get donkey!

Daily News Online is closing down

As you may have noticed, I have been writing for a web magazine called The Daily News Online since February. I received an email from the site’s owner over the weekend that the site would be closing down. For posterity’s sake, I decided to post the full text of all my articles in the extended section of this post.

Enjoy.

Dream Week
Thursday, March 25, 2004
By Get donkey!

This must be they type of week campaign managers dream of. Last week your candidate took some minor hits from his opponent. People criticized your candidate for going on vacation. The polls seemed to be swinging back into the opponents favor. People were beginning to say your candidate was stumbling. Suddenly, your opponent faces an attack by an insider and it is hurting him badly. Your candidate is regains his lead in the polls, and you did not have to say, or do a thing, or even show his face. Everything you seemingly did “wrong” last week turns out in your favor.

John Kerry’s campaign is coming off that kind of week. Kerry was invisible from Monday through the end of the 9/11 commission hearings on Wednesday. The Rasmussen poll, which showed Kerry running behind last week, now has him on top. Bush is again reeling. Kerry had to do almost nothing, but by doing nothing he did a lot to help himself.

Many pundits faulted Kerry for going on vacation last week, saying he had to keep the pressure on Bush. Other people faulted the campaign for not speaking about the accusations of Richard Clarke, but now the campaign seems to have played to whole situation perfectly, but Kerry did not have to draw attention to the Clarke’s damning accusations. Clarke’s own words are doing the damage all on their own. Right now, by doing not much at all, the Kerry gang look like geniuses.

This is not the first time Kerry and his campaign have benefited by stepping back when their opponent faced trouble. As Howard Dean’s campaign imploded last winter, Kerry reaped the benefits, and the nomination, by lying low and, for all intents and purposes, doing nothing to diffuse the conventional wisdom that his own campaign was dead. They have played the last two weeks in a similar fashion.

Looking back to the 2000 election, one of the problems early on with the Gore campaign was their apparent inability to define who their candidate was. The media and the Bush campaign raked the Gore campaign over the coals for doing things like hiring Naomi Wolfe and dressing Gore in earth tones. Of course, in many respects, the media was completely unfair in their treatment of Gore, but his campaign did little to help his cause. They continued to play right into the critics hands by constantly trying to tweak Gore’s image and by not allowing Al Gore be Al Gore. As a result the Bush campaign was able to define him they way they wanted.

Last week, the Bush campaign attempted to do the same thing to John Kerry. The Kerry campaign, maddeningly to some, did not do too much to defend Kerry against Bush’s charges. They did release a rebuttal advertisement pointing out where Bush’s accusations were untrue, but they did not engage the barrage of “flip-flop” charges directly. Instead, the lasting image from last week was of Kerry snowboarding in Idaho. He looked good. Some commentators worried Kerry was flaunting his wealth and that image might not play well in the “heartland”. The reality is that Kerry was right in not trying to hide who he is. He is a rich person. There is no getting around that. Kerry will likely turn more voters off if he pretends he is someone he is not and tweaking his image a la Al Gore. Additionally, by not trying craft an artificial everyman image, Kerry portrays an aura of self-confidence. Confident leaders win elections.

Conversely, the Bush administration, and therefore the Bush campaign, looks like it is in disarray. Aside from the substance of Clarke’s criticism of the Administration’s handling of the al Qaeda threat, the Administration looks like they are scrambling to cover their rear ends. Instead of refuting the accusations directly, the administration has resorted to feeble attempts at character assassination. As a result of this “distraction” they have lost the narrative they tried to create last week. They are once more on the defensive and they are looking anything but confident.

Furthermore, Kerry did not help them by trumpeting the Clarke allegations. He just let the situation play out, and robbed Bush of the chance to convincingly blame the situation on election-year politicking.

