has already passed. Just remember who predicted Edwards before it became obvious to all. And why is it obvious now, if not a week ago? Well, if the conventional wisdom is true, that Dems are so incensed about Bush that they'll overlook their doctrinal differences to win, than it ought to become increasingly obvious from here on out that Kerry can't, both because he has no appeal at all in the South and because his appeal in the North is decidedly conditional.
And the good Doctor from the Northeast has already been spurned as a non-contender. The fellow can't even manage his own campaign resources, or keep from dumping his best assets to save face. And because Edwards is less tainted by the "Copperhead" associations, he'll pick up the Lieberman votes now that Joe can't use them. This will add to the momentum he has picked up in SC and (quite possibly) in OK, where he may even beat out Clark. Finally, have you noticed what a stunner the guy is? He could charm the socks off Christiane Amanpour, which is no mean feat. Now that it's basically a two person race the "charisma gap" will be unmistakable.
The notion that either Clark or Kerry could give Bush a run on the National Security issue is just a patent appeal to the presumed stupidity of voters, who'll supposedly swoon over military men with all their pretty medals. How foolish can Terry Mcauliffe be? Well, that's rhetorical I guess. These are serious issues, and that sort of pandering just won't cut it with adults. Not even anti-Bush adults.
Posted by Demosophist at February 4, 2004 11:44 AM | TrackBackI'm a Democrat who rather dislikes Bush and his policies, for many reasons. I have never voted for other than a Dem presidential candidate.
My #1 issue this time around is National Security. Kerry, Edwards, Dean: every time one of them opens their mouth, they show that in their world, Sept. 11 never happened. They don't get it. Clark wobbles between wierd and scary.
I suspect the election in November will be decided by centrist Democrats like me. How many of us will hold our noses and stick with the party's choice, versus how many will hold our noses and vote for Bush?
As far as the Islamofascist threat, Bush has some shaky ideas and sometimes stumbles with the execution, but it's a real plan, and he's shown determination in carrying it out that wasn't evident in November 2000. Easy call for this Dem: Bush in '04.
Posted by: AMac at February 4, 2004 11:33 PMAMac:
Yeah, I also have my reservations about Bush. And I simply think Edwards is the Democrats' best shot at winning. It doesn't mean I think he'll win. It also looks like the media isn't going to give him quite the "bounce" I thought they might, so perhaps it's too late to catch Kerry.
I too am a "Democrat for Bush." I suppose if I didn't think Armed Liberal's take wasn't spot on I could be talked into voting for someone else, and I just wonder how many people have a rather tentative grip on that logic. Americans were derided by Europeans for thinking there was a link between 9-11 and Saddam, but I think it's rather breathtakingly naieve to think the "bad neighborhood effect" wasn't grave, whether Saddam and Osama were "sparkin' behind the barn" or not. And we can already see the gravitational effects on the region of our presence there.
Posted by: Scott (to AMac) at February 5, 2004 08:12 AMThanks for the link; interesting back-and-forth in the comments. There are a lot of reasonable positions one could take on the War issue(s)--as well as a lot of unreasonable ones.
Different conceptions of the appropriate standard of proof seems to me to be a key and widely unappreciated issue. As an analogy, "everybody" agrees that the criminal-law standard is the right one for answering the question, "should Martha Stewart do time?" Nobody in their right mind would use that standard to select a babysitter for their kid: "Well, I see Jane Doe has been credibly accused several times of child abuse, but never convicted, so I'll hire her."
Kerry, Dean, and Edwards seem to start with the assumption that some mix of Roberts-Rules-of-Order and domestic-criminal-law principles and standards of proof should guide US actions. I guess a large number of Americans must agree, or they wouldn't talk like that.
How thought-through is this position? Do they have some post-Machiavelli understanding of how the world works that I lack? Does it spring from naivete? From some degree of sympathy with the Transnational-Progressive agenda? I'd be interested in knowing, though it won't change my vote come November.
Posted by: AMac at February 5, 2004 11:07 AMIt represents a cripplingly fundamental lack of understanding of how intelligence works and what role it plays in policy. Without getting into a litany of failures, suffice it to say, that intel often goes wrong on really big things. Quite often it is an efficient mechanism for tracking incremental changes, but once in a while, they just get blindsided. And you know what? It's never going to be any better.
Like it or lump it, that's just the way things go.
Posted by: Bravo Romeo Delta at February 6, 2004 09:45 PM