We’ll come back and revisit these predictions six months from now…
The Davis recall effort will fail. Oh, Davis will be removed, alright. The Republican turnout will be too high (and Davis’ approval ratings too low) for him to remain. But if Davis’ poll ratings are still dismal by the filing deadline, the Democrats will put a popular Democrat on the replacement ballot as an alternative.
It’s the second half of that ballot that will be the Republicans’ undoing. They will be fractious as ever, and, in refusing to unite behind a single candidate, they’ll fumble away any chance at electoral redemption. Sure, it’s possible that the Dems won’t run a candidate, they’re not that stupid.
Well, maybe.
Condi Rice stays. The blogosphere is buzzing now that she’s in the crosshairs of the media. But not to worry, the Republicans need her too much to cut her loose. Hell, they already lost J.C. Watts, so Condi and Colin are all they’ve got left.
Yeah, they’ve got big plans for Condi. Look for her to run for California governor after the Republicans lose the recall effort.
And while we’re at it…
George Tenet stays. Because he’s more dangerous cut loose from the administration than working for it. Simple as that.
Howard Dean’s goes down. Look for him to be attacked, ferociously, during the September-October period. And the perpetrator will be none other than John Kerry.
This is not to say Dean won’t keep raking in money or stay competitive in the polls. That said, the honeymoon will be over. Dean will be confronted with questions about whether he performed abortions, whether there’s more to the Vermont miracle than meets the eye, and whether he’s just too mean and unpresidential to be president.
Dean will never be able to transition his demeanor from that of a brusque, stubborn gadfly to a thoughtful, presidential candidate. He will never outgrow concerns about his electability, but rather, he’ll give them more credence, and his big mouth will continue to get him into trouble. And just as Dean’s perpetual anger starts to get old, he will attempt to lure more moderates into the fold by playing up his centrist credentials, causing the ultra-left to cast an eye toward Ralph Nader.
The uranium flap blows over. It’s already getting old, Bob Graham’s comments notwithstanding. Problem is, the Democrats needed to sustain that story by systematically pointing out other embellishments, such as the claim that Iraq’s WMD could be ready within 45 minutes, or that the aluminum tubes were for producing nukes, or that we had “found the weapons of mass destruction” when troops found two trucks that turned out to be anything but. Or, to seize a ripening story, the contention that the Saudis are allies in the war on terror rather than enablers of terrorism.
The Republicans were great at painting every Gore misstatement as part of a broader character flaw. The Democrats just aren’t as good.
Several Democratic presidential candidates drop out…but nobody important will leave before the first votes are cast. Look for Moseley-Braun to bite the dust early. Then Bob Graham will end his useless candidacy. After that, Kucinich and Lieberman will wise up, with Dean finally going down after Super Tuesday.
Joe Biden doesn’t enter the race. I saw him on Meet the Press. He soundedgreat, and might make a good VP. But again, he will not run for president.
Wesley Clark enters the race. This will effectively mean the end of John Kerry, who cannot win New Hampshire with a charismatic military man on his flank. Kerry’s own minions will slowly realize this and jump on the Clark bandwagon, as will the Dean-By-Default moderates.
Not sure if he’ll run? I saw Clark’s last two television appearances. Mark my words: he’s in.
You said one correct thing in your above posts:
“The Republicans were great at painting every Gore misstatement as part of a broader character flaw”
This is true simply because the cable news media and the talk radio circuit is working to reinforce every false claim about any Democrat in any position all over the country. They could not do it if it was not for the fact that they own the media.
I think a growing number of people are beginning to see the disconnect between reality and what the media reports, and I think that as time goes on, the public will grow more unsettled by each new death in Iraq. People will continue to ask why their brother is in Iraq, why their cousin just died, and why Walter Reed is filling up with crippled men.
Oh here we go again, another blogger baggin on Dean’s “electability.” What the hell do YOU know that the rest of the country is yet to be clued in on? Because I gotta tell ya, the polls are running against your factless onslaught, and he’s gaining steam every day. Deans no lefty, and his supporters know this. That’s WHY we are behind him, because he represents the middle but brings a very fresh persepective to the race. Maybe you’re too cynical to accept that voters would like that, but I PREDICT he wins the nod.
