Saturday, January 24, 2004

Crunch Time

It's crunch time. The numbers this morning don't look so good, and the news media are killing us. The former was expected given the Republicans' fear of Clark and their control of a good portion of the media. The latter wasn't; Iowans were very astute in their voting last week, and, until proven otherwise, I will continue to believe that the New Hampshireites will be too. That should mean that electability trumps everything else which should put Clark in second behind favorite son Kerry.

However, you can shout electability all you want, and it won't have any effect unless you can back it up with proof. In the next three days we will find out a lot about Wes's calm under political fire (which I'm not particularly worried about) and even more about the savvy of his political organization. This is where they earn their pay. The Bob Butterworth endorsement is a big step in the right direction. Butterworth is one of the most popular politicians in Florida history right up there with Lawton Chiles and Bob Graham; in Florida, that endorsement will mean a lot. I don't know how well he is known outside Florida however. [I don't know him. But I do like butter. -- Max] But, in any case, because of the significance of Florida in the last election and its importance in 2004, this endorsement should play well. Butterworth should shout from the rooftops that Clark is the only candidate that can win Florida. And that ain't just blowing smoke. I live in Florida and I have been canvassing for Clark for three months and he can carry this state, which means that Bush will be in real trouble if he's nominated.

If the campaign is holding any other endorsements up its sleeve, now is the time to play them. Especially if they are southerners in states that are in play. Bill Richardson would be great, but I don't think that's going to happen. I read somewhere that the theme for this weekend's rallies is electability, which means that the campaign brain trust has got it right. I would spend five minutes on a brief stump speech and then the rest of the time on why Wes is the most electable Democrat. I would use statements from the right-wing media and their blogs detailing how afraid they are of a Clark candidacy and how eagerly they are looking for a Kerry or Dean candidacy. Let's use their own words against them. Their web logs have been full of discussions about who would be the toughest opponent for them to run against and they universally think it is Clark. Let's get that out.

One final thought for Clark supporters: All of this negative media was to be expected once Clark became a threat. Don't let it get you down. Write letters correcting the smears, continue to give money, and continue to work like hell.

Mickey

Friday, January 23, 2004

Random Thoughts on the Debate

OK, maybe I'm being delusional today, but here are my thoughts on the debate and the race in general. One, the media does not like Wes Clark. Virtually all of his questions, with the exception of the one on the PATRIOT Act, were gotcha questions. Were they out to get him? Sure. Did they? No. He handled all the questions reasonably well and never lost his cool. True he never got to talk about jobs or health care or education, but I don't really care. As I've said before this is all about electability, and it was more important for Wes to handle gotcha questions -- which, after all, are coming from the RNC -- than policy questions. This proved to me and, I hope, to the voters that this is all bullshit and it won't rattle Wes in the general election. The RNC is also using and losing their best material in the primaries. It's clearly an attempt to prevent Wes from getting the nomination, but if it doesn't work and at least some of the press debunks it as they are doing (e.g., the way they've jumped on the false Drudge Report stories) then they are in real trouble in the general election. If I'm right, Wes will take at least second in New Hampshire and off we go.

Everybody did reasonably well in the debate, which means it won't shake up the race. Dean sounded like a rational man last night, but it's too late. I don't think he can reinvent himself that fast or that the public will buy it. Dean as a reasonable man doesn't have much to offer. Kerry did fine but I can't detect any difference between this performance and several of the previous except he didn't attack anyone. Obviously he got a big boost from Iowa and resurrected his campaign, but I would much rather be heading south to fight Kerry than heading south after two Dean wins to fight Dean. Edwards continues to be in the fight despite his lack of experience and apparent youth, which is a tribute to his abilities as a candidate to connect with his audience. He reminds me of Clinton in that regard. He will be tough in South Carolina, but I don't see him doing well anywhere else. Lieberman is history.

