guys. Let's get ourselves a two-man Dean-Clark race, and find out for sure who the strongest man is. We need to through that moron out of the white house next year.

Hard to believe we'll have any dropouts before Iowa, though, probably not till New Hampshire. Hopefully a handful will do the right thing shortly after.

If they don't, the press will largely do it for them, but they'll still be in there hogging precious moments during the debates.

Dean rising, Clark falling in Gallup national poll

Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:22:57 GMT

First the dislaimer. HUGE DISCLAIMER:

At this early date, national polls mean very little. They measure mostly name recognition, and a bit of actual voter interest. Most Americans are not paying attention yet. Much better to watch the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, where people are, and the candidates have spent a lot of time with them, in person and on TV.

They can have some value for trends. If you're rising, that's good, sinking, not good.

So with that warning, the latest numbers, just released, with the two previous periods ( October 24-26, then October 10-12) in parentheses:

Dean 17 (16) (13)
Lieberman 15 (12) (13)
Clark 14 (15) (18)
Gephardt 12 (12) (10)
Kerry 10 (10) (11)
Edwards 7 (6) (6)

A few solid trends: Howard Dean rising, about 30% in a month. That's pretty big.

Wesley Clark falling--losing nearly 25% in a month, though that was coming off the huge high of his entry, and the drop appears to be possibly levelling off. This is the big surprise to me--not this latest news, but the fact that his campaign has not caught more steam. I thought it would have. He definitely has his own little army out there: they do have strong meetup numbers, and they are energized. But he hasn't built to much on that yet. Maybe it just takes more time. But that's one thing he's running out of. Big, big mistake to wait so long. But he's far from out of it. Just gradually losing his grip.

Surprising jump back up by Lieberman, after months of steady decline. May well be a one-time blip, though. A single change from period to period is not much to get excited about.

Most of the others flat. Gep had a jump or blip mid-month that he didn't build on.

There's much more data and analysis at the Gallup site. Very interesting stuff. Read it.

Clark opts in to public financing

Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:18:23 GMT

Well, that's the end of his chances against Shrub.

Maybe not, but that definitely tips the balance toward Howard Dean as the stronger competitor to Bush. Dean would be able to spend all spring and summer, Wes Clark would not.

But it will help Clark get through the primaries, assuming voters don't chose on that basis--and I doubt many will, but Dean has been expert before at making powerful issues out of important issues most people never paid attention to.

From AP:

Clark Opts Into Presidential Public Financing System
Kerry Close to Decision on Opting Out

... The decision announced Thursday means Clark will be limited to $45 million in overall primary spending and face state-by-state spending caps. He will be eligible for up to about $19 million in government funding, money that would have been hard to make up given his late fund-raising start.

"It's a pragmatic decision at this point," Clark said Friday morning in Concord, N.H., where he officially filed for the Jan. 27 primary. "Maybe if lightning strikes, I'd have to reconsider." . . .

Clark has been seeking to capitalize on Dean's decision to opt out of the post-Watergate system. Clark campaign chairman Eli Segal sent a donor appeal Thursday noting Dean's recent decision and the possibility that Kerry will follow.

That's crappy: give someone more chance to beat Dean for the nom--I see him as the only real threat to Dean--but then weaker to knock off the real enemy if he does. Wes Clark needs to reconsider.

Good story on the state of Wes Clark's campaign

Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:18:41 GMT

Lengthy piece by Joanna Weiss in today's Boston Globe:

Late entry, strong start, long haul

Clark searching for momentum

It's thoughtful, insightful and nicely balanced. The good news for Wes Clark:

Events of the past week present an opportunity for Clark. As Dean consolidates support, his opponents within the party leadership might be moved to settle on an alternative they deem more electable. And as Senator John F. Kerry's campaign struggles to find a footing, Clark, with his southern roots and foreign policy background, could be in a position to fill that role.

Yup. That's definitely his opening. And that's why I've been so gleeful about Kerry's fade. I'm a big Howard Dean supporter as you probably noticed by now, but the guy needs to be tested, needs to be toughened up as much as possible. The last year and a half of campaigning have made him so much stronger than he started out, but he's going to need all he can get going up against Karl Rove.

And I love Wesley Clark, too, and I'd like to see the two go head to head, and may the strongest challenger win. All those other guys I've had a look at: they're way too weak to take on an incumbent. So let's duke it out boys, let's get those dwarves out of the way so Dean and Clark can mix it up one on one.

Back to the Globe piece: Nice capsule of the current strategy, which you're probably aware of:

Aides hope to finish third or a close fourth in New Hampshire, where they will start running their first television ads within weeks. But they see their make-or-break day a week later, on Feb. 3, when seven states will hold primaries. Some of Clark's staffers are dispersing to the states he mentioned, hoping to establish him as an alternative to Dean, whose Yankee demeanor could play poorly in the South and West.

The problem with the strategy:

But some political analysts say the Feb. 3 strategy is a gamble, because the primary process relies on momentum: Strong finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire could propel Dean toward success down the line.

The real challenge:

The rigors of a three-decade Army career might color Clark's public persona, as well. He's no firebrand on the stump. His debate performances have been cautious. By nature, he is inclined to long answers instead of digestible soundbites. Aides have dubbed his town hall meetings "Conversations with Clark," but they can be one-sided; at a Georgia event last week, Clark talked for so long that there was time for only two questions from the audience.

And some Clark supporters say they ache to see more personality and humor in Clark's earnest public appearances.

"I just think he's so cerebral that it's hard for him," said Ostroy, the Manhattan supporter. "Sometimes people like that, they never turn it off. They're always being that bright guy, and they never just get down and dirty and yuk it up. . . . You just want to put your arm around him and say, `Wesley! Lighten up, dude!' "

That's what it's all about. All the damn beltway boys always get so damn bogged down in the process. All that takes care of itself if somebody really sparks the public imaginaton. Or it can.