Blogcritics: Comments on Dean is Doomed

Comment by bhw

Tue, 20 Jan 2004 06:33:37 EST

Wow, what a prognosticator! NH will be *very* interesting. I think Edwards might keep some momentum, although I'm not sure his Southern charm will have as much of an impact up here in New England as it did in Iowa. But still, he did incredibly well there.

Comment by John Mudd

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:16:32 EST

Kerry, as I predicted he would, just won Iowa. Stay tuned to see my prediction of Clark winning New Hampshire coming true as Kerry takes votes from Dean, making Dean a non-contender.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:35:07 EST

Dean is out - my own experiment proves it :-) I visualized a darkened theater with a lit stage. On the stage at a podium is George W. Bush. I then, one at a time, placed the various candidates at a second podium (Dean, Gephart, Kerry, Edwards and Clark). I left each up there for a minute and thought about the two talking. (For this to work, you probably need to shut your eyes and make sure you think about the two of them for the full minute.) At the end of the minute, I replaced the first candidate and did it again with the next one, once again watching him and Bush as they talked. When I was done with all five Dems, I tried to gage which had made the biggest and best impression on the audience, which would get the most votes against Bush. Frankly, I was surprised by what I the audience told me. Try it and let me know what you come up with. Then let's see how the Iowan results compare (sans Clark of course).

Comment by Mac Diva

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:30:26 EST

We need to stop looking at the family of candidates as a package deal, period. Then professional women like Hillary and Judy can assume whichever type of role they want. Do away with the whole notion and formal role of first lady and the problem will eventually go away. Now that's a striking idea. It is as if people need a family to project on when it comes to politics. Recall the Reagans' image of pro-family this and that? Reality couldn't have been farther from the truth. Shucks, Patty didn't even start associating with them again until Ronald was too senile to irritate her. But, much of populace needed to believe those people represented some kind of unofficial royal family. Our last Democrat, two-term governor here in Oregon, a physician, was single during his first term. I credit the very independent voters of the state with not holding that against him. However, I wonder if the same leeway would be given to a woman.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:55:07 EST

Well yes, but charming babes will always be charming babes. Do you think Jackie Kennedy would be any less popular today, or tomorrow? I think not.

Comment by bhw

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:39:15 EST

I sure hope dated notions of what women should be like don't have as much impact as John is forecasting. Me too, and I hope I'm wrong about my forecast. If I recall correctly, some of the ire against Hillary was based on the belief that she would 'meddle' in political decision making if her husband were elected. Yeah, that was surely one complaint. But also her loudly spoken preference for having a career [and not staying home to bake cookies] bothered a lot of people, too, particularly people who like their women not to have ideas of their own. I think Judy Steinberg is saying/showing she just wants to be a doctor and let her husband deal with matters of state. Even though she's a career woman, she's not a politician, so the same people who disliked Hillary will probably not dislike Judy [to the same degree, at least]. Plus, Judy doesn't threaten some men and women the way Hillary apparently does. The Hillary hatred has always been a mystery to me, frankly. BUT, the big problems are with the historical role of first lady and our country's obsession with appearances. Until we stop expecting the wives of our presidents to be neatly groomed stay-at-the-White-House first ladies whose primary roles are to 1) adopt "female friendly" issues like education, literacy, and drug use, as their pet projects and 2) to host dinner parties, then the more "traditional" first lady will give her husband an edge in an election. A moderately conservative friend of mine once told me that he resented the fact that Bill and Hillary were a package deal. What he forgets is that the president and his spouse are always a package deal. What he really didn't like was that Hillary didn't want the part of the package that was supposed to be for her. We need to stop looking at the family of candidates as a package deal, period. Then professional women like Hillary and Judy can assume whichever type of role they want. Do away with the whole notion and formal role of first lady and the problem will eventually go away.

Comment by John Mudd

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:15:34 EST

I'm glad you corrected that, as I don't have an actual preconceived notion for men or women. Everyone's an individual and each individual may do as he or she pleases. As long as you're happy and law-abiding that's all that matters. I also think Edwards will impact the caucus, and I think he strips votes away from Dean and Kerry, but I think he'll hurt Dean more than Kerry. I'm sticking with my Clark prediction, for now, though. Clark is the only one that makes me want to vote for a Democrat and it's clear that he's using Clinton's playbook, which has proven successful in the past. MD, I do remember your post on diabetes for "Blogging For A Cure" and I loved it, as I typically do most of your posts. Sometimes I do wish I could put a name and a face with them, though. Cheers.

Comment by Mac Diva

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:05:18 EST

Oops! I typed John when I meant bhw. I really should get up a brew some coffee. But, that's takes energy, which I get from . . . coffee-:). Bhw, I hope you are going to post this at Blog Sisters, too. BTW, John, I know you blog about more than buisness and had read your blog before you pointed it out yesterday. I contributed to the diabetes awareness campaign, remember?

Comment by Mac Diva

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:59:59 EST

I am still undecided. So, I think the candidates still have some convincing to do. I believe Edwards. because of his unexpected popularity there, will have more impact in Iowa than previously thought. I sure hope dated notions of what women should be like don't have as much impact as John is forecasting. If I recall correctly, some of the ire against Hillary was based on the belief that she would 'meddle' in political decison making if her husband were elected. Ms. Steinberg is saying the exact opposite. (Being a Jew could work against her, though.) Theresa Heinz is a much bigger target, I think. Her money and her mouth are already GOP talking points. (I blogged that some time ago. I'll see if I can find the link.)

Comment by John Mudd

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:43:27 EST

I think Kerry will take Iowa, boosting Clark in New Hampshire, where I think Clark will win (even though he's currently kneck-and-kneck with Dean), creating the first of a long string of victories that allow him to win the nomination. Considering that Clark is using the Clinton playbook, his strategy should be successful. Clark, being a centrist, himself, will likely pick Hillary Clinton for his running-mate to energize the Democratic Party's base.

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 10:08:34 EST

Since all of this political foofarah is merely the latest teevee reality show, all Howard Dean has to do is bring in an understudy in role of wife for the duration of the show. They haven't been using Stockard Channing very much on the West Wing, so she should be available. She has experience playing a doctor, and First Hey Laydeee! Plus she knows all the tunes from Grease.

Comment by bhw

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:48:18 EST

LOL!

Comment by Eric Olsen

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:46:48 EST

perhaps Dean should now bust out an elegant, hottie mistress

Comment by bhw

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:41:53 EST

And of course, I wrote this post half in jest and half not. That said, I agree that the presidential candidate is most important. But if Dean and Bush go toe-to-toe in November, there will be a large number of Americans -- probably mostly women -- who might not admit it but who just won't be able to "see" Steinberg as first lady. If they're on the fence politically, FLF gives the edge to Bush, no contest. [Although Dean and Bush are so different politically, there probably won't be too many people having trouble choosing between them. Of course, all of these comments are ruining my premise!] We are, sadly, an appearance/surface-level obsessed country. I guess I wish it weren't an issue at all, but when I saw Steinberg on TV last night, I immediately thought: there goes Dean!

Comment by Eric Olsen

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:21:53 EST

bhw, brilliant concept, and I agree that all other things being equal the FLF can be the deciding factor, but how often are all other things equal? I totally agree that appearance and demeanor count for a lot, but I think that applies even more to the candidate than to the potential first lady. I agree Steinberg is, um, NOT, but Dean seems to wear well enough himself, which is more important. Kerry is actually the one done in by this concept as he looks way too much like Edmund Muskie, who turned out to be one of the turd candidates of all time.