Scott- You need to change your station from Fox news to anything else. I suggest the NYtimes, do you remember how to read?. The REALITY is that democrats have failed miserably and pointing out the many republican flaws. They didn’t cry loud enough or long enough about WMD, they didn’t cry at all about Bush’s much too long hesitation to act on Liberia, they didn’t cry at all about Bush never traveling anywhere for diplomacy before or after the war, they have failed point out that our states are bankrupt, and most importantly they have failed to DO anything noteworthy. The democratic party is too scattered to accomplish anything, which is why I say Bush will return in 04.
You mean there are other stations besides Fox? Are there other newspapers besides WSJ too? That’s just crazy talk.
Scott: Agreed, and it doesn’t look like it’s getting any better for the media.
BeenyWeenies…LOL. You sound just a angry as your candidate. Check this before you call my assault factless. Maybe you should stop fawning over your candidate and look at him the way swing voters in Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan will.
Astute predictions, except I don’t share your view of Biden. He’s always been an empty suit, from his dismal performance at the Clarence Thomas hearings to his obeisance to his credit card sponsors fighting for oppressive Bankruptcy “reform” to clueless recent comments about the HSD pursuit of the Texas Killer D’s.
As for Clark — I’m more and more convinced that he’s the guy. (Just the thought of running against another Rhodes scholar from Arkansas is likely to drive the wingers into paroxsyms of rage.) The man has grace, courage, intelligence and presence.
He will also have Dean-esque blogosphere support.
Ah…admittedly, I don’t know enough about Biden, and he’s probably got a long enough political history that he’s vulnerable on several issues.
But let’s not forget that Cheney had PLENTY of drawbacks (Haliburton, heart troubles, hard-right agenda), yet he still steadied the ticket. If the Dems are going to be competitive, they’ll need to choose a VP who can sit next to Cheney in a debate and hold his own.
I’m thinking a Clark/Bayh ticket would be pretty damn good.
It shouldn’t take much to “hold your own” against Cheney. Lieberman, however, failed to do it (letting him get away with saying that his Halliburton money had nothing to do with the government, not even mentioning Cheney’s reactionary House record (e.g., against freeing Mandela and S.A. sanctions). I don’t think Biden would be much better.
But it will be a lot harder for Cheney to pose this time as the reasonable moderate that he came across in the debate.
Wouldn’t Evan Bayh piss off a lot of pro-choice people?
As someone who theoretically could be considered a “swing voter” in Michigan – well, at least insofar as the Democrats are concerned; I would NEVER vote for Bush, but I could consider nearly every Democratic candidate save Lieberman – here’s one “swing voter” in Michigan who is solidly behind Dean. Sorry, can’t agree with your prognostication on this one. The polls show it, too – Dean’s support is growing stronger nearly by the day, and his fund raising juggernaut continues unabated. He may be brusque, but we’ve had enough of the milquetoast Democrats who refuse to stand up to the Bushies’ unauthorized use of presidential power.
As for Clark, two problems: one, he’s too late to catch up (if he’d gotten in in the spring, maybe, but now, forget it), and two, he’s WAY too much of an unknown. Better he joins up with Dean or whoever the eventual nominee is to be a VP candidate. Strong on defense, sure … Rhodes scholar from Arkansas, even, but what else do we know about him, especially politically. I think the Clark devotees are pie-in-the-sky optimists, for the most part, who are just hoping he’ll ride in on his white horse and save the Democrats, since they don’t like any of the other candidates.
Well, we shall see … as they say, that’s why they play the games.
Claudius: I actually think it would be easier for Cheney to pose as a moderate, because he wouldn’t have to answer questions about his pre-VP background this time and most Americans don’t view this administration as extreme. Bad as the current administration is, I think Cheney’s background was much more indefensible.
Bayh…I’d assumed he was completely pro-choice, but I see now that he did vote against partial-birth abortion and for parental notification. I actually think it would strengthen Wesley Clark as a different kind of politician, and better position him to compete in the South.
Now, if Bayh were completely pro-life, that would be a different story, but NARAL notwithstanding, I think the vast majority of people are okay with a VP who’s against partian-birth. What’s more, I think the vast majority of Americans believe parents ought to be notified when their teenage daughter gets an abortion, just like any other invasive medical procedure.
Jeff,
First of all, I’m a “swing voter” in Pennsylvania, so I don’t concede that point at all. I’m interested in electability, not wishful thinking.
Sure, Dean’s support is growing, but among who? Like I said, his bandwagon will continue and he’ll keep raising money, but he won’t be able to dodge the serious questions about his candidacy for much longer. If you look here you’ll see why a Dean/anyone ticket is a recipe for defeat for the Democrats.
