Thursday, January 29, 2004

fortune cookies

As josh pointed out to me this afternoon, he has been calling a Kerry-Edwards ticket since summer 2002. Though I don't think it's gonna happen, it's the talk of the town right now, so props to josh.

At the same time I'd like to pat myself on the back for my prediction of the downfall of Dean. It took a week and another major primary upset but, finally, some more experienced political analysts are saying that the Dean campaign is essentially done. He's down to under $5 million and has two big loses (20% in Iowa and 13% in New Hampshire) in states in which he was supposed to kick ass. In fact, the Dean-O-Phobe's Jonathan Chait has stopped blogging because he sees no more need in convincing people that Dean and his campaign are a disaster for the Democratic Party. So not only am I the shit but I'm pretty happy that Dean is done!

Friday, January 23, 2004

off to the center of the world

Well at least the center of my world right now. I'm off to New Hampshire to help out my boy Joe. Hopefully, I'll have access to a computer and will post some reports from the field. Otherwise, I have three days in Boston, while Josh ditches me, to write. In the mean time, I leave Seth and Jana to shit on the State of the Union and if Josh every gets his act together, maybe he'll say hi or something.

Thursday, January 22, 2004

welcome to election '04

I have a final tomorrow so this is gonna be quick. Without critiquing any of Bush's proposals or statements, this speech was the beginning of his presidential campaign. On foreign policy he highlighted his successes and vision of a free world based on the democratic peace. He sounded tough on national security and portrayed those who criticize him (aka Democrats) as weak. On domestic policy he took many of the traditional Democratic issues as his own. He highlighted his major education and health care/senior "successes" - Leave No Child Behind and Prescription Drugs - and proposed new education, family and health care policies. These areas, in which he knows Democrats are strong, he tried to take for himself. On social policy he did a little pandering and a little smart politicking. He threw a bone to the religious right with the abstinence and anti-gay marriage shit (oops, I said no critiquing). Government funding of faith-based charities is a popular position so Bush was smart to throw it in there, especially in painting critics of it (again Democrats) as bigots.

the flighty nomad has something to say....

As to be expected, I had a rather visceral response to watching our great President share with us his vision for our country. I was only able to watch the last ten minutes or so of the address (probably a good thing since that was enough to make my blood boil), but I have a general sense of the rest of it after reading some of the coverage. For evidence that counters many of the claims Bush made, check out this website from the Center for American Progress:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=22985 (I don't know much about this organization, but it's always nice to have facts to prove Bush has no shame about lying.) I won't even get started on how I feel about his statements about "protecting the sanctity of marriage" and that abstinence should be taught in schools as the only way to prevent STD's. On the subject of education, I read a column in the New York Times today about a NYC school that is being labeled as "failing" under the No Child Left Behind legislation, despite the fact that the students are not only passing, but excelling. It was one of the theme schools that was created with a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (the schools I researched last summer). If I can find a link to the article I'll post it later.

gay-bashing and tom brady

What are everybody's thoughts on the State of the Union?

Wednesday, January 21, 2004

A (Political) Field of Dreams

Well, I have to be honest: I thought it would be pretty funny to watch Marc post every entry in this thing, respond with something and just converse with himself like a mental patient. Truth be told, I was kind of hoping he would get pissed at an earlier posting of his own and then start insulting himself. I would have enjoyed that. But I promised I would post, so post I shall. Here's a short rendition of my visit at the Iowa caucuses.

