Dean's Rivals Have Some Chances

[quinnox]

From the (AP)...

Some thumbnail descriptions of how other candidates could do it.

JOHN EDWARDS: The North Carolina senator who portrays himself as an optimistic alternative to Dean's harsh rhetoric is running hard in Iowa. He hopes a solid finish there and a surprising finish in New Hampshire, could propel him to a Feb. 3 win in South Carolina, his native state.

DICK GEPHARDT: The Missouri congressman with the far-reaching health care plan hopes a win in Iowa could slow Dean's momentum. A win could bolster Gephardt's long-standing organizational strength, both in the party and with organized labor. Spokesman Erik Smith says the strongest way to become the alternative to Dean is "to beat him."

JOHN KERRY: The Massachusetts senator and Vietnam war hero turned anti-war activist, hopes to revive his campaign with a strong finish in Iowa, where he's doing relatively well in the polls. Then he could carry that momentum to New Hampshire and make a surprising challenge to Dean, who currently holds a double-digit lead over Kerry.

If Kerry regains momentum, he is in position to compete financially with Dean and Clark. Kerry is lending his campaign $6.4 million, based on a mortgage of his share of his family home, and he raised more than $2.5 million in the last quarter.

_______________________________________________________________

This is a good little article.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=694&e=2&u=/ap/20040102/ap_on_el_pr/clark_rivals

[mouse7]

1. Yes they do

Kerry is in freefall though. he has to first stop the bleeding.

[Dookus]

2. I agree entirely....

too many people are willing to call this race over before it's begun.

Naturally, I'd like to point out that Clark's got a pretty shot, too ;)

[knight_of_the_star]

3. Too true

The media has deflated expectations of him, so if he does well in New Hampshire (which looks like it will happen) then he will probably be able to get propelled pretty far forward in this race.

[BackDoorMan]

4. Democrats attacking democrats TWO IN PARTICULAR NEW ENGLAND CLOWNS!

The irony is that by seeking to undermine the election prospects of a man who may well be their party's nominee, Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Kerry have reminded us of why their once-promising campaigns imploded. Most Democrats feel, with justification, that we're facing a national crisis — that the right, ruthlessly exploiting 9/11, is making a grab for total political dominance. The party's rank and file want a candidate who is running, as the Dean slogan puts it, to take our country back. This is no time for a candidate who is running just because he thinks he deserves to be president.

Yet some of Mr. Dean's rivals have launched vitriolic attacks that might as well have been scripted by Karl Rove. And I don't buy the excuse that it's all about ensuring that the party chooses an electable candidate.

It's true that if Mr. Dean gets the nomination, the Republicans will attack him as a wild-eyed liberal who is weak on national security. But they would do the same to any Democrat — even Joseph Lieberman. Facts, or the lack thereof, will prove no obstacle: remember the successful attacks on the patriotism of Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam, or the Saddam-Daschle ads.

Mr. Lieberman and, to a lesser extent, Mr. Kerry launched attacks that could, and quite possibly will, be used verbatim in Bush campaign ads. (Mr. Lieberman's remark about Mr. Dean's "spider hole" was completely beyond the pale.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/02/opinion/02KRUG.html

[sandnsea]

5. Why do they keep ignoring Dean attacks??

I wonder. It's really a peculiarity.

[mouse7]

6. Paul Krugman talks to directly to sandnsea

"...Let me suggest a couple of ground rules. First, while it's O.K. for a candidate to say he's more electable than his rival, someone who really cares about ousting Mr. Bush shouldn't pre-emptively surrender the cause by claiming that his rival has no chance. Yet Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Kerry have done just that. To be fair, Mr. Dean's warning that his ardent supporters might not vote for a "conventional Washington politician" was a bit close to the line, but it appeared to be a careless rather than a vindictive remark.

More important, a Democrat shouldn't say anything that could be construed as a statement that Mr. Bush is preferable to his rival. Yet after Mr. Dean declared that Saddam's capture hadn't made us safer — a statement that seems more justified with each passing day — Mr. Lieberman and, to a lesser extent, Mr. Kerry launched attacks that could, and quite possibly will, be used verbatim in Bush campaign ads. (Mr. Lieberman's remark about Mr. Dean's "spider hole" was completely beyond the pale.)

The irony is that by seeking to undermine the election prospects of a man who may well be their party's nominee, Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Kerry have reminded us of why their once-promising campaigns imploded. Most Democrats feel, with justification, that we're facing a national crisis — that the right, ruthlessly exploiting 9/11, is making a grab for total political dominance. The party's rank and file want a candidate who is running, as the Dean slogan puts it, to take our country back. This is no time for a candidate who is running just because he thinks he deserves to be president."

Paul Krugman 1/2/04

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/02/opinion/02KRUG.html?ex=1073624400&en=ad95bae4b759c899&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE