2004 Presidential Election
Update 6:55PM: Josh Marshall dissects the race for the Democratic Nomination for president.
Update 6:32PM Here's a recent Quinnapac University national poll and a recent Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. poll in Virginia.
Here's the coverage of yesterday's DNC debate in New Hampshire from the AP, via the Rocky Mountain News [December 10, 2003, "Rivals Gang Up on Dean, Gore in Debate"]. From the article, "Eight of the Democratic presidential candidates ganged up on front-runner Howard Dean and former Vice President Al Gore, hoping to take the luster off Gore's newly minted endorsement of Dean. 'We're not going to have a coronation,' snapped Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina in Tuesday night's debate. The final faceoff of the year found Dean's rivals passing on their usual criticism of his policies, focused as they were on Gore's blockbuster endorsement. They appealed to the independent streak of voters here, and suggested the former vice president's support smacked of old-style party machine politics. 'To quote another former Democratic leader, I think elections are about people, not about the powerful,' said Wesley Clark. 'I think it was Al Gore who said that.' Dean fired back: 'If you guys are upset that Al Gore is endorsing me, attack me, don't attack Al Gore. ... I don't think he deserves to be attacked by anybody up here. He doesn't; he's not a boss. He's a fundamentally decent human being. We share a lot of values.'"
The Rocky Mountain News editorial staff thinks that Al Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean is a plus for the candidate [December 10, 2003, "Gore helps rev up Dean machine"]. From the editorial, "Dean already had the appeal of a maverick, of an underdog who came from nowhere to lead the pack. Now with Gore on his side he has establishment backing. And that means bigger campaign contributions, increased organizational support and readier acceptance by some groups of voters. Bush's political opponents have repeatedly underestimated him. Some may now be underestimating Dean. Is he unelectable? Not all that long ago, his chances of being the Democratic nominee seemed remote. Gore's endorsement could bring the party faithful behind him more quickly than otherwise and make it possible for him to be thinking more in terms of the general election and to begin addressing voters at large."
Mike Littwin comments on the Gore endorsement in his column in today's Rocky Mountain News [December 10, 2003, "Littwin: Gore confers credibility onto Dean"]. Says Littwin, "The knock on Dean, according to conspiracy theorists, is that the Clintons, who won't endorse anyone, are so worried that they sent out Wesley Clark to rescue the party. The knock on Dean is that his nomination would be a guilty pleasure - think McGovern, think 49-to-1 in 1972 - the Democrats would regret forevermore. Under this theory, by the way, the sound you hear is Karl Rove chuckling. But Gore, the hard-headed politician, rejects these theories, insists Dean has the best chance to beat Bush and puts the other candidates on the spot by asking them not to do 'the Republicans' work' by bashing Dean."
USA Today takes a slightly different view of Al Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean. From the article, "But the former vice president's endorsement is another sign of how a compressed campaign increases the influence of party insiders at the expense of voters. Gore conceded that a quick end to the contest was behind his move, calling on Democrats to unite behind Dean as 'the strongest candidate' to defeat President Bush in November."
Dave Winer is unimpressed by the endorsement. Says Winer, "People who say the campaign is over are" wrong. "Not a single vote has been cast yet. Dean is out of the running now, he's a slave of the Democratic Party. I'm sure it's even worse than it appears. Looks like Clark is the front-runner for making something sensible happen in this election cycle, although I wouldn't hold my breath."
7:30:47 AM 
|
|
