OJ - Agree. Vennochi is normally a staunch Kerry/Dem supporter so this can definitely be seen as the media beginning to sour on Kerry.
A month ago there was genuine concern Bush was going to lose. Now the question seems to be by how much does Bush win (i.e. will Kerry reach 40%?). That said, the worrywart in me recognizes that there are still 60 days left to go and something could happen to bring the race closer or even lead to a Kerry win (i.e. economy continues to stumble, Bush blows a debate, a DUI type revelation late in the campaign, etc.)

AWW:

There was?

OJ - maybe there wasn't any concern in OJ land but there was in the normal GOP circles.

What National Review and the Weekly Standard? Please.

Kerry was the insiders' candidate, like Dole in 1996. Hilary was never running in 2004 so the Clintonites wanted a stooge to get the nomination so that she will have a clear field in 2008.

He was acceptable to the Third Way crowd because he was pro-NAFTA and indifferent to unions at best. He was Michael Dukakis, only taller with fewer syllables.

His voting record on social and defense issues was down the line hard left. If it were up to him, slingshots would be declared illegal WMD so long as they were in the hands of America and its allies.

Gephardt who would have challegened the President on economic issues, while not ceding any ground on defense and foreign policy based on his voting record, would have been a tough general election candidate. He was also from a swing state in flyover country.

Who were the other candidates? Edwards would lose a spelling contest to Dan Quayle. Howard Dean, a governor from a weird small state with fewer people than Cleveland. Kucinich who promised to do for America what he did for Cleveland, and believed it was a good thing. Sharpton? Moseley-Braun? The sanctimonious and hypocritrical Joe Lieberman? Could Alpha Male Al have tried again?

If National Review, Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal aren't mainstream conservative Republicanism today, what is?

A Gephardt-Lieberman ticket would of course have destroyed Bush in a way reminiscent of what LBJ did to Goldwater. But that's exactly the problem with the Dems : these two gentlemen got almost no votes from their party's members.

However bad Kerry is as a candidate, he still has a good chance to win. The economy remains at best so-so, oil prices remain sky high in nominal terms (which is the only thing people see) and job creation isn't up to Clintonian standards. It doesn't matter that these Clintonian standards are a bit suspect and completely unsustainable. Combine this with Democratic efforts to inflate their numbers in Florida and Kerry cannot be written off before November, 2. Or maybe somewhere in December, when his lawyers finally give in.

Gephardt-Lieberman got no votes in their own party but would be stronger than Kerry? Wouldn't Lyndon LaRouche be their best candidate by that standard?

>The challenge for Democrats is to figure out
>how to get that up to at least 44% or their
>congressional losses could be catastrophic.
>Anyone got any odea how they do that?

How did Comrade Lenin do it in 1917?

This is my hope. A total implosion from Kerry could depress Dem's and reduce their voter turnout enough to put Washington state in play. If we can put Senator Patty Murray out of work and make Dino Rossi governor, maybe, just maybe, this state can turn off the path it is on. Republicans could also take over both state houses as they are close to doing so anyway,

The fact that Peter is admitting that Kerry *might* lose, if things go right, is evidence enough that Kerry's done.

Gephardt and Lieberman would have been a solid Democratic ticket. We would have had a debate on economic issues, the Democrats would have taken moderate social positions, and they wouldn't have to drop back 10 and punt on defense and foreign policy.

As it is, with Kerry, the Democrats have nominated an upper-class twit with no significant differences from Bush on economics, no ability to carry a debate on foreign policy or defense, who takes every loopy far-left social policy nostrum as gospel.

Sure, the Dems might have faced a revolt of the McDermott/Kucinich/Osama wing of their party and Nader would get 7-10% of the vote, but they would still have a real shot in a tight race.

Gephardt is a joke. He lost to Dukakis and Kerry, a seemingly impossible feat for a politician some take seriously.

OJ, if you're so sure that Bush is going to win, I assume you've taken a long position on the Bush contract at the Iowa futures exchange (or tradesports)? After all, with your level of confidence, it would be a risk-free investment!

For those of us looking at the numbers, it still looks like a pretty close race.

The only candidate who had a chance at winning both the nomination and the general election was Wesley Clark who was polling quite strong in NH, AZ, and other swing states on the basis that he would be him and Dean. In the week before the Iowa Caucus, Clark had taken the lead in many states. However, when Kerry seized the anti-Dean crown in Iowa, he became toast as it was thought his candidacy became superfluous.

Clark had good moderate credentials and had military qualifications. Because he opposed the Iraq War he'd be acceptable to the leftists, but because he opposed it on reasons other than the typical far left/pacifist/Marxist reasons he would not alienate voters wanting a firm hand on defense. He'd be a cypher on domestic issues, but that really wasn't his concern. If he picked an Edwards-type Democrat acceptable to middle America that's all he would need to do. This election was never going to be about domestic issues.

Clark certainly had failings as a candidate mostly based on that he was a political neophyte. He squandered much of his initial press, but he definitely was a quick learner. If he couldn't improve then he'd be doomed anyway, but if he continued to improve he'd do just fine. He never got that chance though.

Unlike some Democrats, I'm not going to complain that we woulda/coulda with another candidate. The primary was open. We got the candidate we elected and he's going to take us into the toilet.

Bret:

Cabana boys don't get much allowance.

Clark was a joke, universally loathed within the military, a climber his whole career with no moral core. All it took to destroy him was exposure to the campaign trail..

And he was a frickin' wierdo...

Wesley Clark a serious candidate? That's like saying Michael Jackson will be singing at the Met.

Clark couldn't lead 5 year-olds to the toilet. It will be interesting in a few years to read about how and why he really jumped into the race. It will be even more interesting to read what the Clintons really think of him.

We know. They fired him.

Easy guys, Bret is still a Democrat.

So far I have around 500 bucks on election day bets with my Dem friends. They were whopping it up until a couple of weeks ago. Now I think they want me to forget about the bets. HA!

BJW:

In October 1980 I bet two fraternity brothers a chug a state. On Election Eve, I did my six in short order. They took considerably longer.

Just want to applaud Chris Durnell for the civility and discuss issues with people you disagree with in a tactful, meaningful way.

"The Globe Turns"

Delicious. Is there is a Greek word for this rhetorical device, the ironic gloss on a headline?

The Double-Entendre Super Hed.

...

(Batteries not included.)