At 6 a.m., I returned back to Heavenston, Ill. after covering the caucuses for the Daily Northwestern. I made the trek with an editor, a columnist and two other writers. The real impetus for our travels -- besides the fact that the five us are, like you, absolute politics junkies -- was that a group of NU students from our School of Ed and Social Policy made the trip to volunteer for the candidates of their choice. Anyway, long story short, our edit board decided to front us some moola to make the trip a possibility. I'll spare you the tales from the heartland, but suffice it to say, it was incredible to be there. With the race as close as it was (four candidates all basically within the margin of error in the Register poll the day before) the feel of Des Moines can only be described tritely as "electric." With the majority of the Dean supporters in their bright orange beanies and the Kerry ones in their dark blues, and so on, the entire state had the feel of a camp color war. One couldn't sit down in a coffee shop without seeing beanies, buttons, staffer badges and journalist notepads designating what purpose each person had in the Hawkeye state that week. I've never talked about politics in a similar fashion before. I mean, I've discussed politics with friends and family before, often ad infinitum, but talking to Iowans about their choices was unique. Everything was personal, everything had a reason, every reason had a change of heart behind it. I am now a believer of caucuses. They cannot work in large states for obvious logistical problems. But in these church basements and middle school cafeterias, people not only made a vote but defended it against their next-door neighbors, sometimes even family members. These people's devotion to the democratic (not to mention Democratic) process is unquestioned. As a visiting journalist (technically) I was embarrassed to be told of the Edwards-Kucinich back room deal by a 60-year-old man in a Starbucks down the street from the Kerry Campaign HQ. Of course he had Internet to check CNN.com, and I only had the Web to file at night, but the thing went down and almost immediately it felt like the entire state was talking about it.

I don't want to suggest that my time in Iowa was all newsgathering and reporting, although that was the highlight. I started Sunday morning at the Dean HQ which, as I mentioned in one of my articles (which was then gutted of any soul, character or interest by the cruel hand of a pissed-off editor. Bitch.) closely resembled a teeming campaign HQ downstairs, but upstairs: a frat house. Of course, I understand that analogy is probably not going to compute to most of the people I know who read this, but try to imagine one: old couches, pizza boxes, Red Bull cans aplenty, funny signs, huge maps... I was doing an interview with a deputy press secretary for Dr. Dean when her phone interrupted us twice. One was Peter Jennings, the other was "just" an NBC affiliate. Walking out of the door, I ran into a man whose face I recognized, but couldn't get a name. Then my buddy jabbed me in the stomach, and in the loudest stage whisper ever hissed in my ear: "Joe Trippi!" I was going to stick out my hand and introduce myself, but I decided against it. Maybe because I knew he had no time to schmooze. Or maybe it was because I quickly remembered that his (bitter) ex-wife lives in Evanston, and a mention of NU might not be what he needed. Anyway, after interviewing college students (so many college students! a la DC in the summer, even) including one girl who drove from Mt. Holyoke with two guys she met at a meet-up TWO weeks ago. The punch line? One was 50 and the other was 67. So then we walked down the street to Kerry HQ, with the Real Deal Express parked out front. Typical headquarters stuff here, aside from George Will chatting it up nearby. It was at this point that my gang of five split up. The editor and the two feature writers went to Davenport (2 hours away, on the Iowa/Illinois border) to watch the SESP kids. So I picked that moment to get me and the columnist lost on the way to this Kerry campaign party at a pub.

We wandered into a Marriott (keep in mind its -17 with the wind-chill) to ask for directions. I ask a guy where Street X is. He laughs. Loudly. But! He volunteers to drive us for five bucks. Needless to say, my friend (named Shira) and I agree. We assume its a taxi. Turns out he's a bus driver. When we get there, we're the first ones there. So we take out our laptops and start pecking away. In ten minutes, instantly, the entire place is packed with TV cameras. (Hate TV news even more now, but that's a blog for another day.) To make a long story short, I end up sitting next to a writer from the Boston Globe, Rick Klein. He graduated Princeton in '98, but even still, he's still a very cool guy. He was one of the Globe's NINE reporters at the caucuses and was cool to talk to. He was also useful because I had no idea who some of the people there were. A man came up to us, introduced himself to me, already knew Klein, we talked for a while about the campaign, so I thought he was a staffer. Turns out he was Chris Heinz, Kerry's stepson, heir to the Heinz fortune, etc. I ended up playing foosball with him. Globe writer and me, vs. Kerry's stepson and one of Kerry's press-people. Very cool. Also there was Max Weinberg, drummer for Bruce Springsteen as well as on Conan's show. The other celebrity touring with the Kerry people was "Party of Five"'s Scott Wolf. (I'm sure you know who Scott Wolf is, but Josh K-R doesn't, so bear with me.) Shira thought interviewing him for her column would be perfect, so she went over to him and they talked politics for about 20 minutes. Of course, the Daily was pretty close to getting 550 words on Scott Wolf's eyes, if not for Shira's professionalism. Anyway, we're about to call a cab to take us to Edwards' HQ to talk to more teenage volunteers, when Klein tells us he's going to an actual Edwards rally. We ask if we can come and of course he relents. So we drive to Drake U. and only by showing reporters notebooks do we get in through the packed house. We slip behind the podium he's on, and I sneak underneath the rope sectioning off the press people. (Klein tells me later I was between the head political writer for the Dallas Morning News and a writer from the NY Times. Also above me was a writer from the SF Chronicle. [Christy Marinucci or something?]) I'm literally six feet away from John Edwards. It's my first presidential stump speech/rally and it was something else, trust me. This was, incidentally, my first time on CNN for the day. (Saw myself clearly when they played clips from the speech later that day in the hotel room.)

