Ultra-liberal Mother Jones switched from Nader to Dean?
I like how the writer cherry-picks polls to suit his/her argument. Dean 5% ahead in national poll? Not any of the ones I've seen. Sounds like one of us, huh? gg
With friends like Mother Jones, Dean doesn't need enemies against Bush. The dean argument seems to be that the moderate swing-voters are going to flock behind an insurgent left-wing driven, anti-war grass roots campaign. That seems highly unrealistic to me. It has never happened before and 2004 won't be that different.
More realistic is the Boston Globe writer I was reading today. He wrote that if Kerry does not take care of Dean in New Hampshire, we are much more likely to see Prsident Gore than President Dean. In fact, he writes, we will never see President Dean. Not even close. That is why Dean cannot be allowed the nomination, because despite his arguing, he simply cannot win nationally, and he would put all major states into play, including otherwise safe California and New York.
All eyes on Kerry for the next two months or so. He has his shot in New Hampshire. If he doesn't catch up and Gephardt isn't looking strong enough, expect the party to urge Al Gore into the race. It won't be too late. Bobby Kennedy did the same thing. Winning California (but being killed). Bobby would have been president. I think this is either Kerry or Gore's year, but Kerry has his work cut out for him. I think Dean will top out at about 35% of the delegates, if he gets that far. Clark is still the best VP around, but he has some work to do as well. |
