To follow up on Thursday:
I don't doubt that Dean's not as far to the left as most of his campaign supporters are. Joe Trippi has admitted as much; they chose a run to the left, based around opposition to the war, because it provided an opening. To quote Trippi," it couldn't be a mainstream campaign, because the mainstream space was already taken." He's clearly going to start moving to the center as soon as he can. The question remains whether he's boxed himself too much in a corner with some of his positions. Maybe not--after all, all that most people really know about his issue positions is that he's against the war.
Dean's got a lot of other flaws as a candidate beyond his political positions, that will be easy to capitalize upon. Check out the last GOP ad--When Angry Democrats Attack!
I've spoken quite a bit in the last few days with friends working on some of the Democratic presidential campaigns, and all were pretty stunned by the Gore announcement. There's a good article in yesterday's Post about it. Folks (me included) are pinning their hopes on Clark, but the General still has to figure out how to get a compelling message across that resonates with the public.
I haven't seen any detailed poll numbers since the Gore announcement. I'll be most interested to look at breakdowns, and see if Dean's gotten a lift among African-American voters.
The other major political story this week is equally if not more interesting--the Hillary Clinton factor. On the talk shows this past week, she's been staking out ground to the right of perhaps any of the current Democratic candidates (with the possible exception of Lieberman).
Over the past few weeks, several commentators, most notably Howard Fineman at Newsweek have speculating that Hillary might step in as a consensus candidate if we end up with brokered Democratic convention, to "save the party." Her comments over the past week have only heightened those rumors.
I still don't think that's going to happen, but it does put her in great shape for 2008. After we get a McGovern-like failure in November, led by Dean, Senator Clinton can swoop in to start aggressively rebuilding the party.
I've always felt that Hillary is too polarizing a figure to win a Presidential race; however, I've groslly underestimated her political acumen and effectiveness. If she's begining to win over Andrew Sullivan and other neo-cons, who knows where she'll be in four years?
friday, you gave up already again? have some faith, my favourite day of the week, jeebus!
you already buried a campaign of a decent charismatic candidate and moved four years ahead touting a repu-crat for prez. Hilary might as well grab Lieberman, Miller and move to the other side of the aisle.
Posted by: smart aleck, as it were | December 14, 2003 at 11:42 PM
Which charismatic candidate am I burying--are we talking about Dean? Or Clark?
Let's be perfectly honest--it would have been tough for anyone to beat Bush. However, Dean is going to be a drag on the entire ticket. Graham (FL), Miller (GA), Hollings (SC), and Edwards (NC) are all retiring, and it may be a Republican sweep; the Dems might pick up Illinois, but my guess is that we'll end up being down an additional 4 (maybe 5) in the Senate, down somewhere b/w 7 and 12 in the House.
It's going to be ugly. The question is, who's going to emerge from the ashes and lead the party? Maybe it illustrates that we have an incredibly weak bench, but I don't see anyone else out there but Hillary.
Posted by: friday | December 15, 2003 at 10:13 AM
sorry, spoke too soon--Breaux's retiring as well. That means that every single incumbent Dem from the South who is up next year is not running, except for Blanche Lincoln.
Posted by: Friday | December 15, 2003 at 03:38 PM
why do you speak about this in past tense? you say it like all these losses are a foregone conclusion-that's what I have a problem with. Unless there's something I don't know and you're writing from the future, phrases like "it would have been tough for anyone to beat bush" are in the wrong tense. and zell miller is not a democrat- it's a typo. come on, fri-person, if that's gonna be the attitude- why you bother writin'?
Posted by: smart aleck, as it were | December 15, 2003 at 07:23 PM