audio post powered by audblog

Idiotic Kerry statement

John Kerry said on the Today show this morning that we don't need the South...

It's a technically correct point to make - but it's also a stupid point to make just 2 weeks before his campaign must try to win Democratic primaries in the South...
Also, who says Democrats can't win in one or two Southern states? Arkansas has been trending towards the Democrats, as has Louisianna and Mississippi (something tells me they won't win that last one...). Bush only won Virginia by about 6 percent last time around - couldn't someone like Wesley Clark get the military people out and maybe make it interesting? Probably not, but who knows?

Meanwhile, a John Edwards surge is happening in New Hampshire. Apparently his events are twice as big as Kerry events and he's getting REALLY excited volunteers.

Where does this leave Howard Dean? Tied to the railroad, waiting for the train to come run him over...

New Hampshire predictions (pre-debate)

Here are my predictions. My last attempt at this was wildly incorrect (although I got Gephardt in last place)

1. Kerry
2. Clark
3. Edwards
4. Dean

Why Edwards ahead of Dean (and perhaps ahead of Clark)? Because 17% of the state is undecided. I think some of those will pile onto the frontrunner (Kerry) but most of the rest will go for Edwards. That's what happened in Iowa.

Senate scandal?

Yeah.

It turns out that power corrupts...

Polls in NH

The American Research Group Poll has Kerry passing Dean by a wide margin. Clark is merely 3 points behind Dean. In fact, Iowa didn't seem to affect Clark's numbers. The big loser in Iowa was Dean and the big winner was Kerry.

I expect Clark to pass Dean in New Hampshire and finish second.

Then it's on to the South where John Kerry can't expect much...

update: Or maybe not...

update (again): Or maybe SO. Scroll down to the bottom. Clark is already ahead of Dean in the last day of polling.

Dumb and Dumber and Dumberer

Bush's words from last night:

"We're seeking all the facts. Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day ..."

So...let me get this straight...here's how the argument has evolved (and will continue to, I suspect)

2002-April 2003
1. "Iraq has stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and a nuclear program that is months away from producing a bomb. They bought Uranium from...oh some African country."

May 2003
2. "Iraq has weapons programs. We found a tractor trailor that was probably a mobile weapons unit."

June 2003
3. "We found the WMD." George Bush - the biggest lie of his presidency.

July 2003 - today
4. "Iraq was developing WMD programs and there is no doubt that if we hadn't acted they would have become a danger...eventually...Come on guys - he gassed his own people!"

March 2004
5. "Iraq was seeking to develop WMD programs. They had several meetings where the idea of a WMD program was brought up, but dismissed. But it was on the agenda to be discussed in the next month's meeting. I've got the documents to prove it. Plus - don't forget that we want to bring Democracy to the poor people of Iraq...wait, what's that Karl? It's election time? Let's cut and run. My base hates these towel heads anyway."

October 2004
6. "Iraq had several meetings where preliminary discussions took place regarding meetings regarding meetings regarding planning for a potential planning session for the discussion of WMD programs. Plus Saddam - like - hurt his own people and stuff. Don't you liberals care about that?"

January, 2005
7. "Saddam was a baaaaad baaaad man. It was a pleasure serving you people. I'm back to my ranch."

Death of the Deaniacs

All of those deliriously hopeful and optimistic Dean supporters are now crashing down to earth. It's gratifying to watch, but somewhat pathetic at the same time. Here's a TNR article about it.

Wes Clark flips out at another reporter...

This time it was Tom Brokaw...and this time it was probably after most people's bed time.

How long until the media line on Wesley Clark is "this guy is unstable"?

Flipping out on Fox News is understandable - hell, it's even commendable. But at poor senile Tom Brokaw? Come on.

What was the source of his rage? Brokaw accused him of supporting the war in Iraq...which he continues to deny...

Paging Wesley Clark! Nobody cares whether you supported the war in Iraq in 2002 or whatever!! We just like your electability and your intelligence - so stop harping on that issue.

I just can't resist...

It was only a matter of time before someone turned Howard Dean's Monday night screech into a hip-hop song. Take a listen.

