I give up.
Feb. 6th, 2004 01:25 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
barking_iguanaI just sent a more personal version of this to someone, but I guess I shiould post it here, too.
I just saw a Dean excerpt on Nightline. He handled the question of the commission to investigate the 'intelligence failure' by calling it "a joke". Then he went on to explain how, because it was Bush making the appointments, it was like Ken Lay appointing the auditors. All true. But IT WAS A STUPID WAY OF PUTTING IT. To anyone who isn't already quite convinced, the analogy to Enron is inflammatory, thought-provoking stuff. You can make the claim, but it's something you have to build up to. You don't start out by an off-hand, even more inflammatory, substanceless line about the President doing something that's a joke.
Maybe he was just playing to the audience in the room. I don't know what the crowd was like. BUT HASN"T HE FIGURED OUT YET THAT THE TV CAMERAS MATTER? Kerry was shown right after Dean, saying the same things but in a manner to address, rather than frighten off, the people who need to be convinced.
When a combination of a strategic mistake (treating Iowa as a two-horse race), bad luck (the fact that it was the only other candidate positioned for a steamroller who lucked into an Iowa win) and a sluggish reaction to a changed situation (not treating the last week in New Hampshire as an overriding emergency, requiring new ads and all the resources that could reasonably be spent) changed Dean's position from probable nominee to long shot, I continued saying that he would be the best candidate, whether he got the chance or not. I was still hoping for a resurgence.
When Dean's attacks on Kerry went from hard to corrosive, I was upset, but I realize any candidate gets wrapped up enough in her/his own situation to make some bad judgments.
But now he's proving something I've seen before and will see again. The only thing more insulated than a President who knows what he wants his advisors to tell him, is a movement-driven political campaign. He's just not responding to the real world -- only to his perception of it through the campaign's bubble. That means that despite his talents, he really would be a lousy nominee.
I just saw a Dean excerpt on Nightline. He handled the question of the commission to investigate the 'intelligence failure' by calling it "a joke". Then he went on to explain how, because it was Bush making the appointments, it was like Ken Lay appointing the auditors. All true. But IT WAS A STUPID WAY OF PUTTING IT. To anyone who isn't already quite convinced, the analogy to Enron is inflammatory, thought-provoking stuff. You can make the claim, but it's something you have to build up to. You don't start out by an off-hand, even more inflammatory, substanceless line about the President doing something that's a joke.
Maybe he was just playing to the audience in the room. I don't know what the crowd was like. BUT HASN"T HE FIGURED OUT YET THAT THE TV CAMERAS MATTER? Kerry was shown right after Dean, saying the same things but in a manner to address, rather than frighten off, the people who need to be convinced.
When a combination of a strategic mistake (treating Iowa as a two-horse race), bad luck (the fact that it was the only other candidate positioned for a steamroller who lucked into an Iowa win) and a sluggish reaction to a changed situation (not treating the last week in New Hampshire as an overriding emergency, requiring new ads and all the resources that could reasonably be spent) changed Dean's position from probable nominee to long shot, I continued saying that he would be the best candidate, whether he got the chance or not. I was still hoping for a resurgence.
When Dean's attacks on Kerry went from hard to corrosive, I was upset, but I realize any candidate gets wrapped up enough in her/his own situation to make some bad judgments.
But now he's proving something I've seen before and will see again. The only thing more insulated than a President who knows what he wants his advisors to tell him, is a movement-driven political campaign. He's just not responding to the real world -- only to his perception of it through the campaign's bubble. That means that despite his talents, he really would be a lousy nominee.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-02-06 10:49 am (UTC)