comeback kid

January 19, 2004 6:34 PM

John Kerry suprises Howard Dean, the pundits, and much of the nation with what looks like a solid win in Iowa after being counted out of the race. Perhaps its time to take a second look at Kerry.
posted by specialk420 (153 comments total)

Astonishing....I wrote Kerry off months ago...the real surprise here is Edwards. You guys ought to look at him because he might acutally be able to win some votes in the South. Of course, he's not as left wing as the hard core Dems may like....
posted by Durwood at 6:40 PM on January 19, 2004

I think Edwards is a bigger suprise.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:40 PM on January 19, 2004

I recall Kerry, while his poll numbers were in a nosedive, telling some talking head that the day after Iowa, he'd be asking Kerry how he did it. Kerry must've had one hell of a team out there, and I think everyone underestimated him. His comeback is something of a shocker, but Edwards is an even bigger surprised. His showing is absolutely stunning. I would've expected him in a distant third at best, but now he's just a few points away from first.

Consdering how much he put into Iowa, Gephardt is done. I doubt he'll hold out much longer. Dean still has power, and it'll be interesting to see how he holds up in NH, especially after this. Of course, this could all mean nothing. Clinton got a whopping 2.8% in '92. And look what happened to him.
posted by punishinglemur at 6:42 PM on January 19, 2004

Kerry is the best man to beat Bush in the fall ...despite a couple warts.

any thoughts on a veep for Kerry (if he keeps this rolling)?Bill Richardson would make an excellent choice in my opinion.
posted by specialk420 at 6:48 PM on January 19, 2004

Also, Dean may have been knocked down by non-stop attacks from the other candidates, the right, and the media brought on by his front-runner status. Now that Kerry and Edwards have stolen the spotlight, perhaps Dean will be able to recover from the attacks and let Kerry and Edwards take a beating, giving Dean the edge in NH. We'll see.

I have to agree with specialk420 that Kerry would be a good guy to put up against Bush. Perhaps the Iowa voters began looking to who they thought could defeat Bush, rather than who's views were closest to their own.
posted by punishinglemur at 6:51 PM on January 19, 2004

I agree, Edwards is the bigger story here. Afterall, wasn't Kerry "suppose" to be the Democrat nominee? Edwards may not do well in New Hampshire, but I think he makes a big move in February and will be the eventual nominee. Edwards seems to have a better more detailed plan than the other candidates, and he seems to focus more on his plan and less on negative attacks. I also believe the voters are more likely to select someone from the South than from the Northeast.
posted by munger at 6:55 PM on January 19, 2004

His top political aide sounds like a really sharp guy.
posted by Vidiot at 6:56 PM on January 19, 2004

I like edwards too. I just wish he would age about 10 years real quick. Good guy - good for the dems ... potential veep?
posted by specialk420 at 6:56 PM on January 19, 2004

Why is Kerry a better man against Bush? Didn't all of the polls a few weeks ago have Dean at 46 v. Bush and Kerry was only bringing 43? Just because the man is a politician to the bone doesn't mean that he can perform in November.

Clearly Edwards is the man of the hour here. If he can even show in New Hampshire, he has a chance in February.
posted by jmgorman at 6:56 PM on January 19, 2004

I've heard Edwards speak, and my feeling has always been that people who hear him will like him. It's the media whose attention he hasn't been able to get before now. He deserves the stories that will come out of this—he's been out there on the trail talking in positive terms about the kind of government and society he believes in. I think you could also argue Bush should be especially afraid of him, since he speaks persuasively to people about how his (Democratic) values are different from Bush. I think people will be slower to shut him out with the knee-jerk "What do you mean he has values? Bush is my guy with values."

In short, I think he'd be a terrific nominee, because once the attention is on him, people like what they hear...they're a lot hungrier than many realize to get behind a domestic policy in their own long-term interests (health care, fiscal policy, education and social fabric generally). I think he would truly mop the floor with Bush in a debate. (However much you like Kerry or Dean, people who aren't already believes will tune them out as shrill and "not like me.")

P.S. Edwards has more latent strength in N.H. than you might realize. He's had pretty good in-person exposure (that's how I've seen him). Polls probably show his "positives" better than the measure of people inclined to vote for him...for the simple reason that (until tonight) no one in New Hampshire has thought he had a chance. Prepare for some amount of surge in New Hampshire.
posted by Zurishaddai at 6:58 PM on January 19, 2004

I'm too lazy to look it up now, but Iowa winners and early winning tends to be the kiss of death.
posted by skallas at 6:58 PM on January 19, 2004

Gephardt is dropping out, CNN just said.

I also think Edwards is the big story here...Kerry is the DC establishment choice, and will not play as well elsewhere. I think Dean will recover and have breathing room as Kerry goes after Clark in New Hampshire. (look for Lieberman to drop out the day after New Hampshire too) and congrats, special ; >
posted by amberglow at 6:59 PM on January 19, 2004

Yup. Drudge reporting a Gephardt drop tomorrow. C-SPAN is running an Iowa NBC station, and they're also saying Gephardt drop tomorrow. Apparently he'll be speaking tonight at 9:30-9:45, and then again tomorrow in Missouri.
posted by punishinglemur at 7:01 PM on January 19, 2004

Okay I am dumb: so someone wins Iowa, and then NH, and then SC and then they are the Dem nominee? Or then what? How does it all come together?
posted by xmutex at 7:04 PM on January 19, 2004

so, is anyone here excited by Kerry? think he can beat Bush? (besides special?)

Super Tuesday is the day that decides it.--there are 4 (big) primaries all at once...
posted by amberglow at 7:06 PM on January 19, 2004

skallas. Here you go. The story says the caucus first gained prominence in 1972, when it was pushed back to January. It goes on to say:

A handful of reporters from major newspapers showed up to report that Maine Sen. Edmund Muskie, the favorite to win the caucuses, polled just 35 percent, the same number declaring themselves undecided. The other surprise that night was the strong third-place finish of Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota, the eventual Democratic challenger to President Nixon.

“The name of the game in Iowa has always been expectation,” said Hugh Winebrenner, a caucus historian and political science professor emeritus at Drake University. “McGovern did much better than expected, and that launched him in the primaries that followed.”

... Four years later the surprise came from Jimmy Carter, an unknown Georgia Democrat who ran a low-budget caucus campaign. Carter used momentum from his second-place finish — more voters were undecided than behind any Democrat that year — to win the nomination.

While the 1972 and 1976 results minted Iowa as a political proving ground, Winebrenner says its reputation as a kingmaker is not valid. Caucus winners who failed to win the nomination include Democrats Dick Gephardt in 1988 and Tom Harkin in 1992 and Republicans George H.W. Bush in 1980 and Bob Dole in 1988.


posted by raysmj at 7:09 PM on January 19, 2004

Go look at the history of the silly Iowa caucuses.