Shira and I are about to call a cab to take us to Gephardt HQ, when we see other student journalists. After I interview the sherriff of Polk County (woohoo!), we introduce ourselves and they turn out to be UMich writers. Who, of course, volunteer to drive us to Edwards, which is on the way to the huge Kerry/Ted Kennedy rally they're going. When we get to Gephardt's, the deputy press secretary won't let us talk to anyone, even as we plead and remind her that he's an alum. (The fourth NU grad to lose a pres. election!) Anyway, we call a cab (successfully, for the first time) and we bump into a woman who introduces herself as Nancy Gephardt. Turns out to be a sister-in-law or something. I was exhausted and blew the chance to ask her a few questions on the record. But we get home, and on our hotel bed, I peck away at my laptop, with my notes scattered around me, with CNN on mute in front of me. Let me tell you: journalist nirvana. So I filed two hours late, who cares? We made a pool and I picked Kerry/Edwards/Dean/Gephardt. My friends attributed my victory to the fact that I was the only one who spoke with a few people from each campaign. I just think I'm omniscient.

Next day, I'll spare you the whole day shenanigans. Just let me say that typing in the Kerry pressroom (we coulda gone to the Dean victory party, but I assured the team to go to Kerry's.) was the coolest thing I've ever done, and I'm not one for needless superlatives. Rows and rows of laptops, everybody's typing, cell phones are going off feeding in color and quotes (I wrote the final story -- the other four went out to caucuses to talk to people). There are TVs around the room with TV crews' stand-up spots, which lets you watch the live correspondents live and on TV three seconds later. I was on CNN a few times. I called my parents to tell them right before they went "hot," and they made me wave. Which I did slowly, while watching myself on the TV. Next time she did her stand-up, they rotated the angle, cutting me out. Ha. The writers there were from everywhere, obviously. I recognized many faces and more names. Adam Nagourney. Behind me James Carville and Bob Novak fought. I was behind Al Franken in the food line. (When Dean had his apoplectic fit and started screaming state names -- seriously, didn't everybody stop breathing during that? -- Franken turns to me and says "He's going to forget to say a state and piss someone off," to which I said, for lack of anything better, "It's kinda cool, actually. I've never seen a presidential candidate implode before." And Al Franken Laughed At My Line.

OK: So that's my really long, rambly embedded journalist portion. As far as analysis is concerned, I disappointingly agree with much of Marc's post. However, I do urge caution to make ultimate claims after Iowa. As every news agency reported last week, the winner of the Iowa caucus has won the White House twice: Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush. So, while I would hold off on the "Dean is Dead" firing gun, I do think he proved the old adage that the worst thing a candidate can do is become the front-runner. If he had placed second in Iowa, and then even third or second, he would be totally fine. But he got less than half of Kerry's vote. My take, is what a woman in Des Moines told me. Dean's organization is phenomenal, but it rested solely on two things the average Iowan dislikes: A) Outsiders and B) Young'uns who think they know everything. Clearly, Edwards' putting all his support on Iowan middle-class families trumped Dean putting all his support on college students. Plus, many people loved the fact that he is both the establishment and, at the same time, not -- a belief stemming from his freshman senator status. This bugs me, because I like my politicians to be politicians, but Edwards is certainly playing that card well. His stump speech is SO good, by the way. You can tell, and I'm no expert, but you can easily recognize his 20 years as a trial lawyer. He even had me convinced that he could beat Bush in the South. For a second. But that second felt so good. Gephardt? Smell ya later. His ad's biggest claim was that he "was the only candidate who voted against NAFTA." Mazel tov, Dick. I look forward to the book. Lastly, before I pass out (again I got in at 6 this morning, was at class at 9 and didn't nap) Kerry showed that sometimes good things can happen when you fire your campaign manager and take a third mortgage out. Ted Kennedy helped him, yes. But what was unique of his stay in Iowa was his ability to wait until every single question was answered when he went from event to event. He turned Iowa into believers purely by offering them what they wanted: everybody I talked to said they wanted "experience" and "someone who can stand up to Bush." I still think W. is going to win by a few touchdowns, but this weekend certainly gave me some hope.

