Rob's Politics Blog

Holy cow:

A CBS News poll finds that Dubya leads an unnamed Democratic candidate 45-43%. What's the big deal about this? He's leading a generic Democrat in South Carolina one of the most conservative states in the country. Granted its early and granted it's an unnamed Democrat, this is still striking.

Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan

Edwards is raising the stakes in Missouri / The importance of Missouri

The Edwards campaign just announced that their candidate has received the endorsements of a majority of Democratic members of the state's House of Representatives including the minority leader and minority whip. This offers some steep competition to Kerry, whose main endorsements have come from prior Missouri senators.

Missouri's primary, though lacking the singular prominence of Iowa or New Hampshire, will be an important indicator about the electoral viability of the Democratic candidate. Missouri is a state with a habit of voting for presidential winners, the last 11 consecutive winners in fact. It's a little bit of everything: a little bit Southern, a little bit Western, a little bit Midwestern. It is an open primary, meaning that independent voters are free to vote. If they turn out in large numbers to support the winning candidate, the Dubya House will have been served a cautionary note.

According to Reuters, Edwards retains a narrow lead in South Carolina, but is 3rd in Oklahoma, 9 points out. Winning South Carolina is a must for him, but I'd say he needs at least another state to really move into the role of challenger. If Clark takes Oklahoma, that would put him on a relatively even footing with Edwards, provided that Kerry wins the rest. A large number of undecideds remain in Oklahoma. Ryan Lizza thinks that Edwards has an edge with undecideds - I guess we'll see.

I watched Thursday night's debate in South Carolina. Actually, I'm getting really sick of watching debates, but I figured I'd catch just one more. Will Saletan has a nice rundown of it. I'll offer some of my usual observations

Once again, Dean swung for Kerry. It didn't help either of them. Kerry got to make a snide remark with the implied meaning that Dean doesn't understand how Congress works, but then cited an ambiguous record on health care.

Dean can't escape, won't escape, doesn't want to escape attack politics. It's too central to what he's done up to now to attack his colleagues for their votes on Iraq or records as "Washington Democrats" and the fact that he's hired a quintessential Washington Democrat as his campaign manager won't stop him. Of course, Dean's style of attack was what capped his support to begin with. Snide remarks like "In some ways the terrorists have already won" won't help him either. He likes himself too much to reinvent himself. There's some nobility in that, depending upon how much you like him, but my doubts about his viability are pretty clear at this point.

Dennis Kucinich wants to heal the legacy of the Civil War and Reconstruction. Shit, why stop there? I think that there are a lot of latent traumas left behind from the War of 1812. Of course he also wants to "heal this country about the dispossession of lands by Native Americans." (I think he's got that one backwards) Of course, we shouldn't underestimate his healing abilities. Just look at his pointy ears and Spock hairdo. Mind-melds for all!!

Edwards was, as Saletan suggests, getting some deft blows against Kerry. Oddly, he seemed nervous, and was blinking visibly on questions. Kerry had placed himself between the Bush view and the European view on 9/11, but never distinguished himself from the European view. Edwards reasonably added "It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September the 11th." He also managed to mention pressing Saudi Arabia and developing new sources of fuel while pressing for higher emissions. His performance may not have been standout, but it was probably good enough to keep his poll standing steady.

Lieberman was in good spirits as always, but it's starting to seem to me that he should close on a good note. I'm mostly in the Edwards camp, a little bit in the Kerry camp and convinced that a Dean nomination would be disastrous. If a situation develops where Lieberman's share of the electorate could make a difference for either Kerry or Edwards, he should consider stepping out of the race. He might win in Delaware this Tuesday, which would be a nice enough prize before conceding.

Last I read, Michigan is strongly for Kerry (45), with Edwards the only other candidate in double digits (11). If Dean gets his ass kicked in Michigan, the Wisconsin Scenario looks like a fantasy.

# posted by Rob @ 11:05 AM

That zany Howard Dean! What could he possibly do next? Well, the New York Times reports New Dean Campaign Strategy Leap-Frogs Over 13 States.

