 |
06.25.04
|
WITH FRIENDS LIKE RALPH NADER ...: I was a little worried when I first saw this:
But then I remembered that Nader plans to draw eqaully from Bush and Kerry, and I felt much better.
|
06.24.04
JOHN KERRY SISTER SOULJAHS EUROPE: Looks like Kerry has decided to take Peter Feaver's advice and bash our European allies over their foot-dragging on Iraq. Like Feaver, I think this is a very savvy move. It portrays Kerry as a both a tough guy and a multilateralist, which is about as good as you're going to do with his worldview. (Not that there's anything wrong with being a multilaterlist...) The only risk for Kerry, as Feaver pointed out, is that his jawboning might actually produce some results, which would shore Bush up politically. But, if Kerry is right that most foreign leaders want him to win in November, that risk is pretty small. And, in any case, it would be good for the country and the world if the jawboning did work, so I feel like us Bush-haters are pretty well hedged.
|
06.23.04
PAUL WOLFOWITZ--UNINTENTIONALLY COMING CLEAN: This line from Paul Wolfowtiz's congressional testimony yesterday struck me as pretty amusing:
Frankly, part of our problem [i.e., the reason most Americans think the situation in Iraq is so hopeless] is a lot of the press are afraid to travel very much, so they sit in Baghdad and they publish rumors.
Um, yeah. And who's fault is it that it's too dangerous to travel beyond Baghdad?
(Alright, technically it's the insurgents' fault. But who's proven completely incompetent at fighting the insurgency, and in preventing it from materializing in the first place?)
|
06.22.04
|
THE NEW WASHINGTON POST POLL--EVEN BETTER NEWS THAN YOU THINK: It's not hard to interpret the Washington Post/ABC News poll released yesterday as good news for John Kerry. The poll shows Kerry extending his lead over Bush to four points with Ralph Nader in the mix, and to eight points in a head-to-head matchup with Bush. Also, as the Post story notes in its lead, Kerry has completely erased Bush's edge when it comes to dealing with terrorism.
In fact, I think the news may be slightly better than even those numbers suggest. According to the poll, the percentage of respondents who said the war in Iraq was justified is 47, versus 52 percent who said it wasn't, the highest such number ever recorded in the Post/ABC poll. Meanwhile, the percentage of respondents who said the United States is making progress in establishing a democratic government in Iraq rose to 50 percent from 37 percent last month. Taken together, I think the implication of these two sets of responses is that Americans consider the question of whether the war was a good idea separate from the question of whether we're successful at setting up an Iraqi government. This is critical since it suggests Kerry could benefit from the persistent--even growing--feeling that the war was a mistake even as views about the management of postwar Iraq improve, which is likely to continue after the handoff of power at the end of the month.
UPDATE: Kenny Baer makes a compelling case that, despite the finding in the Post/ABC poll, Kerry is still trailing Bush when it comes to fighting terrorism. He doesn't, however, attempt to explain why the poll would show Kerry leading Bush on terrorism if that's not actually true. Thoughts welcome. ...
|
06.21.04
|
TODAY'S HIGHLY IRRESPONSIBLE VEEP SPECULATION: The latest issue of Newsweek reports that "Kerry sources" say the vice presidential contest has become a two-man race between Tom Vilsack and Dick Gephardt. Vilsack's only advantage, as far as I can tell, is the freshness/boldness factor. Of course, that's been a relatively important criterion for recent Democratic nominees (see Joe Lieberman in 2000 and Al Gore in 1992). And it could be for Kerry, too--particularly since he isn't viewed as the freshest or boldest guy around. But I think Gephardt's selling points (lack of political ambition, ample national experience, and the ability to carry a vote-rich swing state--Iowa in my book is neither vote-rich nor a bona fide swing state) put him over the top. That's assuming, of course, that Newsweek is right about these being the lone remaining contenders...
