Wow, the ineffective campaigner and doorstop impersonator who blew the '00 election has endorsed Dean. That should just about wrap things up - why bother even to hold the primaries?
If I was Gore, I wouldn’t be making any big plans for my Cabinet appointment.
And this just in, via Sludge Report:
Clark says he’s not ruled out Hillary Clinton as possible veep
"On the presidential campaign trail Tuesday, Wesley Clark said he has not ruled out Hillary Clinton as his running mate, if he wins the Democratic presidential nomination.
Clark praised the New York senator as a great person and a great leader and said he’s admired her for 20 years."
http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2003/12/09/clark_says_hes_not_ruled_out_hillary_clinton_as_possible_veep/
well, now, wouldn’t that set the cat amongst the pigeons!
Lieberman? Lieberman Don’t talk to me Lieberman! That shrimp? He’s just a prawn of the ruling class.
Gore is very very smart. He wants to be Pres himself very very badly. But this year, he decided to step out, so as not to be seen as a “loser” and also because Bush will have a good chance of being re-elected- because ANYone stands a good chance of being re-elected. Why run against an incumbent?
Thus, Gore picked a man who is very popular with the Dem masses and left wings- but has no chance of winning the actual election. Thus, Dean will win the Dem primary, but get crushed by Bush. Thus then, in another 4 years, Gore can step in and run again- and he’ll have the gratitude of Deans backers, but also the moderate Dems will realize that their party can’t win unless they back a Moderate from a Southern State. And, the GOP has no one on the horizon- certainly not Cheney.
And that’s my opinion- the Dems cannot win the general election unless they back a Southern Moderate. Dean has no chance. Gore is backing hiom to teach the liberal wing a lesson and to garner support amoung the younger voters and that wing.
Clark could well win the General Election- his problem is winning the Primary. Like “Scoop” Jackson in the 70’s.
Unfortunately, Bush’s papers as governor of Texas aren’t sealed.
Cyber- yeah, sure, Bush hasn’t shown better than 50% in a poll. How many of those polls are against unnamed “Generic Democrat” candidates? No specific candidate ever does as good as a generic candidate, and keep in mind that this “less than 50%” was before news of the economy turn-around began filtering through.
Unless you can find me a single poll showing Howard Dean beating George Bush, I stick by my 54%.
Have you always had this streak of morbid pessimism?
But seriously folks…
I would be stunned, John, to see Dean having any standing at all. As has been emphasized again and again, only a fraction of the public is paying much attention to these primary shenanigans. Its only on the news as a sop to the “public interest” aspect of broadcasting, so long as it doesn’t directly conflict with the Michael Jackson story. About the only people I would expect to know anything about Dean are people directly exposed to him or his campaign advertising.
GeeDubya gets to run campaign ads whenever he feels like, and he can use Air Force One to do it. Something of an advantage, wouldn’t you agree? Hell, if there were a reliable poll showing Dean was even with GeeDubya, I wouldn’t know whether to shit or go bowling.
At this point of time most of the voters dont know much about the Democratic candidates including Dean so the name-specific polls are aren’t of much use. The generic polls have their limitations but they are the best available at the moment.
In truth nobody knows how moderate voters will react to Dean and it will be summer before we find out. However it is clear from current polls that Bush’s level of support is mediocre at best and that Dean runs an effective campaign operation. That is why I think he will be a tough candidate.
Hee hee! My first thought was that Dean must me saying…
D’Oh!
BCS stands for (illegitimate child) + (crowing rooster) + (Tootsie Pops)
Gore’s endorsement is a big deal. Big enough that I think that if no other surprise events occur (a big Dean gaffe, Hillary getting in the race either as a nominee or VP, etc), Dean has this nomination sewn up.
But he’s a dangerous candidate. A loose cannon. He makes a lot of mistakes. He also appears to be not very bright in a lot of ways. He has said things recently that, if Quayle had said them, would have had the left on this board rolling in the aisles with laughter (for example, repeatedly referring to Putin as leader of “The Soviet Union”, or saying things that seem to indicate he doesn’t understand the limits of the federal government).
On the other hand, if he avoids making a major gaffe, his shoot-from-the-hip attitude could do serious damage to Bush.
But the smart money today is that Dean wins the nomination, and then gets absolutely crushed by Bush in the general election.
It’s clear Gore has an eye toward the future with this move. He put his money on Dean, and if the horse wins, Gore, I’m sure, expects to cash in. Dean appears to be the frontrunner, so it’s not a terrible surprise.
But upsets happen. Bill C. came from outta nowhere to win the Iowa primary. Gore isn’t exactly risk-averse (he ran for president, after all), and Lieberman, his former running-mate, would be a higher-stakes bet by far. We’re talking top-level cabinet position, in the event Lieberman won. I’m not sure he could count on that with Dean.
Gore must think Lieberman hasn’t got a chance of winning the election, even if he wins the party’s nomination.
Why, d’ya think? Here’s a theory: Lieberman is a Jew. The folks the Dems need to steal from the Bush camp to win the election ain’t gonna vote for a Jew, methinks. It’s a disgusting thought, but seeing this country has managed to elect only one non-WASP, for crying-out-loud, I can’t imagine Lieberman’s heritage hasn’t got something to do with it. Women can be vice-presidents, theoretically. Jew’s, too. Maybe even blacks (Colin Powell once may have had the cachet to buck this trend)…but as the Prez? In the USA? I just don’t see it, I hate to say. Think Gore figured on this?