Winning in Iowa doesn't mean much as an indicator of who gets the nomination.
posted by Argyle at 7:10 PM on January 19, 2004

So when's Lieberman leaving, is what I want to know.
posted by raysmj at 7:11 PM on January 19, 2004

xmutex: It's not automatically a lock, no; they could get trounced in all the other state primaries. But if you've got that kind of early momentum, it's highly unlikely that you WOULD get trounced in those primaries -- if you're developing a "story" it's going to affect how people vote in later primaries. But just think of it as a slightly modified version of the electoral college.

I'm intrigued by New Hampshire now -- either Dean will come back, or Kerry can ride a wave of frenzied media speculation to the tune of "Dean is dead" and can pick up everyone who's jumping from what they've been convinced is a sinking ship. (If you can't tell, I don't think it is, but anything's possible at this point -- most media outlets do seem to have some bizarre mad-on for Dean...)

And re: Gephardt... good riddance. It seems like nobody ever told the man that he will never ever ever be president ever. Somebody needed to be honest with him... cue Britney's "Overprotected."
posted by logovisual at 7:14 PM on January 19, 2004

In a keynote speech at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, Edwards said that the Republican failures in the 1996 and 1998 elections show the price of running on anger.

“The Republicans were so blinded by their hatred of President Clinton they thought all they had to do was remind the electorate how much they hated him. Well they were dead wrong,” Edwards said. “In 2004, I will make this a contest of ideas, not divisive ideology.” (John Edwards)

I like Clark and I like Dean and I like Kerry, but I like this a lot too. I can see why Sen. Edwards did well.
posted by moonbiter at 7:15 PM on January 19, 2004

Oh yeah: And Edwards needs a better haircut. (These things matter!)
posted by logovisual at 7:16 PM on January 19, 2004

xmutex, by winning primary elections, candidates pick up delegates to take to the national convention in Boston. Then those delegates will vote to determine the eventual nominee. Iowa and New Hampshire get lots of attention because they are the first in the country, and tonight in Iowa was when the whole process actually starts.

The Iowa caucuses don't actually pick the delegates; that would make it a primary election and the DNC's rules are that NH gets first dibs on that. The caucuses pick delegates to county conventions. The county conventions pick delegates to the state convention, which is where national delegates are picked.
posted by Vidiot at 7:16 PM on January 19, 2004

Kerry's website is here: JohnKerry.com. You can find out where he stands on all the major issues.
posted by chaz at 7:19 PM on January 19, 2004

"Gephardt is dropping out, CNN just said."

he won there in '88 (btw Dole won the Republican primary back then and we all know how much good that made him), now he gets demolished by everybody and their brother -- what's he's supposed to do? poor Dick, this is _very_ humiliating -- but he was an "also-ran" from day 1. he just had more gravitas than the other "also-rans" (you know, Kucinich, Moseley-Braun, Lieberman, etc)

I think the biggest story is neither Edwards nor Kerry. the biggest story for me is Dean getting beat by 20 points.
20 points. that's quite an awful lot.

re Edwards: I remember, when it first became apparent that he was planning to run, a lot of "please give us the ambulance-chaser" trash talk from Republicans (a little like the "Please Nominate This Man" NR Dean-foaming-at-the-mouth cover). but as a trial lawyer he's pretty smooth, and he managed to nail that whole "hope- stay positive" message Clinton-in-'92 thing pretty well. of course he doesn't have Kerry's gravitas. and he is inexperienced. but six years in the Senate aren't much less than six years in the Texas Governor's mansion, I guess.

Dean's strenght, if you think about next November, could be the appeal to people who don't usually bolther to vote -- and there's millions of them. a lot of economic discontent to tap into -- you know, just read Kevin Phillips or Barbara Ehrenreich and you could build a Presidential campaign on those two books only. but all the Republican smears that morphed poor Wall Street WASP Dean into New England's Osama Bin Laden have arguably scared off some potential supporters in the Primary.

maybe a lot of Democrats are starting to think "damaged goods". and after all Kerry went to Vietnam and is more experienced than Clark, so if one really wants to beat Bush...
posted by matteo at 7:20 PM on January 19, 2004

Oh yeah: And Edwards needs a better haircut. (These things matter!)
He just needs some product, and a little zhuzh! ; >
posted by amberglow at 7:20 PM on January 19, 2004

On the Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana candidate report cards, Kerry gets an A- while Dean gets a D-.
posted by homunculus at 7:21 PM on January 19, 2004

here's where Kerry's money comes from, besides his own pocket and his wife's.
posted by amberglow at 7:27 PM on January 19, 2004

Kerry is the DC establishment choice, and will not play as well elsewhere.

hahaha... i'd be happy to add you to my newsletter mailing list if you'd like amberglow. :)

i think kerry has a real chance in 2004 - and would make an excellent president. check his record - other than than the controversial war vote (which required bush to go to the UN ... rather than go it alone ... and was the reason for kerry's vote). he's a strong supporter of the enviornment, women, education, etc. etc. good stuff. good guy. his wife despite being rumours of being a bit of a loose cannon rocks as well.
posted by specialk420 at 7:31 PM on January 19, 2004

Oh yeah: And Edwards needs a better haircut. (These things matter!)
He just needs some product, and a little zhuzh!
So which candidate is going to carry the Metrosexual vote?

It's going to be an interesting primary race, probably with one candidate dropping out each week, kinda like Survivors voted off the island. Therefore, I predict Richard Hatch will be the next President...
posted by wendell at 7:32 PM on January 19, 2004

Winning in Iowa doesn't mean much as an indicator of who gets the nomination.

The only person to ever win IA and NH and then become president was Jimmy Carter. So precedent doesn't hold well for any inevitability, Kerry included.

Dean clearly needs to win NH now to stay viable against the remaining leaders once the primaries turn South, but I'm not too excited about Kerry just yet. He won Iowa, but he's also six million or so in the hole and still down among a three-way race in New Hampshire.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:32 PM on January 19, 2004

I dunno about Edwards. I'll grant that he is quite charismatic, in a Clinton-esque sort of way. Probably more so than any other candidate. On the other hand he's young, he's inexperienced, and he's a trial lawyer.

The good news is two of those three traits are curable. Let him get elected governor in whatever state he's from, serve a term or two, and then run for president in about 10 years. If he doesn't do anything to screw up, I'd wager he'd be all but unbeatable.

on preview: as for matteo's point about Dean getting the non-voters to show up, Nick Cofessore over at Tapped has a rather strongly-worded critique of this strategy. I tend to think he's probably right, given that its never really worked for Democrats before (not to mention the fact that you have to get the votes of two nonvoters to equal the vote of one swing voter)
posted by boltman at 7:34 PM on January 19, 2004

Even I have to be impressed by Edwards.

Of course he doesn't sound like a politician. He hasn't been one all that long. (His former career was as a malpractice lawyer.) The real test of his ability is whether he can do well at all back here in his back yard. A lot of people here are pissed off at him because he apparently only used his Senate seat as a springboard to run for President.