That's right, his next big primary is in Wisconsin after an impressive spate of 3rd place finishes. I quote:

Our goal for the next two and a half weeks is simple: become the last-standing alternative to John Kerry after the Wisconsin primary on Feb. 17," said Roy Neel, the new chief executive of the Dean campaign. "We may not win any Feb. 3 state, but even third-place finishes will allow us to move forward, continue to amass delegates in Virginia and Tennessee on Feb. 10, and then strongly challenge Kerry in Wisconsin.

The Dean campaign has this remarkable ability to recast itself with utter solemnity: "We're going to do (A)!! Actually, we're going to do (B)!! No, I told you, we're really set on (C)!!" Still, this strikes me as the desperation phase. Both Kerry and Edwards, and maybe even Lieberman and Clark will be picking up states on the next round. Maybe one of the latter will drop out, but Edwards is likely to stay a contender unless he loses in South Carolina. A strong showing in Michigan, even a second place showing, would give him momentum in Wisconsin, whereas most voters will see Dean as dead in the water if he's still sporting a goose egg by that date.

This kind of insistent, back-of-the-envelope style of campaign strategizing points to a surfeit of ego and a deficit of plain common sense - apparently a real problem out in Deanland.

Another one bites the dust!
BBC Director General Greg Dyke resigns. This is good news, but I wonder how far it will go to break down the BBC's insular culture. During the Iraq war, the BBC seemed to be bending over backwards to give credence to Iraqi reports (particularly from the Information Minister) and managed to report that US troops were nowhere near Baghdad when they were on its outskirts. An internal email at the BBC directed its employees not to refer to Saddam as a dictator out of a need for neutrality. Oddly though, they consistently refer to Augusto Pinochet as a dictator. No tyrants on the left, I guess.

Dyke has richly earned this. His unwillingness to reexamine Andrew Gilligan's reporting is what put the BBC on this course.

I'm stunned - the Washington Post reports that Dean has replaced Joe Trippi as his campaign manager. This is a sign of a campaign in turmoil. Trippi put Dean where he is - and I mean that in the positive sense. The circumstances of the parting do not sound amicable - Trippi refused an opportunity to stay on.

Elsewhere, the Post reports that Dean spent a lot of his funds in New Hampshire and has thereby squandered much of his advantage over the other candidates. This upcoming round looks bleak for him and one poll I saw mentioned had Kerry with a strong 37% in Michigan.

Edwards did not get Rep. Clyburn's nomination in South Carolina. This may hurt him depending on how much time Kerry spends there. If Edwards loses South Carolina to Kerry things may get bleak for him, but a win there and a strong showing in Missouri and Oklahoma could give him some momentum. But he'd need to act on it and transfer it to Michigan, which will be the biggest of the primaries to that date. His showing in Iowa offers some promise for his ability in Midwestern states, and his blue collar appeal may find fertile ground in Michigan.

More vindication for Blair: BBC chairman quits over Hutton

Another thing Paul Krugman got wrong

Having taken up the BBC line against Tony Blair months ago, he may be wondering why the British government's Hutton report has found that Blair acted upon reasonable intelligence while condemning the BBC for airing an unfounded story.

On second thought, stay out of Missouri, Doc. The Hotline reports the following:

For Howard Dean, one "good place" to "avoid" might be MO -- according to state party "operatives." They say he "shouldn't waste one thin dime, or one minute, on Gephardt's home turf." Operative: "Voters here are not going to forgive the way Dean treated Gephardt in Iowa. I don't think you'll find any major person coming out for Dean. I'm fairly certain about that."

On the other hand, both Kerry and Edwards are committing major resources to Missouri and Kerry is expecting two solid endorsements, including that of Jean Carnahan. Missouri is going to be key, no doubt about it.

Don't Call it a Comeback

The night was Kerry's of course. If his 12 point lead holds over the last 23% of precincts, he'll have achieved a remarkable reversal in New Hampshire. Edwards did not do as well as he might have, but this is thankfully not a must-win for him. Clark may gather some steam from this finish, but his campaign has yet to really catch fire.