Umm going with the concept of the Dems setting up Dean for a fall, is it possible that Gore is acting in concert with the Clintons ?
The democrats must have people that do political pulse watches , like the republicans, figure that G Bush has 04 won , unless something major happens ,and will concentrate on 08.
The democratic stable seems to be on the weak side of the equation at the moment , while it does have flash. So that if Bush does win in 04 , would the Clintons have kept their back room promises ,while still retaining controll over the DNC ?
Bear in mind that politics is the epitome of backroom deals and both sides play the game , so I am not out to screw the dems on that alone.
Not sure about Bill , but someone would sure be machiveliian in the Dem camp , if Gore was being a darkhorse.
Declan
Loopydude: I’m sure that went into the calculus. Politics is nothing if not brutal.
However, Lieberman could easily have overcome this obstacle just as JFK did. But you know, the first rule of politics is, listen closely now: You have to give the voters a reason to vote for you! Muskie forgot this in '72, when he was rolling up endorsements from the Dem establishment only to be blindsided by McGovern, and Bush the First forgot this when he more or less assumed he was a shoo-in because of Gulf War I.
Dean has to watch out for Hillary, and in this regard, this is the real story behind the Gore endorsement. This was designed to take the thunder away from Hillary*, who attended a big deal function in Iowa as the emcee or something, if I’m not mistaken. Hillary was Dean’s biggest short-term problem. Take care of the short term and the long term will take care of itself.
For Gore, he gets out of it the chance to majorly undercut the Clintons. He obviously despises them, and this was his big chance to throw a monkey-wrench into Hillary’s flirtation with running. Basically, he’s yelling “Shit or get off the pot!”
The Clintons, probably, are looking at the economic numbers and figuring '08 would be a better chance. They haven’t digested the fact that Bush is hugely vulnerable on Iraq. By the time they do figure that out, it’ll hopefully be too late.
Like I said at the last presidential election, the winner’s last name will have 4 letters.
Would Dean take Gore as his running mate?
I doubt it ever crossed his mind.
Seriously, the guy who ran with a Jew on the ticket is suddenly worried about anti-Semitic swing voters? Besides, the kind of people who would never vote for a Jew are probably the same people who think all the Dems are tools of the Masons or Illuminati or ZOG.
Actually, I think rather than Gore working WITH the Clintons, he may be working AGAINST them. Dean is not the Clinton’s choice for nominee - Wesley Clark is. Clark met with the Clintons extensively before announcing his nomination, and has several of Clinton’s advisors working for him. And now Clark is saying that he may ask Hillary to be his running mate.
Remember how Gore snubbed Clinton during the election by not mentioning him? And how Clinton did the same thing to Gore? I suspect that there is little love lost between them.
What we may be seeing is Wesley Clark and Howard Dean being used as proxies in a fight between Gore and the Clintons.
Sam Stone: exactly.
Clark wouldn’t survive the comments of retired military personnel. As you pointed out, his military record is his springboard. His only chance, which he has publicly not ruled out, would be Hillary as VP.
I feel sorry for Lieberman. Not even a kiss from Gore before he got “Kerried”.
I think you forget that, from my perspective, a Bush victory means that the glass is at least half-full.
As for the early predictions- yeah, sure, it’s true that no one is paying attention to the race, and therefore no one knows who Howard Dean is. No Democrat should be happy about that, though: just as no plan survives contact with the enemy, so too does no candidate survive contact with the news media.
Howard Dean is unknown to the general populace- but getting known never produces a boost. Getting known always results in a drop in the polls, as voters who love the ideal Democrat say fie upon actual Democrats forced to hold realistic opinions. As Dean is defined- by his own campaign, sure, but also by the Republicans and by the news media- he is guaranteed to drop more support than he gains.
Well, let me just suggest this- right now, Howard Dean is the juggernaut. He has more money than anoyone, he’s higher in the polls than anyone, and he’s collected more endorsements than anyone. So long as his opponents squabble and scrape and refuse to band behind one or two other viable candidates, Dean is a guaranteed winner even before anyone has a chance to vote.
If I were a Democrats, I’d be A) pissed that my eventual vote doesn’t mean a damned thing because the pundits- and therefore the money and the insiders and all the rest- have determined the winner three months before I had a say and B) scared to death. Absolutely freaking scared to death. Because how much do any of us know about Howard Dean? At this point in 1991, none of the issues which became leg-irons on Clinton’s candidacy in '92- the draft letter, the bimbo eruptions- had broached the light of day. The Democrats are about to annoint Howard Dean, and I’ll bet even money that at least three scandals hit Dean before the convention, because every politician has three scandals. Gephardt, Kerry- these are people whose scandals we know. Howie Dean? Nobody knows him, and he could explode in a shower of giblets before he even has a chance to select a running mate.
Therefore, it seems to me that it’d be best for there to be at least one, strong, viable alternative to Howard Dean so that there’s an alternate should Dean suddenly turn out to be three gnomes in a giant mechancial suit, or whatever else might pass for a scandal these days.
Are you reffering to the bit making the rounds on Pubie blogs? If so, good to see the Republican lie machine starting up again. In the interview in question (with Matthews) Dean first reffers to it as “the former Soviet Union,” which makes sense, since he’s talking about buying up nuke material that’s floating around, and it’s in more than just modern day Russia, but in many of the formerly Soviet states. Only later in the interview does he just say Soviet Union. Given that he already identified it’s usage, it’s hard to see how its much of a major gaffe, and presenting it devoid of the “former” context is just plain dishonest.