Now here are my personal observations about Florida where I am a county coordinator. I have been canvassing for Clark for about three months. He has remarkable appeal to the true conservatives in the Republican party those who think that deficits do matter. There is also a significant number of Republicans who aren't happy with the Iraq war and the money it's costing this country. I have been busy helping numerous Republicans change their party affiliation so that they can vote for Clark. Many are also active in the campaign itself; this is especially true of ex-military people. He is the only Democrat that has this crossover appeal. Clark can win Florida both in the primary and the general election. And if that's true Bush is in a lot more trouble than the conventional wisdom would have us believe.

Keep those numbers moving in New Hampshire. I will be leaving in a few days to go help in South Carolina , then it's back to Florida for the big push to the March 9 primary. Go Wes!

Mickey

Thursday, January 22, 2004

Mickey's fearless prediction

I'm usually not one to make predictions, but everybody else is, and so just for the hell of it I will. (If it's wrong, I'll just come back and edit my post and make it right.)

Mickey's fearless predictions for New Hampshire and beyond:

Kerry 30
Clark 26
Dean 22
Edw. 17
Lieb. 5


If I'm right about the order, then Dean comes out of New Hampshire as a mortally wounded candidate who will continue for several weeks only because he has a lot of money in the bank. Kerry comes out looking good, but going into a series of primaries he didn't think a month ago he would ever see and where he has little organization and even less support. Edwards is a great campaigner and will be heading south where his message and his style will play very well. But as I said above the overriding consideration this year is electability and in the end after a tough fight and maybe even a brokered convention Clark will be the nominee and Edwards will be his running

And if I'm right I want tickets to the inaugural ball at the White House and an office close to the president. Oh, and throw in season tickets to the Redskins.

Mickey

Polls

A run for the presidency this year is like a roller coaster ride. It starts out with a long, slow ascent to the top of the first hill, and then all hell breaks loose. It’s going to be a wild ride. But Iowa proved one thing: the electorate this year is very volatile, nobody’s support is rock solid, and the polls can change dramatically, sometimes overnight. The key is to stay focused, and calm. (Rich over at the Wesley Clark weblog has the best take on polls that I’ve seen.) Don't let the polls get you down. If Kerry and Edwards had, this would now be a two-man race, and Dean would be the odds-on favorite.

The electorate is shopping wisely this year, and number one on their list of requirements is electability (see previous post). That's what the exit polls from Iowa indicated and that's what my own canvassing in Florida has shown. The way I read the Iowa results and Dean's dismal showing as well as Gephardt's is that ultimately electability trumped everything else including organization. A candidate's stance on the war or taxes, or anything else for that matter, didn’t really affect the outcome. Iowans believed that Kerry and Edwards were the most electable of the candidates they had to choose from and they voted accordingly. But because of logistical considerations, the most electable candidate wasn't in the race. So the people haven’t passed judgment on Wes Clark yet. They will very soon and it will be interesting to see. But try to keep cool during the next several days; the only poll that matters is the one on election day.

Mickey

Wednesday, January 21, 2004

Okay, what did I miss?

Our 9-month old Ari got sick this week, and sick babies leave precious little time for politics. The blog had been left in my father's ever-more-capable hands (although I would like to acknowledge Max's efforts in his tireless editing of Mickey's posts) but Mickey's computer had an accident due to his sudden need to intervene in a scuffle between a small cat and an even smaller poodle, so it's in the shop right now. So I promised to try to get a post or two in.

Things look pretty different since the last time I came up for air:

Howard Dean -- in need of Haldol?

Word on the street is that Dean is a crazy man, as evidenced by his wild-talking concession speech, which I finally tracked down on C-Span. Maybe it was the low-res video, but he didn't seem any more insane than usual to me. Actually, it reminded me a lot of that mainstay of geek culture, the famed Steve Ballmer "Developers Developers Developers" clip. So, Howard Dean no crazier than Steve Ballmer. Still, I'd rather have a president somewhat less crazy than Steve Ballmer.

What irritated me more about Dean's so-called concession speech was the way he panders to his under-30 supporters. Talks a lot about the passing of the torch to the new generation, youth changing the world, blah blah blah. He's like a freaking tv network, always trying to get that males 18-30 demographic. You'd think over-30 types would feel alienated by his campaign. Hell, I'm under 30 and I feel alienated by his campaign. Let's face it: we youngsters have no sense of history. Our ideals haven't been ground down by crushing reality yet. Many of us don't have any stake in the so-called establishment -- careers, children, mortgages, etc. Our parents aren't even old enough to start being a burden on us yet. Things are black and white, in or out, establishment or anti-establishment. Let's face it, we are young and stupid, and woe unto us all if presidential candidates decide we are their most important 'market'.