People who say “it’s too late” for Wesley Clark aren’t reading the news correctly. Have you seen the polls? The highest candidates themselves are in the teens, with 30-something and 40-something percent undecided. Also, take a lesson from history: Bill Clinton didn’t jump in until October 1991.
I also can’t help but laugh when I hear Dean’s supporters talk about a Dean/Clark ticket. They must realize what a huge foreign policy hole their candidate widens for the Democrats. They should push for their candidate to address that issue himself rather than finding a VP to act as a band-aid.
You’re damn right I don’t like the other candidates, and neither, I think, will the majority of the electorate in 2004. Especially Dean. You may be pissed at Bush, but wishful thinking about your candidate and blindness to his many flaws won’t get us into the White House. Again, please read the full Dean critique.
Interesting predictions. I read Clark the same way. He’s in and it is far from too late. I think Biden may jump in, too, but will peter out fairly quickly. He’s articulate, but I don’t think there’s much there. My mom likes he’s teeth, though. That’s how she forms her intial opinions of candidates. Interesting approach, but I doubt she could sustain a blog with it. If Dean gets the nomination it will be interesting to see the likeability ratings of both candidates down the stretch. Bush’s aren’t so good right now.
I have posted a lengthy rebuttal to Aaron’s pessimistic essay about Howard Dean’s electability to my blog at http://electoralmap.com/ .
“Aaron, I’m happy to say that by my reckoning, your defeatist attitude is for the most part unwarranted. Let me try to convince you of some reasons for optimism on the Democrats’ chances next year, and in particular those of Howard Dean….”
(Click my name to read the whole essay.)
Thanks for your response, Aaron. Of course, I respectfully disagree, but I did take your advice and I read the full Dean critique. My observations, FWIW:
1. Read “anti-tax cut” as “anti-service cut.” Bush’s mismanagement of the economy and resulting consequences (spiraling unemployment, unprecedented deficits in spite of no real sign of economic recovery) demonstrates his utter lack of understanding of how disastrous his tax cuts are. In 2-1/2 years, we’ve gone from record surpluses and low unemployment to record deficits and millions more out of work. The real question is, “Are you better off now than in 2000?” The answer for millions is a resounding NO.
2. The anti-war position, I’ll grant you, is a dangerous tack to take with the rah-rah, flag-waving, “Support the Troops” types of people who, by and large, do turn out to vote. However, the longer this Iraq quagmire drags on, the less popular the war grows, and the more Dean’s anti-war statements are and will be seen as prescient. By fall 2004, if not already, this is an asset rather than a liability for Dean.
3. On gay marriage, let’s not jump to conclusions. First off, Dean has never come out (no pun intended) in favor of gay marriage. Civil unions and gay marriage are two different things. Having just attended my first gay “wedding” (“commitment ceremony”) this past weekend, I’m inclined to support gay marriage, but I also recognize how volatile an issue that is. I doubt Gov. Dean, or anyone (save, perhaps, for Kucinich), is likely to open that electoral can of worms this time around.
4. The meme about Dean refusing to state whether or not he performed abortions is flat out wrong. On July 10, 2003, he stated categorically that he never has performed abortions, nor has his wife. End of story.
5. I rather find Dean’s sometimes brusque manner a strength, as do many voters. The obsequious pandering to the GOP by Lieberman, Gephardt, and even Kerry, et al., is tiresome and is turning a lot of Democratic voters, including this one, off. Plus, it’s not exactly like Bush is Prince Charming. He can get a little snippy himself, as we saw firsthand in his captivating (lol) performance at his press conference today. Besides, Dean has proven time and again in interviews (other than MTP, admittedly) that he can be thoughtful, articulate, and even engaging, traits our current “president” woefully lacks.
6. Can you PLEASE just let the “Dean’s a liberal” meme die! Yes, he is socially progressive and takes positions on social issues that are traditionally “liberal.” But, for crying out loud, he is demonstrably centrist, even conservative, on fiscal issues, having balanced budgets in Vermont for over ten years despite not having a constitutional requirement to do so. Moreover, his stances on gun control (close the gun show loophole and allow the states to set their own parameters as appropriate; what works in Vermont won’t necessarily work in California) and capital punishment (OK in certain egregious cases) are assuredly not liberal at all (to the consternation, it must be said, of many Democrats – the ideological purists – even some of his own supporters). The problem is, the country has lurched so freakin’ far to the right under W’s “leadership” that a candidate like Howard Dean is perceived by comparison as a wild-eyed liberal. That’s just not the case. Gov. Dean’s actual positions on the issues, as opposed to those you have parroted from the conservative media, are available online – please check them out and challenge Dean’s candidacy, if you must, on the facts rather than on distorted second- and thirdhand information.
