Ralph, Ralph, he's your man! Ralph Nader's fantasy-league Presidential candidacy may have no more determined advocates these days than the New York Times' political correspondents.

Two weeks ago Jodi Wilgoren turned an article on the challenge Kerry would face calibrating his position vis à vis Bush on Iraq into a long disquisition on the supposed Nader threat. Adam Nagourney, who's really been churning 'em out lately, popped up on Wednesday with another stab at Wilgoren's topic, a bit more focused on Bush but once again selling the line that Ralph was likely to hem Kerry in hard on the antiwar flank. Today, Nagourney again, palpably irritated at what he calls "an unusual display of pragmatism by the Democratic left":

Senator John Kerry found himself on familiar ground when he talked about Iraq in a speech on Wednesday: out of step with much of his own party. Once again, Republicans and even some Democrats said, Mr. Kerry appeared on the verge of squabbling with the antiwar base of his party.

But that has not happened, even in a week in which Mr. Kerry rejected calls from the antiwar Democrats to set a deadline for the withdrawal of United States troops from Iraq. If anything, Democrats have grown more enthusiastic in rallying around Mr. Kerry, dismissing as inconsequential their differences with him on this presumably central issue.

"Why the Democrats' Left Wing Is Muted"

So near to a juicy intra-party squabble, yet so far! You can taste Nagourney's scorn for those unprincipled antiwar people, and their obstinate refusal to drive off the cliff he (and those nice folks at the RNC) have so helpfully pointed them toward. He shares that feeling with Ralph, who gets the last word in the piece:

Mr. Nader said he could not understand why unions, antiwar groups and other traditional Democratic constituencies were signing on with Mr. Kerry without insisting they get something in return. And he criticized Mr. Kerry for not making real concessions to the antiwar crowd.

"He's listening to Shrum," said Mr. Nader, referring to Mr. Kerry's senior political adviser, Bob Shrum. "He's listening to all the cautious advisers. They are saying don't cater to these antiwar people, they have nowhere to go. They are going to vote for you. You know the old game."

It's not just that Nagourney's disappointed in seeing a pet anti-Kerry narrative fail to blossom. What's happening is a challenge to the Nagourneyite mode of production itself: what's Adam to do if his rolodex of Dem insiders can no longer reliably produce an article's worth of handwringing quotes around the approved themes? On the evidence of today's piece, the situation indeed looks dire. All Adam has left to write about is how he got himself bitchslapped working his beat:

"Kerry has less of a problem on the left in the Democratic Party than any Democratic candidate in my memory, which goes back to Kennedy," said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts ... Still, Mr. Kerry's situation is more complicated in one critical way: The candidacy of Ralph Nader, who is providing a liberal alternative to voters who might feel put off by Mr. Kerry. ...

Joe Trippi, who was Dr. Dean's campaign manager, said he did not believe Mr. Kerry's position on the war would hurt him even among Dr. Dean's voters, and scoffed at the suggestion that some of them might go to Mr. Nader.

"On the war, I don't think there's a problem there at all," Mr. Trippi said, adding: "Even the Nader fanatics won't do it because of George Bush. They don't want another four years of this guy."

Former Representative Tom Andrews, a Democrat from Maine who now heads an umbrella group of antiwar organizations, Win Without War, said: "Everyone in the coalition I have talked to is supporting Kerry. There is no sentiment to support Nader."

Picture Adam Nagourney phoning through his list of left-wing Democrats, trying to get somebody, anybody, to pony up with the requisite Nader scare quote: "C'mon, help me out just this once, willya? I'm on deadline ..." What's an old access whore to do when the johns aren't in a buying mood?

Still, hope springs eternal. Nagourney's gonna give us a Nader threat even if he has to invent it, and the supporting critique, on his own responsibility. Joe Trippi may have said no, no, but Adam's convinced himself that was a yes in his eyes:

Still, Mr. Nader remains a big unknown here. While some Kerry aides said they were hopeful that this same [anybody-but-Bush] dynamic would significantly minimize Mr. Nader's showing in November, a number of polls have suggested that Mr. Nader will hurt Mr. Kerry. Mr. Trippi disputed that, but said that Mr. Nader might end up affecting the election if polls in the final days show Mr. Kerry with a comfortable advantage, leading some antiwar Democrats to feel they can cast protest votes with Mr. Nader.

Mr. Kerry broke with many Democrats in supporting the resolution authorizing Mr. Bush to go to war, and spent much of the primary season trying to explain that vote to anti-war Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire. He is now calling for bringing in the United Nations and NATO to help calm the situation in Iraq; like Mr. Bush, he said he is open to sending more troops to Iraq, if necessary, and would oppose for now setting a deadline for withdrawal.

There you go: Nagourney's even provided the antiwar left with a handy, brief guide to why Kerry's all wrong for us. If we persist in misguidedly making this a race between Kerry and Bush, it won't be for lack of diligence on Adam Nagourney's part.

posted by michael  4:02:05 PM  
tell me about it []