Of course, Kerry cannot lie low forever. Today he will emerge from his vacation looking rested and ready to take on a floundering Bush. Kerry will kick off the day by accepting the endorsement of his fiercest primary rival, Governor Howard Dean. Then Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe, Howard Dean, Dick Gephardt, Wesley Clark, Al Sharpton, and John Edwards will join Kerry on stage to launch a fundraising drive and Kerry’s general election campaign. With this supporting cast, Kerry can honestly claim that he has unified the Democratic Party behind him while President Bush cannot even unify his administration.

Yes, this is the kind of week that campaign managers dream about. By not doing much at all, the Kerry campaign has made the most of it

---

The Temptation of the Donkeys
Thursday, March 11, 2004
By Get donkey!

Wednesday, in an interview on a network morning show, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) half-jokingly said that he would “entertain” the idea of running as John Kerry’s Vice President. While a Kerry/McCain ticket is very unlikely, such a ticket surely would test the concept of ABB (Anyone But Bush).

There are certainly some positives of having McCain on the ticket. How many swing voters and republican voters disgruntled with Bush would find voting for a Kerry/McCain ticket beguiling? One of the more exciting things about Howard Dean’s campaign was that at each MeetUp there was a group of Republicans who were supporting Dean because, contrary to the incorrect media characterizations, Dean was pragmatic, a straight-talker, and a fiscal conservative. Kerry really is one of the more liberal candidates that sought the nomination. His winning may give some potentially sympathetic Republicans and more conservative swing voters pause. Adding McCain to the ticket could balance that out. McCain has all the pragmatism, straight-talk, and conservatism (fiscal and otherwise) these voters may be looking for.

Second is geographic impact of having a popular Senator from an important swing state on the ticket. Surely, McCain’s presence on the ticket would most likely put Arizona and possibly New Mexico solidly in the Kerry column. It may even throw states like Colorado into play. McCain is definitely a politician in the mold of the Western, Rugged Individualist Populist, so there is no telling how his inclusion on the ticket would play throughout the western states that went for Bush in 2004. It probably would not hurt Kerry, however.

Third is the national security question. McCain was a hawk on the Iraq War, so many see him as tough on national security. He is also on the Senate Armed Services committee, and like Kerry, he is a Vietnam War hero. He would likely steal Bush’s thunder on the national security issue and possibly gain Kerry a few points in one of the few areas where he polls behind Bush.

Fourth, the Democrats would probably gain a Senate seat. The Governor of Arizona is a Democrat and would likely appoint another Democrat to fill McCain’s vacant seat.

Those are at least four of the positives of a Kerry/McCain ticket. While I respect Senator McCain, I can think of at least three negatives off hand. First, McCain is a Republican. Second, McCain is a Republican. Third, John McCain is a conservative Republican. As I mentioned above, I do not think that John Kerry needs the John McCain.

Kerry is riding a wave of party unity right now. Kerry has used that unity to take control not only of the Democratic nomination contest, but also of the Presidential race itself. President Bush is clearly on the defensive, and Kerry is not letting up.

On Tuesday, Kerry counter-attacked Bush’s claims of Kerry flip-flopping on issues. In doing so, Kerry turned Bush’s own campaign theme against him by claiming Bush’s leadership is not steady, but stubborn. While campaigning in Evanston, IL, Kerry said, “He [Bush] stubbornly insists on tax cuts as he steadily loses jobs in this country. …I think his stubborn leadership has led America steadily in the wrong direction and that’s why we’re going to vote for change in November.”

This week, Kerry also challenged Bush to monthly debates throughout the election season. This particular move was brilliant not because of the actual idea of monthly debates, but because Kerry knew that President Bush would have to respond to Kerry’s request and would decline the invitation. The result is more free media coverage for Kerry

Kerry forced the President to reconsider his “stonewalling” of the 9/11 commission and back away from the stipulation that Bush would only answer questions for an hour. Kerry managed to belittle Bush’s transparent attempt to connect with “regular” voters by stating, “If the president of the United States can find time to go to a rodeo, he can find the time to do more than one hour in front of a commission that is investigating what happened to America’s intelligence and why we are not stronger today.”

One of the best things Kerry did early on in the Primary Season was win the endorsement of the IAFF. Their support came in handy late last week when the union approved a resolution attacking Bush’s first round of campaign ads. The union demanded the Bush campaign pull the ads from the air. The firefighters chastised President Bush for politicizing the tragedy of 9/11 by using images of human remains from Ground Zero and using actors to portray firefighters when, “for two and a half years he has shortchanged fire fighters and the safety of our homeland by not providing fire fighters the resources needed to do the job that America deserves.”

Kerry is proactively attempting to short-circuit the Bush campaign’s probable strategy to paint Kerry as a tax-and-spend Massachusetts liberal by framing his economic plans on his own terms. In Chicago, on Tuesday, Kerry said, “Rain or shine, surplus or deficit, George Bush’s economic plan begins and ends with tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans with special connections. … I intend to return tax fairness to America.”

Finally, on Wednesday, a microphone caught Kerry speaking to a supporter after a rally. The supporter told Kerry to “Tell it like it is.” Kerry responded by saying, “Oh yeah, don’t worry, man. We’re going to keep pounding, let me tell you. We’re just beginning to fight here. These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I’ve ever seen. It’s scary.” The knee-jerk reaction of the Bush campaign was to paint Kerry as “negative”. The Kerry campaign could have reacted defensively by claiming, for example, that the Bush campaign took the comments out of context. Instead, Kerry’s spokesperson David Wade deftly stayed on the offensive by saying that Kerry was not referring personally to Bush but to “the Republican attack machine,” that has “waged the most crooked, deceitful, personal attacks over the course of the last four years. We’re making it very clear he’s a Democrat who’s punching back.”

All of these incidents took place within the last seven or eight days. They point to a campaign that is in control of its message and of the debate as a whole. The usual caveats about this being early, of course still apply, but, since he became the presumptive nominee on March 2, Kerry’s campaign has been nearly perfect. To some Democrats who were initially uninspired over a Kerry candidacy, myself included, it is becoming clear that he is up to the challenge of taking on President Bush.

At this point, although it may be a tempting dream-ticket to some, Kerry does not need to risk dividing the party by selecting a Republican running mate like Senator McCain. In fact, I would argue that McCain’s comment was not a response to any overture by the Kerry campaign but rather a sign of Kerry’s success. By not stating unequivocally that he would never serve on a Democratic presidential ticket, McCain may be signaling other Republicans who may be starting to doubt President Bush’s chances that it is okay to look elsewhere. Furthermore, if Kerry were to add McCain to the ticket, some may construe it as a defensive move by Kerry to shore up some deficiency in his candidacy. Since Kerry is taking the offensive at this point, and is successfully forcing the Bush campaign on the defensive, such a move would be unwise. John Kerry is in good shape right now. There is no reason for Democrats to be tempted by McCain.

---

Eight Months To Go and It Is Ours to Lose
Thursday, March 04, 2004
By Get donkey!

Back in November of 2002, after the dismal mid-term elections, it would have been hard to believe that the Democrats would be in the encouraging position we are now in. Two years before the upcoming Presidential election, things appeared so bleak that it seemed the election would be out of Democratic hands. So much has changed since then and our election prospects look so much brighter. Four recent developments of the Administration’s own making point to things going in our favor, but the general election is far from decided. Now that the Democratic nominee has been determined, we Democrats must stay united and work to short-circuit any attempts by the Bush campaign to swing the pendulum back in his favor.

I wrote last week that George W. Bush made a huge miscalculation by proclaiming his support for the Family Marriage Amendment. A week later, more and more states and cities are challenging state law by issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. Bush has created a phenomenon that has brought the nation to the brink of a culture war. I am not sure Bush and his ilk will be able to win this one without turning away a large chunk of the electorate. Even moderate Republicans such as Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island have decried this move by Bush. Furthermore, the images of gay marriage ceremonies broadcast thus far by the media do not depict craven monsters subverting sacred institutions, but instead show people celebrating their love for each other. If the Democrats play this issue correctly, the argument should boil down to a discussion of civil rights. Democrats, regardless of their personal position on gay marriage, should ask President Bush whether we should really add a Constitutional Amendment that discriminates against a group of people. As of now, it looks like this one is already backfiring. The FMA looks like it will not even get enough votes to get out of the Senate, and it looks like all Bush has done is alienate millions of voters at the expense of firing up a base of voters that should already have been his. Score one for the Democrats.

Yesterday, David Kay, the Administrations hand-picked weapons inspector, said that President Bush should “come clean with the American people”, and admit that he was wrong about WMDs. The issue of these non-existent weapons and the ever-shifting rationale for the Iraq war is not going away. It is obviously taking its toll on Bush’s poll numbers. According to a recent Scripps News poll, only 28 percent of respondents were “absolutely certain” that the Iraq war was the right thing to do. Only 15 percent “strongly agreed” that pre-emptive strikes are the correct means for the United States to prosecute the war on Terror. Finally, only 42 percent felt that the United States should send troops to countries other than Iraq and Afghanistan to combat terror. These numbers are markedly different from last May when, for example, 41 percent of respondents said they were “absolutely certain” that the Iraq war was correct. If this poll is correct, it seems that Bush is left with only his most fervent base on this issue. Democrats should continue to pound Bush on Iraq just like the good Governor from Vermont taught them last spring and summer. Of course, lack of confidence in the electorate over the Iraq war could dovetail nicely with a critique of what is supposed to be Bush’s greatest strength — his national security credentials. The key is for Kerry to start talking about what he would do with regard to national security. In fact, he is already beginning to do so. In a town hall meeting in Orlando Florida on Wednesday, Kerry said that no one “believes this president went to war as a last resort”. He accused the President of “broken promises” and said that he would share the responsibility and not just the risks of rebuilding Iraq with our allies. He also talked about how Bush has failed firefighters and first responders on the Homeland Security front. It is a good start.

The Bush administration is also taking heat from the Tom Kean-led 9/11 Commission. On Wednesday, the commission rejected the restrictions the White House attempted to put on interviews with the President, Vice President, and Condoleeza Rice. Though they the exact terms that the Administration was seeking were not specified, it seems the President wanted to limit his own interview to an hour, wanted to limit his questioners to the panel chair and vice chair, and did not want Rice to testify publicly. Meanwhile, former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore have already agreed to interviews in front of the entire panel, and former national security advisor Sandy Berger (Rice’s predecessor) will testify in public. Democrats have already taken the high road on this issue, and the attempted maneuvering by the Bush White House make it look like the President has something to hide. Until the President actually testifies, the Democrats should be asking why the Bush Administration is trying to stymie the 9/11 panel. Again, this issue points to a chink in Bush’s supposed national security armor.

Today, the Bush-Cheney campaign will officially roll out their first campaign ads. From what I have seen, the tone of the advertisements seems puzzling and incongruous. On one hand, the ads try to push Bush as a strong leader while at the same time claiming that nothing bad that has happened during his term is Bush’s fault. Further, the advertisements contain imagery of 9/11, which, while unsurprising, smacks of desperation. At this early stage, it seems like Bush will base his campaign strategy upon sewing fear over the uncertainty of changing Presidents in a dangerous world. If this theme of fear is the focus of the Bush campaign, then the Democrats should be able to counter it by hammering Bush’s abysmal record and, more importantly, by providing a clear alternative to Bush. Democrats can easily counter fear with hope and optimism.

These are just four instances, largely of the President’s own creation, where Kerry and the Democrats look strong and the Bush campaign looks like it is reeling and defensive. We have not even gotten the chance to talk about issues of fiscal responsibility, the failure of No Child Left Behind, the growing gap between the rich and the poor, and the overwhelming burden of the cost of Healthcare. If Bush keeps running in this manner, we may not even have to.

Unlike 2000, George W. Bush will not be able to lower expectations and run as an amiable outsider. His administration has been the most politically calculating of any in recent memory, if not in the history of the nation. President Bush now has a record established upon those constant political maneuverings. This election will be a referendum on that record. Currently, there is evidence that the electorate is unhappy with Bush’s achievements, and is looking for an alternative. Obviously, it is still early in the campaign, and a lot can and will happen between now and November. The good news, however, is that Bush seems to be foiling himself right now. He is not controlling the debate. We Democrats need to keep things on our terms for as long as possible. If we do, this election remains ours to lose.

---

Thank You, Mr. President
Thursday, February 26, 2004
By Get donkey!

I started writing this column as a direct attack on President Bush’s statement of support for a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage, but about two paragraphs into it something occurred to me. While our “Compassionate Conservative” President’s support of an amendment that actually discriminates against an entire segment of the population surely deserves harsh criticism, there is another feeling simmering below the outrage. That feeling is hope.

George W. Bush is on the ropes. For the first time in the last four years, I honestly think that we are in a good position to win this election. During the summer, at the height of Howard Dean’s awakening of the Democratic Party, I thought that we had at best a slight chance at winning back the White House, the recent controversy surrounding the President’s National Guard Service helped turn the tide a bit more, but now Bush himself has blown the contest wide open and made it ours to lose.

Think about the gift we Democrats have just been handed. We actually have a sitting President who is in favor of openly discriminating against a segment of society and codifying that discrimination into a Constitutional Amendment. Whether or not one agrees with the idea of gay marriage, or is morally opposed to homosexuality, does the majority of the nation honestly want to take as extreme an action as altering the Constitution to curtail the civil rights of millions of Americans?

It is now late February, a full eight months stands before now and the general election. President Bush has no primary challenger. There is not yet even an official Democratic nominee. At this point in the campaign season, an incumbent President who feels confident of victory should not have to make this kind of blatant political pander to a faction of voters whose support should already be cemented.

Of course, Democrats should not get too giddy just yet. There is still that mountain of campaign money that Bush is just itching to spend (I personally think that size of Bush’s Primary war chest should be made into a campaign issue, but that is a different column). At this particular moment in the election cycle, however, we Democrats have George W. Bush on the defensive, and we should take advantage of it. If we do continue frame the issues and are able to keep attacking Bush’s record, it will be difficult for the Bush campaign to fabricate the image of Bush as a bold leader. Bold leaders, after all, do not usually assume a defensive position. Luckily, the signs are good. Both of the remaining Democratic contenders seem ready for the fight. Even Governor Dean, who is out of the nomination race, showed he is still on the attack by quickly releasing a statement decrying President Bush’s support of the FMA. It seems for the first time in a while, the Democrats “get it”.

Bush’s early and desperate move to shore up his base exposes something else, however. Something that I believe is the greatest weakness of this administration - - President Bush is a politically isolated man. Bush’s administration seems comprised solely of sycophants and loyalists. Even the mildest dissenters have been forced out to “spend more time with their families”. Furthermore, until very recently, the mainstream media has been an enabler of the administration and has rarely criticized White House policy. Most importantly, however, is the fact that throughout the entire term of his presidency, Bush has never held an event that was the slightest bit spontaneous and freely open to the public. Just as it is impossible to boldly lead when constantly playing defense, it is impossible to be a great leader when the strength of your leadership is never challenged.

Unlike the current Democratic candidates, President Bush has never established a dialogue with the American people. As a result, falling poll numbers across the board reflect the fact that he is out of touch with mainstream America. The Administration’s response to its first sign of real political trouble is indicative of this disconnect. Instead of talking about the President’s, say, economic vision for the nation’s future, his campaign decides to take an radical stance on an issue that, while important, is probably not primary to most Americans who are more concerned about matters such as job security.

The Democrats can use this disconnect to their advantage simply by pointing it out. With respect to the FMA issue, even though Democrats are on what I feel is correct side of the debate, they do not even have to engage Bush in discussing the merits of an anti-Gay marriage amendment. Instead, they can diffuse Bush’s position on this matter by asking how many jobs an anti-gay marriage amendment will create, how much will an anti-gay marriage amendment decrease the deficit and put the nation on the road to fiscal responsibility, or how will curtailing the civil rights of millions of American citizens keep us safer from terrorists? Bush has no defense to these questions.