And Dean. A 12 point loss makes it hard for this to be a comeback performance on his part, not when he was doing well in New Hampshire weeks ago. The effort to project optimism and postivity is certainly a good move, but he's not going to take momentum away from this. To recapture his earlier steam, he'd need to win a number of states next Tuesday. The problem is that the states coming up aren't ideal for him. South Carolina and Oklahoma are unlikely to be competitive for him now. Missouri is the prize of the bunch, but the Gephardt factor may be significant and Gephardt is unlikely to back Dean. Dean may do well with suburban Democrats in Arizona or Delaware, but then so may Kerry as the presumptive frontrunner. Actually, Kerry is supposedly doing well with older voters, and there's no shortage of those in Arizona. North Dakota . . . well I have no idea about North Dakota but I'll guess that it's not a land of liberal Dean-type Democrats.

There is hope for Dean, though. Michigan, Washington and Maine vote in short succession after next Tuesday. He's probably got a good chance in Maine, and the tech voters in Washington are probably enthused about him. Michigan will be the big prize and he will still have the money to compete there without facing anyone else's hometown advantage. Of course, if Kerry does splendidly on Tuesday, these other states may start to fall in line.

I have no access to any polling data for any of these states. All of this is extremely offhand. Dean remains competitive, but needs to start winning if he's going to go anywhere.

Ryan Lizza points to a number of interesting indicators that may bode well for Edwards in New Hampshire tomorrow: Undecideds may break for him because of his increasing popularity and non-incumbent status in the state; his popularity in NH is up; and his supporters actually tend to like him more than Kerry supporters like Kerry or Dean supporters like Dean and so on.

Kerry made a serious error today by saying that Democrats could do without the South and that Gore had proven that in 2000 (did he?). A strong showing by Edwards in New Hampshire coupled with a weakening of Kerry in South Carolina could enable Edwards to extend his campaign to other states with early February primaries, seriously arresting Kerry's status.

The Dems Debate . . . Again

Thursday's debate was in some ways more satisfying than the others I've seen. The combined ABC and FOX News anchors asked some incisive questions that went beyond the inane horse race-type questions that are often asked. Debate between the candidates was somewhat stifled though. As before, I'll run through my reactions on all of them.

Kerry was in good form and made real efforts to assail the administration but also to defend his position on the war. He managed to show outrage without wallowing in it, which is a good quality to have. I doubt that he lost any support because of this debate, it will probably help him.

Dean did what he could to recover from his bizarre Iowa meltdown. He was calm and steady, but in the end I think he can't really run from the angry Dean we've known from before. When called upon to stand by his remark calling into question the "judgment and ability to sort out complicated issues" of senators who voted for the war, he didn't waver from it. We got to see the old Dean once again at that point. Lieberman asked to cross him and was fairly effective.

Lieberman might be the most endangered candidate at this strech, but was in good form with his usual humor. In his own way, he's been pretty fearless on this campaign. There may be some benefit to him from his debate performance, but it's unlikely to change his fortunes. Regrettably, he was a bit too eager to please on questions about the future of the New Hampshire primary. Playing to the hometown crowd on a question like that is certainly rational, but the primary system broke a long time ago and continually going back to rural states without significant cities or minority populations skews the crucial early season.

Edwards faced some very direct questions from Britt Hume who seemed to see his role as the bad cop among the moderators. I could muse about his taking orders from Roger Ailes, but that would hardly take us anywhere. His strongest moment probably came early when he faced a tough question about his vote against the $87 billion dollar package and his defense of it was solid. Over the whole debate - perhaps because of the questions he faced - he was pretty emphatic and had little opportunity to wax optimistic. Still, that may help convince voters that there's more to him than some gooey Kucinich utopianism.

Dennis Kucinich - once again I'll say it: he makes me want to create a Gong Show format debate.