Thanks again for the opportunity for this dialogue.
“BeenyWeenies…LOL. You sound just a angry as your candidate. Check this before you call my assault factless. Maybe you should stop fawning over your candidate and look at him the way swing voters in Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan will”
First of all, I’m only angry when it comes to bloggers who seem to think that the whole world, politics and all, can be encapsulated in such neat little packets. I read the article you wrote about his chances (lack thereof) of election, and I still disagree. Essentially, your attitude proves the Republicans have already won, when Democrats are terrified of being anything but centrist whimps. You ignore the fact than in so doing, you allow the Republicans to shift further right, pulling the collective “center” with them. This has been happening for decades, and it’s time that social liberal Democrats pull back.
To address specific points you made, Dean is hardly a pacifist, he is rather hawkish on many issues. His lack of foreign relations experience? Hmmm, Bush Jr., Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, none of these men had any foreign policy or national defence experience before entering office. Yes we’re knee-deep in a “war on terrorism,” not to mention the many additional enemies Bush has surely made for us, but Dean’s message to the public that we can win this war by fighting it where it should be fought, Al Queda’s doorstep, NOT in Iraq, and by working with other nations rather than offending them, is a much cheaper and more effective approach to this worlwide threat. Many Dems and Republicans alike are pissed at GW for his mishandling of our allies, and this approach will sit well with those voters. In addition, Dean’s VP choice could take this issue off the table completely, such as Wesley Clark.
Skiing in Colorado during Vietnam? First off, in being a good reporter and thoroughly researching this information before you printed it, you know very well that he went to the recruiting office and was turned away by a medical examiner there… Telling half the story is as bad as an outright lie. Second, Georgie’s record on military attendance is damaging at best, and they would be fools to even broach the subject.
Your article clearly shows your bias against anyone left of you, and that you embrace the failing, ailing and unwise approach the DLC advocates, pretend to be a Republican, and maybe you can beat one.
I’m waiting for your glowing write-up of Joe Lieberman…
Jeff,
Thanks for the talking points. I’ll respond to them, one by one, below:
1. Read “anti-tax cut” as “anti-service cut.” Bush’s mismanagement of the economy and resulting consequences (spiraling unemployment, unprecedented deficits in spite of no real sign of economic recovery) demonstrates his utter lack of understanding of how disastrous his tax cuts are. In 2-1/2 years, we’ve gone from record surpluses and low unemployment to record deficits and millions more out of work. The real question is, “Are you better off now than in 2000?” The answer for millions is a resounding NO.
Sure, Bush’s tax cuts go to the extreme, but so does Dean’s opposition to ANY tax cut. The answer is to find a middle road, taking back the vast amounts of money that went to the richest of the rich, WITHOUT raising taxes for middle- and lower-class families. I agree that we ought to make the case that these massive tax cuts are, in fact, service cuts. But if you think Dean, Gephardt, Kucinich, Moseley-Braun and Sharpton wouldn’t be bludgeoned with the kind of charts that were displayed on Dean’s MTP appearance, you’re dreaming.
Why would any Democrat be against ANY and ALL tax cuts, and tar his counterparts as Bush-Lite for supporting a small, one-time stimulus? I guess JFK was a closet Republican too.
2. The anti-war position, I’ll grant you, is a dangerous tack to take with the rah-rah, flag-waving, “Support the Troops” types of people who, by and large, do turn out to vote. However, the longer this Iraq quagmire drags on, the less popular the war grows, and the more Dean’s anti-war statements are and will be seen as prescient. By fall 2004, if not already, this is an asset rather than a liability for Dean.
So basically, the worse things get, the more it helps Dean. That sounds dangerously like you’re almost hoping for things to stay sour. And talk about memes, it’s people like you who distort the situation, calling it a “quagmire” when 1) we’ve barely been there 90 days, and 2) There is no mass starvation, no rioting, no humanitarian disaster, and no warring ethnic factions, contrary to what the doom-and-gloom liberals predicted. Most importantly, even if Americans begin to support a pullout, they’ll still NEVER turn to a candidate they perceive as soft on tyranny and unwilling to project American power until we’re hit first.