|
|
HOW THE CLINTON BOOK HURTS KERRY: I think the Clinton book will end up exciting hard-core Democrats and Republicans more or less equally, making it basically a wash politically. I'm not moved by the idea that the comparison with Clinton will be unfavorable to Kerry, charisma-wise. (Yes, but so what? Only Kerry is on the ballot, and the book isn't going to make Democrats any less fired up about beating Bush.) And I don't think memories of Lewinsky and impeachment per se will hurt Kerry. (It wasn't Kerry who fooled around with an intern. And, in any case, impeachment ended up helping Democrats in the 1998 midterm elections, when it looked to voters like Republicans were overreaching.)
But one slightly more subtle effect concerns me. David Kirkpatrick reports in today's Times that:
Bush campaign allies are reviving talk about the honor and dignity of the Oval Office in thinly veiled references to the Clinton years.
"I have found that the best way to get a rousing response from a crowd is to say that whatever disagreements you may have with President Bush on one issue or another, nobody can argue that he hasn't restored honor to the White house," said Gary L. Bauer, chairman of the organization American Values. "I think there is a reason that the Kerry people were not all that excited about this book coming out now."
The White House has tried on several occasions to frame the election as a referendum on a very narrowly-defined understanding of the president's "character." (How many times have you heard that Bush is sure of his convictions, willing to make tough decisions, committed to doing what's right, etc.?) The reason is obvious: Doing so deflects attention from the administration's colossal failures abroad and its borderline-corrupt policies at home, and therefore represents Bush's best hope of being reelected. If the Clinton book helps the White House in this regard, even slightly, then it could be a devastating blow to Kerry's chances of winning.
|
06.18.04
|
HIGHLY IRRESPONSIBLE VEEP SPECULATION, CONT'D: But, first, a short CYA (CMA?) observation: All vice presidential speculation at this point faces a basic epistemological problem: It's highly likely John Kerry hasn't made up his own mind yet. If that's true, then it's literally impossible to know who he's going to pick at this point--even if you had perfect insight into his thought process. Or, to put it differently, my highly irresponsible veep speculation (HIVS) could be right on target with respect to the direction Kerry is leaning right now. But, if Kerry himself subsequently changes course, then that speculation will look way off base in retrospect. (The beauty of this epistemological dilemma is that I can always claim in retrospect that my speculation was accurate at the time it was offered. In fact, I will almost certainly do this, so please no e-mails.)
Now back to the previously scheduled HIVS, which begins with today's juicy Washington Post piece puzzling out what Kerry is looking for in a running mate. According to the piece, there are basically four criteria at play:
1.) The candidate should have enough gravitas to be an effective president should the need arise.
2.) The candidate should avoid upstaging Kerry as a politician. The corollary to this is that the candidate should have limited political amibitions, so that his primary focus is on what's best for the Kerry campaign/administration, not his own career.
3.) The candidate should balance out Kerry's reputation as a Northeastern liberal--the balance could be ideological, cultural, or both.
4.) The candidate should have a good personal rapport with Kerry.
The Post piece also offers the following caveats about the selection process.
A.) Pace Chris Heinz's quote in yesterday's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Kerry isn't so concerned about foreign policy heft. He thinks he clears that bar on his own.
B.) Kerry is adamant about not repeating what he thinks were mistakes of the 1984 selection process, in which "the Democratic nominee was seen as interviewing people only to please constituencies," as the Post puts it.
C.) Kerry doesn't think vice presidential nominees have much effect on the outcome of presidential campaigns.
With all that in mind, what can we say about Gephardt and Edwards, who remain the two most likely candidates?
Criterion 1 clearly favors Gephardt, who exudes gravitas, even if caveat A makes it slightly less of a disqualifier for Edwards. Still, as the Post points out, Kerry reportedly groused to aides, "What makes [Edwards] think he can be president?" once he'd sown up the nomination. This does not bode well for Edwards. (Caveat A also raises the question of what Chris Heinz was smoking before he spoke to the Post-Gazette yesterday. More on that later.)
