Make or Break?
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 17, 2003; 9:00 AM
In case you've tuned out of presidential politics to watch the baseball playoffs, here is where the conventional wisdom stands.
(Of course, the CW didn't see the Florida Marlins getting to the World Series. But the notion that the Yankees will always beat the Red Sox at the last minute certainly proved true. Shades of Bucky Dent!)
The make-or-break Iowa and New Hampshire contests are coming up, and Howard Dean is looking incredibly strong. If Dean wins Iowa, Dick Gephardt will be history. If Dean wins the Granite State, John Kerry will be toast. After all, Dean has already won the money primary, so if his momentum carries him to a sweep of the first two contests, he'll be unstoppable. Or, at worst, it will be Dean vs. Somebody Else for the nomination.
But why exactly are Iowa and New Hampshire -- two unrepresentative states without a major metropolis between them -- so vital? Because the press says so. Because reporters flood the zone with so much coverage that the losers have little choice but to limp away, since they can no longer raise much money.
But what if that perennial wisdom is wrong this time?
My point is not to knock Iowa and New Hampshire, whose activists study the issues and take their role as president-vetters pretty seriously. But is it not possible for a candidate -- Wesley Clark, Joe Lieberman, whoever -- to stumble out of the gate but pull ahead after the next round of primaries?
Or is the media's dedication to the romance and history of the first two contests simply too strong? And can Dean the New Englander pull off what Boston's Red Sox came so close to doing?
USA Today's Walter Shapiro notes that no candidate has won the nomination without capturing either Iowa or New Hampshire since 1976, when Jimmy Carter put Iowa's complicated caucuses on the map:
"Right now, only three candidates (Howard Dean, Dick Gephardt and John Kerry) boast plausible scenarios for winning Iowa or New Hampshire. And if money talks as loudly as it has in prior races, then Dean, who has already raised about $25 million this year, can bank on being the candidate who will be standing alone, bathed in a sea of light, on stage at next July's convention in Boston. . . .
"Fewer than 300,000 voters will participate in the Iowa caucuses, which are open only to registered Democrats, and the New Hampshire primary, which is open to Democrats and independents. Part of what has given these two states such outsized importance in selecting a presidential nominee is that they traditionally stand alone on the political calendar. Since 1988 for the Democrats, there has been anywhere from a two-week to a six-week interlude between New Hampshire and the later primaries and caucuses.
"But on Feb. 3, just a week after the 2004 New Hampshire primary, Democrats in five primaries and two caucuses will choose their favorites. These contests -- particularly the South Carolina, Oklahoma and Arizona primaries -- are what give hope to Clark, Lieberman and Edwards."
Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times observes that Dean isn't exactly hoarding his cash:
"Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is spending money in the Democratic presidential race at a historically rapid rate, heightening speculation that he may opt out of the public financing system and its limits on expenditures during next year's primaries.
"Dean has emerged as the clear front-runner among the Democratic candidates in the race for money. None of the other Democratic contenders reached the $4-million mark in fund-raising from July through September, while Dean reported collecting $14.8 million, more than any Democrat ever seeking the White House has amassed in a single quarter, the campaigns say. . . .
"For the year, Dean has raised about $25 million. But as striking as Dean's fund-raising is his spending: He may have spent nearly $9 million during the quarter, according to figures provided by his staff. That's significantly more than the $6.4 million that Al Gore, then the vice president, spent during the comparable period in 1999."
Dean seems to be looking ahead to the general election, if this USA Today encounter session is any indication:
"Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean accused Republicans on Thursday of running up the federal budget deficit so they can undermine the fiscal underpinnings of Medicare and Social Security.
" 'I think their principal motivation is to undo the pillars of the New Deal, particularly Medicare and Social Security, by making the budget deficit so big that those programs can't be sustained,' he said at a lunch with USA TODAY and the Gannett News Service.
"Republican spokeswoman Christine Iverson said fighting terrorism has fueled the deficit and called Dean's remark 'disturbing.' "
David Yepsen takes a little shot in the Des Moines Register after several Democrats make their pitch to senior citizens:
"Winners: Gephardt and Kerry. The two were forceful, informed and presidential- looking.