Al Sharpton was at home again in his role as onstage comic but was utterly flat-footed when asked who he'd appoint to head the Fed.

and finally, Wesley Clark. Clark was in good form some of the time, but made an exceptionally lame defense of three remarks that he'd made or witnessed - his saying that there would be no 9/11s on his watch, his enthusiastic praise of the completion of the Iraq war in March 2003, and Michael Moore's calling Bush a deserter. He's certainly calm and competent onstage, but like Dean he has a problem of letting his mouth run.

Bottom line: New Hampshire is probably Kerry's. Dean will have to spin a 2nd or 3rd place finish to argue that he is still competitive. Edwards may advance somewhat, but as everyone says, he can't afford to lose in South Carolina so this isn't a top priority for him. If he takes 20% in NH, he'll have done pretty well. I don't think Clark's slide is going to be arrested by the debate. Lieberman may reap a slight dividend, but this just isn't his year. I look forward to seeing just how far I'm off when Tuesday's vote happens.

# posted by Rob @ 7:41 AM

and yet another thing

One of my regular reads confirms what I'd thought was true but wasn't sure about - there was no mention of the Mars mission in the address. Isn't this the kind of thing that needs to be mentioned? This could be a real Achilles heel for W - it most certainly does not ingratiate him with his base and it's plainly a grandiose spending package. It has the potential to hurt him with both conservatives and fiscally-minded moderates.

And another thing

He wants to go to Mars but he doesn't want to raise gas mileage? I think a strong Democrat can make real strides on the issue of fuel efficiency and new fuel technologies. There really wasn't much of that in Bush's speech just now. The key thing is to emphasize both - Detroit doesn't like raising efficiency but it offers a far more immediate way to reduce emissions than offering a vision of hydrogen cars that's decades from being realized.

Bush is vulnerable

Last night's State of the Union was a weak performance. The last two such speeches I've seen him give were much more effective. This one seemed to just be heavy handed - particularly where drugs and gay marriage were concerned. Bush needs to appease his base on gay marriage but he can't talk like they do in terms of a moral apocalypse. That takes you into culture war country. A speech as partisan as this one is going to damage Bush's ability to pose as a bipartisan figure. He hasn't been one, but speeches like this can be used to mask one's partisan purposes.

There really wasn't a lot of vision being expressed. The previous day's speeches in Iowa had a lot more of that to offer and comparing the two - as different as a victory or concession speech is from the State of the Union - illustrates Bush's fundamental problem. He doesn't really have a grand vision. What he does have is a grab bag of agendas he needs to meet. This is a historic moment for a great Democrat with vision to step into this vacuum, just as FDR, JFK and Woodrow Wilson did, and I think that either Kerry or Edwards could do it.

One class act speaks about another:

Speaking for less than 10 minutes, his voice hoarse, Edwards thanked his rivals and had especially warm words for Gephardt, 'a man I have so much personal respect and affection for, a man who stood up and fought for working people every single day of his life. He deserves to be lifted up by us tonight. We should be proud of what [he's] done.'

From the John Edwards web site:

For every American who works the late shift or the early shift, for every American who builds our cars or fixes our roads, for every American who takes care of the sick and educates our young people, Dick Gephardt has been your champion. He's been your champion in the House, throughout this campaign, and he always will be.

Dick Gephardt is a gift. He's a gift to every Democrat, every American, and everyone running to take back the White House in 2004. I am proud to call him my friend, and hope that he continues to lend his voice and ideas in this campaign.

At this point Edwards is conspicuously appealing to the Gephardt base and doing a nice job of it. His emphasis on his working class origins may help him gain that base more readily than Kerry, Dean or Clark could . . .

Good and bad news from Iowa

I am thrilled by the strong showings of Kerry and Edwards. Both candidates have a lot to offer the party - Kerry has a remarkable amount of experience at the national level, and Edwards has some great policy proposals and what is reportedly an electrifying speaking style. Strong competition from solid candidates like these is just what the party needs.

