![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
The Man to Beat Himself?
Posted by Stephen Green · 18 July 2003
So far this week, we've looked at why Dick Gephardt and Joe Lieberman can't get their presidential campaigns off the ground. Let's do something different, and see how high-flyer Howard Dean could crash and burn. In almost every nominating race, one candidate surges strong early, gets all the adoring media, poses a surprising challenge to the front-runner, and then self-destructs. In 1980, we had Ted Kennedy. What killed Ted? Two things: Chappaquiddick and failure to ask an important question. The question was, "Why do you want to be President?" Kennedy's answer was an incoherent jumble. Oops. But that was a small oops, compared to our other flame-outs. That brings us to Gary Hart. Hart didn't quite crash in the 1984 race. It's just that, like Bob Dole in 1996, '84 was Walter Mondale's year. He was old, he'd been around longer than anyone else, and, uh, he was old and had been around longer than anyone else. So he got the nod. But Hart did well enough that 1988 should have been his year. Then he got caught with a bikini girl on his lap in a yacht called Monkey Business, and we got stuck with Mike Dukakis. I'd say that's the sort of spectacular idiocy you only ever see on TV, except that TV is where you saw it. Four years later and another wide-open race for the chance to run against popular war President George H. W. Bush. Mario Cuomo and Gephardt both bowed out when Bush's poll numbers were at record highs. Almost no one of any stature was willing to run. And so Bill Clinton looked likely to take it all – and did. But he almost Harted out. You remember the bimbo revelations, I'm sure. But the public (and more importantly, the press) was in a much more forgiving mood than in '88. That and Clinton's damage-control team was the best ever yet assembled. But he was this close to going back to Arkansas, forever. In 2000, Bill Bradley was the little train that couldn't. Sure, Bradley didn't go down in a blaze of crap like his forerunners, but he was the closest thing to a rock star in that sad little two-man race. It's just that the Gore machine had the money and the connections, and eventually steam-rolled over Bradley's Big Mo'. Like Mondale before, '00 was simply Gore's year, and no amount of momentum was likely to stop him. This time around, we don't have a Mondale or a Gore. There's no Democrat in the White House, and there's no sitting vice president whose turn has come. This race is a free-for-all unlike anything we've seen since 1992. Right now, Dr. Dean is the man with the Big Mo'. Dean knows how to work a crowd, he's got that whole angry populist thang, his people are creative and tech-savvy when it comes to getting voters excited and, more importantly, when it comes to raising money. In 1964, Barry Goldwater pioneered direct-mailing to raise money, and the Republicans have been masters of it ever since. Today, Dean is using the internet, and using it in ways no other Presidential candidate has before. Excitement, money, organization. Dean's got'em all, and they're the keys to victory. But that doesn't mean he's going to win. The good doctor could still screw up. Could there be bimbo eruptions boiling beneath the surface? Doubtful – he just doesn't seem the type. Could this be John Kerry's year? Unlikely – his party power base isn't that big. Could Dean fumble the "Why do you want to be President?" question? Not a chance – if you've heard the guy speak, you know he's on a mission. So how could he fail? Simple: Howard Dean has got a great big mouth, and, like most populists, he doesn't know when to stop it from flapping. A while back, you might remember Dean publicly musing about the day when America is sucking hind tit to China. OK, he didn't put it that badly, but he did say that the US "won't always have the strongest military." One job the President has, especially now, is to make sure that never, ever happens. There's also this, from the Dean 2004 blog: In the mess hall, Dean has what one might call a gaffe when he goes up to an African-American recruit and says, "you're not from Vermont, are you?" That bit of non-PC talk isn't going to play well among black voters, and if the race stays tight, you can bet Gephardt, Lieberman, or Kerry will be Willie Horton-ing Dean for it. And then there's this, showing Dean isn't just gaffe-prone, he's also thin-skinned: [Dean] blasted possible war with Iraq as "unilateral," as he did in a speech at the DNC winter meeting two weeks ago. If Dean wants to win, he's got to learn how to take it like he dishes it out – and he's going to have to learn to dish it out less often, in smaller servings. Comments
