Meanwhile, on the home front.
Dean on the Griddle
The stop-Dean movement has just kicked it up a notch.
Make that a few notches.
I'm just sitting here at the desk and watching the shells explode all around.
Boom! Dick Gephardt does a conference call with reporters and all but accuses Dean of being unqualified to be commander-in-chief.
Boom! Joe Lieberman, who's suddenly on TV every other hour, hits his new sound bite that Dean is "in a spider hole of denial" if he doesn't think the capture of Saddam Hussein makes America safer.
Boom! An independent group whose founders have ties to Gephardt uses Osama's picture in an ad slamming Dean for his lack of military and foreign policy experience. (The ad is so harsh that the machinists union, which helps bankroll this group, calls it "despicable." Check out my report here.)
Bam! John Kerry declares in a speech that Dean lacks the "judgment" and "credibility" to be president because of Iraq.
What's going on? Gephardt, Lieberman, Kerry and Clark (Edwards has largely stayed positive) believe that Dean is in danger of running away with this thing. That if they don't stop him now, five weeks before Iowa and six before New Hampshire, they could get steamrolled. And the capture of Saddam Hussein, they believe, has given them their long-awaited opening.
(It's no coincidence that the Weekly Standard's cover features Dean, with Al Gore, in a tractor, about to run over a terrified Gephardt.)
But even as Gephardt accuses Dean of politically exploiting the war, it seems that everyone in the race is engaged in political positioning.
Gephardt, Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman all voted for the war, but only Smokin' Joe has steadfastly continued to support it. Gephardt and Kerry have been so aggressive in criticizing Bush's handling of Iraq that some people began to suspect that they were playing to the Democratic base that didn't much like the war and was increasingly embracing Dean.
But along comes the capture of the mother of all Iraqi dictators and Gephardt and Kerry are in the if-we'd-listened-to-Howard-Dean-we'd-be-nowhere mode. Suddenly, they seem to feel, having been for the war is again the cool position.
Dean has the opposite problem, which is why he took pains to present himself as a foreign policy centrist in interviews with the NYT and WP and a speech in L.A.. He welcomes the arrest of Saddam (no longer saying "I suppose" it's a good thing), but tries to make the case that it doesn't do much for the war on terrorism which, he hastens to note, Bush is also bungling.
The good news: This is a real, knock-down fight over some of the most important issues facing America, not some spat over the invoking of the Confederate flag.
The bad news for the Dems: Their nominee could emerge somewhat battered, and Republicans will recycle the attacks they're mounting now.
The possible fallout: Dean could benefit if he's seen as being gang-tackled.
Everyone's got the same story line today:
"Democrats trailing Howard Dean in the presidential race said yesterday his statement that America is not made safer by the capture of Saddam Hussein raises questions about his political and national security judgment," says the Boston Globe. "The former Vermont governor responded by casting himself as the victim of unjustified attacks and said such criticism risks alienating the voters their party needs to win the White House in 2004."
Same goes for the Los Angeles Times: "Howard Dean's presidential rivals offered two distinct lines of argument against the Democratic front-runner on Tuesday, challenging him for opposing the war with Iraq and for having too little foreign-policy experience. Dean took particular heat for his statements that the capture of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein would not make America safer. Some rivals also hit him for being too willing to cede power to the United Nations."
Andrew Sullivan is cheering for Joe:
"Why shouldn't Lieberman go for broke with an unabashed pro-war appeal to a largely anti-war primary electorate? It's what he believes. It distinguishes him. He's losing anyway. And it's good for the Democrats to have a serious pro-war candidate (alongside Gephardt). Lieberman now needs a strong, simple ad on this theme - and fast."
The Wall Street Journal editorial page jumps on the anti-Dean bandwagon:
"Saddam Hussein's capture is playing as bad news for Democrats who want to retake the White House next year, but we'd say it's an opportunity. Democrats are getting one, last, pre-primary chance to stop themselves from leaping off the foreign-policy cliff along with Howard Dean.