Up to this point, mostly because Howard Dean showed the efficacy of taking an aggressive posture towards the President, the Democrats have framed the 2004 election season on their terms. Under siege by constant attacks on his record and questions about his credibility, President Bush has attempted to divert the debate away from issues that are important to all Americans, by instead embracing a wedge issue that will inflame only his base constituency. Right now, we Democrats, especially the Presidential candidates, are in a position that we have not had in a long while. We are in a position of power. We can take the struggling President’s bait and try to fight on his playing field, or we can continue to define this election on our own terms. If we choose the latter, we will win.

---

Is There a Case For a Two-Man Race?
Thursday, February 19, 2004
By Get donkey!

Last week I wrote about the potential benefits of a Democratic Party united behind John Kerry. Then Wisconsin happened, Dean suspended his campaign, and I am beginning to wonder whether a two-man, Kerry/Edwards race might be a good thing after all.

It seems to me that the general election race and, therefore, the success of the eventual Democratic nominee will have as much to do with mood of the media as anything else. At certain stages of the campaign, two Democratic candidates have succeeded in controlling their message and, to a lesser extent, the way they are covered. Early on, Howard Dean demonstrated to Democrats and to the media that, no matter how popular the President seems, it is safe to criticize the Administration’s policies. More recently, John Kerry, specifically his heroic military background, coupled, perhaps, with the appearance of a unified Democratic Party, made it acceptable to examine President Bush’s character. As a result, coverage of the Democratic primary remained positive and Bush’s poll numbers began to fall.

The problem with both Dean and Kerry, however, is that the media does not seem to like them very much. Howard Dean wanted to lay waste to entrenched “establishment” institutions and so the press endeavored to kill his candidacy. With a little help from Dean himself, they succeeded. John Kerry is about as exciting to cover as a farm show, and the pundits are already showing that they will soon tire of talking about him.

Enter Senator John Edwards. With the possible exception of George W. Bush, It is difficult to remember a recent presidential candidate who the media has been so ready to shower with praise. In their coverage of the Iowa caucuses, mini-Tuesday, and this Tuesday evening’s Wisconsin primary, the majority of television pundits anointed Edwards as the surprise second-place winner. It was Edwards’ and not Kerry’s picture on the front of this morning’s national edition of the New York Times. Last night and in previous primary coverage, the talking heads could not say enough about how powerful a speaker Edwards is and how his populist message rings true. In fact, the media all but ignored the impressive wins Kerry stacked up in other states in the primaries falling between South Carolina and Wisconsin. Moreover, even as Howard Dean remained in second place in the delegate count, the media kept pushing the idea of a two-man race between Edwards and Kerry.

The budding buyer’s remorse over Kerry and blossoming love for Edwards among the punditry was evident in Tuesday night’s cable network coverage. After NBC news called Wisconsin for Kerry, Edwards made his way to the podium to deliver what MSNBC Hardball host, Chris Matthews, later referred to as the “speech of his life”. That same moment, in what seemed a political masterstroke, John Kerry took the stage at his victory rally, and the networks broke away from their coverage of Edwards to cover Kerry. After Kerry was finished speaking Chris Matthews, who one might think would enjoy an exhibition of actual political “hardball” was livid. In fact, Matthews referred to Kerry’s move as “Gore-tech”, hinting at his scorn for Kerry by invoking the name of a Democratic politician he is on the record as disliking. Meanwhile over on CNN, Wolf Blitzer was talking about how Kerry’s win was not as impressive as it could have been. While other CNN pundits talked up Edwards’ strong second-place showing.

