Hmmn

I spent the last hour or so watching John Kerry on C-Span. I actually was somewhat impressed by Kerry's performance last night during the debate--minus his failure, like the other Democrats, to raise his hand when Ted "Waterboy" Koppel asked whether Dean could win. I agree with Atrios--all the candidates should have raised their hand, and emphatically stated that ANYONE can beat Bush--provided the media actually does their job, and treats Bush as a politician/candidate for high office, and not a teflon-coated representative of the Almighty.

What impressed me about Kerry last night was his grasp of the broader picture. While he may well have sailed over the head of the electorate with his statements regarding the position of the United States on the world stage, he was essentially correct, and I noted in some comments I made at BigLeftOutside that I finally understood why Al Giordano has had good words for Kerry in the past. Whether he can translate this into support is still an uphill climb--speaking both for myself, and, if I may be so bold in opinion, the general public as well.

Unfortunately for Kerry, his appearance tonight, which was a call-in segment, reminded me of why he's been so disappointing to this point. He talked over the callers (in his defense, he was clearly having trouble with the earpiece), but, more important, his answers were bland, broad, vague, and uninspiring--except in one instance, when he defended his use of the word "fuck," as in "I didn't expect he'd [Bush] fuck [the Iraq policy] up so badly." Without a direct quote to provide, in summary, he noted Bush himself is not averse to profane utterances, e.g., his take on Adam Clymer ("Major league asshole from the New York Times, to which Dick Cheney replied "big time"). He also rightly noted that adults sometimes use adult language--in other words, get over it.

This was an excellent response to a somewhat hostile question (I say somewhat because the caller didn't act prudish, huffy, or otherwise angry, but it was clear he was upset by the use of the word). However, I think it points to a weakness with the Kerry campaign: he can handle the hostile questions, but he doesn't inspire those who might support him. Dean, in contrast, sets the woods on fire.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not necessarily implying that Howard Dean is the northern Democratic equivalent of George Wallace (neither do I think he's George McGovern, although anyone who reads my posts would know I wouldn't consider the latter comparison an insult). But I do think Dean taps into an energy on the part of those folks who believe in the full exercise of their political rights, and reflects it back in a way that inspires his supporters. In an odd way, he's pulling the equivalent of Buddy Roemer back in 1987 (minus his slightly dirty tactic--or so I was told--of bumping his own poll numbers just a bit right before the election--showing movement on his part in essentially a dump Edwin election). Hell, I still recall Roemer's ads--wanting a revolution in Looisiana, the way he said can't (cain't--rhymes with "ain't") etc. Dean is doing much the same: having nothing to lose, he decided to make some noise, which, combined with unbelievably savvy use of the Internet, has made him the anti-Bush. Kerry, in contrast, is just another Senator.

Off Topic, but: after Kerry wrapped up, C-Span spent a few minutes interviewing Bob Kunst, who built a website (imagine!) called hillarynow.com. Hmmn, again. Just prior to the interview, they aired a television spot that's been running on several New Hampshire cable outlets. You can see the spot on the website. About the only comment I'll make is that it LOOKS like something that would run on cable tv, but judge for yourself.

While I would bet the Saints to win the SuperBowl before I'd bet on Hillary entering the race (I think she's FAR too smart to alienate her New York consitituency, especially given her recent arrival in the State, as well as the fact that Senator from NY is nothing to sneeze at--she knows this, and will stay in the Senate--maybe even through 2012)--I've got to admit this is interesting. I can't imagine Hillary Clinton financing this, in spite of her well deserved reputation for hard-ball politics, so this seems to be a genuine effort to launch a popular movement with the aim of eventually getting her to run for President.

My own opinion is that too many people have a pathological hatred of Ms. Clinton to ever make a national electoral victory possible. However, it's not like I've got a lock on public opinion, beyond my own.

Probably closing down for the evening--at least once a week on a weeknight I like to get out of the house.