Jonathan Freedland: Bush won't lose sleep over John Kerry

[T_i_B]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1127721,00.html

There is one man who can beat George Bush. Send out a search party: his name is Generic Democrat. Latest polls show that when Americans choose between the current president and a hypothetical figure known only as "the Democratic candidate", the two end up in a statistical tie. Some surveys have even shown our friend Generic Democrat with a slight edge.

The trouble is, Generic cannot be on the ballot paper in November. The Democrats need to have chosen an actual person to take on the president by then, and that task just got a lot more complicated.

And this could be very drawn out. A few weeks back, the Washington consensus was that Dean was unstoppable in Iowa and New Hampshire, and that victories there would wrap up the nomination. Now, though, 2004 threatens to be a re-run of the 1988 Democratic contest when it took months for a winner to emerge. If that happens again, the eventual nominee will be too battered and bruised to give Bush much of a fight in November.

Yet it will be one of these men who takes on George Bush in November. Do any of them frighten him? Probably Kerry and Clark, a little bit. He must worry too about what Americans are calling the jobless recovery: economic numbers rising, but a paltry 1,000 new jobs created last month. Still, as last night's speech illustrated, Bush already has his campaign themes in place: a president who stood strong after 9/11 and lifted the economy by cutting taxes. Add the images of Saddam in captivity and of Bush serving Thanksgiving turkey to the troops, plus a plan to turn illegal immigrants into citizens (popular with Hispanic voters) and a dream of another moon landing, and you have a man who will be very hard to beat. The Democrats know that - but it won't stop them trying.

[stickdog]

1. Rove has 30 years worth of dirt on Clark and Kerry.

Why do you think all the Republican attacks have been focused on stopping Dean (and, to a lesser extent, Edwards)?

[T_i_B]

3. All the Dem attacks too!

The article is not exactly positive about Dean. Feel free to rebut.

Bush's ideal outcome from Iowa's Democratic contest, the first of the 2004 campaign, would have been a knockout victory for Howard Dean. White House planners, led by chief strategist Karl Rove, have been drooling for a year at the prospect of running against the former Vermont governor, who they reckon could be easily lampooned as the latest in a long line of anti-war liberals from the American north-east (think Michael Dukakis).

He has been deeply damaged and will struggle to regain the winner's aura he had until a few weeks ago. What once was passion now sounds shrill and angry: hoarse and red-faced, he came on like a man possessed at his post- result event in Iowa. That footage, in which Dean was shown all but screaming, could prove to be his Sheffield rally, as wounding as Neil Kinnock's "Awwwright!!" in 1992. Pundits will ask if he is sufficiently presidential; viewers may conclude that Dean is too mean.

Iowa also suggests that Dean is struggling to reach past his hard-core, anti-war base, and that his phenomenal network of internet-recruited supporters does not translate easily into a more old-fashioned get-out-the-vote machine. More worrying was the exit polling which showed that even those Democrats who agreed with him on his core issue - the Iraq war - did not let that question determine their vote: one in three anti-war Iowans backed Kerry, who supported the war. It could be that, especially since the capture of Saddam, Iraq is losing its political sting in the US: only 14% of Iowans rated it as the most important issue. That could change, especially if there is a sharp rise in US casualties. But one should never underestimate the American urge to "move on", and Americans may be doing that now. (The contrast with Britain, where the Hutton report could determine the fate of the government, is clear.) If so, Dean needs to find a new song to sing.

[DemBones DemBones]

2. Unfortunately, Democrats probably must run either

Kerry or Clark if they are to have a chance at beating Bush. Bush is going to run a campaign based on the "War on Terra," Homeland Security, and bringing peace and democracy :eyes: to the people of Irag (and anyone else who seems to need our help and happens to have olil under their land.)

Bush DID serve in the Guard and train as a pilot. Substantial proof will be required to convince most people he refused a drug physical and effectively went AWOL for 18 months. His records were destroyed and people will assume that he would have been disciplined if he went AWOL (forgetting who his daddy was.)

I don't like it, but I think a strong military record is essential for the Dem candidate this year. As a Kucinich supporter, I'd like to be wrong. But I know he'd be a stronger candidate if a heart murmur hadn't kept him out of the military. A father and siblings who served are unlikely to help DK much.

No matter how acceptable a reason for not serving is, the lack of an admirable service record hurts all the Dems except Kerry and Clark.

[OldCurmudgeon]

4. Bush doesn't lose sleep over _anything_!

Terrorism, budget woes, Iraq, you name it....it's a 10pm bedtime for little Georgie, no matter what.