Darth Nader

So focused on beating Bush are some prominent progressives and (progressive media) that they are begging Ralph Nader not to run for president in 2004. This is the Lesson Learned from 2000, and part one of What We're Bitter About (in terms of it surfacing, not in importance or bitterness, for part two is Florida Disenfranchises Black Voters and part three is the really big Scalia Appoints the President.)

The Nader nattering is happening now because Nader has used it to get himself booked on Meet the Press on Sunday, which has replaced the press conference in the old home town or even Larry King Live as the place to announce your candidacy. He says he'll announce his decision then and there. Those who claim to be In the Know say he will announce he'll run as an independent (not Green Party) candidate. We're not so sure. Last time we saw an actual statement by Nader he said something like he'd decide based on grassroots support, but that he hadn't detected much so far. That was not more than a week ago. The grassroots are no Greener this week. So he might not. (But then again, we thought Colin Powell would prevent Bush from launching a stupid preemptive war on Iraq.)

Could Nader strip enough votes from Kerry---ah, sorry, the Democratic nominee---to throw the election to Bush? The Big Nightmare of 2004? (Or one of them.) Some say he won't get nearly as many votes in 04 as in 00---there just isn't going to be much of that Gush v. Bore, they are all the same horseshit. Well, that's probably right. But then again, Pat Buchanan isn't running, and the votes he took from Bush in 00 and won't take in 04 might make up the difference. So yes, Nader could cause trouble, maybe even enough to...no, we can't even SAY IT.

There are people out there who see the president or even the Candidate as some sort of hero-god; they love Him and if he Fails somehow they are Crushed. They're so pure they won't vote for anybody human unless they're vegan. (Vegans are usually human, except the ones from Vega.) They are therefore always setting themselves up for 1) Disappointment, and 2) exploitation. Ralph Nader is a crusader. He's succeeded by being relentless, if not fanatic. I don't know if he's a raging egotist at this point, but sometimes he acts like one. That's the other side of being relentless and fanatical. And so invested in purity. He should probably just take Holy Orders and start a monastery of Nader's Pray-ers.

Nader might believe that the time is right to absorb angry Deaniacs, now that John--I mean--Howard has gotten out of the race. And he might attract some , especially the Vegans (the ones from Vega who don't understand earth politics and have a culture that worships emotion and thinks logic is bad.) But if Nader does announce, Howard Dean has to get out there RIGHT AWAY and gently but firmly tell his supporters that their campaign was about defeating George Bush, and not to take their eye off the ball. They would be subverting everything they accomplished in making the Democratic candidates bolder and more aggressive. Eventually Dennis the K has to do the same thing, for his following is easily as fervent as Dean's and Greens.

It will be best for Nader and certainly best for the country if Nader announces that he's not running. But even if he does, there's a long way to go...We're likely to see at least two major shifts before it's over. At some point before the conventions, Bush's money is going to start wearing at Kerry's image, then the Dem convention will give Kerry a bounce, and then the GOP convention will give Bush a bounce, and then we'll see who takes the momentum. Of course, this year has been so unpredictable all that may be bullshit. But there is a decent chance that Kerry is going to win by a margin no one is predicting at the moment, and Nader won't matter. But even so, getting in the race gives the Bushies hope. And we hate to do that.

Early polls in New York and California show Kerry 40 to 50 points ahead of Edwards for Super Tuesday. But this is not a "comfortable" lead, in that this is no time for Kerry to get comfortable. But it's also hardly reason to worry. Kerry's been up and down on the stump, but when he's good---as he was in his interview this week with the PBS Newshour---he's excellent. He inspires confidence. Suggests to us once again that when he's engaged, he can outshine Edwards in the debate forum that Edwards wants desperately to use to boost his candidacy.

Bush is losing credibility like air from a punctured balloon. This week, two reports signed by Nobel scientists said his administration is distorting scientific facts for political gain (wonder where he got that idea?) and Bush himself had to disavow the prediction for job growth that he signed off on a week ago.

