Be afraid, be very afraid: John Kerry is the Democratic presidential contender that the Republicans worry about the most, a Democratic strategist recently said on National Public Radio.
Pundit: GOP roots for Dean, fears Kerry
Republicans hope that Howard Dean wins the Democratic presidential nomination because they think he's the viable Democratic candidate that George W. Bush can beat most easily, Democratic political consultant Neil Oxman said on National Public Radio's "Talk of the Nation" earlier this week. (Oxman excludes Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun as viable Democratic candidates.)
John Kerry is the Democratic presidential contender that the Republicans least want to see get the nomination, Oxman said, explaining that because he is from Massachusetts and fought in Vietnam, "Kerry can do that John Kennedy imitation" and can therefore pose a serious threat to Bush. Oxman called Kerry the "favorite" in the race for the Democratic nomination.
On the NPR program Sam Tanenhaus, contributing editor at Vanity Fair, also compared Kerry to JFK, noting that Kerry is a decorated Vietnam veteran and has a "patrician demeanor," adding that a "regal-seeming East Coast senator" could do well against Bush in 2004.
Also during the NPR program, titled "The Democratic Presidential Contenders," Tom Schaller, assistant professor of political science at the University of Maryland, made the interesting proposal that two of the Democratic contenders decide now to be running mates.
Schaller pointed out that the individual Democratic contenders have to take on the entire Bush regime, so if two strong Democratic candidates team up now, the Democratic Party will be in a stronger position from which to defeat Bush. Bob Graham and Dick Gephardt were among the Democrats discussed as good potential vice presidential candidates.
Although he ranks third among the nine Democratic contenders in the amount of money that he has raised this year, Howard Dean ranks fourth in the amount of money he has in the bank.
Howard Dean not saving his pennies
The Associated Press reported this week that although he has raised $10.1 million so far this year, Howard Dean has between $6 million and $7 million in the bank, having spent the rest of the $10.1 million on his campaign, such as for television commericals and for his strong Internet presence.
In terms of the amount of money he has on hand, Dean ranks fourth among the Democratic contenders, the AP reported.
The AP reported that John Kerry has the most money on hand, about $11 million, "including $2.6 million he transferred from his Senate campaign account. Kerry raised about $6 million in the second fund-raising quarter, second to Dean."
John Edwards is second, with about $8.5 million on hand; Dick Gephardt has about $7 million, "including $2.4 million from his congressional campaign account"; and Joe Lieberman has about $4 million in the bank, the AP reported. The AP also noted:
While fund-raising totals offer one test of the candidates' viability, many party activists argue that the money-in-the-bank figure is more important. It illustrates a campaign's ability to not only raise money, but to save and spend it when voters begin to pay attention late this year and early 2004.
"What matters in the campaign is how much money do you have to communicate with voters," said Gephardt adviser Steve Elmendorf. "It's a question of how much you're raising and spending and how much you're keeping. We're on plan to have what we need."
The AP also noted that Kerry, Dean and Gephardt are considered the three strongest candidates; that "Edwards is raising and saving plenty of money, but thus far has little to show for it in the polls"; and "Kerry may have the best combination: He has the most money in the bank while leading in New Hampshire polls and gaining ground on Gephardt in Iowa. Kerry also has raised the most money since Jan. 1 -- $13 million -- with Edwards a close second and Dean third."
"The Trouble with Howard Dean"
Finally, after such gushing pro-Howard Dean reportage as "Most Likely to Succeed," Salon.com publishes a more accurate piece on Dean titled "The Trouble with Howard Dean."
The author of the article, John Judis, concludes of Dean that "if the Democrats nominate him as their presidential candidate, he is almost sure to lose to George W. Bush, and perhaps by a very large margin."
Judis writes: "The Democrats would be much better off ... with a blander, more faceless, less exciting [John] Kerry, [Dick] Gephardt or even [Joe] Lieberman (perhaps with [John] Edwards, Florida Sen. Bob Graham, or retired Gen. Wesley Clark as running mate) than they would be with a fiery, controversial Dean."
In his piece Judis compares Dean's candidacy to George McGovern's and concludes, "Just as the country was not ready for McGovern in 1972, so it is probably not ready for Howard Dean in 2004."
With Ruy Teixeira, Judis wrote The Emerging Democratic Majority, a book I highly recommend. The central idea of the book is that although the Republican Party is enjoying success now with its 9-11/terrorism/war/fear/pseudopatriotism bullshit, demographic shifts bode ill for the long-term viability of the Republican Party. (Salon ran a piece by Judis and Teixeira on this topic, titled "Why the Republicans Should Be Very Afraid," back in October.)
12:10:54 AM 
|
