hey, coldplay likes kerry! finally, they weigh in
First of all, let me say that it feels great to be considered a "veteran" political analyst. All my year of studying primaries has finally paid off.
Ok, but seriously. In my post where I just copy-pasted the USA Today article, about the Gallup poll saying Kerry would beat Bush in a race held at that date, all I wondered was if it was solely due to the fact that the news cycle had been running anti-Bush stories for weeks, as they run clips of Democratic primary speeches. I think that might be the case. But I also wondered if this was time to rally around what certainly seems like the front-runner now, despite any opinions of the man himself. Note that I don't have any strong feelings about the person, but I'm just realizing that he's winning primaries the way the Atlanta Braves win NL East titles. I don't think his nomination is "inevitable." Of course things can go down to screw up a nomination. I'm just suggesting that if Democrats unify around him now, he can go in stronger to the convention and NOT screw it up. I would say this if Edwards or Dean or Lieberman had won all but two contests.
I also want to counter something marc said. He, like many of my friends here, point to the near-pathetic decline of Dr. Dean as to why Kerry may soon do the same. Here's the difference, chief: Dean was the front-runner on hype and hype alone. Yeah, he had a ton of money and support with techie nerds and college dreamers, but he was the front-runner purely based on media begetting more media. He was, in reality, a hypothetical front-runner.
On the other hand, Kerry is the front-runner, not hypothetically, or theoretically or monetarily. He is the front-runner because more people have checked the box next to his name than any other candidate. Kerry is the front-runner, almost in spite of the media. Yes, kerry was the front-runner before this whole thing started and lost it, and in response, he threw out his campaign manager a few months before iowa and changed strategies. Marc's semi-humorous rhetoric aside ("as soon as the heat was on, kerry melted away"), let's look at the fact that Kerry has won nearly every single primary and caucus. I'm told this is fairly unique. Dean was the front-runner because he got hyped and struck a chord with a small percentage of the voting population. Kerry is the front-runner because many, many people are voting for him. I see a clear difference here.
Just wanted to correct marc on that point, and add one more thing that really irks me. Bear with me through this: let's say you vote in a man decades ago to Congress and he votes exactly how you would want your guy to be voting in the 1970s. But over the years, the nation changes, but the guy doesn't bend. He stays with an out-dated mentality and is clearly behind the times. This continues until today, or until his voters throw him out for not adapting to modernity. I don't think anybody believes that's a way to govern. No, like women's fashion and automobile designs, a life-long politician has to realize his nation changes and, odds are, so would he. So, what's the deal with everybody ripping kerry a new asshole for voting on issues on a yearly basis? So what if he votes differently than he did when he was a young man? Anybody that thinks America circa-1970 is the same country as America circa-2004 please raise your hand. Thank you. Marc, you accuse him on flip-flopping on "every issue." I mean, you can't be serious. I'm willing to allow for a bit of, for lack of a more accurate term, "flip-flopping," because that's how a guy stays elected and popular for a billion terms. But since when is flexibility and adapting with the times such a unholy sin? I want to state again that i'm not a huge kerry supporter. But I'm reading columns and articles condemning him for voting *this* way with the military just after Vietnam, then a *different* way at the end of the Cold War, then differently after 9/11. I can see how this can be spun to make it look like John Kerry has no steady opinions on anything, but I can't see how a political mind like yours, Marc, can fall for this spin.
As far as your other two indictments on the candidate are concerned, pandering and botox: well, Clinton was called the "Pander Bear" his entire term, and you seem to like him fine. And I don't know if Kerry used botox, but since when do you only like good-looking candidates, Marc? Plus, I've seen pictures of abraham lincoln during the civil war. The guy was no miss america finalist, but he did okay.
Ok, but seriously. In my post where I just copy-pasted the USA Today article, about the Gallup poll saying Kerry would beat Bush in a race held at that date, all I wondered was if it was solely due to the fact that the news cycle had been running anti-Bush stories for weeks, as they run clips of Democratic primary speeches. I think that might be the case. But I also wondered if this was time to rally around what certainly seems like the front-runner now, despite any opinions of the man himself. Note that I don't have any strong feelings about the person, but I'm just realizing that he's winning primaries the way the Atlanta Braves win NL East titles. I don't think his nomination is "inevitable." Of course things can go down to screw up a nomination. I'm just suggesting that if Democrats unify around him now, he can go in stronger to the convention and NOT screw it up. I would say this if Edwards or Dean or Lieberman had won all but two contests.
I also want to counter something marc said. He, like many of my friends here, point to the near-pathetic decline of Dr. Dean as to why Kerry may soon do the same. Here's the difference, chief: Dean was the front-runner on hype and hype alone. Yeah, he had a ton of money and support with techie nerds and college dreamers, but he was the front-runner purely based on media begetting more media. He was, in reality, a hypothetical front-runner.
On the other hand, Kerry is the front-runner, not hypothetically, or theoretically or monetarily. He is the front-runner because more people have checked the box next to his name than any other candidate. Kerry is the front-runner, almost in spite of the media. Yes, kerry was the front-runner before this whole thing started and lost it, and in response, he threw out his campaign manager a few months before iowa and changed strategies. Marc's semi-humorous rhetoric aside ("as soon as the heat was on, kerry melted away"), let's look at the fact that Kerry has won nearly every single primary and caucus. I'm told this is fairly unique. Dean was the front-runner because he got hyped and struck a chord with a small percentage of the voting population. Kerry is the front-runner because many, many people are voting for him. I see a clear difference here.
Just wanted to correct marc on that point, and add one more thing that really irks me. Bear with me through this: let's say you vote in a man decades ago to Congress and he votes exactly how you would want your guy to be voting in the 1970s. But over the years, the nation changes, but the guy doesn't bend. He stays with an out-dated mentality and is clearly behind the times. This continues until today, or until his voters throw him out for not adapting to modernity. I don't think anybody believes that's a way to govern. No, like women's fashion and automobile designs, a life-long politician has to realize his nation changes and, odds are, so would he. So, what's the deal with everybody ripping kerry a new asshole for voting on issues on a yearly basis? So what if he votes differently than he did when he was a young man? Anybody that thinks America circa-1970 is the same country as America circa-2004 please raise your hand. Thank you. Marc, you accuse him on flip-flopping on "every issue." I mean, you can't be serious. I'm willing to allow for a bit of, for lack of a more accurate term, "flip-flopping," because that's how a guy stays elected and popular for a billion terms. But since when is flexibility and adapting with the times such a unholy sin? I want to state again that i'm not a huge kerry supporter. But I'm reading columns and articles condemning him for voting *this* way with the military just after Vietnam, then a *different* way at the end of the Cold War, then differently after 9/11. I can see how this can be spun to make it look like John Kerry has no steady opinions on anything, but I can't see how a political mind like yours, Marc, can fall for this spin.
As far as your other two indictments on the candidate are concerned, pandering and botox: well, Clinton was called the "Pander Bear" his entire term, and you seem to like him fine. And I don't know if Kerry used botox, but since when do you only like good-looking candidates, Marc? Plus, I've seen pictures of abraham lincoln during the civil war. The guy was no miss america finalist, but he did okay.
posted by Anonymous at 2:14:00 PM
<< Home