I do applaud him if he actually does make this a campaign of ideas. It's about time somebody did.

On preview, I think we Republicans need to be cautious about thinking Edwards would be easily beatable by Bush. Ya gotta admit, the guy has charisma. A pretty face and a positive campaign can go a long way.
posted by konolia at 7:34 PM on January 19, 2004

special, I like his wife better than him...I'll pay more attention to Kerry for you, ok? and his gay cred is good (but so far, as you know, he's not thrilling me at all)
posted by amberglow at 7:36 PM on January 19, 2004

Meet The Press

MR. RUSSERT: Senator, if you do not win Iowa, if you come in third, and come in third in New Hampshire, is your race over?

SEN. KERRY: Tim, I’m going to do great. I’m going to surprise you and a lot of people. I’m fighting for every vote. The one thing people know about me is I’m tenacious. I’m a fighter. I’ve got great energy out here in Iowa. I am very, very confident about what we’re doing.

MR. RUSSERT: Are you going to win?

SEN. KERRY: And I think next Tuesday, you and others are going to be scratching your heads and say, “How did Kerry do it?” And there’s a surprise story out of Iowa.

MR. RUSSERT: So you’re going to win.

SEN. KERRY: You keep watching. It’s going to be a fun ride.

MR. RUSSERT: Are you going to win Iowa?

SEN. KERRY: I’m going to do the best I can. Tim, I’m doing the best I can to give you a good surprise and we’re going to keep on working. I’m not making any projections. I’ll just tell you this: We had 1,000 people were at two different rallies yesterday. The energy is enormous. I’ve been endorsed by three newspapers out here. People are coming board—the attorney general. Tomorrow I’ll be standing up with 27 legislators in the state of Iowa. That’s more legislators than Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt have put together. They’re standing with me because they’re the people who do the work every day of trying to get things done for their own people, and they believe I’d be the strongest nominee to run with. They believe that I’d be the best president. And I think we’re beginning to make great progress out here in Iowa.
posted by McBain at 7:37 PM on January 19, 2004

any thoughts on a veep for Kerry (if he keeps this rolling)? Bill Richardson would make an excellent choice in my opinion.

Richardson would be a perfect VP candidate, but I don't think he wants the job.
posted by homunculus at 7:38 PM on January 19, 2004

Boltman, no way in Hades North Carolina would elect this man for governor. But even if we did, by the time he got back into running for President he'd be going up against Hillary. I seriously think that is why he is running now instead of waiting a few years-which seems like a better idea. My theory is he's aiming for a vice-presidential bid.
posted by konolia at 7:38 PM on January 19, 2004

Republicans need to be cautious about thinking Edwards would be easily beatable by Bush.

Republicans need to be concerned about who is calling the shots in their own party.
posted by homunculus at 7:40 PM on January 19, 2004

Ummm... did Howard Dean just go insane? His speech sounds like Macho Man Randy Savage participating in a geography bee.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:41 PM on January 19, 2004

My theory is he's aiming for a vice-presidential bid.
Dean/Edwards--sounds like a great, winning team to me! : >
posted by amberglow at 7:42 PM on January 19, 2004

Specialk420 gave us all fair warning: prepare for a Portuguese-speaking First Lady full of beanz!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:43 PM on January 19, 2004

and homunculus: calpundit is so right: DeLay and the Taliban wing of the Republican party have totally taken over, and Kerry is one the senators that didn't stop them.
posted by amberglow at 7:45 PM on January 19, 2004

Can't we just cut to the chase and have Chris Matthews pick the candidate? Did anyone else hear him berating Joe Trippi for Dean's wife (who has an active medical practice) for not making more appearances? Good god, it seems like the only answer that would have kept Chris happy was if Joe told him that Mrs. Dean was barefoot and pregnant.
posted by machaus at 7:47 PM on January 19, 2004

ugg, vodka=bad grammar
posted by machaus at 7:48 PM on January 19, 2004

Ummm... did Howard Dean just go insane? His speech sounds like Macho Man Randy Savage participating in a geography bee.

I just saw that ... good lord, the dude's melting into a puddle.
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:49 PM on January 19, 2004

XQUZYPHYR, I watched that on MSNBC. That was incredibly bad. Awful. Edwards did the right thing, he gave an animated, calm, and engaging presenation of his campaign's message. But Dean just exploded. He's destroying himself and his campaign, just like what's been happening in the past few weeks. Dean's ads were horrible, he died in the last debate, he's been kept away from the media when he needed visibility the most, his campaign focused too much on their success and nowhere near enough on their message. What are they doing? When you're being pummeled for anger, DON'T ENCOURAGE THAT IDEA! Tone it down! The Dean campaign is self-destructing before our eyes.
posted by punishinglemur at 7:50 PM on January 19, 2004

Gephardt speaking now. He's straining to appear anything but sad... he looks pretty devastated by this. It has the tone of a dropout speech. Maybe not now, but definitely tomorrow, as the cable nets have been reporting. Gephardt is done.
posted by punishinglemur at 7:53 PM on January 19, 2004

Hmm - New England defeats Carolina by - let's see - five points. Interesting.

* phones bookie *
posted by yhbc at 7:54 PM on January 19, 2004

This is it now, I think...poor Gephardt (he never struck me as having a giant ego either)
posted by amberglow at 7:54 PM on January 19, 2004

Gephardt: "this wasn't as bad as cancer." Yeah, that's not exactly the speech of confidence, is it.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:54 PM on January 19, 2004

in the end, it was the lack of eyebrows, i think ; >
posted by amberglow at 7:57 PM on January 19, 2004

Boltman, no way in Hades North Carolina would elect this man for governor

You never know. They did elect him as senator, after all.
posted by boltman at 7:58 PM on January 19, 2004

This is it now, I think...poor Gephardt (he never struck me as having a giant ego either)

And the speech he's giving is one of the most gracious and elegant of this entire primary season.
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:59 PM on January 19, 2004

That was a quality piece of speech from Gephardt.
posted by punishinglemur at 8:02 PM on January 19, 2004

Daily Show has a great thing on the caucuses right now : >
posted by amberglow at 8:06 PM on January 19, 2004

They did elect him as senator, after all.

And many of them regret it.

Of course it could be that my fellow North Carolinians will get over it, but they really were upset at how they felt he treated us re the Senate seat. It will be interesting to see how this goes. And even more interesting to see how he handles the primary here.
posted by konolia at 8:08 PM on January 19, 2004

at the end of the day the excitement is good for those of use who oppose bush. gore was a snore ... roller coaster democratic primaries will keep people tuned in - lets enjoy the process.
posted by specialk420 at 8:09 PM on January 19, 2004

Well, I liked Dean okay, but I have a feeling that either Kerry or Edwards will stand a better cahnce of beating Bush. And that should be the Dems main priority right now.
posted by jonmc at 8:09 PM on January 19, 2004

Kerry is the best man to beat Bush in the fall ...despite a couple warts.

