On the MSM front ---

.
Clinton took 41 percent in a hypothetical primary field against 12 other Democrats, far ahead of Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) at 17 percent, former Sen. John Edwards (N.C) at 11 percent and former Vice President Al Gore at 10 percent. The party's 2004 nominee -- Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) -- received 8 percent support. No other candidate crested three percent.
...

NET LEANED VOTE:

1/19/07 12/11/06
Hillary Clinton 41 39
Barack Obama 17 17
John Edwards 11 12
Al Gore 10 10
John Kerry 8 7
Joe Biden 3 2
Wesley Clark 1 1
Bill Richardson 1 2
Dennis Kucinich 1 NA
Chris Dodd * *
Mike Gravel * NA
Tom Vilsack * 1
Other (vol.) 1 *
None of these (vol.) 2 2
Would not vote (vol.) * 1
Evan Bayh NA 1
No opinion 3 4

The Case For Kerry

Jan 17, 2007 1:07 pm



From a just-released interview our junior senator did with Details Magazine:

"John McCain ran and lost, and he's trying again. Ronald Reagan ran four times. Richard Nixon lost the presidency, then ran for governor, lost the governorship, and then six years later, he was president. For six months in '03, everything I read said I was dead. I felt I could win and would win, and I won the nomination. And I came within a hair of beating a wartime president with a pretty decent economy and a 50 percent approval rating. I think that's a campaign to be proud of, not defensive about."

Other than the misplaced pride in his too-often-disingenuous, error-prone campaign, I think Kerry's analysis is right on, as I've said here earlier. And I repeat my previous warning to gambling-prone readers: do not wager heavily on Kerry sitting it out.

A Tale of Two Pale Males

What a contrast on this Sunday's Press the Meat.* First, John McCain, that maverick twinkle in his nowhere to be spied as he monotoned through the interview as if depressed, defeated, and sedated; he seemed to round the answers off of every he answer he gave, as if not wanting to be too emphatic or specific--at this he succeeded and, in succeeding, failed. Even I, no McCain fan, was shocked at how droney he looked and sounded. If I were a McCain supporter, I would have been even more taken aback, and worried about how much gas he has left in his engine. (Although he wasn't too fatigued that he couldn't trot out that if-Americans-were-truly-against-the-war-Lieberman-wouldn't-have-been-reelected sophism again with full frontal aplomb. He and Lieberman seem to be on the verge of forming their own lonely hearts club.)

Then, after this zombie seance, Ted Kennedy, looking and sounding clear, vigorous, and vibrant with conviction. Barely a day goes by on Imus and the right blogosphere where Ted Kennedy isn't mocked as a boozed-out, unkempt buffoon with his shirt-tails untucked and his hands fumbling for a bottle or a babe, or both; but the caricature is out of date and dumb. In the last few years Kennedy has mustered a passion and dignity that have breathed second wind into his senatorial life and done himself and his party honor. He also had the conscience and prescience to vote against the Iraq war, voting the courage of his convictions rather than the political calculus. Discussing the "surge" and related issues, Kennedy was fully engaged, where McCain seemed mummified. Kennedy also asked the most salient question: Why should we give Bush, whose administration has made blunder after blunder after blunder in Iraq, the benefit of the doubt this time?

Memo to presidential candidates: If you're going to run with laments for lost "civility," don't bother running. You'll lose. And you'll lose looking like cardboard left out in the rain. Look at how Barack Obama is already getting the "Osama"/madrassah treatment, or Dick Morris's cheeseball scheme to Swift Boat Hillary, and then tell me these gentle entreaties are going to get anywhere. The Beltway establishment considers Lieberman the model of civility, which is really all you need to know.