"One of the mysteries of this Democratic Presidential contest has been why there has been so little debate over national security. Mr. Dean has led the pack into full-throated opposition to President Bush's anti-terror policy, and most of the candidates have followed him into the anger swamps. Saddam's arrest at least offers a chance to ask Democratic voters to consider if they really want to nominate a post-September 11 version of Mike Dukakis in a tank . . .
"Messrs. Lieberman and Gephardt are at least offering a choice, and not a post-Vietnam echo of Mr. Dean, and we hope they keep it up. By taking the debate to the front-runner, they may help save their party from repeating its post-Vietnam Cold War mistake of showing weakness on national security. After September 11, this is a losing platform."
Why do I suspect the WSJ doesn't actually have the best interests of the Democratic Party at heart?
The latest "bump," from a Journal poll:
"Mr. Bush's job-approval rating bumped up to 58% after Mr. Hussein was taken into custody from 52% before. At the same time, some 76% of Americans interviewed after the capture said the U.S. is likely to succeed in Iraq, up from 72% before the weekend's events.
"The results suggested that the end of Mr. Hussein's eight months on the run could also have policy ramifications by strengthening public support for pushing ahead with Iraq's reconstruction. In the wake of the capture, Americans said by a 53%-to-37% margin that removing Mr. Hussein from power was worth the human and financial costs; in November, a 46% plurality said it wasn't worth those costs."
And Dean gets a downward bump. Four days ago, he trailed Bush in a general-election match up 51-39. Now he's behind 52-31.
A NYT poll has similarly improving numbers for Bush.
With Diane Sawyer last night, Bush deflected questions about Dean and Hillary, saying he'll respond to "the Democrat nominee" when there is one. He also seemed not to understand the criticism
"I get my news from people who don't editorialize," he said (you think Andy Card and Condi Rice are giving him all the unvarnished criticism?). And: "Why put up with it when you can get the facts elsewhere?" What is he missing? "I'm missing opinion." Not exactly a vote of confidence in the media.
Laura Bush said she reads the papers, but not "certain columnists." I wonder who.
National Review's Jay Nordlinger trains his fire on Clark:
"On the subject of Halliburton: When the story of overcharging for gas arose, Wesley Clark said the following: that the president is 'more concerned about the success of Halliburton than having a success strategy in Iraq.'
"Now, I'm not naïve about politics -- I know that rhetoric is excessive in campaigns. But even so, shouldn't something like this Clark statement be disqualifying? I mean, how is it possible to take seriously a man who says that Bush is 'more concerned about the success of Halliburton than having a success strategy in Iraq'? That amounts to a charge of treason. It is also demented. Even if you think that Bush is dead-wrong on the war -- on the War on Terror in general, and on the Iraq effort in particular -- surely you can see that he believes in it, that he believes that the war is necessary for American security, and for the peace and stability of the world.
"I am continually amazed that people who make statements such as Clark has made can continue on in public life, as though they had done nothing at all."
Gregg Easterbrook has a somewhat higher opinion of the general in his New Republic blog:
"Gore endorsed Dean partly to raise his middle finger to the Clintons: As nominee, Dean would take over the party apparatus and throw out the Clintonistas. Clark will now press for Bill Clinton's endorsement as a counter, vowing to keep the party apparatus under Clinton control. (Bill Clinton has promised to support the eventual nominee, but he could endorse Clark now and then still support a different nominee later; it all depends of what the meaning of 'support' is.) So suppose Clinton endorses or at least leans toward Clark to stop Dean. If Clark becomes the nominee, pundits will say that as long as the general gives Bush a good fight, this prepares the ground for a Hillary-Wesley ticket in 2008, with a four-star general and former presidential candidate lending heft and gender balance to a potential first female president.
"But aha! What if the ticket becomes Wesley-Hillary in 2004? That's a ticket that could win--it would scare the fake turkeys out of Karl Rove--and would assure Hillary a place in history as the first woman elected to the White House, though as vice president. The temptation for Hillary could be strong if, by August, polls show George W. Bush vulnerable. (Suddenly Iraq seems to be going well, but remember, voters threw Winston Churchill out as soon as World War II finished well.) Hillary might reasonably think: Who knows what the future holds, why not make history right now? And ponder the impact on the Democratic faithful if Clark announced during the primaries, 'My running mate will be Hillary Clinton.' The college kids would stick with Dean, but a huge share of the party base would instantly bolt to Clark."
