January 20, 2004
On to New Hampshire:
1. The Clark factor will be interesting. He was setting himself up as the “anybody but Dean” alternative in NH. But now perhaps he becomes the “alternative Dean” in NH.
2. I didn’t hear Lieberman mentioned last night until after 11 p.m., and I had been watching on and off all evening.
3. There’s something about Edwards. I see the possibility there of a candidate who could really capture the imagination of the electorate in the way Clinton did in 1992, but his lack of foreign-policy credentials could be too big of an obstacle to surmount vs. Kerry and Clark, and even Bush in the general.
4. There’s something about Kerry. He has a certain gravitas and the foreign policy credentials to really stand up and fight Bush. But does he have any charisma? Will voters think of him as a craggy, boring New England liberal? Will he look good in the spring like Dukakis did, but ridiculous in the fall? Will he be able to fend off the “Massachusetts liberal” drumbeat?
5. There’s something about Dean. Namely, money. Normally, what has happened in the most recent era, is that an early front-runner can withstand a hit and then recover to win because he has the money to win a war of attrition. But unlike Dean, that early front-runner has also always been an establishment candidate, not an outsider. Outsider candidates who shoot up and perhaps pull off a surprising win can’t capitalize because they can’t turn their success into enough money to sustain their campaigns. So here we have Dean, the outsider but with the money to stay in the race. Still, I think he has to refocus his message and he needs to do it quickly.
On to New Hampshire:
1. The Clark factor will be interesting. He was setting himself up as the “anybody but Dean” alternative in NH. But now perhaps he becomes the “alternative Dean” in NH.
2. I didn’t hear Lieberman mentioned last night until after 11 p.m., and I had been watching on and off all evening.
3. There’s something about Edwards. I see the possibility there of a candidate who could really capture the imagination of the electorate in the way Clinton did in 1992, but his lack of foreign-policy credentials could be too big of an obstacle to surmount vs. Kerry and Clark, and even Bush in the general.
4. There’s something about Kerry. He has a certain gravitas and the foreign policy credentials to really stand up and fight Bush. But does he have any charisma? Will voters think of him as a craggy, boring New England liberal? Will he look good in the spring like Dukakis did, but ridiculous in the fall? Will he be able to fend off the “Massachusetts liberal” drumbeat?
5. There’s something about Dean. Namely, money. Normally, what has happened in the most recent era, is that an early front-runner can withstand a hit and then recover to win because he has the money to win a war of attrition. But unlike Dean, that early front-runner has also always been an establishment candidate, not an outsider. Outsider candidates who shoot up and perhaps pull off a surprising win can’t capitalize because they can’t turn their success into enough money to sustain their campaigns. So here we have Dean, the outsider but with the money to stay in the race. Still, I think he has to refocus his message and he needs to do it quickly.
posted by JFH @ 5:42 PM
<< Home