And so far the usual rabid right techniques haven't even begun to work. The rumors of illicit romance fizzled--it was supposed to be an intern naturally---when the woman not-involved denied it, and incidentally, denied she'd ever been an intern, and her parents declared for Kerry--and the incredibly damning photo showing John Kerry and the wicked witch of the right, Jane Fonda AT THE SAME PODIUM IN 1971! turned out to be a fake. Not only that, but the actual photo of Kerry alone at the podium was taken by a guy who is now a PROFESSOR OF JOURNALISM ETHICS, and guess what? He's really pissed.

The Day After

A day earlier than expected, Howard Dean dropped out of the presidential primary race, saying he would support the eventual Democratic nominee, and will dedicate his organization to defeating G.W. Bush in November.

A USA Today poll showed John Kerry with a double digit lead over Bush among likely voters. For the first time, another Democrat—John Edwards—also is shown beating Bush, though only Kerry polls over Bush among “all voters.”

Edwards is getting a bump from the coverage, though some question whether that’s because the pollsters stopped polling too soon, and his “surprise” showing was more a story about the polls than about him. The coverage also invites more scrutiny, and while many agree he is an attractive candidate, they question his credentials. For example, NY Times columnist Richard Cohen begins his Thursday column this way: “In his stump speech, John Edwards talks about a girl ‘somewhere in America’who ‘will go to bed hungry, hoping and praying that tomorrow will not be as cold as today, because she doesn't have the coat to keep her warm.’ That wan and pitiful child, a creation of Edwards's vivid imagination, has been on my mind a lot lately. I can see Edwards tucking her in. But I'm not sure he knows what to do with her once she wakes up.”

The Wisconsin stats also show that despite Edwards’ appeal to the jobless and poor, Kerry carried the vote of voters in the lowest socioeconomic categories.

The talk continues to be that Edwards will essentially bypass California (where one byliner felt his star quality would help him) to concentrate on Ohio and Georgia, and either New York or Minnesota, depending on the story, and perhaps Maryland. Of the ten states on Super Tuesday, we still think California, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont will go big for Kerry; Minnesota, Maryland and Ohio will go to Kerry but perhaps by under 10 points, and Georgia is a toss-up. But of course there are still 13 days to go. Kerry will probably stagger endorsements throughout the period so there's a news hook every day for him. So far Edwards has only demonstrated that with a concerted effort, outspending on media and with lots of personal campaigning, he can surge towards election day and...come in a closer than expected second, except in the state where he was born, which he won (and where Kerry did not exert maximum effort to defeat him.) His best shot, say the pundits, is the debate. That shouldn't be terribly comforting to his supporters.

What happened in Wisconsin

John Kerry won the primary with about 40% of the total vote. John Edwards got about 34%, with Howard Dean getting only about 18%. Edwards' better-than- expected second place showing (of course we called that part) was probably due to a set of conditions and situations that won't be repeated for the rest of the primary season. (Which is not to say that he won't do well or even win some other states.)

Wisconsin allows voters to choose which primary-the Republican or Democrat-- they want to vote in, regardless of their party registration. That doesn't happen again, at least not in any of the big states coming up. Edwards got a lot of Republican votes and a sizeable number of Independents. Kerry did about as well with Democrats (nearly 50%) as he has in most other states, and his numbers in the various exit poll categories (by race, etc.) remained about the same.

Does Edwards' strength with non-Democrats say something about his appeal in the general election? Not necessarily. None of the media bobbleheads mentioned this, and we haven't seen geographical breakdowns yet, but we're guessing he got a lot of votes in Madison and Milwaukee from students and others who were voting to keep the process going---that is, to not settle on the candidate quite yet. Though Howard Dean might have expected to get that vote, probably it went significantly to Edwards. Edwards had the not-Kerry buzz in the past few days. (He was endorsed by the biggest newspapers in Milwaukee and Madison.) Kerry's percentage was down between one and five points from pre-election polls, but Edwards' was up considerably, indicating that he probably took more votes from Howard Dean than from Kerry.

