Monday, December 15, 2003

Dean's Message: A Year Too Early? I'm still having some trouble with the idea that Howard Dean has a meaningful chance to supplant George Bush.  A lot of trouble, actually.  Now, don't get me wrong, there's still the small case of the nomination, and the actual election campaign itself, and crazy things seem to happen when Bush is involved.  But consider: Dean's main identification with voters who are not already in his camp is his (truthful) claim to have not supported the war in Iraq.  Well of course he didn't support it; he wasn't presented with a political decision to vote or not vote for anything related to the war, since he was a Governor at the time.  So, good for him: He didn't support the war, and there's nothing in his voting record to point to (because he doesn't have one) to disprove that claim. Well, that was all fine and good in November of 2003, when the iron was hot for who got us in this Iraq mess, and how it was executed.  While the other candidates tried to explain their votes or statements (in Clark's case) about the war, Dean was able to position himself as the only anti-war voice who had a chance to be elected.  (Sorry, Kucinich.) My problem with Dean is that his Iraq badge is so prominently displayed as a part of his campaign, and there's really so substance to it at all.  First, I know Dean supporters will rightfully claim that Dean is about a heck of a lot more than Iraq.  His website gives some of the details.  But the reality is, for most of the people that Dean will need to win over to win the election, Iraq is his biggest identifier at this point.  That might change in the future (in fact, it had better change in the future), but for now that's the perception.  Dean is the anti-Iraq war candidate.  Simple. Why do I say his position has no substance?  It's a nostalgic platform, more or less.  By the time any votes are cast for the 2004 election, we will theoretically have been out of Iraq for four months, and the war itself will have been over for well over a year.  Dean running on a "I didn't support Iraq" platform in 2004 will be like Jimmy Carter running on an anti-Vietnam campaign in 1976.  It's a part of the national psyche, to be sure, but platforms need to be forward-looking.  Iraq's still going to be a huge national security issue looking forward in November 2004.  At some point, Dean's message will have to change from how he felt about Iraq to what he's going to do about Iraq (and Iran, and others).  Thus far, I'm not sure what about Dean's record would give the swing voters any degree of confidence whatsoever that he is any better to face those challenges than Bush, a man who those swing voters will have seen on TV, talking tough after capturing Saddam.  Bush has heavy presumption by virtue of his position, and by November 2004, Dean's past stance on the Iraq war will be seen as old news, just like any references to Florida 2000 are viewed by many of those swing voters today. What happens to Dean's campaign if the Iraq issue fades from importance?  Well hell, it probably doesn't matter, since if Iraq fades the Dems probably lose anyway.  But more precisely, what if Iraq is still an issue, and rather than grandstanding on his past positions, Dean has to actually articulate a plan for moving forward?  I'd like to see him move more in that direction, because that's where he'll need to be in November 2004. 12:11:43 PM    Say what?[]