Qadafi victory?

I've covered this before. But since Bush mentioned it in his state of the union address, it's worth covering again...

Libya's "WMD program" is a joke. It's a contrivance straight from Qadafi's head. He saw that Bush could benefit politically from "WMD concessions" in Libya. And Qadafi realized that he could benefit as well. Libya is also one of the world's largest oil producers...

Furthermore, Libya's been out of the terrorism business for almost two decades now. This is not a victory - it's a joke.

Rethinking Clark

I've spent the last few days rethinking my support of Wesley Clark - and I still think he's the strongest of the current crop. But he really needs to put an end to the bizarre statements...especially his constant assertion that he always opposed the war in Iraq...

Right now I'm not sure anyone can beat Bush. Clark is an inexperienced politician and might get torched by the media. John Edwards is really the only one whom the media couldn't tear apart - but would the country warm to him? I'm not sure.

Look at what happened to Dean over the last month - that's what the media will likely do to whoever gets the nomination...

Ever candidate has gaffes - it's just impossible to walk around your entire life and never say anything you wish you didn't. Dean had plenty, and Clark has had plenty as well. The problem is that Bush never speaks publicly. He stays behind closed doors - he doesn't offer himself to reporters like challenger Presidential candidates do. Once Bush gets out on the campaign trail, he'll open his mouth and put his foot in it. But until that time, the media will focus unwavering attention on the Democrats and tear them to shreds.

State of the Union

Watching the state of the union makes me think - why do I get this visceral reaction to George W. Bush? Is it his ideology?

Probably not - I enjoy listening to Pat Buchanan's dry southern accent. Bob Dole's robotic voice amuses me. Even George Bush senior's voice and demeanor was somewhat bearable.

What makes George W. Bush SO HARD to watch??? Perhaps it's the deer in the headlights look that he gives the camera and those around him. Or his tendency to over-emphasize random words within phrases like William Shatner.

Maybe it's his condescending squinty-eyed smirk when he talks about tax cuts for the rich. There is just something about this man that is revolting. Maybe this is how Republicans feel when they see Bill Clinton. Well - probably not Bill Clinton - maybe Hillary Clinton. Who knows.

What's next?

Well, in New Hampshire first you're going to notice Kerry switching places with Dean. You'll have Kerry in first, Dean in second, and Clark in third with about 15 percent.

Clark needs to win over the undecideds like Kerry and Edwards did in Iowa. People in New Hampshire already know John Kerry and Howard Dean - they are near their ceiling.

Wesley Clark and John Edwards have plenty of room to move upwards, however.

We'll see - I'll probably change my mind in about 10 minutes.

Best quote of the day (besides YAHHHHH!!!!!!!)

Just two hours to go before Dubyanocchio lays his State of the Union No. 3 on us. If you’re wise, you’ll listen to that man rather than watch him because it’s better to throw a shoe and wreck your radio than it is to smash the television.


-From DailyKos

Umm...yikes...

Yes, Dean made a fool of himself last night - but have you listened to it yet???

Nuts!!!

Think Letterman/Leno/The Daily Show/etc. are going to have a field day with this?

Dean done?

Last night I wasn't so sure. He has plenty of money still. But when I read about his bizarre speech to supporters last night I began to wonder - is Dean finished? Will his support erode further in New Hampshire? That has to be the result of all of this.

Dean can have all the money he wants, but if the entire media is against him (which it is) he won't get anywhere. Last night's incident sets him back even further...

Could Dean repeat his Iowa performance in New Hampshire? It's possible. Right now, I think New Hampshire is anyone's race.

If Dean loses, oh, 10% of his supporters in NH, where would they go? Not to Kerry. Probably to Edwards and Clark.

Excellent piece on Daily Kos

Read this.

What is Dean going to do?

Is Dean going to go negative or positive after this? Is he going to change his strategy?

As much as I don't want Dean to win this nomination, I feel for him tonight. I think he'd lose the election because of his tax plan and his religion problem...But I think this whole, "He's too angry" thing is just a media creation, and an obnoxious one at that.

All eyes on Gephardt

Gephardt of course dropped out recently - but who will he endorse? And does it actually matter?