Another factor clearly was his anti-NAFTA emphasis in the final week of campaigning. NAFTA is a weird issue. It resonates both with the anti-globalism left and with the Pat Buchanan far right, who couple it with being anti-immigration. As the only candidate on either ballot (including Bush) talking the anti-NAFTA talk in a state that has lost jobs, some to Mexico and other countries, Edwards was a magnet for disaffected voters of both kinds. Besides, with Kerry's string of victories and the fact that he is the presumptive nominee, voters are beginning to talk about casting "symbolic" votes, because they don't think those votes will matter, Kerry will win anyway.

The media bobbleheads were falling all over themselves early praising Edwards, salivating for a close race and a chance to dis Kerry, but by the end they had to admit that tomorrow's headline would be that Kerry won (which it is, in the NY Times and USA Today, with Kerry's picture on page one.) They talked about Edwards' appeal and eloquence as a speaker, which is frankly lost on us. As we said, he doesn't wear well. They dissed Kerry for giving the same victory speech as he has for weeks, and they were right to do that---he really needs to retire a good bit of it. But there were differences, he did emphasize jobs and trades more, earlier in the speech than usual. And Edwards isn't saying anything new really; they're just paying attention for once.

The political play of the evening was the order of after-election speeches. Howard Dean went first, and the networks covered his every word, just in case he might make news by dropping out, but he didn't say much new---just emphasized what his movement has accomplished and that it will go on, which suggests what some were saying today, that he's looking for a way to retire as a candidate but stay in it as head of a kind of issues oriented Internet Army movement.

But just as Dean was coming down the home stretch, John Edwards leapt on his stage and started talking and pumping his arms and grinning, and the networks abruptly abandoned Dean to cover what an Edwards aide had billed as the most important speech of his political life (for at least the second time so far). Apparently he had planned to speak long before this, when he was a good deal closer in early returns, but the room at his headquarters was half-empty and his people delayed his appearance until they could scare up more of a crowd from a nearby bowling alley. He got out one good line, that the message of the primary vote was : "Objects in your mirror may be closer than they appear."

But just as Edwards was getting started, John Kerry appeared on the stage of his headquarters, and every one of the networks and cable stations switched to him giving his stump speech (since by then he was clearly the winner), effectively erasing Edwards' "give me a second look" speech.

Edwards had probably started his momentum with his NAFTA talk and a moment in the debate when he caught Kerry talking like the nominee already, saying "I" will beat George Bush. "Just a minute, John Kerry," Edwards said, and with that became the "let the process go on" candidate. But the mishandling of the timing of his speech may have cost him almost as much as his showing gained him.

Earlier in the day, a distracted looking Kerry had said something to a reporter about candidates not cherry-picking one state or another to run in, that like him they should campaign in every state. He's said this before but in the context of the Edwards showing, some bobbleheads acted as if they hadn't heard it before. But he had a point in Wisconsin, because Edwards really did direct a lot of resources there. He spent more time there than Kerry, and even outspent Kerry on media advertising.

For that he gets the chance to reap some free exposure with media that have little else to report on for a couple of weeks until Super Tuesday, when Edwards' candidacy will be duly slaughtered. (Kerry will actually have a few more victories next week, in small states.) A lot depends on how much money this showing will inspire. But Edwards is still probably not going to be competitive in many of the Super Tuesday states, like California and Minnesota. He's apparently looking to mount special efforts in Georgia (the one Southern state of that day) and New York State (campaigning in the upstate industrial cities with his anti-NAFTA song); the test of his appeal will probably be in Ohio. If he can win an industrial heartland state, then he’s shown something.

