Lies and Body Bags

So G.W. Bush is beginning his campaign early, trying to stop the bleeding. If the bit we saw on TV is a preview of his campaign, we can’t wait. Poorly delivered same old same old, as if he doesn’t actually want to be president anymore…

Just as we predicted, Ralph Nader put the interests of the nation ahead of himself and…unh, never mind. But the reaction’s been interesting: Democrats are ANGRY with him (seems to be the mood all right) and the pundits seem almost unanimous that he is either not going to have much of an effect in 04, or could actually help the Democratic nominee. Perhaps by adding to the assaults on Bush policies, perhaps by making the Dem nominee look moderate in contrast, or perhaps (the weakest argument, and it’s his) by giving disaffected GOPers someplace to go if voting Dem makes them barf. And as we did sort of predict, Howard Dean immediately issued a statement cautioning his supporters not to throw away their vote, but stick with the Democrat who can beat Bush.

Nader spent Monday on a parade of TV shows. Best question was asked by Jim Leher: who is cheering today? Who is supporting you?

Over the weekend there was a very edgy exchange between the Bush people and the Kerry people, over a Georgia GOP Senator’s warning that Kerry was vulnerable on defense because he’d voted against every weapons system, etc. Max Cleland, who this senator beat, went after him for criticizing a war hero when he’d gotten out of the draft with a trick knee. That seemed a bit over the top, even from an amputee veteran. But Kerry’s response, while similar, was nuanced enough to indicate that he was aware of the underlying message in this attack---that he was soft on defense and hence wouldn’t protect America and hence didn’t love America, etc.---and that he was going to play hardball too, to fend it off. His statement that he didn’t know what Republicans who didn’t serve had against Democrats who did, was not justified by the literal meaning of what he was attacked for (as noted in the White House response.) But it was a return of fire with the weapons he had, showing that if the underlying message was to question his patriotism and willingness to defend the country, he would reply to that underlying message, regardless of what the literal message was, since it was smokescreen. This is pretty sophisticated stuff. It’s live ammo, and it’s dangerous, but it’s powerful, and shows an awareness that’s been missing from Dem campaigns of the past.

On the styles of Kerry and Edwards: it’s become conventional wisdom among the media bobbleheads that Kerry is a stiff and Edwards is the personable, dynamic one. Two things wrong with this. First, if it’s based on recent weeks, it turns out that Kerry has been under the weather, but emerged healthy after finally taking two days off, energizing crowds in Atlanta, bantering with people at a town meeting (Woman in crowd: “Hi, My name is Doris, and I’m a recovering Republican.” Kerry: “I’ve got a one step program for you: vote for Kerry.”)

When he simply showed up for services at Martin Luther King Jr.’s church the congregation was ecstatic. So there’s charisma there that voters are finding, even if the media can't.

Second, the media is still stuck on the Clinton model. Edwards looks and sounds and acts more like Clinton, therefore he’s a better campaigner, the kind people are comfortable with, and want to have on their TV screens for four years, etc ad naseuam. We don’t buy it. Apart from our feeling that Edwards image doesn’t wear well, there’s this to consider: styles change. What attracts people changes, and something different is usually part of the attraction. Plus, and this is the major point: we already elected this folksy nice guy, and where did that get us? Why is the Dem who reminds you of Bush going to be attractive to voters who want more than anything to get rid of Bush? They want the anti-Bush, and that may well extend to style as well as substance.

A couple of other weekend stories: on the extent and power of the Democrats’ anger at Bush (even stronger, some pundits say, than the antipathy of GOPers against Clinton), and one on Republicans who are turning against Bush. (If we were good little bloggers we’d have the URLs for you, but we didn’t record them. Sorry.) The most telling comment of why these GOPers turned against Bush was the most succinct: “Lies and body bags. Bad combination.”