As a side note, I think we know where all the people who dropped off the unemployment rolls went. Apparently they went to Iowa. What will the economy look like after November when all the unemployed and underemployed campaign volunteers start looking for work again?

Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Dean
So suddenly it's a four-man race. This gives me hope, since it proves once again that we voters actually do think for ourselves, and don't just do what the media tells us we are likely to. Of course, a caucus is a funny thing:


"What I was going to say," said the Dodo in an offended tone, "was, that the best thing to get us dry would be a Caucus-race."

"What is a Caucus-race?" said Alice; not that she much wanted to know, but the Dodo had paused as if it thought that somebody ought to speak, and no one else seemed inclined to say anything.

"Why," said the Dodo, "the best way to explain it is to do it." (And, as you might like to try the thing yourself, some winter day, I will tell you how the Dodo managed it.)

First it marked out a race-course, in a sort of circle ("the exact shape doesn't matter," it said), and then all the party were placed along the course, here and there.

There was no "One, two, three, and away!" but they began running when they liked, and left off when they liked, so that it was not easy to know when the race was over. However, when they had been running half an hour or so, and were quite dry again, the Dodo suddenly called out "The race is over!" and they all crowded round it, panting, and asking, "But who has won?"

This question the Dodo could not answer without a great deal of thought, and it stood for a long time with one finger pressed upon its forehead (the position in which you usually see Shakespeare, in the pictures of him), while the rest waited in silence.

At last the Dodo said, "Everybody has won, and all must have prizes."

So we'll have to see what happens in New Hampshire next Tuesday.

State of the State of the Union

I didn't watch the speech, but I still had to hear Bush's voice in my head as I skimmed the transcript this morning. My thoughts:

1) Continued airbrushing of history. Funny how he didn't mention Osama Bin Laden. Talks about leaders of Al Qaeda, but only those we've already caught. Doesn't mention all those nukes and anthrax spores we expected to find in Iraq -- just goes on about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, as though he convinced us all to go to war because Saddam Hussein merely had some programs to produce WMDs. Bush has an 'education program', a 'healthy forests program', a 'clear skies initiative', a 'guest worker' plan, and a whole host of programs; what counts is if they're funded, what they actually do, and how successful they are at doing it. Programs do not an imminent threat make. Yes, yes, the world seems to be a better place without Saddam in power. But who knows what the long-term consequences of this distraction from the war on terror will be? Who knows how long our soldiers will be stationed in Iraq? Well, General Clark talks much more articulately and knowledgeably about this than I can, so I'll leave it to him. But clearly Bush intends to run in 2004 on his leadership as Commander-in-Chief, so we better have a candidate who looks more qualified for the job.

2) Health Care: I am particularly pissed off at Bush's insultingly inadequate 'program' to address the health care crisis. For example, he says "And tonight I propose that individuals who buy catastrophic health care coverage, as part of our new health savings accounts, be allowed to deduct 100 percent of the premiums from their taxes." Okay, so first of all, in order to deduct premiums, you have to have premiums to pay. In order to pay premiums, someone has to sell you a policy. And if insurance companies decide not to sell you a policy, you're screwed. Max got laid off recently, as regular blog readers will recall, and we've discovered that COBRA will cost us $1100/month. We are young and reasonably healthy people, and we'd be happy to pay cash for ordinary medical needs and go with a cheaper catastrophic plan, but no one will sell us one. In any case the amount of money that doctors charge these days is set by some bizarre calculation about what they can expect to get paid by insurance companies, which is always less than what they charge, the result of which is that if you pay cash you're paying something like MSRP for a car, which is to say you're getting cheated. When in reality you should get a discount since you save everyone administrative costs. My point is that our health care system is completely FUBAR, and it is cruel for someone who has got the entire NIH at his disposal to claim otherwise.

