If Dean were our man...

[feinstein9]

Posted: 9/30/04 at 5:12am

There was an interesting essay in the back of Time magazine this week. It presumed that if Dean were the candidate instead of Kerry, the issue would not be flip-floping, but the war. dean voted against the war, and therefore would not be accused of being indecisive. now thinking about all the war protesters, do you think that the polls would read differently, with dean in a clear lead? the campaign would could focus on the fatalities in this pointless war, and fully attack the lack of intelligence in the bush cabinet. kerry can't do this because his position on the war is unclear. So what do you think- that we'd have a better chance of winning if Dean were the nominee, or that we're doing okay with Kerry?

[Plum]

Posted: 9/30/04 at 9:46am

I'm already on the record about this, but what the hey.

I think what happened during the primaries was atrocious. The spite campaign against Dean was absolutely disgusting and touched on nothing of substance. The jittery Democrats, refusing to have confidence in their actual policy positions, decided that what they needed was someone who would look "tough" on national security. So who better than the guy with military medals?

Kerry didn't win the nomination because of any particular quality or charisma; he won because of his war record. He's about as compelling as wallpaper. Say what you want about Dean, but he inspired people- especially people my age- to get involved in politics and to believe that they could change the country. Since when has Kerry inspired anything but golf claps?

Posted: 9/30/04 at 11:31am

I've said before that I think the primary system is crap. Why should Vermont and the other early primaries get to pick the candidate? A candidate (like Dean) gets poor results in one of the early states then drops out before people in other states have the chance to vote for them.

It doesn't seem right.

What if the main election was that way?
Imagine this:

California, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, and Illinois all get to vote on Monday and the results are announced.

Then on Tuesday all of the other states with the exception of say, Alabama get to vote and the results are announced.

If there is a clear winner that that point, why would the people of Alabama bother to vote on Wednesday?

[Auggie27]

Posted: 9/30/04 at 11:39am

Plum, you may take a swing (STATE!) at me: I'm one of those desperate Democrats who too readily joined the bandwagon during the primary -- I, too, thought the War Hero status/moniker was definitively profile-enhancing. Mea culpa. I was sooo wrong, and the Time back page is damned shrewd. Behind closed doors, many folks feel that way these days. John Kerry is a good man -- but talk about the wrong sensibilities at the wrong time.

I've spent the last two months bemoaning the salute at the convention ("reporting for duty" -- ugh, what regrettable strategy!) and all the Viet Nam era trappings that supported it. But the problem is bigger than the convention, it's primary season based --it's using John Kerry as the Trojan Horse, the only means to whup the elitist faux cowboy. It's been a fizzle, words I still hope, somehow, to take back tomorrow. But with the "debate" a series of parallel sound bytes -- not even press conference-styled -- I fear the evening moves into the Rove plus column. Like most of the campaign.

Updated On: 9/30/04 at 11:39 AM

[WOSQ]

Posted: 9/30/04 at 11:48am

Dean may have inspired a lot of folks, but Kerry won the nomination with old fashioned organizing. Dean's base was loyal and fanatic, but that didn't translate into warm bodies at the Iowa caucuses or in the early primaries.

Kerry in a much more saleable candidate than Dean since he can make a claim at the middle at Bush's expense. Dean would have been painted (not unlike McGovern, a candidacy that I supported 32 years ago) as a part of the radical left and the middle would have run to Bush and given that little snot a landslide.

Kerry's war record helps sell him to the middle. Bush's war record is one of a child seeking approval from his father's friends.

Kerry is not a perfect candidte. Who is? He's a damn sight better than the incumbent.

As my own postscript--look at Bush's eyes. There's nothing there and never has been. He has no life inside his head.

Posted: 9/30/04 at 11:51am

"look at Bush's eyes. There's nothing there and never has been. He has no life inside his head."

Maybe if he got botox like Kerry his eyes would look better!

[WOSQ]

Posted: 9/30/04 at 1:06pm

No, there would still be nothing there.

It is Bush's eyes, not the skin around them that I look at.

Posted: 9/30/04 at 1:11pm

Ah! thanks for clarifying. I, on the other hand was making a joke.

[Plum]

Posted: 9/30/04 at 3:00pm

No, Bush got a nose job.

Anyway, choosing Kerry based on his medals is still choosing style over substance. And Democrats don't have a very good sense of style if they thought a few medals could overcome the fact that Kerry has all the charisma of (insert inanimate object here).

And better to have primaries than to just have party flunkies meet behind closed doors to decide who gets to be the candidate. Having all the primaries on the same day would be an intersting idea though, especially for this ex-resident of New Jersey. (Otherwise known as one of the last 2 states to vote.)