Small problem: Hillary, having repeatedly vowed to remain a senator past '04, is not likely to break that promise for the No. 2 job.
The following, from CNN, ought to set off a Clark boomlet:
"The Material Girl has stepped onto the political stage and endorsed Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley Clark.
"'I think he has a good handle on foreign policy, I think he's good with people, and I think he has a heart and a consciousness,' pop singer Madonna said. 'He's interested in spirituality -- I mean, those things mean a lot to me.'"
One of the most controversial Democratic lawmakers has done it again:
"Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington, the Democratic congressman who went to Baghdad last year to say that President Bush would lie to the American people in order to justify war, has now accused the president of timing Saddam Hussein's capture for political ends," says the Washington Times.
"He told a Seattle radio interviewer Monday that American forces could have captured Saddam 'a long time ago if they wanted.' Asked by interviewer Dave Ross on KIRO-FM whether the capture was timed to help the president, he replied: 'Yeah. Oh, yeah. There's too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing.'"
American Prospect's Mary Lynn Jones weighs in on the ABC/bottom tier controversy:
"During a radio show on which I appeared Friday, a caller said he was upset that ABC News had decided to stop assigning embedded reporters to the presidential campaigns of Carol Moseley Braun, Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton. My question is: Why?
"I understand that it's important to hear from all nine presidential candidates so that voters can make informed decisions before next month's Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. But Braun, Kucinich and Sharpton have been little more than entertaining sidekicks in the campaign so far and haven't proved themselves worthy of significant press attention.
"Each of these three candidates has had his or her moment in the media spotlight. Braun's campaign made news this summer when the National Organization for Women (NOW) endorsed her, prompting The New York Times editorial page to note that NOW's move was little more than a symbolic gesture for a candidate on a 'personal quest' to restore her reputation and 'return to the limelight.' Sharpton won headlines when he hosted Saturday Night Live earlier this month. Meanwhile, the twice-divorced Kucinich has been the subject of numerous press reports about his quest to find a new wife.
"All of these episodes have made for interesting campaign fodder, especially considering how dull some of the other contenders -- such as Dick Gephardt and Joe Lieberman -- are. But notice that these stories don't have anything really to do with the trio's candidacies. Braun's big news wasn't about her so much as it was about a controversial call by a feminist group. And the Sharpton and Kucinich stories are more worthy of ABC's entertainment division than its news operation. (Kucinich's well-publicized date last week with a woman who was chosen from a pool of 79 contestants by the Web site PoliticsNH.com had all the trappings of a reality show. Who Wants to Marry a Failed Presidential Candidate? cannot be far behind.)"
I'm sure Fox must have the rights.
Is this becoming the F-word campaign? First the flap over John F. Kerry's expletive in Rolling Stone, now the New York Post's Deborah Orin waxes indignant in a piece called "Howard's Hatefest":
"You won't be seeing any video of Howard Dean's x-rated, epithet-ridden New York fund-raiser because Team Dean made sure to bar the TV cameras. Which suggests they expected trouble . . .
"So there were no TV cameras last Monday night when pro-Dean comics took the stage on West 18th St. in Chelsea at a $250-a-head Dean fund-raiser (reduced from $500) and competed to see how often they could use the F-word in the same sentence.
"Comic Judy Gold dissed President Bush as 'this piece of living, breathing [excrement]' and Janeane Garofalo ridiculed the Medicare prescription-drug bill that Bush had just signed as the 'you can go [blank] yourself, Grandma' bill...
"Comedian David Cross used the N-word for blacks in a disjointed 'joke' apparently based on the premise that it's fine for a pro-Dean comic to use racial epithets as long as the goal is to claim Republicans are racists."
I, for one, am shocked at comedians using bad language.
Sorry, Dick, John and Joe, but the Iraqi war was a bad idea a year ago, and it still is - no matter if Saddam is recaptured every day between now and the election.
JMO
lurqer |