"Ultimate panderer: Dean. The former Vermont governor once referred to 'us rural people' during his remarks. Right. (Born to a wealthy family in small-town New York City, Dean attended that one-room prep school, St. Georges in Rhode Island, before donning his manure-caked boots and heading to that great land-grant college, Yale.)"
Wes Clark's release of his military records doesn't do much for the New Republic's Jason Zengerle:
"The knock against Clark from other former Army colleagues has always been that he's a brown-nosing striver -- someone who's good at currying favor with superiors and not so good at relating to the men and women serving beneath him. Nothing in Clark's evaluations really answers that criticism, since all the evaluations were written by people who were Clark's superiors.
"Besides, there's something tacky about releasing these evaluations to the public. Clark takes obvious pride in his military record, as he should, and there's nothing wrong with basing his campaign on that record. But the strength of that record is best demonstrated by pointing to the four stars Clark earned and the successes he enjoyed as the Supreme Allied Commander leading the Kosovo campaign. In other words, Clark's military record should be impressive enough that he doesn't need to show us his report cards."
Things may be looking up for Bush on the international front, says the New York Times:
"President Bush's victory in the United Nations on Thursday has brought him at least the veneer of international backing, and expected Congressional action this week will provide new domestic financial and political support for the American enterprise in Iraq. But both developments will put sharp new pressure on the president to deliver on his pledge to create a safer, more democratic Iraq -- preferably, in the White House view, by the time he faces re-election next fall. . . .
"Nevertheless, France, Germany and Russia on the one hand, and some Congressional skeptics on the other, have both essentially agreed to reset the clock and give Mr. Bush one more chance on Iraq. Though Mr. Bush does not appear likely to get much in the way of international financial assistance to rebuild Iraq, or a substantial number of foreign troops to help impose order there, he can now claim fresh Security Council approval of the American occupation. . . .
"The question for Mr. Bush now is whether he can stabilize Iraq and turn over power to an Iraqi government quickly enough to satisfy uneasy American allies like France and Germany and start to diminish the burden on American troops and the treasury as he enters an election campaign in which Democrats seem intent on making Iraq a central issue."
A very large question, indeed.
Josh Marshall weighs in on the Iraq debate:
"It was a little painful watching various media outlets bend over backwards to give credence to the White House's complaints that the media is conspiring to hide all the good news coming out of Iraq.
"CNN was in full grovel mode.
"One of the most unintentionally comedic moments came from Bill Hemmer who was filling in on Paula Zahn's show.
"After New Republic Editor Peter Beinart pointed out that the media might actually be understating the problems in the country by underreporting the number of wounded soldiers (as opposed to fatalities), Hemmer shot back with this gem:
" 'I think there's [two] sides of that coin. . . . If you're saying it's actually worse than being reported, could it also be better than what's being reported also, if you consider that these reporters, many of them tell us they want to go cover the new school opening, but they can't because there's another bombing or shooting and that prevents them from sending that story?'
"I love this logic. It's not just the reporters who are keeping a lid on all the good things going on in Iraq. It's the darned terrorists who are keeping everyone from hearing how good things are by constantly setting off bombs and shooting people."
The Rush debate still rages. First, National Review's Byron York:
"Part of the reason some on the left are delighted by Limbaugh's troubles is that they're still angry over his relentless criticism of Bill Clinton. They believe Limbaugh's problems have revealed him for the hypocrite he's always been.
"They can't be convinced otherwise. But just to remind them of the record, these are some of the things that Limbaugh has not done:
"He has not denied that he was addicted to prescription drugs. He has not attacked the former maid who sold her story to The National Enquirer. He has not claimed that prosecutors acted unethically or targeted him because of his politics. He has not formed an organized crime-style joint defense agreement with his associates. He has not claimed novel and nonexistent legal privileges.
"Whatever that says about Limbaugh, it certainly shows he has not taken the advice of anyone who served in the Clinton White House counsel's office."
From the other perspective, the Boston Globe's Ellen Goodman: "After all these years, I have finally come up with the definition of a liberal wimp. It's someone who feels sorry for Rush Limbaugh.
"Here is a man who has kept 20 million dittoheads on a closed loop of right-wing rhetoric for three hours a day, five days a week, for 15 years. Here is a man for whom the word 'bombastic' was invented.