Voting for the Iraq war resolution is a wart the size of the man's head. He will have to work very hard to overcome that particular mistake. He also tends to come across as part of the Washington establishment, and there are a lot of people right now who are disgusted with the Democratic party for failing to stand up to the Republicans.

by the time he got back into running for President he'd be going up against Hillary.

Why on earth do people keep bringing up the idea of Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate? Who is even suggesting this, besides right-wing cranks who want to indulge in another four years of Clinton-bashing? What makes her the least bit electable? Who is handing out the drugs that make this seem like a good idea?
posted by Mars Saxman at 8:11 PM on January 19, 2004

I don't know, Mars. MSNBC's been running a graphic (oooh) that shows Kerry beating Dean among anti-war caucus-goers. IIRC.

Kerry is giving a much better speech than Dean, but not quite as good as the one from Edwards. Kerry's saying some nice things about Gephardt... lookin' for an endorsement?
posted by punishinglemur at 8:14 PM on January 19, 2004

oh, also, is that a toupee or Kerry's real hair? it looks awful.
posted by amberglow at 8:15 PM on January 19, 2004

Is it just me or does Kerry = Kennedy Lite?
Dean! Dean! Dean! Dean!
posted by keswick at 8:19 PM on January 19, 2004

oh, also, is that a toupee or Kerry's real hair? it looks awful.

As my friend Paul has often said, Kerry looks exactly like Sam The Eagle from The Muppets. This frankly terrifies me and makes him a wee bit unelectable, but then I'm superficial and shallow.
posted by logovisual at 8:22 PM on January 19, 2004

No, no, Kerry looks like Binkley from Bloom County.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:24 PM on January 19, 2004

Republicans need to be cautious about thinking Edwards would be easily beatable by Bush.

I am literally a card-carrying member of the GOP but if Edwards gets the nomination I will vote for him over Bush (who is spending way too much of my future income).
posted by Mick at 8:27 PM on January 19, 2004

I apologize for single-handedly murdering the level of discourse here, by the way. Carry on.
posted by logovisual at 8:28 PM on January 19, 2004

Kerry looks like a melting wax dummy from Madame Tussaud's.
posted by Vidiot at 8:29 PM on January 19, 2004

At the end of the day the excitement is good for those of use who oppose bush.

Probably better for Bush. (In fact democratic operatives are quite nervous about a protracted primary season ... this is politics 101 ... the people that run national campaigns would much rather see the early emergence of a clear winner - who could focus all of his energy on Bush, instead of focussing some of it on other Democrats).

Dean made the democratic power brokers quite uncomfortable. While he was never a serious candidate, he has successfully forced the pack much farther to the left than they are comfortable with.

Kerry is a boring, mainstream politician. So is Bush (despite the somewhat extreme rhetoric about him on MeFi). That's who America virtually always elects.
posted by MidasMulligan at 8:29 PM on January 19, 2004

!!!EDWARDS IS NOT THAT YOUNG!!!

I'm tired of hearing how Edwards needs to grow up- the man is over 50 years old! He worked as a lawyer for 20 years! The way people talk about him, you'd think he just graduated from college. I just want to make sure everybody knows:

EDWARDS IS 50 YEARS OLD!
posted by crazy finger at 8:31 PM on January 19, 2004

now that things are in the gutter... dean did look like he was having an anxiety attack on stage .. didn't he?
posted by specialk420 at 8:34 PM on January 19, 2004

Ummm... did Howard Dean just go insane? His speech sounds like Macho Man Randy Savage participating in a geography bee.

You made me snort diet coke. That was hilarious.

I didn't see Dean as "angry", just very animated. He was never as polished as Edwards in the first place. But this 18% sucks. This isn't narrow-second place losing, this is seven percent more than the guy who had to drop out of politics for life.

Maybe I'm too cynical, but the ghost of Dukakis looms spookily over Kerry and Dean tonight. The fair-weather ABB Democrats will be talking about Clark and Edwards going into NH. This will be very interesting.

Very sad night for Gephardt. I had briefly given him my support in the last few days heading up to the caucuses. I will be going back to Dean now, but I am not at all convinced of his electability.
posted by PrinceValium at 8:37 PM on January 19, 2004

Have any of you Gephardt-lovers out there actually lived in Missouri before? Gephardt might talk like a nice old guy, but he's as sleazy and double-talk prone as any politician I've ever known. Plus, he's lost damn-near every major battle he's ever fought, and he basically sat silent while the Ashcroft Republicans gutted and looted the state in the 80's and early 90's. He keeps getting re-elected because his district will never vote Republican and he is entrenched with the district's Democratic power base. It's the Richard M. Daley concept.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 8:38 PM on January 19, 2004

I see Kerry as Dukakis actually, PV...northeastern, good resume, not inspiring at all. I bet Gephardt throws his support behind Kerry too--they're Happy Fun Congresspals.

Dean I still have hope for.
posted by amberglow at 8:58 PM on January 19, 2004

Dean I still have hope for.

What matters, though, is who the power brokers will agree to. They'll use Dean, but they'll never permit him to be the candidate. (They know better). You have to be annointed to run as your party's candidate (this holds true of both parties).
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:05 PM on January 19, 2004

I met Kerry in 87 in Boston, shooting a photo assignment (for a class in college) at a V.A. hospital on Veteran's day. He seemed like a genuinely nice guy. And I usually have an allergic reaction to most politicians I meet. Of course my photo instructor later told me Kerry had some chin work done. Or was it cheek work, I forget. Either way, I think he might do well in the next few months.
posted by hypnorich at 9:05 PM on January 19, 2004

I know Midas, that's partly why Dean is exciting--I don't need DC dems picking another loser for me to vote for. And the new voters Dean brings in are needed--we're a 50/50 country.
posted by amberglow at 9:09 PM on January 19, 2004

amber - pull the broken record off the turntable already. did you read the truthout article?
posted by specialk420 at 9:11 PM on January 19, 2004

i did--you should post it here, special.
posted by amberglow at 9:13 PM on January 19, 2004

the new voters Dean brings in are needed

I guess the question is if Dean is actually bringing in new voters. I'd like to think that he is, but it's yet to be proven true as far as I know.
posted by moonbiter at 9:14 PM on January 19, 2004

By the way, did anyone else notice that the photo of Dean on the Iowa Caucus leaderboard was the only one that wasn't smiling? I wonder where those images came from?

Personally, I think Dean is doomed because of his stated anti-big media stance. In a society as media-saturated as ours is, the emnity of the media is a big disadvantage. I would love to be proven wrong about this, though (although I like Clark better).
posted by moonbiter at 9:20 PM on January 19, 2004

Um, there were more people watching reruns of Frazier on CBS tonight [in any one of the 5 largest cities in America] than there were Iowans participating in the caucuses. And lets not forget, this is Iowa.