I'll post something over the next few days when I get my head screwed on straight.
- Seth

Tuesday, January 20, 2004

swinging at the curveball

By now you've seen the big news of the day - the Iowa Caucus results:
Kerry - 38%
Edwards - 32%
Dean - 18%
Gephardt - 11%

So what does this mean for the dem primary race? Here's my swing at the curveball the good people of Iowa threw us tonight...hopefully Seth and Josh will chime in with their take on things.

Gephardt: This one's no surprise...Gephardt is done. He will make this official at a press conference at 2pm tomorrow (see his website). So I won't go too much into this. Ryan Lizza called this one a week ago (or at least called that Gephardt wouldn't be picking up any "undecided" support in the final days) but I didn't really believe that he would do so poorly. Gephardt's campaign organization is unrivaled in Iowa and he's the most "union" of all the candidates. Besides his pro-war stance, which didn't seem to matter to Iowans anyway, he is everything an Iowa Democrat is looking for: pro-union, anti-free trade, pro-universal health care, socially liberal. If he can't win in Iowa, he can't win anywhere. Which I guess explains why he's dropping out.

Dick was a good politician back when he founded and was the first chairman of the DLC in 1985, but his leftward shift since he ran for President in 1988 has done him no good. The pro-union, anti-free trade, populist thing just doesn't do it anymore. Dick's an old-school Democrat who couldn't even win in old-school Iowa and that's why he's done.

Dean: Here's me going out on a limb. Dean is done. Besides Gephardt and Lieberman, whose campaigns are essentially dead coming out of Iowa, Dean is the next biggest loser. In fact, I'm going to go so far as saying that this dooms the Dean campaign, though the official end will not come as soon as it will for Gephardt or Lieberman.

Dean has been the front-runner since at least September. He's been slated to win Iowa for the past few months and at one point had a 10-point lead over Gephardt and a 20+ lead over the rest of the field. So what does his loss show? Mostly that he's not the inevitable nominee. This should make a lot of Democrats think again before supporting him (Gore and Bradley are kicking themselves right now). Mostly, it's going to make a lot of voters who bandwagoned with Dean think again. While he'll keep is loyal base of college students and Volvo driving former hippies, about 15%-20% of voting Democrats, he won't take much more, anywhere. People that don't love him and no longer think he's the definite nominee will come to their senses on his inelectability and move to Edwards or Clark. He'll stay in the race through Super Tuesday (March 2) because he has lots of money, a large organization and a strong loyal base of support. But he won't place be winning in the South or the West where he really needs to. In New Hampshire, he'll fall to second or third behind Clark and Kerry. This will further the sense that he is not the inevitable nominee and will sure up his eventual defeat.

Kerry: Obviously, this is a good thing for the Kerry camp. Somehow he came out of nowhere to win this thing. He was polling a distant 3rd or 4th place a week and a half ago and political analysts, predicting a weak showing in Iowa and NH, were about ready write his campaign obituary. I won't speculate on how he won Iowa, many others have done this for me (see TNR blogs) plus I don't know much or care much for the caucus system.

