Posted on 08/29/2003 7:52:25 AM PDT by Hillary's Lovely Legs
"I can tell you my love for you will still be strong After the boys of summer have gone." -- Don Henley, "The Boys of Summer"
As Labor Day weekend approaches, the 2004 presidential campaign is taking shape. The days are getting shorter and the fortunes of some Democratic candidates who were hot in the spring may be beginning to fade. Some of the so-called top-tier Democratic candidates seeking to challenge Bush have failed to catch fire with voters in the important early primary states. Meanwhile, polls suggest that President Bush is vulnerable. News reports are for the first time portraying him as being on the defensive on foreign policy -- an issue that had been his strength.
Recent polls by Zogby International and Newsweek show that President Bush's job approval rating slipped over the summer, pegging him at just above 50 percent. At the same time, the public's anxiety over the administration's handling of Iraq -- from the number of soldiers being killed to the impact on the federal budget -- continues to rise.
The Zogby poll also points to another troubling sign for the president. Fewer people are saying the president deserves to be re-elected (45 percent) than are saying he does not deserve to be reelected (48 percent). That's a reversal from two and half months ago when the numbers lined up 49 percent to 38 percent in the president's favor. The numbers don't show a slippage among those who support the president as much as they show an increase in the number of people who don't. For those inclined to believe in the vast left-wing conspiracy, even a recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamic poll put the president's "deserves to be reelected" number at 47 percent.
"The president's poll numbers are a reflection of some other numbers: three million jobs lost, a deficit of a half a trillion dollars in one year," said Democratic National Committee spokesman Tony Welch. "And even some Republicans are saying the president has led us into disaster in Iraq. No matter what they say, the polls are an indication and reflection of something real."
Months ago, Bush pollster Matthew Dowd attempted to pre-empt "the sky-is-falling" scenarios. Dowd's analysis included some historical perspective: In 1983, President Reagan trailed possible opponents John Glenn and Walter Mondale in various polls. Reagan went on to beat Mondale in a landslide, winning 49 states. In 1987, President Bush trailed in generic ballot polls, but went on to handily defeat Michael Dukakis the next year. In late 1995 and early 1996, Wall Street Journal and Gallup polls had Bob Dole with a slight lead over Bill Clinton, who went on to defeat Dole in the November election.
It would be ridiculous to predict Bush's demise a year before the votes are cast. But polls do give a reliable snapshot in time of current opinions. That snapshots suggest the president is not as invincible as he once seemed.
The Dem Side
For however much Bush's poll numbers may be lagging, he still compares favorably when stacked up against any of the Democrats, according to recent polls. Some of the so-called top-tier Democrats appear to be fading. Sens. John Edwards (N.C.) and Bob Graham (Fla.) are polling at about 2 percent in New Hampshire -- one point ahead of retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who hasn't announced his intentions, formed an organization, or raised one cent for a campaign. Is it too early to panic? Or should these two big names be thinking about returning their attention to their day jobs in the Senate? Those questions will be asked with ever-greater frequency after Labor Day.
There's no question what the Orlando Sentinel thinks Graham should do. It ran an editorial last week with the headline "Bow Out Bob Graham." Noting that Graham was running neck-and-neck with the Rev. Al Sharpton in Iowa, the paper suggested that "the longer [Graham] continues his long-shot bid for president, the more he risks diminishing his effectiveness as a senator."
The situation in North Carolina is even more interesting, given the competitiveness of the seat even if Edwards decides to stay in the Senate race. Some in the state's Democratic establishment have asked Edwards to declare his intentions by Labor Day. That's not going to happen. George Stephanopoulos reported on Sunday that Edwards aides had predicted in private conversations with him that their candidate would pull out of the Senate race by Sept. 16, the date set for his official presidential announcement. But that may not happen either.
Edwards is cognizant of his problem in the polls, but he and those around him believe it is a problem of name recognition rather than message. They still believe he is the most capable of the Democratic candidates. Campaign aides believe it's going to be between six and eight weeks before they'll see the results of Edwards's campaign ads and "Real Solutions Express" bus tour.
Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) doesn't have to worry about running for reelection because his Senate term doesn't end until 2009. But he does have to worry about slipping poll numbers in New Hampshire. One theory about the reason Kerry plans to make his official entry into the presidential race in front of the USS Yorktown aircraft carrier in Charleston, S.C., is that with former Vermont governor Howard Dean moving ahead in New Hampshire, Kerry is looking to broaden his horizons in the key southern state. Someone from a rival campaign referred to the Kerry announcement as a "gimmickry."
Asked to respond, Kerry spokesman Robert Gibbs quipped: "What criticism? Oh, you mean like going to South Carolina? This just in: there's a primary on Feb. 3! Yes folks, we have adjusted strategy and we will compete in South Carolina." Gibbs also notes that Dean was the only one of the "major" candidates to already be running hundreds of thousands in television ads in New Hampshire and Iowa. (When reminded that Edwards was also running ads, Gibbs chose not to amend his comments.)