Saddam's Capture, And How It Impacts The Election Unless you've been living in a hole like Saddam was, you have probably heard and read a great deal about the capture of Iraq's erstwhile dictator.  Naturally, there has been a scramble to try and ascertain what his capture will mean on a variety of fronts, but the main ones to my mind are the Iraq insurgency and the 2004 Election. Regarding the insurgency, I have to think there will be at least some segment of the populace in Iraq that will become heartened to be more active politically, because now they see that Saddam is truly not coming back.  This has been portrayed by some in the Administration as being a critical turning point in fighting the insurgents, but I have serious doubts about that.  First of all, it's not clear at all that Saddam was in any real way involved with the insurgency.  As Time quoted an unnamed U.S. official, “We can now determine,” he said, “if he is the mastermind of everything or not.” The official elaborated: “Have we actually cut the head of the snake or is he just an idiot hiding in a hole?” My vote is for idiot hiding in a hole.  The most credible work I've read on Saddam shows him to be a huge-scale bumbler when it comes to matters of strategy and realistic assesment of his forces or of likely outcomes of military operations.  What's more, the insurgency seems to have taken on many flavors, cutting across many ethnic groups and regions.  Could Saddam really coordinate all of these efforts from within his brick hoooouuuse?  I'm sure he probably was involved in some way, but overall coordination?  Sorry, that's hard to do from a hole in the ground, when all you have is $750k, two AK-47s and a pistol.  That's not exactly command and control.  Besides, remember when it was speculated that one of his sons was controlling the insurgency?  No question, capturing Saddam is a real coup for the U.S., and for the Iraqi people.  Thus far, it is one of two actual successes we can point to, the first being the fall of the regime.  It's a big deal, but it seems to be more of a case of tying up loose ends from the past, as opposed to paving the way for Iraq's future. And so, what will this mean for the election of 2004?  Obviously it's early, but we can make some guesses.  You don't have to be Kreskin to forsee that the Bush Administration will tout Saddam's capture heavily, and they have every right to do that.  They did catch the guy.  We can posit that it could have been done in more efficient, less damaging ways, and of course we don't really know the long-term cost to the U.S. and world stability yet, but that's not the Bush Administration's concern.  They've got a human trophy to hoist, who just happens to be one of the most ruthless dictators in history.  That image and accomplishment has value to an election campaign, I would think. But what happens if things don't quiet down in Iraq as a result of the capture?  We know that the ethnic and religious differences in Iraq are a source of great tension.  Indeed, there are people who claim that Iraq is, in reality, a collection of four or five different groups of people, many of whom don't like each other.  Saddam was able to more or less put these differences on the back burner, since he tended to kill and rape on an equal basis, with regard to ethnicity.  Now, with Saddam gone, with no real leadership to unite under and only a U.S. leadership to resent, many Iraqis are finding that their main identification, socially, is with their ethnic group.  With Saddam out of the way, (and the U.S. out of the way on June 30, 2004), there is a HUGE power vaccuum that is vying to be filled.  For election purposes, the U.S. is temporarily recusing themselves from being a candidate to fill that power vaccuum.  We know Saddam isn't going to fill it, though he obviously still has loyalists and people who identify with his ethnic group or sect.  There are many, many groups who will by vying to fill that vaccuum.  Is it just me, or does anyone else see the potential for a very bloody conflict as the power structure is clarified?  That's what many speculate the insurgency is about, at least in part.  It's not just about fighting against the U.S., but also about establishing position for when the U.S. leaves.  It's happening at the level of the insurgency as well as politically. Is the Bush plan simply to leave in July, and then wash their hands of Iraq as the election moves on?  I can very easily see the story being "We went in, we deposed the dictator, and now it's the fault of Iraqis that they are still involved in Civil War.  And remember, deposing Saddam was our goal all along." It's either that, or Iraq actually does well enough after we leave that it's not an issue.  And if that's the case, it seems to me that the Administration has plenty to crow about.  It wouldn't make the isolation campaign during the run up to the war right, nor would it make the lying about the war and the reasons for it right.  Not even close.  But they would have a positive outcome to point to, and they would have been able to diffuse the issues of loss of U.S. life and quagmire.  If they can do that, there won't be enough votes based on the outrage of how the thing was done to make a difference for the Dems. 11:04:37 AM    Say what?[]

Quick List: 5 Sleeper Albums What's a "sleeper"?  Who knows?  The Amps-Pacer - A Kim Deal side project during the mid-90's demise of the Breeders.  The songs are catchy and concise and great, and although I know a lot of fans of the Pixies and their numerous spinoffs, I have yet to meet anyone else who has this album.  Get it. Urge Overkill-Supersonic Storybook - Cut before Urge Overkill became stars, such as they were, this is by far their best record.  Like Bowie's Ziggy Stardust, it's meant to be played loud. T.Rex-Electric Warrior - Bizarre that Matt B. noted this album in my comments a few days ago, as I had this list already written down.  These songs are beautiful and relatively low-key, with some fantastic production and guitar work.  Sounds as good today as it did 30 years ago.  Chavez-Ride The Fader - I don't know what happened to Chavez, as it has now been five years since they put out a record.  Ride The Fader is loud and catchy and very good. Breeders-Pod - Yeah, it's another Kim Deal project.  Anybody got a problem with that?  Not truly a sleeper, but the Breeder's excellent first album tends to get lost amid the also-good Last Splash and the rest of the Pixies Variations.  10:22:25 AM    Say what?[]

End Of The Seer The Great Seer Experiment is over for this season.  Two weeks ago, sickness derailed my 12 week streak of picking the games.  Then last week, simple forgetfulness brought me down.  And so, we call it quits with a 96-78 record, good for a 55.2% success rate against the spread.  Assuming $30 bets, and subtracting a 5% vig from the winnings, I would have netted about $513 dollars.  But I would have had to put up $5,220 to do that.  That's not for me.   10:11:20 AM    Say what?[]

© Copyright 2004 DH. Last update: 1/2/2004; 9:25:09 AM.