Posted on 02/17/2004 11:19:39 PM PST by Timesink
enator John Edwards's unexpectedly strong second-place showing in Wisconsin threw political pundits off balance once again last night. The results transformed questions about when Mr. Edwards would drop out of the race earlier in the day into questions about whether he had an outside shot at the Democratic presidential nomination.
The quick change underscored again how unpredictable the Democratic nomination competition has been — and just how wrong conventional wisdom has been in predicting voter behavior.
Viewers who watched the cable news networks throughout the day were treated to a dose of mental whiplash, one that Mr. Edwards's advisers welcomed.
For days, or even weeks, the pundits had bestowed an air of inevitability on Senator John Kerry because of his string of successes. Before the results last night, that again was the story line, with commentators wondering when Mr. Edwards would drop out.
Much of the round-table chitchat through the afternoon focused on what the likely general election battle between Mr. Kerry and President Bush would look like. Some commentators wondered whether Mr. Kerry would deign to take Mr. Edwards as his running mate.
On CNN, the anchor, Wolf Blitzer, told Mr. Edwards's communications director, David Ginsberg: "So far John Edwards has won one state, the state he was born in, South Carolina. At what point does he have to say the handwriting is on the wall?"
On the Fox News Channel, Mr. Edwards's media adviser, David Axelrod, had it no better. The anchor, Rick Folbaum, said to him: "John Edwards says he's in this for the long haul. What is the point, though, when Kerry keeps winning primary after primary after caucus after caucus?"
Even though Mr. Edwards still has won but one state, the coverage last night was jolted because his more-potent-than-expected showing upset expectations.
Suddenly, Chris Matthews on MSNBC was harking to 1964, when Muhammad Ali surprised the world by beating Sonny Liston in a pivotal heavyweight championship fight.
"Is this one of those phenomenal cases where you can lose it all in one night?" Mr. Matthews asked his panel of experts. "Is it possible that John Kerry could lose his lead?"
Before it was clear that Mr. Edwards would capture as many votes as he did, Mr. Matthews was talking about him as a mere vice-presidential contender.
On Fox, Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard, said, "Edwards is running to win." Referring to the primaries on March 2, Mr. Barnes added, "It's going to be hard to do, but if he had a big day on March 2, it could conceivably happen."
Mr. Edwards's advisers were relieved that they were finally receiving some due. For weeks, they have expressed frustration over the news coverage of the race. They argue that the coverage has wrongly positioned Mr. Kerry as the likely nominee, even though most states have yet to vote.
Time magazine recently asked on its cover "What Kind of President Would John Kerry Be?" Several major newspapers, including The New York Times, have featured front-page articles about President Bush's early campaign strategy against Mr. Kerry in the general election. Newsweek's cover this week featured photographs of Mr. Kerry as a young Navy officer and Mr. Bush as a young National Guardsman.
"Winning begets winning," Mr. Axelrod said on his cellphone as he headed for Mr. Edwards's victory party. "And when you're on the cover of all the news magazines and everyone is being told you're the prospective nominee and the White House carves on you in response to that, it sets up a dynamic that signals to some voters this guy's the nominee. And that's what we've been fighting against."
But, he added, "I have to remind you the same pundits, and many of the same politicians, who anointed Howard Dean the nominee in November are anointing John Kerry the nominee in early February."
With nearly three-quarters of the delegates needed for the nomination yet to be selected, he said, "there's room for a third likely nominee, and we intend to be the real one."
But Mr. Edwards's advisers knew not to become too excited. In Oklahoma two weeks ago, Mr. Edwards similarly ran a closer second than expected, and the breathless coverage of his showing was extremely short lived. The commentators woke up the next morning feeling far less charitable about his than they did in front of the cameras the night before.
Once again last night, there was evidence that the pundits' excitement about Mr. Edwards might have also been short lived. Shortly before 10 o'clock, when MSNBC placed a large check insignia next to Mr. Kerry's name, Mr. Matthews said to his panel that had just been marveling at Mr. Edwards's showing, "Has everyone turned on a dime with that check mark next to Kerry?"
Soon after that, Aaron Brown on CNN wondered aloud: "Perhaps we make sometimes more of this than is there," adding, "Close is still only second, and he lost."
Media Schadenfreude/Shenanigans ping.
When your only positive is your perceived "electability", even a modest little scandal scare, a la Alex Polier, can knock eight points off your polling.
The Kerry "juggernaut" is not strong enough to withstand a mild gale.
Please, oh please, let him limp to the nomination.
Kerry's speech featured his usual boring delivery, but the content was poor. It was a candidate's attempt at a SOTU speech - someone needs to tell him he's not POTUS. A win after a primary is not an appropriate place to deliver a policy speech.
He tried to give something to everyone, and instead, gave nothing to anyone.
You're a brave man to watch Hardball. I hold to the theory that if conservatives didn't watch, Matthews would be off the air in about a month. OTOH, that's the place to be if you want to know Dem strategy.
I'm watching Kerry on FOX now. He has wrinkles in his brow - I guess the Botox is fighting a losing battle.
I also got to see Kerry attempt to kiss Theresa, only to be met with a turned cheek and a grimace. All is not well in Ketchupville, methinks.
Before her 15 minutes of fame are up, we have maybe 30 seconds to share the fascinating Friendster profile of someone identified as Alexandra Polier.
That's the same name as the 27-year-old Columbia journalism grad who has denied as "completely false" the Internet and British tabloid rumors of a "relationship" with Democratic presidential frontrunner John Kerry.
The Friendster profile reads:
"About Me: just another hot piece of a- with a philosophy degree and a love for old movies. I'm afraid of death, hospitals and insects. I can't spell. I like old people. I want to travel the world reporting on injustices while taking the time to enjoy an umbrella drink when appropriate."
There's no way of knowing for sure if these colorful and provocative musings were really posted by Polier, but after checking with folks who know her, I believe they were.
Yesterday, a person listed by the "online social networking community" as a Friendster "friend" said that yes, it's the same Alexandra Polier.
The cyberspace Polier is identified as a "member since May 2003" and mostly recently logged in last Friday, as the nonscandal was reaching critical mass. She didn't respond to Lowdown's E-mail asking for verification.
Some profile highlights:
"Occupation: journalist/socialite... Status: Open Marriage...Hometown: Malvern, Pa....Interests: doting on Yaron, reading bad novels, wedding planning, drinking too much...Who I Want to Meet: A spastic, compulsive, insatiable, well-dressed Israeli, with big blue eyes, a philosophy degree, and a cute infant nephew."
"Yaron" is apparently a reference to Yaron Schwartzman, the noncyberspace Polier's fiance, an Israeli raised in Kenya.
http://nydailynews.com/front/story/165432p-144854c.html
Why is Lloyd Grove puttting this in his column? Perhaps to pre-emptively discredit Ms. Polier in case she doesn't stay bought.
Take a look at that picture of Kerry kissing his wife. She is definitely not happy.
The timing of Lloyd's 'Alex' blurb is a little bit off. We saw this last week. Lloyd's a smart guy, and I'm sure he saw it, too. It seems logical to assume one of two things. Either, as you suggest, it's a shot across the bow to any journalist pursuing the story, OR, it's a where-there's-smoke-there's-fire: KEEP LOOKING!
I don't think the story's dead.
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.