I took a poll yesterday in my diary entitled,
"Stop Kerry at Any Cost?" About 90 people weighed in, and roughly half of them agreed that I should vote for Clark on Tuesday in Arizona's primary, even though he isn't my first choice, because he has the best shot at beating Kerry in this state, thereby slowing his march to the nomination. Only about an eighth of the poll respondents indicated that they support John Kerry. The rest said I should vote for whichever candidate is my first choice and, essentially, let the chips fall where they may. If you haven't already taken the poll, please do so now. Friday night (a time when most sane people probably aren't glued to their computer screen) may not provide a representative sample.
Below is one comment I posted this morning in response to someone who urged me to jump on the Kerry bandwagon (or, as I prefer to think of it, the Kerry Titanic). We should all ponder the parallel with 1988 and not be so quick to assume that John Kerry is a more formidable candidate now than Michael Dukakis was then.
Memories of '88
The vast majority of democrats obviously feel that Kerry is the best bet to beat Bush and I quite agree.
Majority? Vast?
Just curious, can we agree that more than 50% constitutes a majority? If so, and if Kerry fails to win 50% in Feb. 3rd states, can we put to rest the notion that even a simple majority, much less a "vast" one, holds this belief?
the sooner we all get behind the candidate, now apparently Long John, the sooner we can get about the business of reclaiming the republic.
Do you remember '88? Similar arguments were made during the primary process then. Some people are now saying that Kerry isn't another Dukakis. They're right. For a long time in 1988, people were actually EXCITED about Michael Dukakis. He seemed like a SURE THING to beat the incredibly lame Elder Bush. Remember Ann Richards sockin' it to him at the convention? Born with a "silver foot in his mouth?" Oh, yes, we were all quite giddy and confident then. Much more so than you are now, even.
It's easy to trash Dukakis in hindsight. It will be even easier with Kerry, if he is the nominee and, as I expect, goes down in flames in November. But, interestingly, when Dukakis was running for the nomination, he had several things going for him that we seem to now forget. For example, he was the son of Greek immigrants, and pundits imagined that would resonate with many 1st and 2nd generation Americans. He had performed "The Massachusetts Miracle" as governor, meaning he had presided over some pretty decent economic times in a state that had previously gone through a lot of hardship. His wife Kitty was thought of as charming and attractive, until it was later learned that she was a recovering drunk, which turned her into a somewhat pathetic figure (not unlike her husband became). The man rode the subway to work at the statehouse in Boston, for godsakes! He was clearly a "man of the people." He even, believe it or not, had a touch of Hollywood glamor because his cousin Olympia was fresh off an Oscar win for her role in "Moonstruck" and she spoke lovingly of Michael at the convention.
None of that mattered a whit in the end, but does John Kerry have anything going for him besides the "Saving Private Ryan" anecdotes?
It is difficult to defeat a sitting President, even a lousy one. Clinton and Reagan did it through force of personality as much as anything else. (No hope for Kerry in that regard.) Carter barely did it under circumstances (Watergate) that were very disadvantageous for the appointed Gerald Ford. If Kerry is the nominee, I believe it will take something cataclysmic to shake George W. from the White House, and I'm not willing to pin my hopes on a bolt out of the blue.