What timely coverage! Today's actually Chappaquiddick Day. Remember to send the continuing senator your regards. Posted by: Brian J. at July 18, 2003 05:47 AMThe scarier possibility is Dean didn't know what unilateral meant in his initial response. He does seem to have an unusual knack for putting his foot in his mouth though... Posted by: ricky at July 18, 2003 08:07 AMDid you all know that John Kerry served in Vietnam? Posted by: Drake at July 18, 2003 09:19 AMIn all, I suspect Dean's major problem is more similar to Goldwater and McGovern -- he is a true believer without enough true believer voters to win. Doesn't make him wrong, mind you, but the average American voter seems to feel about true believer pols the way they feel about ture believer religious types: that's fine in principle, but not anything I want to get too close to. Additionally, true believers tend to fall rather quickly into groupthink to the exclusion of the necessary devil's advocate. This may be particularly relevant in today's rapidly changing circumstance campaigns. True believers don't shift their balance fast enough. See Mickey Kaus Feiler (?) Faster Theorum. You need a slimy Dick Morris or old Snakehead or Lee Atwater. Someone who will not only kick the opponents in the groin, but know when to shift the target and kick an ally. We'll see. I thing Dean may well win the nomination, but if he falls prey to the above and makes a major mistake about halfway thru the primaries I wouldn't be real surprises. Posted by: JorgXMcKie at July 18, 2003 09:58 AMI think the Dean campaign began and ended when Russert skinned him alive that fateful Sunday morning. Even ignoring Dean's ideology, he just looked like a small man on a big stage, way out of his league. He didn't look or act Presidential and presented no air of authority or confidence...dare I say, gravitas? He just didn't lack flair, he lacked basic factual knowledge that a serious candidate *has* to know...like at least being able to field a guess when asked how many people are in the US military. How the hell can you not know that in a post-9/11 USA? Dean is the typical primary candidate, small guy out of nowhere who generates some excitement compared to the automatons he's up against, gets some fringe support, but isn't ready for prime time and cracks under the pressure. Look for him to score in New Hampshire and show in Iowa, but fade quickly after South Carolina. If you think he stands a chance, you've probably watched one too many episodes of The West Wing... Posted by: Mike M at July 18, 2003 10:59 AMThen there's his "We don't know if the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam" statement. Posted by: scott h. at July 18, 2003 11:24 AMDean may be capable of doing what Mondale missed by 1 state, that is, lose all 50. He's angry, mean-spirited and has very large gaps in his working knowledge of something the voter will find most important in 2004: defense. But any Dems only hope would be a Perot-like candidate that could break the President's insurmountable white male voter/ white married feemale voter landslide. Clinton won with just 43% of the vote in '92 because of Perot. But, there are no such saviors on the horizon for the Dem party. They've lost before starting. Posted by: Wil at July 18, 2003 01:45 PMA fine synopsis. I think the rank & file dems are figuring they don't have much to lose with Dean. And they're probably right. In other words, chances are he'll blow up at some point, but in the meantime he's gonna give em a great time. Kind of a smarter, angrier, McGovern. Also, Dean's style is leftwing angry but his content is not universally so, witness his budgets and position on guns. He does have room to maneuver right, unlike McGovern. So I wouldn't buy into the Karl Rove idea that Dean=cakewalk. Regardless, better to have a reasonable, viable, opposition party, as opposed to the pre-Blair monstrosity our Democrats are becoming. Posted by: Lloyd at July 18, 2003 05:46 PMHey Will (and Steve): Going back to that Perot thing, I always thought he was the flame-out of 1992. If he'd had better minders (ANY minders), then we voters wouldn't have got the impression that he was off his little rocker. As it was he ended up with 19% and no Electoral College votes; he was polling upper 30's% before the Loon Factor kicked in. I suspect it would have been a heavy Electoral College plurality for Clinton (Perot coming a distant third but with enough votes to hold the balance) and a less-heavy popular vote plurality for Perot. That would have been fun. :^) Posted by: David Ross at July 19, 2003 01:12 PMGaps in knowledge can be compensated for if a leader knows how to delegate without micromanaging his subordinates to death. That's why even if I were still a Democrat in the 2000 election, I would favor Bush over Gore. Someone who insists on doing everything himself is a prime candidate for burnout, and easy prey for enemies ready to take advantage of his weaknesses, because he doesn't have loyal associates to watch his back. Posted by: Bloodthirsty Warmonger at July 19, 2003 04:35 PM |
MDS - Give Until It Hurts Terror War Scorecard Watching America 50 Things American Cancer Ablation Center Buy VodkaPundit Stuff
"A top blogger, even if he doesn’t spell his first name properly."
Ann Althouse
Across the Atlantic
American Realpolitik
Albion's Seedlings
Justene Adamec
The Argument Clinic
Todd A
Moe Freedman
Allah Is In the House
Body in Mind
Ben Domenech
Duck Season
Banana Counting Monkey
Ted Barlow
Eric Alterman
American Times
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |