Gore for Dean & debate night
How long before Al Gore does his first Howard Dean commercial? The Gore endorsement announced today is framed by the media here as a blow to Joe Lieberman, the former Gore running mate. But John Kerry's campaign must feel things slipping away as well. Former Governor Jeanne Shaheen, and her husband Bill, were major Gore backers in 2000. Several key Shaheen staffers are onboard the Kerry bandwagon, and recently Shaheen herself endorsed the Massachusetts Senator. But now Al Gore is backing Dean, and it is no longer a sure thing that Shaheen can deliver even her own core supporters in the NH Democratic establishment to the Massachusetts senator (if she ever could).
Dean has sent out two direct mail pieces in the last two weeks. Gephardt still sends about an email a day. Lieberman is running a new TV ad in which he tries to paint Howard Dean with the same brush as George Bush. Both, says Lieberman, are keeping secrets (Bush about 9/11, Dean about his Vermont gubernatorial papers). Whether the analogy will seem convincing to NH voters is a matter of speculation, but it seems a rather far-fetched comparison from my vantage point.
The latest poll from Franklin Pierce College shows Howard Dean with a 39% to 14% lead over John Kerry, with other candidates farther behind. Dean's consistently commanding lead is also drawing the attention of the Manchester Union Leader, which has not one, but two editorials aimed at the former Vermont Governor in today's paper. For Democrats, drawing the ire of the Union Leader is about as important as the Al Gore endorsement.
Dean's large yard signs read "Dean for America." Kerry's large yard signs read "New Hampshire for Kerry." Hint to John Kerry: were I inclined to hyper-criticism I'd say there is an implicit message here, both about which candidate sees himself as nationally viable, and which candidate expects to work for the voters (rather than the other way around).
The recent heavy snow has added some authentic New England character to the campaign, as the campus of UNH prepares to host tonight's debate. Thanks to the Democratic National Committee, the students are angry about not being invited, and the faculty and staff are annoyed that a third of their parking lot has been appropriated. Between snowbanks and television trucks, campus is in gridlock. Now, if someone from the DNC would only tell us our taxes are going up.
We hear on the news that "all nine" Democratic candidates will be in attendance, but as I've mentioned before, there are actually more than twenty registered Democrats on the primary ballot in the Granite State. One has to wonder how a Dick Gephardt, or John Edwards would handle competition from candidates like Katherine Bateman or Randy Crow. And what earns Al Sharpton a place on the stage, when candidates such as Tom Laughlin and Caroline Killeen are veterans of the NH primary? We never hear clear criteria for inclusion. Polling numbers? Fundraising? Realistic chance to win? Al Sharpton?
Several of the candidates are planning pre- and/or post-debate pep rallies, the kind of event that both emphasizes the "sports" metaphor in American politics, and the importance of "winning" the debate. What gets lost when these terms define our politics is whether any candidate demonstrated an ability to govern well, promote the public good by compromising, or consider a range of policy alternatives beyond his or her own rehearsed position. Debates tell us a lot about campaign strategy, and how well a candidate prepared to give a 30-second response. They tell us almost nothing about whether a candidate will be a good leader.
Although I wouldn't rely
Although I wouldn't rely exclusively on a candidate's ability to perform well in a debate, if I candidate doesn't look good in a debate I'm far less inclined to vote for him. Maybe showmanship is a valuable characteristic in a candidate for me, but I think it is more about quick thinking and appearing perceptive. After all, besides the debates, we almost never get to to see the candidates engaging people. 10 second ads, and Headline News cuts to a particular comment in a long speech isn't enough.
Though in some respect I believe the Democrat's series of debates have failed to show us who would be the best president. Between unrealistic visions of America, stickling to classic democrat party platforms and calling it New Democrat, and a bunch of middle-of-the-roaders, it is unclear by this presentation who would govern best.
For the democrats voting in the primary this year, it comes down to two questions: 1) who can beat Bush? and 2) who best represents my interests (which hopefully is are self enlightened perceptions of national interests, but not necessarily so)?
Who would be the best president may not even be a valid question for democrats anymore, because of the fear of none of their interests being represented in 4 more years of Bush. So the primary really comes down to the first question, which isn't a healthy way of choosing a democracy.
For beating Bush, does it really come down to Dean, Kerry, or Lieberman? I might add that a number of the candidates would make fantastic VPs, but even these three candidates who might have the best shot of beating Bush, I'd like someone else to consider which has the best chances and which one would make the best president.
If how Dean is running his
If how Dean is running his campaign is any indication of how he would run his administration, what more do you want?
He sees what has to happen, he gets it done, he motivates and mobilizes people because he believes in the ability of his supporters to do the right thing, and he has a conscience.
As far as Lieberman goes, he had no chance. Attacking Dean today illustrates why. He should have listened to Gore's comment that we don't have the luxury of in-fighting.
Democrat presidential
Democrat presidential candidates should focus on national issues rather than fighting each other. They should keep in mind that this debate is for choosing one amoung themself to outsted the one now occuping the whitehouse.Mudslinging amoung each other only benifit Bush. Is that what they want ????
Listening to the reactions
Listening to the reactions to the Democratic debates is to listen to people focused on trivia. Seems to me the country faces one of the most stark choices in the last 50 or more years: if you like what the Bush administration has been doing to loot the country and roll back social services, then the Democrats are irrelevant. If your mind is boggled, however, by what is happening to the country, then any Democratic candidate is better than Bush. It then comes down not to who you like, but who is more electable in gathering swing voters and dismayed Republicans, while holding onto Democrats. I believe that is the way the Republicans approached the last election with Bush: lots of groups that were not enthusiastic about him at the time just held their noses and voted for him.
Janice, Lieberman was doing
Janice, Lieberman was doing no more than what Dean was doing when he did not consider himself the annointed frontrunner. Dean attacked Democrats "for not standing up for themselves" and for the war (where he had the same position.)
I think that for Dean to say "Now, I think I'm winning no one move!" or for Gore to say it in support of Dean is hypocritical.
And, I mean, really, do you think that the Dem campaigns will catch something that the RNC opposition research juggernaut would miss? I guess the answer is only if the Democrats can get Howard "The Man Without a Shadow" Dean to be honest about his past and open up his files. . .
I agree! Let Tom Laughlin
I agree! Let Tom Laughlin have the political spotlight for ten minutes and you will be riveted to your seats by an unconventional, highly informed citizen trying to shed light on important issues other candidates want to sweep under the rug. Again Let Tom Speak!