Seriously, why does this change anything?
posted by jmgorman at 9:22 PM on January 19, 2004

Kerry.. northeastern, good resume, not inspiring

We need a non-inspiring president to restore Americas image to the world as a responsible nation, not another young-faced cowboy from the provinces.
posted by stbalbach at 9:25 PM on January 19, 2004

ow. dean supporters at the kos critique the dean speech.
posted by specialk420 at 9:26 PM on January 19, 2004

Seriously, why does this change anything?
The only thing it changes is media focus...New Hampshire too. Those 2 contests set up what the storylines will be--you can see it happening already.

stbalbach, I'd laugh, but it's not funny--I lived thru 84, 88, and 2000 (all non-inspiring candidates) as a voter.
posted by amberglow at 9:31 PM on January 19, 2004

I know Midas, that's partly why Dean is exciting--I don't need DC dems picking another loser for me to vote for. And the new voters Dean brings in are needed--we're a 50/50 country.

But the DC dems will pick the next candidate. They do that. (The Republicans do too for their party). I mean, discussions and rhetoric are all well and good, but those power brokers are power brokers because, behind the scenes, they control the flow of large amounts of money.

Dean appears to have raised more than anyone else right now, but that's merely because he he's tapped people who are outside of the mainstream. You can make some early noise, but you can't win a bloody US Presidential election with $100 donations on a website. The real money stays out of the race until it is fairly clear who the annointed finalist is (for all Dean's amazing fundraising, he's still behind Bush by nearly an order of magnitude, and Bush hasn't even gotten serious yet).

Rove is a pretty smart guy, but the Democrats are no slouches either ... and they just wouldn't allow as lopsided a race as Dean vs. Bush would be (the question isn't whether Dean would lose, it is how badly he'd damage the dems in Congressional races).
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:38 PM on January 19, 2004

amber - i really hate say i told you so ... i do hope you take a second to read that thread on the kos by the dean supporters on the eruption of mt. vesuvius tonight.
posted by specialk420 at 9:38 PM on January 19, 2004

we'll see...the race is only beginning (and i'd switch to Edwards or Clark before Kerry anyway) : >
posted by amberglow at 9:42 PM on January 19, 2004

Any web-ized videos of Dean's meltdown for those (I don't own a television) who don't (okay I do but no cable) have the (okay cable but only like the really basic cable, no frills) cable channels to watch (okay!! fine!! I just watched ten minutes of American Idol!)?
posted by xmutex at 9:43 PM on January 19, 2004

lets just say... it wasn't pretty. as much as i liked the idea of dean ... it's hard to imagine him with his finger on the button after seeing that performance.
posted by specialk420 at 9:48 PM on January 19, 2004

Any web-ized videos of Dean's meltdown for those (I don't own a television) who don't (okay I do but no cable) have the (okay cable but only like the really basic cable, no frills) cable channels to watch (okay!! fine!! I just watched ten minutes of American Idol!)?

Drudge has two photos (with the headline "Dean Goes Nuts!!!).

The speech itself (oddly enough) is on Dean's "Blog For America".
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:49 PM on January 19, 2004

I wouldn't vote for Kerry, Lieberman or Clark against anyone but Bush (and I might just stay home if Lieberman got the nomination). This is just the beginning...it should get interesting from here.
posted by rushmc at 9:50 PM on January 19, 2004

image number one

image number two

Those are the Drudge images. They're pretty ugly, but... Drudge's playing up is even uglier.

"We will not quit now or ever," the former Vermont governor shouted to supporters. "We want our country back for ordinary Americans."

other drudge link.
posted by namespan at 9:59 PM on January 19, 2004

Also:

A decorated war veteran, whatever his address, is not the candidate Bush strategist Karl Rove would prefer. Nor is a smiling lawyer with a Southern accent. Even before Dean began to gain momentum last year, the Republicans were honing a campaign to be waged against an "angry Democrat," and Edwards isn't that.
posted by namespan at 10:00 PM on January 19, 2004

lets just say... it wasn't pretty. as much as i liked the idea of dean ... it's hard to imagine him with his finger on the button after seeing that performance.

Yeah ... to be fair, these folks are under pretty incredible pressure - in fact it always amazes there aren't more meltdowns on the campaign trail. But I suppose that is appropriate, as the pressure of actually being President is completely off the scale ... and if you can't handle campaigning without losing it, you probably don't belong anywhere near the Oval Office (President all appear to age about a decade for every term they're in office).
posted by MidasMulligan at 10:01 PM on January 19, 2004

Only two incumbent senators have been elected president (senate.gov). The senate sucks.
posted by eddydamascene at 10:05 PM on January 19, 2004

Only two incumbent senators have been elected president (senate.gov).

how many failed business men - former cokeheads and drunk drivers had been elected president prior to the appointment of bush junior?
posted by specialk420 at 10:12 PM on January 19, 2004

Hey, guys, I think specialk420 likes Kerry. Pass it on.
posted by The God Complex at 10:18 PM on January 19, 2004

I just heard Dean on the BBC World Service. Jeebus, he does sound like Randy "the Macho Man" Savage. Both me and a buddy of mine here (a NASCAR Democrat) both burst out laughing. This is not good.
posted by moonbiter at 10:38 PM on January 19, 2004

I'm wondering how much of Dean's decline was due to the last-minute accusations of stacking the deck with outsiders?

Mars: Voting for the Iraq war resolution is a wart the size of the man's head. He will have to work very hard to overcome that particular mistake. He also tends to come across as part of the Washington establishment, and there are a lot of people right now who are disgusted with the Democratic party for failing to stand up to the Republicans.

I'm not convinced of that. Dems have been trying to play "rally around the flag" on the war issue because lets face it, Powell won over pretty much all but the principled pacifists in one speech. Unless things deteriorate over the election season the challenge will be to play to the pro-war core while not turning war sceptics into a spoiler block.

jmgorman: Um, there were more people watching reruns of Frazier on CBS tonight [in any one of the 5 largest cities in America] than there were Iowans participating in the caucuses. And lets not forget, this is Iowa.

Seriously, why does this change anything?

1) Polls are bullshit this early in the game. It is what happens in the primaries and caucuses that determine who will have the power in the party at the convention, and who fades into the background. It does not matter if a journalist in a mall counts you as the front-runner if you don't get the votes.

2) People who vote in primaries or participate in caucuses may not be representative, but they are more influential. These are the people who will be tapped for door-to-door campaigns, yard signs and bumper stickers.

3) The early primaries may not pick the candidate, but they do a good job of narrowing the field. The Iowa Democratic caucus even more so because of the voting process. Candidates for presinct representative must get %15 of the vote to move on to the county convention. (This explains why the results are bi-modal with Clark, Kucinich, Liberman and Sharpton getting practically nothing.)

4) Early caucuses help to determine who gets the money. For Gephardt, Iowa was all or nothing because a strong showing in Iowa would mean a critical transfusion of funds.