3) America's missionary position:

America is a nation with a mission - and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs. We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire. Our aim is a democratic peace - a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman. America acts in this cause with friends and allies at our side, yet we understand our special calling: This great republic will lead the cause of freedom.

[And later...]

My fellow citizens, we now move forward, with confidence and faith. Our nation is strong and steadfast. The cause we serve is right, because it is the cause of all mankind. The momentum of freedom in our world is unmistakable - and it is not carried forward by our power alone. We can trust in that greater power who guides the unfolding of the years. And in all that is to come, we can know that his purposes are just and true.

May God continue to bless America.

Call me crazy, but all this missionary talk just creeps me out. That and the talk of more funding for abstinence-only sex education, constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, etc. etc. etc. These are sops to fundamentalist voters. I'm not anti-religion, I'm really not. But we should be wary when a nation's leader is certain that God is on his side. Mr. Bush should look to his Bible, and see what it has to say about Pride, for from what I understand, it's the worst of the Christian's deadly sins, and he has it in spades.

Okay, I think I've hit all the big developments. Will write again when I can, loyal readers.

Tuesday, January 20, 2004

It's Electability, Stupid

Good morning, fellow spinners. Interesting night, wasn't it? Shaun Dale at Upper Left was sure excited last night. His man carried the day. There wasn't too much happiness in the Dean camp, however, and if we thought he was the last angry man yesterday, just wait till we see the new version today. As I've said before in these pages, I was a doctor in my former life, not a political activist, and, despite my last name, not a political pundit either. So that leaves me free to make it up as I go along. However, since that's what they do I'm not at any great disadvantage, so here goes.

Scroll down and read the title of my post from yesterday morning; read the whole post if you want. It seems that is exactly what the caucuses in Iowa told us last night. For Democratic voters this year the issues are secondary if they matter at all. Electability is numbers one two and three on the voters' list of concerns. It's not a surprise that the anger among Democrats is what made Dean phenomenon possible. But the Iowa caucuses proved to me that this anger is not irrational; otherwise, the result in Iowa would have been different. It is a cold, calculating anger, and the calculation made last night was that Dean can't win. Of the major candidates competing in their state Iowans decided that Kerry was the most likely to beat Bush. I don't happen to agree with that assessment, but it's a whole lot more rational than what’s been coming out of the Dean camp. I personally think that Edwards may have a better shot at beating Bush than Kerry.

So what did Iowa tell us? One, that the Democrats want to win in the worst way and that issues are not terribly important. And two, that they recognize that to accomplish the former, they need a candidate who can stand up to the he-is-a-traitor argument from the Republicans. That is the reason Edwards didn't win this race going away. (He is the most inspirational candidate out on the stump, although Clark is not too far behind.)

So in a year when electability is the only issue who stands out? Kerry still suffers from the fact that he can be labeled a Massachusetts liberal, and, despite what we saw in the last week, he still doesn't connect well with voters. Edwards is great and he comes from the South, which is important, but he suffers from a lack of gravitas primarily because he looks twelve. Dean is still in this if for no other reason than money, but his air of inevitability is gone, and the voters have shown that they want a winner and he's not. The only way he wins now is through the back door and I don't think that’s going to happen.

Let's play a game for second here: let's create our ideal candidate to win the nomination. The electorate has told us that issues aren't important so we don't need to run to the left to get nominated; better to be in the center and be able to attract some independent and moderate Republican votes. Better to be a Southerner because this also makes it easier to compete in the Republican south. And finally, the candidate needs two other things: gravitas and a Teflon® shield on foreign affairs/national security. Okay, we have the profile for our ideal candidate; now who comes closest to matching it? Wes, stand up and take a bow.

Not only is Wes the ideal candidate, but he's running a national campaign and has the money to compete. So my prediction today is a long primary season with Wes Clark prevailing and just for the heck of it with John Edwards as veep.