It looks like beltway pundits might be getting their wish. Even though Kerry won in a landslide among Wisconsin’s registered Democrats, Edwards, buoyed by the votes of Independents and Republicans came within seven points of Kerry in the final total. Howard Dean came in a distant third, suspended his campaign on Wednesday afternoon, and started to look toward reshaping the Democratic Party on other fronts. Now with the delegate-rich Super Tuesday primary contests looming on the horizon, there truly appears to be only one candidate who can even remotely challenge John Kerry’s march to the nomination.

Furthermore, as mentioned above, it looks as if the media is already growing tired of the less-than-scintillating John Kerry. The story about Bush’s Vietnam-era National Guard Duty is fading away, making Kerry’s own Vietnam-era credentials a little less interesting to cover. Howard Dean, who, despite the derision of many pundits, was one of the most interesting candidates in decades, is out of the nomination race. Now the press’ fickle finger of fate is pointing in John Edwards’ direction.

Twenty-four hours removed, it seems that the results of the Wisconsin Primary did what I feared they might. The lack of a crushing victory by Kerry threatens to shatter the aura of Democratic Party Unity that seemed to be sweeping the Massachusetts senator toward the nomination and giving the media the cover to begin reporting the actions of the Bush Administration more critically.

As much as I hate to admit, it is obvious that the television and print media, and not the internet or even the candidates themselves, are what is driving the electorate to decide which candidate to support. It seems that at this moment, Edwards is whom the press really likes, and as long as Edwards appears viable, the race remains interesting. As long as the contest continues to be compelling, the coverage of the Democratic Primary will remain positive and will obscure most of President Bush’s election year message. The second Kerry wins enough delegates to capture the nomination; there is no telling what the punditry will do.

Even though Karl Rove’s political house of cards seems to be on the brink of collapse, I somewhat cynically believe that if we Democrats are really going to have a chance at winning in November, it will not be on the strength of John Kerry’s six-point plans or John Edwards’ real solutions. If we are going to win, we are going to have to keep the media engaged in covering the Democratic candidate(s) positively and for as long as possible. The trick will be trying to appease the beast while keeping it from devouring us with claims of Party disunity. If what they want right now is a race, maybe we Democrats should give them a race. If Edwards is strong enough to gather a few wins on Super Tuesday, it will engage the media even more. At this point, the worst that could happen is Edwards wresting the nomination from Kerry and the media having a candidate they adore running against President Bush. How bad could that be?

---

Silver Lining?
Thursday, February 12, 2004
By Get donkey!

Almost immediately after the 2000 installation of President Bush, I began pulling for John Kerry to be the 2004 Democratic nominee. Then he went and voted in favor of the President’s resolution on the Iraq war. As a result, I became interested in Howard Dean and in April of last year began actively volunteering for the Dean Campaign. For me, Governor Dean’s outspoken-ness and common sense approach to policy was, and still is, the welcome antithesis to the craven political calculations of John Kerry. As the 2003 election season rolled on through the summer and into autumn, my participation in the Dean campaign had everything to do helping Dean become the nominee, but admittedly also had something to do with denying Kerry the nomination. Now, as the Kerry juggernaut seems unstoppable, I am reluctantly beginning to see at least one benefit of his success. Sure, part of me still hopes for Dean to pull off a “Miracle in Milwaukee”, but I have to wonder if, at this point, such a win will make Dean’s candidacy any more viable and whether it will do more harm than good.

Although I hate to admit it, there is one promising theme emerging from the tidal wave of Kerry support sweeping across the nation. The huge turnout and consistent exit poll data has demonstrated that a majority of Democrats are exhibiting something that I have never seen in my lifetime- -party unity. Now, the truth is that we are not really united around Kerry, but rather, we are strongly unified against Bush. John Kerry is just the lucky beneficiary of the compressed primary schedule and the Democratic Party’s desire to recapture the White House.

We supporters of candidates other than Kerry can argue forever as to whether he is the appropriate person to shepherd that anger toward a Bush defeat in November. As a Dean partisan, I do not think Kerry is the best we have, but if the goal is simply to get Bush out, I wonder if it matters who the democratic standard-bearer is. The point is that, right now, rank-and-file, non-activist Democrats are sending a message to the press: There are a lot of us, we are all angry, and we all want Bush gone. There are also indications that the media are starting to take notice.