"Imagine what he would say about some "feminazi" caught popping 30 illegal pills a day. Imagine how forgiving he would be to an 'environmental wacko' scoring OxyContin while tree-hugging. Or any liberal who had to be outed by the National Enquirer before he took 'full responsibility for my problem.' "
Still, "I, gulp, feel sorry for him.
"This is the curse of liberal wimpathy. Conservatives talk of right and wrong. Liberals talk of strengths and weaknesses. The right thinks of drug abuse in particular as a moral failing; the left thinks of it as a medical illness. When one of ours goes bad, they jump on him like a churchyard dog. When one of theirs goes bad, we tend to . . . understand."
Salon's Joe Conason says his readers are raising the golf factor:
"Several of the most intriguing letters came from people who question Limbaugh's story about the excruciating back pain that led to his addiction. They noted that he plays a lot of golf, both privately in Palm Beach and at celebrity tournaments. . . . Perhaps it is possible to hit a golf ball hundreds of yards, day after day, while crippled by an agonizing spinal condition. Or perhaps, as the e-mails he allegedly sent to Wilma Cline suggest, he was more of a 'recreational' drug abuser than he has yet acknowledged."
Is Hillary blowing her chance? Slate's Tim Noah investigates:
"Having previously established to its satisfaction that Hillary is a candidate, the right is now knocking her for running a lousy campaign! Our text is an Oct. 13 dispatch on the Fox News Web site, headlined, 'Clock Ticking for a Hillary Presidential Bid.' The report notes that Hillary has dithered so long that 'the drop-dead date has already passed' for a plausible candidacy. . . . Her husband declared his candidacy on Oct. 4, 1991, and ever since, that date has been accepted by Democrats as an absolute deadline. (Nobody would dare out-procrastinate Slick Willie.) There isn't enough time to line up support in New Hampshire and Iowa. There isn't enough time to raise money. Soon it will be too late even to file for the primaries. Sheesh, is this is amateur night or what?"
Some new Bob Novak comments on the CIA leak, via the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel:
" 'This has stayed alive for several reasons,' he said. 'A lot of people want to use it to bring down President Bush. There are a lot of people -- on the left and right -- who don't like me and would like to discredit me.'"
Michael Kinsley has an intriguing point about Bush's view of the media:
"To President Bush, the news is like a cigarette. You can get it filtered or unfiltered. And which way does he prefer it? Well, that depends on the circumstances. When he is trying to send a message to the public, Bush prefers to have it go out unfiltered. He feels, for example, that the 'good news about Iraq' is getting filtered out by the national media. 'Somehow you just got to go over the heads of the filter and speak directly to the American people,' he said the other day. So, lately he has been talking to local and regional media, whom he trusts to filter less.
"But when he is on the receiving end, Bush prefers his news heavily filtered. 'I glance at the headlines, just to get kind of a flavor,' he told Brit Hume of Fox News last month. But, 'I rarely read the stories' because 'a lot of times there's opinions mixed in with news.' Instead, 'I get briefed by [White House Chief of Staff] Andy Card and Condi [Rice, the national security adviser] in the morning.'"
I guess you could say he doesn't trust 'em coming or going.
Don't miss this hot New York Daily News item:
"Tom Brokaw is said to be steamed at Maria Shriver. The NBC News anchor called his 'Dateline' colleague and 'gave her a tongue-lashing' after her husband, Arnold Schwarzenegger, gave his first post-election interview to CBS anchor Dan Rather, according to a well-placed source. An NBC rep insists that there's no friction: 'NBC had the first interview with Arnold before the election.' But he wasn't the Governator then."
Finally, it would be unsporting for a certain Yankee fan to carry on about the improbable, game-winning, 11th-inning homer last night by the previously obscure Aaron Boone -- such as the New York Post's headline, "KA-BOONE!" or the Daily News's "BOONE TOWN!" So I'll let Dan Shaughnessy of the Boston Globe give you the other side's perspective:
"And so a new generation of New Englanders has learned the risk of rooting for the Red Sox. They will tease you for months. They will tell you they are different from their forebears. They will claim that what happened before has nothing to do with them. They will make you believe this really is the year. But in the end, they will fall and sometimes they will do it in excruciating fashion. The weight of the Boston uniform is always too heavy. Meet the new Red Sox. Same as the old Red Sox."
washingtonpost.com |