Kerry is probably kicking himself for not spending more in Wisconsin but the challenge should energize him and alert his campaign. (Maybe even inspire them to write a new speech.) It should also alert his voters, that this is no time for symbolic votes. His fundamentals in Wisconsin were undamaged---the 50% of Democrats, the 80% of all voters who said they would be satisfied with him as the nominee, including 70% who voted for Edwards. At this point Kerry is still likely to win most of the Super Tuesday primaries and enough delegates to be within mathematical striking distance. It gets a little tricky the week after Super Tuesday with a slate of Southern primaries, but he may have enough by then to wrap up the nomination even if he doesn't win several of these states outright.

Several things to watch in the next week or so: more talk of Edwards as v.p.? More media coverage of his campaign? And especially, do the expected endorsements of Kerry, by the AFL-CIO and politicians like Governor Rendell of Pennsylvania, materialize on time? One thing the media will watch because every story has to have an ending: what Howard Dean decides to do on Thursday. But whatever he does is unlikely to be much of a factor at this point. He's very unlikely to endorse anyone if he drops out, and Kerry will benefit as least as much as Edwards.

One other potentially interesting decision will be CNN's candidate debate (moderated by Larry King, as he so often reminded us for the past couple of weeks of primary coverage): they may decide to not invite Al Sharpton or Dennis Kucenic, which according to the rules they could (because they haven't gotten the threshold percentage of votes). If Dean has dropped out by then, it could be John Edwards' fond desire: a two-person debate. That would be pretty interesting, and not at all certain that it would really be so good for Edwards. But they are two very smart guys, both of them former trial lawyers, so it could be fun to watch.

A brief word on a subject that deserves longer treatment, but it does cut to the chase: the debate this week raging among the media bobbleheads and in the august pages of various Times about G.W.'s service record during the Vietnam war largely misses the point. The element that makes this an important consideration (though not an "issue") is that G.W. Bush supported the war in Vietnam---he thought it was morally right and good policy for the U.S. to be fighting in Vietnam---just as long as it wasn't his ass on the line. He had, as Cheney described his own absense, "other priorities." He got his congressman father to jump him over 500 or so applicants ahead of him to get into the National Guard, well known as a draft dodge in 1968, and he got promoted to second lieutenant with lightning speed, for no apparent reason. That is, he avoided participating in a war he supported, and used influence to do it. It isn't that he didn't fight. It's that he wanted others to fight, but not him. That's what is so reprehensible about what he did. And why it is relevant to his fitness for the presidency now, when he has shown no compunction about sending others to die in a war of aggression he began on false pretenses.


Now, just before voting in Wisconsin begins, we risk our perfect primary record with another hunch: that John Edwards will get enough of a late surge to come in second to John Kerry, instead of third behind Howard Dean, as the most recent polls predict.

However, that said, Edwards is becoming a less attractive candidate every day. His one-note campaigning and slumped-smile demeanor isn't wearing well. We suspect his v.p. stock is also falling. So though it's likely he will be the last man standing whose name isn't Kerry, he may have a share in the spotlight for only a few more weeks, until he gets his two-man race on Super Tuesday, and doesn't do all that well.

There is also the possibility, however remote, that Howard Dean's genial demeanor at the debate did not, as the media bobbleheads concluded, signal his surrender, but was a clever play for a more sympathic image. Which might translate into votes in Wisconsin.

The day before Wisconsin...

Howard Dean's campaign chairman let it be known yesterday that after Wisconsin he would announce his support for John Kerry (he'd worked on a Kerry Senate campaign.) Today he is no longer the Dean campaign chairman, which seems to indicate that Dean is going on in some way, even after his defeat tomorrow.

John Edwards got another newspaper endorsement in Wisconsin, and people are pointing out that the poll numbers for he and Dean put together would make a competitive candidate. But he's running third in the latest polls. Will he and Dean strike a deal? Only if the deal is for Dean to pull out and support him. It will never go the other way.

