Observations and opinions on politics and the media.


Contributors
Eric Tam
Rick Robinson
Manu Rangachari


Prescribed Sources
Globe and Mail
New York Times
CBC News
BBC World Service
Washington Post
LA Times
Toronto Star
National Post
Guardian
Ha'aretz
Jerusalem Post
La Presse
Le Monde
Hindustan Times


Second Opinions
The Atlantic
Salon
The Economist
Slate
Harper's
American Prospect
The New Republic
Dissent
National Review
Weekly Standard
Pundit Magazine

Daily Doses



Affiliated
Be-all | End-all


Diversions
Facts & Arguments
Rotten Tomatoes
Flags of the World Given Letter Grades
Why They Hate Us
Urban Legends Reference Page
Get Your War On
Simpsons Blackboard Openings


Archives

 
SLOW DEATH OVERTIME !!

That is the highly probably outcome of the Wisconsin results. Yes, Edwards had a good evening yesterday - almost as good as it gets without, well, winning. That still leaves Kerry as having gone 15 for 17, while Edwards has gone 1 for 17.

For this reason, the idea that WI will lead to some huge momentum shift, like Dean's collapse after Iowa, is fanciful. Dean, after all, was "prohibitive frontrunner" before any votes had been cast - and when votes were cast, Dean washed out with a weak 3rd. Kerry's frontrunner status is based on actual votes, and he still won WI. If Edwards had actually trounced him, it might be another story, but it isn't.

Kerry also has a lead of about 400 delegates, about 3 times Edwards' total. Even if they ran neck and neck from now on, Kerry would still be heavily favored to win. Moreover, while Edwards will certainly get a mo wave, it is unlikely that they will run neck and neck on March 2. Too many states are in play for the sort of personal campaigning that shows Edwards at his best. He apparently intends to cherry-pick two or three states - GA, OH, and MN - effectively ceding the rest to Kerry. Even if Edwards won all three, Kerry would still get pretty close to the magic number needed to clinch the nomination.

My guess is that Edwards will at most win one or two on Super Tuesday, one or two more on Southern Tuesday a week later, then fade out as Kerry approaches the finish line. If Edwards washes out on Super Tuesday, it's over.


Of course, the other question to ask is should Edwards win, whether he's likely to or not? Would he be a tougher opponent against Bush in the fall? He is certainly a good retail campaigner, much better than the somewhat wooden John Kerry. Edwards' Two Americas theme is the best presentation of populism in modern times, perhaps ever - if you make less than about $200,000 a year you clearly are in Edwards' America, not George Bush's. Kerry has no such vivid or concise encapsulation of his basic argument.

Moreover, while Kerry trounced Edwards among Dems in WI, Edwards made it close with votes from independents and crossover Republicans. This leads to an argument, pitched by Will Saletan in Slate, that Edwards would pull better with swing voters in the fall.

If this were peacetime, Edwards would be our strongest candidate against Bush. It is not peacetime.

The tiger in the grass in this election is national security. That tiger has been sleeping like a lazy housecat during the Dem primaries, but it will be stalking in the fall. We all know that Bush's strategy is to run as a War President. His message will be something like "Strong, decisive leadership in a time of crisis," against a backdrop of all 9/11 all the time.

This message may or may not work with swing voters this fall - but we need to assume that it might. Historically, national security was the GOP's strong suit during the Cold War years. The end of the Cold War took it away, and made Clinton possible - but Osama brought it back.

John Edwards has nothing going for him on national security. He has no background to speak of in it, and it is nowhere in his Two Americas theme - where the rest of the world exists only as a place where lost jobs go. Moreover, his whole Johnny Sunshine persona works against him. I don't doubt that Edwards can stick a knife into Bush even as he smiles, but how does he get through Bush's national-security armor.

As a poster at Daily Kos put it, can you really picture Edwards in the Situation Room?

It is easy to picture John Kerry in the Situation Room. He faced war first-hand, and came back to protest it. His focus in the Senate has been largely on foreign policy (one reason he has few bills to his name). In this campaign he has shown his readiness to take it directly to Bush on national security.

Even Kerry's appearance and manner work well for him on this issue. Wooden, perhaps, but so is an oak tree. Kerry projects solidity and gravitas, qualities associated with steadiness in a crisis - and just the qualities that Edwards, for all his charm, does not project.

If we can force Bush out of his Fortress of Terra, to fight the campaign on bread-and-butter domestic issues, we will win. Kerry can do that. It is far more doubtful that Edwards can.

Which is why we should support Kerry as our nominee.

-- Rick Robinson
posted by Rick at 6:29 PM permalink

 
Eric has invited me to co-blog here, following on, so to speak, from my tour of duty over at WesleyClarkWeblog. Some of you who are blog junkies may recognize me from my too-numerous posts over at Daily Kos.

The Dem primary race is now effectively over, so the focus moves to the general election campaign - which looks to be one long knife fight from now till November. I expect to have a good deal to say about it here, but for now I'll settle for a quick hello, and a hearty thanks to Eric.

-- Rick Robinson
posted by Rick at 3:54 PM permalink

 
SMOKIN' NEW TAXES: Besides the obvious political benefits of being able to claim to raise revenue and appear strong against big tabacco, is anyone thinking through the new cigarette taxes in NYC? The Wall Street Journal hits it on the head today (Editorial, front section). Massive excise taxes barely ever raise significant revenue AND lower consumption, the two goals are simply contradictory. What the nex tax does is punish everyone too poor to be able to drive to New Jersey or Westchester. Reducing teen smoking is a noble goal, but it's not worth this injustice to lower income folks, especially when it's designed and implemented by their "friends", the democrats.
posted by Anonymous at 12:35 PM permalink