On the negative side of the ledger, it looks as though Gephardt will be dropping out. I've always admired Richard Gephardt, even when I didn't agree with him. He is a man of real principle and honesty, with an enviable legislative record. His leadership of the House Democrats during the Clinton and Bush years was exemplary. In the post 9/11 era, he has been a responsible voice on matters of security. Unlike Edwards and Kerry, he supported the administration's $87 billion dollar package for the simple reason that we had to commit fully to Iraq, irrespective of the circumstances that got us there. I haven't agreed with him on trade issues, but his position is very reasonable and humane - far from the wild-eyed anti-globalization crowd. Gephardt is a class act. Whoever gets the nomination would do well to listen to him, or to consider enlisting him.

The Edwards surge as chronicled by The New Republic's invaluable Ryan Lizza is decidedly low tech. Maybe that's why it's so remarkable. Dean's machine can most definitely tap high-tech affluent areas with great efficiency. But if Edwards has found a way to reach less-connected voters without network connections, he'll have a way to throw the main race wide open that Dean and Trippi could only dream of using.

One other thing - a strong showing in Iowa for Kerry should mean that he's strong. Period. How he does in New Hampshire should not be overrated in importance. Yes, New Hampshire is a "neighboring state" to Massachusetts. Big freaking whoop. Has anyone noticed that it's also next to Vermont? Or better yet, has anyone given some thought to the possibility that being neighbors determines very little? Coming from Texas did not enable Bush to win in New Mexico. Strong Democratic turnout in Mass and Vermont didn't give Gore New Hampshire. Illinois and Indiana are about as far apart as Finland and South Africa where their voting behavior is concerned. This is one of the laziest notions that commentators employ and it's time to chuck it.

I haven't been trying to decipher Iowa's caucus system, but I will await the results of tomorrow's vote with a lot of anticipation. The broadening of the race is an overdue development. Dean's prior frontrunner status let him set the campaign agenda in a way that helps his narrow primary objectives but which was also detrimental to the party as a whole. Now we can see a wider range of proposals, and the campaign rhetoric might move beyond the ad hominem attacks that marred the earlier race. John Edwards' choice to stay positive may prove especially wise. Democratic voters deserve a contested primary and they deserve to hear the issues and proposals thrashed out. Al Gore to the contrary, they may be about to get the primary they deserve.

The US Senate will be spared Katherine Harris and her mascara - at least for now.

What could prompt this plucky woman to stay out of the Florida race?

While it is official national party policy to avoid taking a stand in primaries, several sources familiar with the conversations tell CNN the Bush team was worried her candidacy would stoke memories of the bitter 2000 Florida recount effort.

If she does ultimately run in a future election, she'll certainly have the support of the Bush clan, which always appreciates the self-abasement and submission of underlings. Katherine appreciated that well enough when she acted as Florida's Secretary of State, after all.

Very nice news from the campaign trail: surges of support for both Kerry and Edwards as reported in the Washington Post. I've yet to decide on one candidate, but I'd say that Edwards, Kerry and Gephardt tend to be my favorites in the field.

Not Clark? I'm still evaluating him, but I find his lack of prior political experience worrisome. Also, he does seem to have been all over the map on Iraq, but also to have embraced the paranoid style on occasion - one remedy to prior ambivalence or support of the Iraq war seems to be jacking up on the use of conspiracy theories. I don't buy Dean's slam of him as a Republican. That's just the man from Vermont revelling in his sanctimony again. But Clark has yet to convince me that he's ready for primetime. People slam Edwards for being relatively new to politics, but he has a lot more experience and may also be a much better learner.

Red States and Purple States

A much-cited Zogby poll purports to demonstrate the deep divisions within the American electorate, more specifically the polarization of the Red states against the Blue states.

To quote the pollsters' summary:

The poll reveals that as we enter what promises to be a very contentious 2004 presidential contest, George W. Bush and his Democratic challenger will be campaigning in two different, yet parallel universes.

Different, yes, but how different? The individuals hailing from Red states do largely adhere to conservative beliefs, but those from the Blue states seem evenly divided. They are most certainly NOT mirror images of the Red states. This is enough to make me think that we should cease talking about Red and Blue and start talking about Red and Purple.