We just saw C-Span coverage of a rally in Madison in which Teresa Heinz Kerry spoke. Stories about her have split, some emphasizing her outspokenness and eccentricities, others rhapsodizing her skills as a campaigner. In Kerry's victory speeches she's just been this little figure to the side in the front row on the stage, seldom in one of those waving embraces that usually characterize the shots of the Political Couple. But hearing her speak, and watching the audience, it's obvious why they say she is such a great campaigner. She speaks in a soft, accented voice, yet her audience was utterly rapt. She is not packaged, she's alive up there, cogent and eloquent. Her theme was, no more cynicism. Allow America to be the living symbol of possibility again, as it was when she grew up in East Africa. She's funny and feisty, intelligent, and you sense this individualized combination of sensuousness and elegance and a touch of wildness. She's real. And she must have that power of presence, because that audience---assembled for a rally, and therefore pumped up---hung on her every word, and was totally with her in feeling. It was something to see.

Ted Kennedy spoke next. He's 71, and has weathered well. He's slimmed down, looks healthy, sounds on top of his game, and looks pretty happy. Apparently his relationship with both Kerrys is more than political. He and his second wife befriended Teresa when she moved with Kerry to Boston. So the Kennedy continuity, a very real element that will become more important as the campaign goes on, is a living one. The Republicans can paint Ted Kennedy as the liberal devil all they want, but on President's Day in the U.S., the Gallup organization says that when asked what President in U.S. history they admire the most, it's a two way tie: Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy.

Within the past few weeks, both John Edwards and Howard Dean declared Wisconsin a must-win state for their campaigns. They both backed off that stand, but if neither of them gets even a quarter of the vote, which now looks likely, they may have to avail themselves of at least a semi-withdrawal from the race. Look for Dean or Edwards or both to announce they are "suspending" their campaigns but not releasing their delegates. This gives them that remote possibility of a collapse of the Kerry campaign, or actually it would have to be a collapse of Kerry, so the convention has to turn to another nominee.

Dean is the most beleaguered. His staff is in virtual revolt, and it's likely that he will have to replace key staffers with volunteers if he is to continue his campaign in any form. John Edwards left the campaign trail to attend fund-raisers several times in the last week, so there's a real question whether he can afford to go on. Clearly neither has the money, or will get the money, to even begin to be competitive in the ten states voting on Super Tuesday, which include California, New York and Ohio.

On Saturday John Kerry won the caucuses in Nevada and in D.C. D.C. had previously given Dean his only "win" in a non-binding caucus. This however was the real one. The candidate's debate today in Wisconsin was notable for Dean backing off the opportunity to hit Kerry on special interest money, after the Bush campaign made it the subject of its first official ad (though Internet only). The Washington Post congratulated the Bushies on their nerve, for the amount of special interest money from major corporations and wealthy donors flowing into the Bush campaigns, and the obvious payoffs to past contributors, is a major Bush vulnerability. Meanwhile several public interest groups agree that when all special interest contributions are added up, Kerry ranks 92nd out of 100 Senators. He has taken less lobbyist money in this campaign than Dean, Edwards or any other Democratic candidate. Even if the total amount featured in the Bush ad is correct---$640,000 over 12 years for Kerry---it pales in comparison to Bush who took in $6.5 million in 2003 alone.

Kerry, the media bobbleheads all agreed afterwards, looked "presidential."

Another interesting moment in the Wisconsin debate was after John Edwards made his usual somewhat disingenuous pitch that he "understands" the problems of working people better because he comes from a working class background, although he doesn't dispute that Kerry and Dean would be just as sensitive to the issues of jobs and poverty. Al Sharpton debunked Edwards simply by saying that good people are good people, it doesn't matter what race or whether they went to prep school or not. Clarence Thomas is black and comes from a similar background, but he and Sharpton come to completely different conclusions on the issues, Sharpton said.