Mickey

Monday, January 19, 2004

Electability

It's time to get back to basics. None of us know what's going to happen in Iowa today or how the results will affect Wes's campaign. So we shouldn't worry about things we can't control. What can be controlled is the message we try to get out in the next week in New Hampshire. Far be it for me -- a retired doctor and lifelong non-politician -- to give advice to the professionals running this campaign who have done a superb job to this point. But I will anyway. Nothing has changed or will change because of Iowa, and our message is simple: Wes Clark is the candidate best positioned to beat Bush in 2004. Kerry, Gephardt, and Edwards are all good men who would make fine presidents but each has weaknesses that can and will be exploited by the Republicans. Wes stands alone as the candidate most likely to return the White House to Democratic control.

The reasons for this have been discussed in this blog and elsewhere. They are based on two considerations. One: Wes was a four-star general and is thus bulletproof against the national security/ traitor argument. Two: he will appeal to many independents and Republicans whom no other candidate can attract and therefore brings into play several Southern states that otherwise would be beyond our reach. This is especially true in Florida, where I live.

So in this last week of the campaign in New Hampshire I would push Electability, Electability, Electability. Everything else is secondary. Sure, Wes has great policy papers, but so do the others. Sure, Wes would make a great president but so would at least three of the others. The reason Wes stands head and shoulders above the other candidates is that he can win and for me and a lot of other voters this year that is all that counts. The campaign's mantra this week should be that Wes Clark is George Bush's and Karl Rove's worst nightmare.

Mickey

Sunday, January 18, 2004

If it looks like a duck

I'm too old for this. The voting hasn’t started yet and already my blood pressure is off the wall. In the last week the race in Iowa has become too close to call, with four candidates within the margin of error of the polls. And, since the polls usually don't mean as much in Iowa because of the caucus system, all bets are off. I can’t take it, and I don’t even have a dog in this fight. Clark is sitting in frozen New Hampshire waiting for the battle to come to him. The outcome in Iowa will of course have an influence on the race in New Hampshire, but just how much remains to be seen. It depends not so much on what happens on the ground as what is perceived by the media to have happened and how they interpret it for the ignorant masses. Which brings me to the main topic of this post.

I have never really appreciated the tremendous power of the media to shape public opinion before. I guess in the past I never was as interested in the outcome of a race enough to perceive the media’s power to shape the public's perceptions. The media made Howard Dean the front runner before a single vote was cast; all we heard for weeks was the inevitability of the Dean juggernaut. Why? Because the media said so. No other candidate could get any air to breathe. The coverage was all Howard Dean. The media completely refused to acknowledge Clark'ss emergence as a contender until it was so obvious that they had to grudgingly mention it usually as a footnote after another inevitability story about Dean.

In addition to having an incredible herd instinct the media is lazy. The Drudge smear is a classic example. Drudge made a deliberate attempt to distort Clark's testimony to a congressional committee about the Iraq war, to change black into white and for a time virtually everybody in the media bought into it. They didn't check it themselves -- after all, that would have required reading the testimony, which might take half an hour. Better to just repeat what was already in print; you could always say, should the article prove to be bullshit, that you didn't do the research, that you just reported what was already in the public record. The fact that Clark was testifying as an opponent of the war and Richard Perle as a proponent didn't seem to bother anyone at all. After all the quotes that Drudge used spoke for themselves, Clark obviously was in favor of the war. A quick Google search revealed nine pages of links about this story, many of them merely a repetition of the Drudge report, including none other than Lou Dobbs of CNN. To be sure, thanks to the Internet and some of the excellent Bloggers on it as well as as one or two in the print media this story was eventually revealed for the garbage it was. Pure propaganda, total bullshit. But the damage had already been done. The seed of "He can't be trusted" had already been planted; all that was needed was several other pieces along the same lines and it would become conventional wisdom: Clark can’t be trusted. Does this sound familiar? "Gore the liar" was built the same way. And the media was either too lazy or maybe even too biased to question the material underlying this assertion or the assertion itself. What is the difference between a lazy free press and a totally controlled press in a totalitarian state? Absolutely nothing! The end result is the same. We get propaganda, not news.

So when the pundits start pontificating about the significance of the Iowa caucuses, remember one thing: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and the media calls it a duck, then it’s probably an elephant.

Mickey