Tuesday’s White House press conference was the first outward sign I have seen that the press might be noticing the “Bush! Out! Now!” feeling solidifying in the Democratic electorate. By the end of the session, White House Spokesman Scott McClellan was a sputtering, defensive mess. On Tuesday night, on CNN, the normally staid Republican strategist Ed Rollins almost raised his voice as he repeatedly said that questions surrounding Bush’s National Guard Service was a one-day story and that by releasing some pay stubs, the White House had put those questions to rest. On Wednesday morning, however, newspapers all over the country were still on the offensive and still asking questions, and by Wednesday afternoon’s press conference, the reporters picked up where they left off leading McClellan to gripe about “gutter politics”.

Other matters are getting attention as well. Coverage of the Valerie Plame affair is increasing as the investigation gains steam. Press scrutiny of the Kean 9/11 commission has emboldened the panel to push the White House to extend the commision’s deadline and, under threat of subpoena, increase Administration cooperation. Editorial pages are starting to point out the dangers of the Bush deficit and the Administration’s laughable statements that we can create jobs here by sending them overseas. The lack of WMDs in Iraq is causing mainstream journalists to look at the President’s rationale for the Iraq war with an increasingly critical eye. The list seems to be growing and the tone seems to be changing.

Naturally, his supporters would like to see Howard Dean receive the credit for making it acceptable to criticize the Bush Administration and its policies. I think Governor Dean should forever be heralded as the first person who kicked the Democratic Party in the tail and got us acting like an opposition party again. Unfortunately, I am not so sure that it matters much anymore who did what first. The press and pundits are waking up and I think Democratic unification may be the thing to keep them from nodding off again.

If I step back from my role as a Dean supporter, and look at the situation as a Democrat who wants to win in November, I realize that if Dean (or even Edwards) were to catch fire and start winning a primary or two, the appearance of party unity would evaporate. As a result, the press might revert to the state of torpor it wallowed in for the past three years. After all, Democrats would just be doing what the media says Democrats always do–being indecisive and eating our own. Of course, one could argue that once Kerry wins delegate 2147 the media will turn on us anyway, but right now, we have the media as much on our side as we have had them in a long, long time. It appears that Kerry’s stunning turnaround took the Bush Administration by surprise, knocked them off balance, and, as a result, handed Democrats our best chance to start the general election media race on our terms. By turning out and appearing focused on removing Bush, we have a chance at keeping the press critical of the President for as long as possible and controlling the message before the Rove machine gets rolling.

With that said, I am not advocating that Dean and all his supporters go away and/or blindly follow Kerry in lockstep. We still have a role to play. We have a responsibility to keep John Kerry, a politician who has exhibited a tendency to favor political expediency over principle, honest. Right now John Kerry is talking the talk, and even though he may have stolen the message, we need to make sure he walks the walk. If we constructively keep the spirit of Dean’s ideals alive, we can keep Kerry from getting complacent. The best way for Dean Democrats to remain relevant is for all who became active in politics during the primary season to stay involved after it ends. By not walking away, the party establishment will know that the Dean Grassroots phenomenon and all it represented was not a fleeting thing. If we stay involved, especially on the local level, we can begin to change the party from the ground up. Though it may take longer than we might like, it will be easier to beat the establishment if we take over the establishment.

John Kerry may be an imperfect candidate, but the Democratic unity and primary turnout that has sprung up around him has notified the press that we Democrats are many in number and for once, we have focused on a goal. As a result, the press may feel it easier to look more critically at the Bush Administration. The media-created veneer of Bush as “popular President” is beginning to crack.

Getting George W. Bush out of the White House is the first and arguably most important step on the road to changing the country. After Bush is gone, we Dean Democrats can concentrate on changing our Party from the inside. Maybe meeting the initial goal is worth the painful sacrifice of falling in line.

April 12th, 2004 Posted by Rob | General comments | 4 comments