Obviously I was wrong to prognosticate Howard Dean victories in Iowa and New Hampshire. Well, half wrong so far, anyway. you probably ought to consider my primary prediction record when considering the rest of today's post.
The grand irony is that John Kerry won Iowa by convincing caucus delegates that Howard Dean couldn't beat Bush in November--when in fact, Howard Dean is the only Democratic presidential contender who can.
In Howard Dean Republicans would be faced with the first aggressive Democratic presidential candidate since LBJ--a guy who's as mean as he is smart. And we need someone mean to parry Karl Rove's dirty tricks and lying attack ads--not to mention to convey to an insecure post-9/11 electorate a sense of strength and determination.
That man, unless I've missed something, doesn't seem to be John Kerry or John Edwards.
Today's Associated Press analysis reads, in part:
Aides to Kerry and Edwards said their positive messages contrasted with Dean and Gephardt. ''I hate mudslinging,'' said Theresa Strabala, who voted for Edwards.
Jesus H. Christ. When are Democrats going to learn? Politics ain't a tea party. It's a bar brawl. Come this fall, when Bush's neofascist thugs are administering a ferocious beatdown to the Democratic nominee, we're all going to wish we'd sent someone to the brawl who knows how to sling mud, kick ass and keep on going.
Stung by criticism of his record on race relations, Medicare and trade, Dean said a week ago he was tired of being the party's ''pin cushion,'' and suddenly looked weak to voters drawn to his blustery image.
This is what leading Democrats I've been talking to have been echoing in recent weeks. I agree with them. Dean decided to try to run out the clock after achieving frontrunner status--don't mess it up, just keep coasting--without understanding that his rivals would view his approach as an invitation to attack. Dean got as far as he did, expecting to receive 42 percent in Iowa just two weeks ago, by aggressively chastising Bush and his fellow Democrats for selling out the American people and getting us into the unwinnable Iraqi quagmire. He needs to get back to what he does best--standing up for the Democratic wing of the Democratic party--and quick.
Fortunately, New Hampshire is a truer measure of the feelings of the Democratic Party, the first true primary. Iowa doesn't even require its caucus attendees to present proof of state residency, as Dan Savage wrote in the New York Times a few days ago. It's prone to manipulation by party bosses. Never doubt for a minute that the clammy hand of Al From's Democratic Leadership Council is behind the Dean defeat in Iowa...the abominable "Stop Dean" campaign came out of Washington, dutifully fueled by a gullible and compliant media.
I will support any Democrat against George W. Bush this fall. Despite their faults, Kerry and Edwards would represent substantial improvements over Bush. (And Dean is hardly perfect either--he still supports the invasion of Afghanistan, which was no more justifiable or winnable than Iraq.) After all, none of the remaining seven candidates--Mosely-Braun and Gephardt have dropped out--echo Bush's neofascism.
That said, we need a winner in November. Unless Kerry changes his tune (saying that Bush conned him into supporting the war, though it's obviously untrue, would be a start), I don't think he's got what it takes.
Why don't Democrats realize what's at stake this year?
No comments:
Post a Comment