|
This is exactly the kind of disadvantage the other three candidates will face in running against Bush- hyped momentum, money tide, media perception, public on the bandwagon. So far the people have NOT jumped on the bandwagon. Close analysis of what was happening, who was voting and who was getting the eventually crippling negatives suggest things directly counter to what both the media and perhaps the voters(another test for them!) are getting as "wisdom".
PBS's Morley Safer? rather timidly and mutedly hinted that it was Edwards surging among the undecideds that was the news story after Dean's eclipse, that Clark for his concentration on that state achieved mainly survival. Safer was warning it was the discontent and furious intent on the voters' part to find the candidate best able to beat Bush that was the core reality.
But the horse race mavens are doing just the typical job. The money and endorsements are sliding on the deck like loose ballast ready to capsize the ship. The people are in process and slipping on the bloody deck as well.
How does this compare to the past? Not exactly of course. Well, Mondale was the solid candidate the restive Dem electorate did not enthuse over. Hart was the young, new- well, he had the potential to win. Except he was vaguer on the issues than Reagan with a personal careless personal morality that made Clinton look the picture of political prudence. So the people had to pick Mondale and despite gearing up the machine, having truth and rationality in oversupply(fatal oversupply on the tax increase promise) got washed into oblivion. Dukakis was an inexcusable primary season. Wide open, post-Reagan opportunity only the wrong candidate choice could spoil. Gore was perhaps the "Southern" candidate, but no matter. Somehow Dukakis limped along as the choice until hitting my state. Our vote for Jesse Jackson was an overwhelming vote of no confidence in the party leadership establishment. It was a wild shot Jackson could not take any positive advantage of. They like to blame Jackson(or Kennedy vs. Carter) for ruining things, but the candidate proved very nicely that the people's instincts were absolutely correct(and the people remember also vote in November). Well, what of today?
We have better candidates. Every time a machine props up one it seems to run counter to people's doubts and judgments. That sounds familiar. But the other choices have not all self destructed. Kerry is no Mondale or Dukakis- unless he works at it. Edwards or Clark are no lightweight image like Hart, with impeccable personal and political credentials compared to other also rans in years bygone. They are also the sure fire winners the leadership establishment always pretended they were looking for in the past.
So, though I am hearing rumblings among the electorate similar to bygone days, the results are not predictable by analogy. Momentum is with the positives. When the electorate is poised on the verge of anointing a frontrunner or following another instinct, that will be the crux. And with two lousy states flip flopping the prediction Department on its well oiled heels, it would be tragic to push people against their best instincts.
I don't hear, for example, that Kerry is the popular choice, but "I guess Kerry will be the one." That is the same dubious qualification as Dean endorsers paying homage to Moveon.org and Trippi. Yet if people ignore the apparent momentum thing, Kerry is no weak candidate and there is no certainty of any outcome if it comes to a brutal delegate contest.
Now people are saying it will be all over after seven more states. Don't bet the farm on it. I think the same is true of Kerry as of anyone else. Falter and fall. The last man standing should be someone who can keep growing and accumulate the fewest negatives and hold-your-nose acts of faith. The electorate must be cruel to the wisdom of their betters- most of whom I notice have managed to lose chunks of our nation and soul by wretched political judgment.
|