The Hinterland
Rants from the hinterland. Denver writer and pretend anthropologist Dave Cullen's take on the world.

Tuesday, August 05, 2003


Just caught up in the Dean frenzy?

I just a second Dean TV appearance in under 24 hours (just finished the Tivo of the Today Show interview from this morning. (Watch it here.)

Wow, I am really liking this guy.

Here's the confession: For a few weeks now, I had been starting to wonder if I had just gotten caught up in the frenzy. I'd only met him in person that once, hardly seen him on TV at all. Was it just infatuation? Did I just catch him on a good day? Friends kept asking why I admired him so much--why so many people did; what's all this Dean thing all about?--and I was starting to hesitate more and more with my answer. 

Now I remember. I tend to agree with most of his positions. That's a good start. But the fact is, I don't agree with him on everything. But I can't remember one issue he addressed where I didn't think he made a reasonable case, and where I believed he believed it. Essentially, I like the way his mind works. There's no telling what threats or challenges we'll face once he or somebody else is in charge, but whatever comes up, I feel secure with him calling the shots.

And I LOVE his candor and honesty. And I would trust that guy to sit in the oval office.

And I would actually be proud of him. Last guy I even came close to being proud of was George senior, of all people. I didn't really want him running the country, but I had a lot of respect for that guy. I was never embarrassed by him. Can't say that about either successor.

I have been wondering what I would do if Clark jumps in. The truth is, I have always figured I would probably bolt for his camp. But I'm starting to wonder. I'd like to see them both for awhile, and to judge who has a chance of actually winning the nomination, and the general election. (My instinct on the latter is Clark, but we have yet to see the man campaign.) God, they sure would make a dream team, with either one on top.

For now, I'm falling more and more firmly in line with Dean. I can't wait to be proud of my president again.


Comment                     3:46:59 PM                      trackback []                     




Biden and Clark jumping in?

The biggest surprise to me in the lame Newsweek cover story on Dean was that Joe Biden and Wes Clark were leaning toward jumping in.

I'd heard the rumblings, but was guessing they would go the other way. There's a new story out of Deleware in Tuesday's paper that makes me think he's going to go for it. It's nothing firm coming from him, and I could misreading it, it's so hard to read these things. The sense I got though, was that he may well believe he has an opening. The expected "major" candidates have fizzled: Gephardt and Lieberman are languishing, John Edwards is nearly invisible. Kerry is the only "major" candidate making any mark, and he's been lost in Dean's shadow for weeks and not really showing much charisma. Aside from Dean, it has proven to be a weak field.

And I think they all still think Dean is weak. They're perplexed by his popularity, and Biden probably thinks he can knock Dean off. Good luck! There are people out there who could turn the country's head from Dean, but I don't think Joe Biden is one of them. He's got more charisma than a John Kerry for sure, but I don't think he's going to steal anyone's hear. He didn't do that well in 1988 even before he slithered away in humiliation after his plagiarism came to light.

I do think he'll make the race interesting, though. I think he'll race to the front of the pack and give Dean a run for his money. He could really devastate Kerry, though. The Dean support seems much more solid--verging on evangelical--while Kerry has a lot of people thinking he's the guy who could win. Biden could split that support right in half, and I venture to say, might grab the bigger half. Hmmmmm, come to think of it, he might actually be good for Dean. But, he could be more formidible than Kerry, too. I predict he will be one of the top contenders for the nom if he runs. But I think he'll lose to Dean. Or . . .

Clark is the much bigger wildcard. I just don't know what to make of him. Will he be able to get a bone fide campaign off the ground this late? If he does, I think he is the one person with the potential to beat Howard.

If Clark can hurtle quickly out of the single digits, he could take off and win the whole thing. But that is going to be really hard to do. It's so late for such an unknown, outsider. Biden's got a long Senate career and many years raising millions. Does Clark have the money connections to launch this late? Dean did it the hard way, but he had an extra year.


Comment                     12:07:10 AM                      trackback []                     




Dean's performance on Larry King

It takes a lot to drag me to watch a dufus like Larry King, but I tivo'd it, watching now and pleasantly surprised. (And got a lot of chuckles from that King person. He opened up with the most insipid question about why people don't call Dean doctor--which they often do--and kept pressing it, as if it were something that mattered. And he had the oddest habit of continually referring to Dean appearing on "the front cover" of Time and Newsweek. Was there talk of featuring him on the back cover, in place of a Seagram's ad?)

Dean is extremely winning in person, but not always on TV, where it unfortunately counts. I braced myself for some awkwardness, but he really blew me away. He's really gotten better at this TV thing.

He's gotten a ton of exposure this week, which I thought was the important thing, but it strikes me now that the more Howard surges, the more chances he gets under the various microscopes, and the more experience he gets. The thing about pres candidates is they all tend to start out a little shaky, and get a lot better at it (the ones who are going to make it).

It's unrealistic to expect anyone to be a star day one--look at Shrub, he still makes an ass out of himself every time he faces a microphone--and the more situations like this he gets the sharper he'll be in January, and more importantly, the sharper he'll be next fall.

So far he's doing a masterful job. Loved the way he turned that liberal "charge" (charged with that dirty word liberal. Sad as it is, how a Dem handles that charge is the single most important hurdle they face in these conservative times):

KING: How do you react that so many conservative Republicans, some, many on the extreme right, want you to be the candidate? They think you would be the easiest one to beat.

DEAN: Well, I welcome that challenge. You know, they all say, Well, he's so liberal. Well, if liberal is balancing budgets, please do call me a liberal. No Republican president has balanced a budget in 34 years in this country. If you want jobs and investment in this country, you're going to have to have a Democrat because the Republicans simply can't handle money.

. And seemed positively Solomonic responding to the tape of Lieberman painting him as McGovern:

DEAN: Well, obviously I don't agree.

I think the four candidates from Washington that voted for the war, Senator Lieberman, Senator Kerry, Senator Edwards and Representative Gephardt basically gave the president carte blanche in October to launch a preemptive strike and the evidence wasn't there.

Let's look at what the president said. He told us that he was buying -- that Iraq was buying uranium from Africa. That wasn't true. He told us -- or the vice president that Iraq was on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons. That wasn't true. The president told us there was a clear link between al Qaeda and Iraq. That wasn't true. The secretary of defense told us he knew exactly where the weapons were, right around Tikrit and Baghdad. That wasn't true. So if I could figure that with my foreign policy team as a governor from Vermont, my question is why should we be led by people who couldn't figure that out and who voted to give the president unilateral authority to attack Iraq?

The beltway boys just cannot get it into their pretty little heads how a candidate can get elected after oposing that war. I think he makes a case that a whole lot of middle Americans will buy into. Ann Coulter will never swallow that explanation, but I think a great big chunk of the public will. Depending on the state of Iraq in a year, it could be way more or way less agreeing with him. But he doesn't need half the electorate on every issue. He needs to make a credible case, where the average person would respond, "Huh. That makes a lot of sense. I'm not sure I agree, but I kinda like this guy." If he can do that on his "weakest" issue and wow them on the others, he can win. But some simpletons inside the beltway will never understand that.

Full transcript of the show here.


Comment                     12:07:00 AM                      trackback []