3. On gay marriage, let’s not jump to conclusions. First off, Dean has never come out (no pun intended) in favor of gay marriage. Civil unions and gay marriage are two different things. Having just attended my first gay “wedding” (“commitment ceremony”) this past weekend, I’m inclined to support gay marriage, but I also recognize how volatile an issue that is. I doubt Gov. Dean, or anyone (save, perhaps, for Kucinich), is likely to open that electoral can of worms this time around.
LOL…The problem, my friend, is not that Dean will bring it up. It’s that the Republicans will bring it up, using the issue to smear and tar him the same way they used gays in the military against Clinton. Don’t be naive.
4. The meme about Dean refusing to state whether or not he performed abortions is flat out wrong. On July 10, 2003, he stated categorically that he never has performed abortions, nor has his wife. End of story.
Agreed. I checked an article that appeared after my statement, and Dean did in fact state he never performed an abortion. I’ve removed the statement from my original post.
5. I rather find Dean’s sometimes brusque manner a strength, as do many voters. The obsequious pandering to the GOP by Lieberman, Gephardt, and even Kerry, et al., is tiresome and is turning a lot of Democratic voters, including this one, off. Plus, it’s not exactly like Bush is Prince Charming. He can get a little snippy himself, as we saw firsthand in his captivating (lol) performance at his press conference today. Besides, Dean has proven time and again in interviews (other than MTP, admittedly) that he can be thoughtful, articulate, and even engaging, traits our current “president” woefully lacks.
I disagree. The sight of a brusque, combative Dean next to a simple-sounding, inarticulate Bush would be a sorry sight for our Democracy.
6. Can you PLEASE just let the “Dean’s a liberal” meme die! Yes, he is socially progressive and takes positions on social issues that are traditionally “liberal.” But, for crying out loud, he is demonstrably centrist, even conservative, on fiscal issues, having balanced budgets in Vermont for over ten years despite not having a constitutional requirement to do so. Moreover, his stances on gun control (close the gun show loophole and allow the states to set their own parameters as appropriate; what works in Vermont won’t necessarily work in California) and capital punishment (OK in certain egregious cases) are assuredly not liberal at all (to the consternation, it must be said, of many Democrats – the ideological purists – even some of his own supporters). The problem is, the country has lurched so freakin’ far to the right under W’s “leadership” that a candidate like Howard Dean is perceived by comparison as a wild-eyed liberal. That’s just not the case. Gov. Dean’s actual positions on the issues, as opposed to those you have parroted from the conservative media, are available online – please check them out and challenge Dean’s candidacy, if you must, on the facts rather than on distorted second- and thirdhand information.
Blah, blah, blah. First, you need to drop the meme that Dean is a centrist. Yes, his gubernatorial record is mostly centrist, but those who objectively examine the candidate today must acknowledge that he has put forth some moderate positions and statements, and some liberal ones.
But again, you naively missed the entire point. It isn’t Dean’s record, on the whole, that poses the problem. The problem is the several key points I pointed out in the original post, and that I won’t repeat again here. After all, they called Dukakis a centrist too.
First of all, I’m only angry when it comes to bloggers who seem to think that the whole world, politics and all, can be encapsulated in such neat little packets.
I’ll stop you right there, because I think this is a major point from my original post that you missed. Believe it or not, it’s true that candidates can be encapsulated in “such neat little packets.” On the campaign trail, perception is reality — something Dukakis learned the hard way.
I read the article you wrote about his chances (lack thereof) of election, and I still disagree. Essentially, your attitude proves the Republicans have already won, when Democrats are terrified of being anything but centrist whimps. You ignore the fact than in so doing, you allow the Republicans to shift further right, pulling the collective “center” with them. This has been happening for decades, and it’s time that social liberal Democrats pull back.
This is the main problem with folks in Dean’s corner. Because the Democrats have been inept at getting the message out, people like you think the answer is to lurch left and shout louder. This is a simplistic and silly analysis. What people want is not an extreme social Left to contend with the extreme Right. They want reasonable views that appeal to middle America, spoken by candidates who can inspire us again with big ideas. If people like you were right, Ralph Nader would be president.
To address specific points you made, Dean is hardly a pacifist, he is rather hawkish on many issues. His lack of foreign relations experience? Hmmm, Bush Jr., Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, none of these men had any foreign policy or national defence experience before entering office. Yes we’re knee-deep in a “war on terrorism,” not to mention the many additional enemies Bush has surely made for us, but Dean’s message to the public that we can win this war by fighting it where it should be fought, Al Queda’s doorstep, NOT in Iraq, and by working with other nations rather than offending them, is a much cheaper and more effective approach to this worlwide threat. Many Dems and Republicans alike are pissed at GW for his mishandling of our allies, and this approach will sit well with those voters. In addition, Dean’s VP choice could take this issue off the table completely, such as Wesley Clark.
