July 21, 2003
The Nine vs. The One
The Washington Post’s Dan Balz does a nice job of fielding questions, hypothetical and empirical, on the Democrat’s primary candidate field. Among other things he notes it odd that only an insurgent (Dean) has emerged before an established candidate (Kerry, Lieberman or Edwards), not visa versa; and he doubts any one will drop out before March pimaries.
Balz’s Q&A page is a good primer on the field which has to contend against what the L.A. Times describes as a Republican party with dreams of a political dominion, lunging along behind candidate Bush’s $34 million coattails.
Posted by Ry Rivard at July 21, 2003 06:47 PMPundits are almost never right, especially this far out.
Clinton had not yet announced at this point in the 1992 cycle. He had not yet bounced back at this point in the 1996 cycle. And at this point in 2000 Al Gore looked unbeatable.
To the pundits.
Don’t believe a word they predict.
Posted by: Dana Blankenhorn at July 22, 2003 07:53 AMSenator Clinton and Bill are watching President Bush’s approval rating free fall and making plans. If GWB’s approval rating drops below 50%, and then she seems to be suddenly more visible, she is running.
Posted by: JJ at July 22, 2003 09:13 AMI don’t think the Kerry camp is being cocky but they know that they can take down Howard Dean. He has had no national security experience, no national politics, and he did not go to Vietnam. Hell Dean sounds like the resume of GW Bush.
Posted by: Jake of 8bitjoystick.com at July 22, 2003 02:55 PMWell it is funny to watch you liberals OBSESSED with Bush as the Republicans were obsessed with Clinton. Welcome to Waterloo as i watch you self destruct as you actually think Dean can beat Bush. Now THAT is high concept comedy. please.
Posted by: pete at July 23, 2003 01:27 AMJake is right though. There resumes are similar (heh) i was just thinking the other day about this though. Imagine your dad is the head of the CIA. Do you think it would be a good idea for your son to go to Vietnam? Hmmm. Prolly not. What Bush should have done though is showed up for drill when he was supposed to. That would be a good start.
Posted by: pete at July 23, 2003 12:56 PMSadly, I think it really comes down to the economy.
If it is doing really bad still, GWB will be in trouble. If picks up and generates some jobs, I doubt anyone will beat him.
I don’t think Dean is anyhwhere near as leftist as some paint him, but the painting is working. And he is investing a lot in the anti-war talk, which could really backfire unless things were to go horribly wrong in Iraq (which I hope they don’t my best friend could be over there soon, flying helicopters).
The Dems really still lack a clear message. But at this point, it is damn near impossible to predict.
Posted by: Timothy Klein at July 23, 2003 04:11 PMTimothy, why do you express sadness that the economy may decide who becomes president? The economy is the primary issue that affects all of us. Indeed, it affects our nations world view. A candidates position on how to keep the economy rolling is still the most important issue in any campaign..
Posted by: Rick at July 23, 2003 09:48 PMRick, I should have been more clear.
I think the Pres. has extremely limited ability to control the economy, and thus it is a bad measure of a candidate. Even worse, the things that a Pres. *can* do to control the economy are often nothing more than throwing the dice and praying.
Thus, I think it is sad the it is often such a large factor.
Posted by: Timothy Klein at July 23, 2003 10:13 PMA lot of Democratic experts had a preferred candidate in 1979. They were licking their chops, hoping the Republicans would be stupid enough to nominate…Ronald Reagan.
Careful what you wish for, people.
Posted by: Dana Blankenhorn at July 24, 2003 08:53 PM