But lets talk about what this will mean for the next few weeks (aka New Hampshire and Feb 3). I don't think the Iowa win is gonna give Kerry the boost he needs to win the nomination. New Hampshire, maybe. He's polling a close third, well within striking distance of Clark and Dean. Furthermore, he's by far the favorite "second choice". So people that were backing others though without much enthusiasm, may move back to Kerry if he was their second choice, especially now that he seems to have come back from the dead. There is, however, a downside. I think Kerry needs to win or get a close second to stay in NH to keep in this thing. This past summer, people were saying Kerry needed to win NH in order to stay in. After all, he was the front-runner from mid 2002 to mid 2003 and NH is next door to his home state. But once Dean took off, Kerry's campaign successfully lowered expectations in NH. His win in Iowa, however, has brought those expectations back up. If Kerry doesn't make it close, his failure to capitalize so close to home will be the story the day after NH and that will mark the end of Kerry.

But say he does win (or come very close in) NH. The fact is, Kerry has nothing in the February 3 states: Arizona, Delaware, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Virginia. He's polling in the low single digits in all of the places I can find polls for. He has very little organization and very little appeal, outside of the veteran community in Virginia. Plus he'll be competing against two southerners. An across-the-board whooping as is likely on February 3rd for Kerry will be his end.

Lieberman: The Kerry/Edwards story in Iowa spells the end for Joe. He's running the "opposite of Dean" campaign and this has very little appeal when Dean's not the front-runner. Especially when the other non-Dean candidates are running pretty similar New Democrat campaigns. When so many candidates are running, style becomes more important than policy since so much of the policy is the same. His rabbi-giving-a-sermon sounding voice doesn't rally the troops like Dean's yelling or Edward's good looks. His decision to skip Iowa was smart, since he probably wouldn't have done much better if he had campaigned there, but anything less than a strong 3rd in New Hampshire will be difficult to overcome, even if February 3rd otherwise would be his day to shine. The momentum Kerry and Edwards have coming out of Iowa, however, will make 3rd place even hard to attain as voters will search for a candidate that seems better positioned against Dean. Look for Joe's "independent" vote to split between Clark and Edwards, his "hawk" vote to go to Clark and his "hardcore New Democrat" vote to split between Kerry, Clark and Edwards. But hey, I'm still going to NH to see what I can do to make my predictions not happen.

Edwards: As my NDN colleagues were predicting as early as this summer, Edwards may be the "come out of nowhere to take it all" candidate we never expected. He ran a brilliant campaign. He spent the first quarter of 2003 raising money, the middle half developing a very comprehensive message and set of policies and the last quarter connecting with voters with a positive, optimistic message. He's largely avoided the fighting which has marked the Gephardt, Kerry, Dean and Lieberman campaigns. Plus he's damn good looking.

Certainly Iowa was a surprise even for him. Although the most recent Iowa polls were calling such an outcome, no one seemed to think Edwards had the organization on the ground to actually get his people to the caucus. But somehow he pulled it off. See Edwards has amazing appeal as a person and a politician and he's spreading a message that is being eaten up by the voters. Even conservatives like Tucker Carlson have commented that he is one of the best "off the stump" speakers ever to grace the political stage. So in this race where style wins, Edwards may be the Giorgio Armani. So what does this mean for his future? He's gonna get a small bump in New Hampshire, mostly from current Dean, Clark and Lieberman supporters. It's not gonna put him to the top, though he should be up there. He's just the kind of guy that New Hampshire voters like. But he spent too much time in Iowa to make his message or image resonate. A strong 4th place finish in NH won't kill him, however, since he has no expectations there.

Edwards is looking forward to February 3rd where he's supposed to shine. In these mostly southern and western primaries, characterized by more moderate Democrats, look for Edwards to make some major gains. South Carolina should be his. Name recognition out of Iowa should give him a boost in Arizona, New Mexico, etc where he has potential but is unknown. I see some major competition between him and Clark for the non-Dean vote (aka 80% of the Democratic vote - see commentary on Dean). I'm not sure who's gonna take it though, so I'm not gonna call it. But look for Edwards to keep going for a while.