All good points, better made by other candidates. Dean has failed to articulate a POSITIVE yet TOUGH foreign policy vision himself, and the American people will settle for nothing less. That you think choosing a tough VP would “take this off the table completely” only speaks to your own naivete. And the fact that Deanies keep pushing Clark as VP shows they realize their candidate hasn’t made a convincing case that he can protect them as well as others.
Skiing in Colorado during Vietnam? First off, in being a good reporter and thoroughly researching this information before you printed it, you know very well that he went to the recruiting office and was turned away by a medical examiner there… Telling half the story is as bad as an outright lie.
Again, you’re missing the point. The idea that a candidate boasted of skiing after receiving a medical deferment for a bad back will rub veterans the wrong way. And as for Bush’s service being just as damning, he’s commander-in-chief now and Dean isn’t. If Bush’s lack of service was damning for him, that didn’t stop them from attacking McCain over his “betrayal of veterans” in South Carolina.
Second, Georgie’s record on military attendance is damaging at best, and they would be fools to even broach the subject.
Sorry, we need candidates who’ll best George W. in areas where he’s weak, not cancel those weaknesses out.
Your article clearly shows your bias against anyone left of you, and that you embrace the failing, ailing and unwise approach the DLC advocates, pretend to be a Republican, and maybe you can beat one. I’m waiting for your glowing write-up of Joe Lieberman…
I didn’t mention the DLC, you did. Guilt by association may be a convenient smear, but it doesn’t stand well as a rational argument.
I want a candidate who’s articulate, thoughtful, reasonable, and who can put forth big ideas that will inspire people and make them proud of being a part of the political process again. Bill Bradley and John McCain were two such people in the last election. That you stereotype me because I’m against your candidate only speaks to your own ignorance.
“Believe it or not, it’s true that candidates can be encapsulated in “such neat little packets.” On the campaign trail, perception is reality — something Dukakis learned the hard way.”
We’re agreed on that point. What I meant by encapsulation was that implying all of Dean’s centrist positions will be ignored and overshadowed by the few liberal stances he takes, many of which are actually popular opinions. But no matter, they are perceived by moderate republicans to be “liberal” and therefore he can’t win…
“Because the Democrats have been inept at getting the message out, people like you think the answer is to lurch left and shout louder.”
Once again I actually agree with you that some people will always take that approach, left or right. I am talking about simply holding one’s ground and not letting the center shift endlessly to the right. By agreeing with everything Bush does, even when it goes against core Democratic principals, congress is allowing the GOP to define the issues and lead the fight, therefore deciding where the center rests. The problem is less that the Dems can’t get the message out, and more one of WHAT IS the message? Is it the DLC vision, or the more liberal vision? There is little cohesion in the party, and the party’s so-called leadership has only made this worse.
“That you think choosing a tough VP would “take this off the table completely” only speaks to your own naivete.”
Hmmm, isn’t this what Bush did with Cheney? Besides, it WOULD make Dean’s team stronger on foreign affairs given Clark’s long history. If it speaks to my own nievete, please tell me how so. To say that it would be a mask to hide Dean’s weakness, well isn’t that the point of the President HAVING a VP, a Sec of Defense etc. as Bush argued during his own Meet The Press interview where he deflected all foreign policy questions?
“Sorry, we need candidates who’ll best George W. in areas where he’s weak, not cancel those weaknesses out.”
With regards to military service, once again this is another good argument for a Clark VP. Call it making up for Dean weaknesses if you will, but to borrow your approach and neatly compartmentalize it, the voters will see a man with a long military history running with a man who is strong on social issues, not the intricacies you are reading into it.
And you’re right, I shouldn’t stereotype you or anyone else, for that I apologize. That you are against my candidate only means we have much more work to do to convince people who share your views.
what’s the point of trying to predict the future? it isn’t possible in any useful way. when political discourse is reduced to attempts to look around the corner and to ascertain the ‘true motivations’ of political policies it crowds out any meaningful discussion of the actual merits of those stances. presumably, the point of politics is improve the lives of americans- i don’t see your discussion particularly contributing to that collective effort.