The approach of Labor Day also brings nearer the decision by former Gen. Wesley Clark about whether he will run. But as I said in my live discussion last week, Clark's candidacy is looking less and less likely to become a reality. Despite the passion he engenders among some people, he's still largely unknown to the vast majority of the American public. To suggest that a guy who's never run for anything can jump in and build the organization and name recognition, and raise the kind of money he would need to compete and win the nomination this late in the game seems a stretch.
More Gimmicks
Two other candidates are struggling to be competitive in key states by introducing some new "gimmickry" to their serious campaigns. Missouri Rep. Richard Gephardt, who is running second to Dean in Iowa polls, has just announced "The Great Gephardt Iowa Pie Challenge," in which he asks voters of the great first caucus state to help him find the tastiest pie in the land.
"Iowa has a long tradition of bringing great pies to our nation," a Gephardt statement reads. "From Stone's 'mile high pie' in Marshalltown to the apple pie at Cronk's Café in Denison, I've only begun to nibble away at the best of what Iowa has to offer - now I need your help in finding all of the great pies in this great state."
I'm not sure this blatant pandering to the sweet-tooth constituency furthers his ambition to be seen as the candidate with the biggest boldest ideas (see Gephardt health care plan), but, hey, it can't hurt.
Lieberman, who is polling in single digits in New Hampshire, announced this week its "See Joe's Car & Go See Nomar!" contest. Voters in New Hampshire who spot one of the campaign's "JoeMobiles" can become eligible for tickets drawing to go see Nomar Garciaparra and the Boston Red Sox by calling or e-mailing the campaign and saying, "I saw the car and love Nomar."
But the bigger question, come the Jan. 27 New Hampshire primary:
Will they love Joe?
I kid you not: It's not even on their front page!
Well, there is this one headline: "Millionaire Bequeaths a Surprise". But that turned out to be about the former meanest man in Jackson County, not Kerry.
Boo - hoo - hoo. Kinda like that '96 race we ran against the 'toon. sheesh.
You're right lots of good stuff at the PW website. Going back for more.
I skimmed all the top nation stories and there is no story at all. Perhaps the no story is my answer. hehehe
Either that or the reporter that covered the story is just now recovering from the hot humid weather of S. Carolina.
Lovin' the Schwartzenegger line, very pithy.
Please, BWB, do not refer to this site as the PW site.
I've noticed that since it's been pointed out that hillary is able to so easily recognize a coverup she's been very quiet.
On the Clark Wannabe Watch: Under the subhead “Clark's 'artillery'” in yesterday’s Washington Times, Greg Pierce reported in his “Inside Politics” column: ”Wesley Clark's closest friends say the retired general leans toward jumping into the race to become the Democratic Party's nominee for the 2004 presidential race, Newsweek reports. ‘I've got recon out there,’ Mr. Clark told the magazine, rejecting the notion it might be too late to enter the race. I've got some heavy artillery that can come in. I've got logistics, I've got strategic mobility.’ But Mr. Clark, who would become the 10th candidate for the nomination, did not say specifically that he would enter. Mr. Clark, 58, was the supreme allied commander in Europe and led NATO forces in the war against the Serbs in Kosovo in 1999. Mr. Clark slammed President Bush's recent speech in which he painted Iraq as the main theater in the worldwide fight against terrorism. ‘You can't win without a vision, and that means working with allies,’ Mr. Clark told the magazine. ‘It means using force when it's appropriate, and as a last resort, and not because it looks easy. Because, as we're finding out in Iraq, it isn't easy.’”
Funny thing that, thought that's what the president has been doing. We knew it wouldn't be easy (people with a brain) but like Bremer and Wolfowitz have said, they didn't realize just how deteriorated the infrastructure would be.
The Bush foreign policy team always had contempt for Bill Clinton's herky-jerky, improvised interventions around the world. When it took control, it promised a global stewardship purring with gravity, finesse and farsightedness.
But now the Bush "dream team" is making the impetuous Clinton look like Rommel. [got word of that new book did ya Maureen?]
When your aim is remaking the Middle East, you don't want to get stuck making it up as you go along. if you must, here's more.
Sure Maureen, the Bush Admin was supposed to foretell everything that would unfold. Is this woman completely stupid?
Shoot, V.S. Naipaul is an excellent author, I've read several of his books. He literally bootstrapped himself out of poverty and a life of hopelessness, why in the world is he hanging around with Chels???
That's the best description that I've heard of how the Clintons "governed" this country. They had/have no idea of how to lead or how to govern, they focus grouped all of their decisions to see what was popular, and took all the perks of the office for themselves and their cronies. It's almost as if they were aliens, imitating what true leaders do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.