5) It is not a good idea to discount the 6-12 electoral college vote states. Iowa (7 votes) has a lot of demographic and economic similarities with Illinois (21 votes), Missouri (11 votes) and Kansas (6 votes). New Hampshire is not that important in terms of electoral college votes, but very important as a rough barometer for the East Coast. You can do badly in Iowa, you can do badly in New Hampshire, but it is almost impossible to bomb both and have a good campaign.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:39 PM on January 19, 2004

Yeah ... to be fair, these folks are under pretty incredible pressure - in fact it always amazes there aren't more meltdowns on the campaign trail.

The thing that makes me wonder: when I read what Dean says, it sounds like typical campaign rally talk, nothing really out of the ordinary at all. It's only when combined with the pictures and fanning of the press that I start to see him as going postal. It's not like he did what Merrill Cook (independent/republican rep from my home state) did a couple of years ago -- reputedly said the republican party could go f*ck off. It seems like he just said some normal things and got emotional while saying them.

In other words, I can't tell if Dean's temper creates the media fixation, or the media fixation creates the image of Dean's temper.
posted by namespan at 10:42 PM on January 19, 2004

New Hampshire is not that important in terms of electoral college votes, but very important as a rough barometer for the East Coast.

No. New Hampshire has nothing politically in common with its three neighboring states. It was the only state north and east of West Virginia to go Bush in 2000. There are much more independent-minded voters and far less hard-core Dems than in the rest of New England.

If anything, the NH primary benefits independent, less mainstream candidates. See Pat Buchanan, 1996 and John McCain, 2000. (Note also that Bradley came within 6000 votes of Gore, the sitting VP.)

NH results won't mean squat. Like Iowa, the process will reward strong, unexpected second and third place finishes (this is why Edwards will be sleeping much more soundly than Kerry tonight.) Money and momentum win in the end.

I can't tell if Dean's temper creates the media fixation, or the media fixation creates the image of Dean's temper.

What "temper"? He's an animated, charismatic politician. He's not "mad" at anybody, he's running a presidential campaign. I don't get why the question is framed this way. It's loaded and unfair.
posted by PrinceValium at 10:58 PM on January 19, 2004

PrinceValium/namespan... Let me advise you, as a neutral Canadian, that before you dismiss the "angry" readings of Dean's speech, you find a video/audio version of it. I felt similar reading the transcript, but once I heard him going all Macho-Man-insane, I can attest that the opinions of his speech, here, aren't innaccurate.
posted by Marquis at 11:11 PM on January 19, 2004

Armchair pundit here:

Winners:

Iowa Democrats: Turnout is unexpectedly large for a primary caucus. I caught a third-hand figure of a 20% turn out rate. This is twice the 2000 turn-out. To me, that is incredible without a clear unifying figure as of yet. If this stays consistent over the next few months, it might translate into a serious problem for Bush.

The High Road: It looks like Edwards rose to the top by simply not getting dirty.

Losers:

Clark: What the heck? Ok, granted he put all his eggs into New Hampshire but for a guy hailed as the great hope of the Democratic party to pick up less than 1% has gotta hurt.

Lieberman and Sharpton: The Iowa Caucus is an instant run-off election for the top 5. If these guys don't show in NH, expect them to drop out.

????

Dean: All Dean needed to do was to put in a strong showing, and move on to the next state. Due to the run-off nature of the election and the mounds of horrible spin he got, 18% is not bad. Even if Dean does not turn out to be a contender for the nomination, he can make a huge impact by bringing enough supporters to the convention to shape the platform. 3rd place in Iowa won't kill Dean, but his behavior after the caucus might.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:17 PM on January 19, 2004

marquis, I watched the speech live on TV. He was crazy like a chicken on crack, for sure, but not angry. It seems to me that once a label is attached, people will find a way to match the label to an unrelated behavior.

And no, what I saw wasn't pretty. The dude was taking his clothes off and then drifted into Spanish.

And he didn't mention Rhode Island in his list of states.
posted by PrinceValium at 11:22 PM on January 19, 2004

oh, also, is that a toupee or Kerry's real hair? it looks awful.

amberglow- Kerry's paternal grandparents' religion may be gone...(self-link to my blog entry from a year ago taking a look at Kerry's previously-suppressed family genealogy, including scans of his family's census records)...but the remnants of their ethnicity survives.

In short, it's a Jewfro. Not much he can do about that, as my similarly wire-haired hubby would agree.
posted by Asparagirl at 11:28 PM on January 19, 2004

Tonight was the first chance I got to see Dean speak w/o media editing, first being interviewed by Chris Matthews on MSNBC and then his "concession" speech. During his interview with Matthews, I though he looked and sounded quite unpresidential and creepy, and sounded exactly like Ari Fleischer, full of fake smiles and evasive "answers". Then that "concession" speech... oh mine. Howard Dean might be the smartest man in the world for all I care, but he does not act Presidential at all.
posted by gyc at 12:09 AM on January 20, 2004

"Rooting for Dean is fun, it's exciting, but in a way that adultery and drunk driving are fun and exciting - the next day, you're like, `What was I thinking?'," said (Tucker)Carlson.

like we should listen to what tucker carlson thinks... still ...
posted by specialk420 at 12:11 AM on January 20, 2004

Clark: What the heck?

Here's where that 0.1% came from: Wesley Clark supporters, Iowa.
posted by eddydamascene at 12:55 AM on January 20, 2004

I've always thought that Kerry looks like Lurch from the Addams Family.
posted by CountZero at 1:27 AM on January 20, 2004

Interestingly enough, It looks like Kucinich, though he may be in the race for awhile longer in order to influence the issues, may be leaning towards supporting Edwards.
posted by insomnia_lj at 4:16 AM on January 20, 2004

Well, it's not like a bunch of Dean supporters are going to vote Bush just because Kerry gets nominated. Votes is votes, and while it's fun to root for "your man", in the end all this politicking is a good thing. It gets the Dems riled up, and they haven't been riled up in a while. When election-time comes around, you're going to see supporters of Dean, Kerry, Clark and the all others rally a mo-fo behind the candidate that does get picked. I wish I was still in Boston...
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:49 AM on January 20, 2004

Dean - The pancake candidate!

President Bush?! Waffles...
posted by insomnia_lj at 5:58 AM on January 20, 2004

Well, it's not like a bunch of Dean supporters are going to vote Bush just because Kerry gets nominated. Votes is votes, and while it's fun to root for "your man", in the end all this politicking is a good thing. It gets the Dems riled up, and they haven't been riled up in a while. When election-time comes around, you're going to see supporters of Dean, Kerry, Clark and the all others rally a mo-fo behind the candidate that does get picked.

Not necessarily. This is always a question - in every race. Party allegiance is notoriously fickle in the US. Each party has its core believers (who will simply vote 100%Democratic or Republican all the way down the ballot). The majority of the American mainstream, however, is just not that devoted. (I was at a couple of dinners last week, with people that would self-identify as both Republicans and Democrats, and while a few of these people seemed to be really into what was going on in Iowa, most simply hadn't paid attention to the Presidential race yet ... in fact I remember one conversation in which someone said "Oh, God, is it that time already?!").