Want some numbers? Let's look at the percentages on various questions.

• On whether 2000 was a stolen election, the score in the Red states is 62% no and 32% yes. Blue states - 50% and 44% yes.
  
• On Bush's job performance, Red states have 60% approval, Blue have 46%.
  
• On the social/economic values of Bill Clinton, Red states are 56% against and 32% for. Blue states are 47% against and 45% for.
  

The implication of this reading of the poll is dire for supporters of Dean, who claim that Dean's inability to campaign in the Red South is counterbalanced by the strengthening of liberal sentiment in states won by Gore. The case was made fairly strongly in Noam Schreiber's blog at The New Republic. Nothing in the Zogby poll convinces me that these states are getting more liberal. From all appearances, Dean will have to fight for his base states while Bush stays free to go on the offensive. And that, my friends, is a Democratic disaster in the making.

While channel surfing tonight I stumbled on some footage of John Kerry addressing a mixed audience at an Iowa middle school. It was refreshing to see after reading about Dean shouting down a questioner. Folks at this stage of the primary want to be able to converse with candidates, to be doubly sure that they get their point across. Kerry was engaged at length about free trade issues by a man named Lorne. They conversed for a while, with the questioner visibly skeptical, since Kerry had said that he supported NAFTA at the time. Kerry was respectful and patient and not at all in a hurry to dismiss the questioner. His overall demeanor was relaxed and at ease. When their dialogue finished, Lorne looked visibly pleased with Kerry's answer.

It would be a damn shame and an irony if the perception of Kerry as aloof contributed to the nomination of the truly aloof Dean.

Jonathan Chait's Diary of a Dean-o-Phobe is a really handy resource for folks like me who have deep misgivings about the man from Vermont. Recently, he cited a story in the Boston Globe that sounds like vintage Dean.

Responding to a Republican questioner near Iowa, Dean went into high form:

Ungerer called on the Democrats to heed the biblical maxim of "love thy neighbor," adding: "Please tone down the garbage, the mean-mouthing, of tearing down your neighbor, and being so pompous."

Dean, who listened quietly, immediately replied, "George Bush is not my neighbor." When Ungerer tried to interrupt, the former governor shouted: "You sit down! You had your say, and now I'm going to have my say."

Can't say I'm looking forward to the town meeting debate versus Bush (though there's a gathering hope that the Dems may not nominate this guy). Dean just doesn't strike me as having the temperament of a successful candidate, or the temperament of a successful president. He may be an improvement on Bush, but I'm not the one he needs to convince.

(Faithful readers will recall that I critiqued Chait's piece in defense of Bush hatred some months back. I like his current profiling of Dean because he isn't really reveling in it - his critiques are fairly incisive and restrained.)

Cry me a river, Howard

CNN reports that Dean has fumed that he's "Tired of being the pin cushion". Gosh, might his current status as pin cushion have anything to do with all the attacks he made on other Democrats in the early stages of the campaign? He sought the insurgent status that he now enjoys by slamming the other half of the party, now he doesn't appreciate this style of campaigning?

One of the reasons that I fundamentally don't like Dean is that he seems to be one of those folks who holds everyone else to a high standard but gives himself plenty of leeway to bend rules.

More on the fragility of "Europe"

EU Concedes Politics Plays Into Euro Pact


It's hard not to read this as meaning that France and Germany get to break the rules when they want, but other countries are strictly expected to stay in line.

Good news from Africa, reported by the Christian Science Monitor: African criticism of Mugabe rises.

I had some hope that pressure from the US and Britain would help to end Mugabe's reign in Zimbabwe, but beyond isolating Mugabe and encouraging his opposition, pressure from the US and Europe isn't likely to do enough so long as Mugabe is supported by his neighbors.

The key African leader on this issue remains Thabo Mbeki, who has been painfully slow to confront Mugabe. As the article above reports, other leaders on the continent have indicated their disapproval of Zimbabwe. Mbeki's stance will make all the difference between a Yugoslav-style removal and a Somalia-style implosion.