I’ve been reading the profile of Howard Dean in this week’s New Yorker. (I love a good New Yorker profile.)
Dean’s rise to front-runner status has been astounding. It’s truly amazing that a man whose campaign had less than $3 million in the bank a year ago is now the presumed nominee — presumed by the press and the White House, anyway.
Meanwhile, Clark appears to be gaining momentum. I have to admit, though, that despite my expressed preference for Clark, I’m starting to get won over by Dean. Perhaps presumed winners always look more attractive, or perhaps I’m just impressed by his rise. I still think that ultimately, Clark would have a better chance against Bush, but there’s something very sexy about Dean’s campaign. Sex sells. In fact, other than his support for gay civil unions and his anti-war stance, I doubt that many people could state what Dean’s positions are.
Okay — to be honest, I can’t really tell you what most of Clark’s positions are. But I think that more Americans would vote for him than for Dean.
Sometimes I wonder, does it really matter who the president is? If I were to completely shut myself off from the news, in what ways could I say that W’s presence in the White House has affected my life? The only thing I can think of is that I have $300 more in my bank account than I’d otherwise have. I’m being slightly flippant, of course. The problem with people who hold conservative Republican views is precisely that they think only about how economic policy affects themselves, here and now, and not about how those policies affect the rest of society, or about the long-term effects of those policies. The only time they think about the rest of society is when they’re telling people what to do in their personal lives, and the only time they think about long-term effects is when they’re preaching about Judgment Day.
I don’t know why I’m discussing the race for the Democratic nomination, anyway. Even I were a registered Democrat, New Jersey’s primary isn’t until June 8. If you’re not going to hold a primary until after the contest has been decided, why even bother?
Of course, maybe everyone drops out except Dean and Clark, and there’s a long, drawn-out battle for the nomination, culminating in a big suspenseful fight at the convention this summer. That would be pretty effin’ cool.
Or maybe Dean or Clark bolts and runs as an independent candidate.
Hey, anything can happen.
If by “would be pretty effin’ cool” you mean “would guarantee that the nominee would be mortally wounded in advance,” then yes, I agree.
The convention is almost guaranteed to give a candidate a good, lasting bounce in the polls…if the nominee is confirmed before it begins. If there’s actually a suspenseful, contentious convention where partisans are fighting in full view of the nation, we have no chance whatsoever of swaying undecideds.
As for Howard Dean, I think you underestimate him — or, rather, you overestimate Wesley Clark. As I’ve said a couple of times, qualities are being attributed to him that he hasn’t proven himself to have. He was a general, yes, but was he a good one? Is he capable of being the kind of domestic policy wonk we need? Is he really a passionate Democrat and not just an opportunist without strong convictions? And — probably most importantly — if he were now the front-runner, would he receive and be able to weather the same kind of negative attention Dean is now getting? As I posted a while back, we’re up against people who called Al Gore a liar and Max Cleland a traitor. Weeding out the “flawed” candidates is a fool’s errand, because they’ll create the flaws of the eventual nominee. And Clark has a few to begin with, and clearly limited ability to defend himself against criticism of those.
I don’t like what I see in him. And the campaign is bearing me out; if he’s such an invincible candidate, how can Dean continue to kick his ass even as he’s getting slammed on a daily basis by the press?
You make some good points. But I was joking about wanting a convention fight — yeah, that would not actually be A Good Thing.
Dean has impressed me lately with his resiliency. And I like him somewhat more now that I’ve finished reading the favorable New Yorker profile (even taking into account that the piece seems somewhat slanted toward him). I’m less sure than I used to be that he’d lose to Bush if nominated. I think Dean would put up a good fight against Bush — perhaps even better than Clark would.
But I don’t want to seem like a pushover. :-)