Problem is, a good deal of the mainstream appears to view elections as something akin to going to the dentist. They see very little difference between Republicans and Democrats, are quite cynical about what candidates promise on the campaign trail - and just do not view politics itself as something that is a major concern in their daily lives.

The "transferable votes" you're talking about will come from the committed core - who have already made up their minds to vote against Bush, no matter who the Democratic candidate is.

My own sense is that the election will come down to a couple of things: Is Iraq calmer, and is the recovery producing more jobs.
posted by MidasMulligan at 6:07 AM on January 20, 2004

For those who were busy watching American Idol, video and text transcripts of the speeches are available here.

I've been a Dean person all along, and even I have to admit that was a lousy, lousy speech -- not because he sounded angry, but because he didn't actually say anything. That kind of rah-rah might've made his hardcore supporters feel better, but sure wasn't appealing to anyone else.
posted by ook at 6:32 AM on January 20, 2004

I've been a Dean person all along, and even I have to admit that was a lousy, lousy speech -- not because he sounded angry, but because he didn't actually say anything. That kind of rah-rah might've made his hardcore supporters feel better, but sure wasn't appealing to anyone else.

This, I suspect, is where the real damage was. It's the people (a very small minority) that love the bloodsport of politics that have been paying attention up to now. The mainstream itself only starts noticing when the actual primaries begin. Or, in other words, there is some percentage of the American population (and probably a not inconsiderable one) for whom that speech was the first one they've heard freom Dean. He may have really hurt himself badly.
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:20 AM on January 20, 2004

I think Dean's speech did more to harm him then his loss in Iowa, actualy. I actualy caucused for him, but geez. That was an embarasment.

I thought Kerry's speech was pretty good, I was to pissed at him to enjoy it, though.

The thing is, Dean gave an excelent speech earlier in the day in Ames, which I saw live. Oh well.
posted by delmoi at 8:12 AM on January 20, 2004

What anger? What "meltdown"? You people are nuts. Dean didn't sound any different there than he did at the NYC rally I attended months ago. It's just how he expresses enthusiasm. Does "acting presidential" mean someone has to sound like a stiff reading cue cards?

On the other hand, it was pretty empty, uninspiring stuff. I would have much preferred something more thoughtful and pointed.
posted by rushmc at 8:24 AM on January 20, 2004

Midas: Problem is, a good deal of the mainstream appears to view elections as something akin to going to the dentist. They see very little difference between Republicans and Democrats, are quite cynical about what candidates promise on the campaign trail - and just do not view politics itself as something that is a major concern in their daily lives.

This is what I would regard as the major failure of American Democracy. Not that Republican majorities are are abandoning the traditional give-and-take of congressional procedure, but that a majority are so profoundly cynical to see non-participation as the best choice.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:31 AM on January 20, 2004

This is what I would regard as the major failure of American Democracy. Not that Republican majorities are are abandoning the traditional give-and-take of congressional procedure, but that a majority are so profoundly cynical to see non-participation as the best choice.

Which reminds me: start harassing all your friends now. Make sure every single person you know is registered to vote before October 1st. (I'll bet if you asked around, you'd be surprised how many aren't registered.) Make it clear that if they don't vote, you're not going to talk to them for a while.

And don't try to tell me that's harsh; if my gay-friendly friends don't vote against Bush, I'll see that as a personal slap against me. POLITICS MATTERS.
posted by logovisual at 9:03 AM on January 20, 2004

If Kerry wins the Democratic nomination, and anyone tries to talk about his hair, I'll gnaw their legs off.

Just a little.
posted by troutfishing at 10:26 AM on January 20, 2004

Make it clear that if they don't vote, you're not going to talk to them for a while.

logovisual -- I like your style.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:31 AM on January 20, 2004

I thought Dean sounded a little awkward, too. And I'd say I'm one of his supporters.
posted by McBain at 11:00 AM on January 20, 2004

any thoughts on a veep for Kerry (if he keeps this rolling)?Bill Richardson would make an excellent choice in my opinion.

Bill Richardson would also make a fantastic Secretary of State.
posted by mathis23 at 11:01 AM on January 20, 2004

Dean seems like he would have sweaty armpits just sitting still.

Kerry could cut his Jewfro a little shorter, wouldn't that help?
posted by internook at 11:11 AM on January 20, 2004

a lot shorter, and he needs a charisma infusion too...would it kill him to smile once in a while? "Hey, John! Why the long face?" ; >
posted by amberglow at 11:39 AM on January 20, 2004

if you don't want to use real (nytimes) player, the video of Dean's "meltdown" (i didn't think it was that bad, although the state-by-state shoutout had me nonplussed) is available via Fox News (from specialk420's kos link above).

i'm still for Kucinich, but i'll likely support Edwards once DK drops out. i can imagine voting for Edwards, but not campaigning for him.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:14 PM on January 20, 2004

Just watched the Dean video (thanks mrgrimm).

One word: Ricola.
posted by konolia at 12:38 PM on January 20, 2004

I don't care who wins the dem nomination, as long as they can defeat Bush. Daffy Duck would be a better president.
posted by corpse at 12:52 PM on January 20, 2004

Right Magazine has a "Dean Goes Nuts Remix". Fortunately, Republicans can't dance.
posted by liam at 2:29 PM on January 20, 2004

I don't care who wins the dem nomination, as long as they can defeat Bush. Daffy Duck would be a better president.

We won't know that for 20 or 30 years. History will be the judge, not us partisans.

(What's wrong with Bugs?)
posted by konolia at 2:55 PM on January 20, 2004

Don't forget to check out the audio remix, too.
posted by dhoyt at 3:11 PM on January 20, 2004

the Dean speech was more of a pep rally for his troops, and not a televised, gracious "and now, on to New Hampshire" thing....the more they replay it, the more slack I'm cutting him for it.

And if Kerry is the pre-ordained nominee by the powers-that-be-in-DC, why bother having primaries anyway?

oh, and someone please explain that whole super-delegate thing?
posted by amberglow at 3:12 PM on January 20, 2004

amberglow- the DNC assigns 715 delegates "superdelegates" in order for the national committe to have some say in the nomination process. These are delegates that don't need to be voted on in the primaries; they automatically get to go to the convention.

The Democratic candidate needs around 2,100 committed delegates to win nomination, so superdelegates are a big factor. As they are often prominent figures in the local delegation (ex. Al Gore, Hillary Clinton) they carry huge weight influencing other delegates on secondary ballots (as if we'd still have them) but also local primaries.

There's more specifics about them, but I'm too lazy to do research beyond that.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:51 PM on January 20, 2004

thanks, XQUZ : > I read somewhere that Dean already has the most, even tho he didn't win Iowa.
posted by amberglow at 7:11 PM on January 20, 2004

I just heard Dean on the BBC World Service. Jeebus, he does sound like Randy "the Macho Man" Savage.