Clark: I see mixed things for Clark. He was probably right to skip Iowa. He wouldn't have done well there with a late start organizing a ground effort. Dean's fall will certainly help him among the liberal voters. I see many bandwagonning Deaniacs switching over to Clark in NH. But at the same time, he could be hurt by the rise of Kerry and Edwards. Certainly they're policies are very similar (well if you guess what Clark's policies would be once he announces them). And Edwards and Clark are both charismatic fellas. Look for some of the NH voters who clung to Clark as the alternative to Dean to move over to Kerry and Edwards. So Clark may just stand still - some folks leaving and some Deaniacs joining. Certainly anything worse than 2nd will hurt him since he's been the rising candidate in NH for the past few months. But I wouldn't count him out with a 3rd place finish (debatable about 4th). He's got lots of money and is already working hard in Feb. 3 states where he has a lot of support. His southern appeal will definitely help him in South Carolina and across the west, unless he's battling with Edwards who seems even more southern and is better looking. But look for Clark to stay in for a while.

some light reading

A must read article here by yours truly. It made it on the front page of the Princeton liberal political journal The Idealistic Nation so it must be good stuff. Check it out...in fact, check the whole journal out...it's quality.

i don't want aides

My response to my preceptors response to my question on Clark's lack of policy-making experience:
---
First of all, I think there are several dems who can beat Bush, namely Lieberman, Clark, Edwards and Kerry. So I'm not looking to Clark as the electable candidate. I want to know that he's going to be a good President.

You write: "We could elect my cat as a Democrat and I wouldn't worry about domestic policy. It's what Democrats do. And, if I do say so, we're usually pretty darn good at it. Foreign policy, however, is an area where we need to be able to present experience and knowledge." You seem to be hinting that Clark is the only one with foreign policy experience and knowledge. First of all, that's wrong. Lieberman, Edwards and Kerry all have extensive (Well i'm not sure you can put extensive and Edwards in the same sentence for anything) experience in foreign policy. Edwards is on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Kerry is on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Lieberman is on the Armed Services Committee. Furthermore Lieberman has been heavily involved in foreign policy throughout his time in the Senate and it is obvious that it is among his main interests.

Secondly, while Clark does have foreign policy knowledge, he has no foreign policy-making experience. Commanding NATO or being a general in the US Army is not foreign policy making, it is foreign policy executing. He would do what the President and his superiors told him to do. He didn't get to decide (ok, I'm sure he got to decide some stuff, but not the meat of the policy, he got to decide how it was implemented, not its contents). So I'm not convinced that Clark knows how to make policy.

But you write: "he'll bring with him a staff of Democratic policy experts." Of course he would. So do Presidents with policy-making experience. But staff is not a substitute for a President. It's a complement. I have good ideas. So do you. So why not elect one of us President? We'll bring along the usual Democratic staff and be fine in office right? Probably not. I don't know exactly how Washington works (you probably do, so you got points up on me). And it ain't easy for Dems there right now. We don't have Congress (nor would I place much money on us having Congress in November), so it's not like a Democratic president is just going to guide his ideas into law. And if Clark's a New Dem, like it seems he's been hinting - a good thing in my book - he's not going to have an easy time with Dems in Congress either. You have to know how the place works. How to deal with politicians. How to work with Congress and K-street, etc. These are the challenges a Democratic president will face and Clark has only a little more experience than me and probably less experience than you in the DC political world. So I'm not comforted by the "strong staff" argument.

a question to my clark-obsessed preceptor

My SOC 201 (American Society and Politics) preceptor (aka TA) is a big Clark supporter. So I emailed her the question that is on all of our minds:
----
I'm wondering how you would respond to the argument made by many, including Elaine Kamarack here, that Clark has no policy-making experience and seemingly no interest in domestic policy before this summer.
(From Kamarack article): "Robbed of his biography, Clark has nothing - no record on health care, no experience balancing budgets, no background in creating jobs."
----

Her response can be found here
(And check out her blog, it's pretty damn good, most of the time: http://www.politicalaims.com/)

My response to her response can be found above

Wednesday, January 14, 2004

liberal internationalists rethink the war

After reading a very interesting exchange by liberal interventionists debating Iraq in hindsight, I emailed my good friends Seth and Josh to encourage them to read it.

Seth responded with the following:
"I wasn't surprised to receive a notice offering yet another tedious, unappetizing foreign-policy treatise from you, Marc. It was however surprising -- nay, shocking! -- to find it sent by e-mail. How 1990s of you. Why wasn't this item posted on your weblog? C'mon, chief: Either you're on the cutting edge of the technology or you aint. And put your shirt on."

So here you go: http://slate.msn.com/id/2093620/entry/2093641/