Criterion 2 also clearly favors Gephardt, who is widely known to be content with ending his career in public service after the 2004 election. Edwards, of course, is a likely candidate for president in 2008 if Kerry loses, and 2012 or 2016 if Kerry wins.
Edwards probably has the edge when it comes to Criterion 3. The Post reports that "Edwards's stock has shot up in recent weeks as private polling shows the freshman senator providing a boost to the ticket in key states because of his southern appeal and perceived likeability." But I think it's an exceedingly small edge, since Gephardt has plenty of blue-collar bona fides himself. And, in any case, caveat C would seem to mitigate the importance of this consideration.
Criterion 4 is a no-brainer for Gephardt, whom Kerry reportedly would have endorsed had he dropped out of the race early. By contrast, it's been widely reported that Kerry was annoyed at Edwards's decision to prolong the primary campaign after Kerry had become the overwhelming favorite to win. (Though, it should be pointed out, anonymous "aides" tell the Post that the Kerry-Edwards relationship has warmed in recent months.)
Finally, for what it's worth, caveat B suggests that Wednesday's longish Kerry-Gephardt meeting on Capitol Hill was unlikely to be a Kabuki dance staged for the benefit of key Democratic constituencies, like labor.
Put all this together and you have to admit that Gephardt is the clear favorite at this point. And I think he remains the favorite even if you expand the pool of potential candidates beyond him and Edwards. Bob Graham and Wesley Clark look like longshots for reasons I pointed out yesterday. (And, in any case, the Post piece reports that Clark is more or less out of the running.) Iowa governor Tom Vilsack has many of the same flaws as Edwards, with the exception of his personal rapport with Kerry. Bill Richardson probably presents serious upstaging/future ambition risks, and it's not clear that he survived Kerry's vetting process.
One final thought on the matter: Mickey Kaus raises a very good point:
Q.: If you were a mischievous Bush person and wanted to make some trouble for John Kerry, what would you do? A.: Start a rumor that Kerry has picked John Edwards as his running mate. That will ratchet up the current press buzz that Edwards is the inevitable, obvious choice, due to his charismatic brilliance as a campaigner. Then, if Kerry doesn't want to choose Edwards, he will a) be faced with annoying unwanted pressure and b) look like a vain man who doesn't want to be upstaged. If Edwards is the pick, then a) the pre-emptive rumor will blow the big surprise of Kerry's announcement and b) Kerry will look like he's been stampeded. It's win win! And it won't be a hard rumor to start. ...
Though the Edwards's boomlet is no doubt genuine (even if it's being fanned partly by devious Bushies), the fact that Edwards has come to be seen as either the prohibitive favorite or the most deserving of a spot on the ticket is a serious problem for Kerry. As a result, I think it's possible that all the talk (some of it sprinkled throughout the Post piece) of how Kerry is looking for a candidate with heft may be partly designed to walk back some of the Edwards speculation. This benefits Kerry whether or not he ends up picking Edwards--for the converse of the reasons Mickey lays out. (That is, if Kerry ends up picking Edwards, it will look less like he's bowed to political pressure. And if he doesn't pick Edwards, then he won't be wronging the guy who "deserved" it.)
Also, if this is part of what's going on, then the explanation for the Chris Heinz quote may simply be that he botched his talking points. What Heinz said was, "I was very pro-Edwards in the spring. But now I think we may need someone with stronger credentials on foreign policy." It's entirely possible that what Heinz was supposed to say was, "I was very pro-Edwards in the spring. But now I think we may need someone who has more experience," and that he just confused foreign policy gravitas with overall gravitas. Or it could be that Heinz doesn't have any idea what's going on and was speaking out of school.
UPDATE: Here's the link to that Heinz piece, if anyone wants to read it for themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
RSS FEED |
|
|