Am I the only one thinking Steve Ballmer?
posted by echolalia67 at 7:34 PM on January 20, 2004

Heh, echolalia67. Good call.
posted by rushmc at 11:33 PM on January 20, 2004

This whole Dean thing is disgusting. It's also a product of the Internet (and not just in terms of fundraising): every tendancy, every opinion has the ability to be heard; a spike on a graph; 15 minutes of fame. Dean is just the subsequent generation's Nader; like one of those freaky little European political parties engendered by proportional representation.

I feel sorry for Ms. Dean...
posted by ParisParamus at 4:44 AM on January 21, 2004

Paris, Dean has already got the other dems moving on all sorts of issues to be more in line with us dem voters, esp. about the war. (You would prefer they stay Bush-lite?)
posted by amberglow at 5:29 AM on January 21, 2004

Just because the other candidates are pandering to Dean supporters doesn't make Dean any less of an embarrassment.

Look. The bottom line is that Second Term Elections are in the nature of a recall vote: the President has to be doing pretty poorly to lose. Bush will win the VAST majority of states and votes this time because he's doing a very good job on defense, and a not-that-awful job domestically. (and stop the BS about no WMDs being found; EVERYONE thought Iraq had them; if it turns out that only five of the Soviet's ICBMs would have actually worked, would that have invalidated the Cold War?)

My recommendation: go with Kerry, who will lose, but at least on a respectable platform (at this point, I'll probably vote for Kerry or Lieberman). Save your progressive enthusiasm for 2008, and stop this "anyone is better than Bush BS--it's so stupid and college freshman-y!
posted by ParisParamus at 9:16 AM on January 21, 2004

My recommendation: go with Kerry

Thanks for your recommendation. We will take it into consideration, and get back to you.
posted by moonbiter at 10:03 AM on January 21, 2004

I just don't get it. Yeah, Dean's speech was awkward, but he was trying to get people motivated. This whole 'angry' thing mystifies me. It's the label that republican commentators have been hanging on him for the last two months. Are we all suddenly seeing him through their lens?
Personally, I'd like to see a little more anger. A little outrage that we are still losing American lives in two middle eastern countries with no real idea how we're going to make good on promises we have made would be most welcome.
I wouldn't weep bitter tears if Kerry got elected, I think he's better on some issues than Dean. But for gods sake not only did he support the war in Iraq, he voted for the patriot act. I'm a New Yorker and was a witness to the atrocities on 9/11, but I'm still more worried about what we're doing to ourselves than what other countries could do to us. Kerry shows no signs of reversing our slide towards totalinarianism.
posted by lumpenprole at 10:10 AM on January 21, 2004

and stop the BS about no WMDs being found; EVERYONE thought Iraq had them

I did not think so, which makes you wrong.
posted by thirteen at 10:22 AM on January 21, 2004

he's doing a very good job on defense,

After 9/11 the US had the sympathy and support of the rest of the world. Since then Bush has managed to alienate much of the rest of the world, including our closest allies. It is true that the US military has been very effective at the military tasks put before them. But I don't see how any of that translates into Bush having done a very good job on defense.

and a not-that-awful job domestically

By going on a multi-trillion credit card binge and implementing a huge number of unsustainable special interest giveaways? By increasing government secrecy? By rolling back protections for clean water and air? Again, I'm missing the "not-that-awful" part.
posted by alms at 10:30 AM on January 21, 2004

Paris, it's not bs when the president lies to get us to go to war with the wrong country...it's kinda serious.
And it's not pandering to Dean supporters--it's the majority view of Democrats all over the country--we were against the war, still think it was a mistake bec. it took the focus off Osama and Al Quaeda (you know, the actual terrorists), and are seeing our rights eroded daily. Meanwhile, we're no safer at home, and soldiers are still dying in Iraq daily.

And a "not-that-awful job domestically" ?!? What an endorsement! Maybe he'll use that in his ads. Millions more people are out of work now than before he took office, city and state govts. have had to raise taxes to cover the shortfall from his misguided cuts, and he wants to finally make this a Christian country--faith-based prisons, among other federally funded religious things, are actually an awful domestic job.
posted by amberglow at 10:35 AM on January 21, 2004

(and stop the BS about no WMDs being found; EVERYONE thought Iraq had them;


Jesus Christ. First the "roach motel" rants, then this.
will you ever stop spinning this Iraq Attaq thing?

regime change, no WMD's, no, regime change, no, wait, it's the Atta/Saddam link, no -- it must be the roach motel. or the "everyone thought" thing. or whatever.
posted by matteo at 11:10 AM on January 21, 2004

The UN, France, everyone thought he had WMDs; and for all we know, they were shipped wholesale to Syria. Again, the malfunctioning Soviet ICBM question is pretty telling: they were bluffing? WE were suppose to know that when no one else did? Rely on it? Rely on it with the gassing of populations?!
posted by ParisParamus at 11:34 AM on January 21, 2004

You would prefer they stay Bush-lite?

Actually, yes, "lite" as in lesser spending, less governmental intrusion in ourlives in issues such as gay marriage, etc.

This whole 'angry' thing mystifies me. It's the label that republican commentators have been hanging on him for the last two months. Are we all suddenly seeing him through their lens?

I didn't think he was angry during that speech, just nuts. Anger I can deal with, and can even be a positive attribute for Presidents, in small doses, but I don't want a President that's crazy.
posted by gyc at 4:22 PM on January 21, 2004

but I don't want a President that's crazy.

Oh yeah?

"But the true threats to stability and peace are these nations that are not very transparent, that hide behind the-that don't let people in to take a look and see what they're up to. They're very kind of authoritarian regimes. The true threat is whether or not one of these people decide, peak of anger, try to hold us hostage, ourselves; the Israelis, for example, to whom we'll defend, offer our defenses; the South Koreans." -George W. Bush, in a media roundtable discussion, March 13, 2001
posted by lumpenprole at 5:26 PM on January 21, 2004

Hugh Hewitt's suggestion for Howard Dean in the next debate. (scroll down a paragraph)
posted by trharlan at 5:42 PM on January 21, 2004

that Hewitt thing is great.

and gyc: check Bush's spendthrift record before you make a statement like that.
posted by amberglow at 6:16 PM on January 21, 2004

amberglow: Perhaps I didn't make it clear, or I'm misunderstanding you, but I do want someone that would rein in spending, unlike Bush.
posted by gyc at 7:38 PM on January 21, 2004

ohhh....nevermind : >
posted by amberglow at 7:44 PM on January 21, 2004

he lost me at "blame america first." I dunno where that comes from, but it makes me think of a vindictive teenager everytime I see it.
posted by mcsweetie at 9:02 PM on January 21, 2004

I think someone at the Hartford Courant reads MeFi:

"Former Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean went a little berserk after the Iowa caucuses Monday night, shouting the names of the states as if he were in a geography bee against the professional loudmouths of WWE Smackdown. "

vs.

http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/30834#614462
posted by bashos_frog at 9:51 PM on January 22, 2004