Is this a setback to Clark?

Clark certainly does not benefit from a John Kerry victory.

However - John Kerry is not a strong candidate. They didn't know him in Iowa - they know him in New Hampshire. I'm just not sure that he can get much higher in New Hampshire, although I might be wrong.

The dynamics of the race will change dramatically.

Kerry???

I'm just utterly baffled by the rise of John Kerry. His nasty attacks on Dean just didn't seem like the ticket to victory...

Let's not undervalue the effect of that wacky Club for Growth ad...I think it might have had the effect that the "Nominate this Man" Cover of National Review had...

Everyone is so scared that Bush will be reelected that they don't want to risk it on a unelectable candidate.

I also think that Iowans firmly rejected the middle class tax increase plans of Gephardt and Dean. It turns out that even Democrats don't like tax increases...

Remember this:

Dean on Larry King

Dean has been great on Larry King. He congratulated Kerry and Edwards and just said, "We got our ticket punched in Iowa, and we're gonna move on."

"If you were going to tell me a year ago that I was going to finish 3rd in Iowa, I would have been delighted."

As of 8:45...

It's Edwards 33%, Kerry 30%, Dean 18%, and Gephardt 11%....

Good lord....

McGovern endorses Clark

If only my blog had a laugh track...

Here's the link.

Space?

It's been a week now...has this idea been thrown in the garbage yet?

Iowa

Iowa is a completely undemocratic joke. Sorry I was so late on this one.

John Kerry

For a few months now, I've written John Kerry off as completely irrelevant.

He still is. He doesn't have enough money or grassroots support to compete with Dean in the long run. He'll do well in Iowa. Perhaps that will propel him to a second place finish in New Hampshire, but he's already low on money and can't compete with Dean in the long run. So his "surge" is troubling to those of us who worry about a Dean candidacy. Kerry's only potential effect on this race (by sticking around) is to split the "anti-Dean" vote and ensure a Dean nomination.

It's worth going over the Kerry weaknesses, since I haven't in a while.
Kerry is basically Al Gore Version 2004. He'll come across as a robotic elitist panderer in the general election. I'm not convinced that his Vietnam experience will really help him in the general election. Sadly, the general public doesn't seem to care about those who served in Vietnam...

Secular candidates

Howard Dean is a pretty secular candidate. By that, I mean he awkwardly "believes" in Christ or something similar, but rarely (until recently) mentions it to the public. It's time Democrats stopped criticizing Dean for being so secular - I seriously doubt that anyone in this country actually cares whether their leaders use "God" in speeches or not.

Until recently, Dean's response to the "What are your religious practices?" question was to say, "I rarely go to church, but I pray privately." Is anyone out there actually offended by those statements? Sure, some religious wackos on the right...but are swing voters? No. No one cares. If Dean were out espousing Atheism, then that would be a problem.

The problem is when Dean tries to fake being a religious person. Moments like the "My favorite New Testament book is Job" make him seem fake and ridiculous. That's what Dean needs to avoid. He needs to simply tell the truth about his religious practices, and it shouldn't be a problem.

Let's be honest here

Does anyone really believe that Clark is an anti-war candidate? He's a waffler just like the rest of them (excluding Lieberman and Gephardt).

Kerry's gone back and forth. Howard Dean became an anti-war candidate out of political expediency. And with Clark - well you can find quotes that support both sides.

Let us not forget Bill Clinton's remarks when asked about the first Gulf War:

"I guess I would have voted with the majority if it was a close vote. But I agree with the arguments the minority made."

Time for predictions

I think the turnout in Iowa will far surpass the 100,000 many have predicted. Here's the predicted order and percentages:

Dean - 28%
Edwards - 25%
Kerry -25%
Gephardt - 20%
Kucinich - 1%

Kerry/Edwards surge

Edwards and Kerry have been making a much reported "surge". Say they finish poorly in Iowa - does that basically derail their candidacies?

The person who has the most to gain in Iowa is actually Dean. The expectations have been lowered for him, so should he win Iowa it would be a "surprise" and he would get momentum.