Ok, so I feel like I've been slapped in the face. I've been coming here for quite a long time now (just prior to 2002 midterms), and I've come to value kos' political analysis. But his latest "state of the race" post seems completely out of character. And, frankly, it hurts me to see him buy into the spin this much.
When Kerry was down and out, when Edwards was down and out, what did you say, kos? "As long as they can beat the other candidates, they're all electable against Bush". That was your mantra. That's what you said even if you were writing off Edwards for polling under Sharpton for a week.
So I come home today and read this:
In any case, I'll say right now that Kerry should win NH. If Dean pulls of the unlikely victory, he's back to frontrunner status and would cruise through to the nomination. But he probably won't win. So where does that leave him?
Dean still has the money spigot. He has raised more money post-Iowa than Kerry or Edwards combined (over half a million). Of course, if money controlled, Dean would've won Iowa and Bush would cruise to reelection. Lucky for our Democracy, money is just a single factor.
and this:
But Dean has the luxury of time and a solid foundation in the Feb 3 states. And money. So he'll try to win a couple of those states and try to survive through to Maine and Washington where he can resurrect his campaign. It wouldn't be pretty, but it's been done before (Mondale).
So what's this kos? Suddenly even if Dean wins the primaries, he's not electable? And, as with anyone who would throw around the "Dean's not electable" accusation, you're under no obligation to explain what you mean by that? Suddenly Al From is completely right, Dean is the Mondale of this race?!
Now listen, I don't care if you suddenly don't support Dean. I don't mind if you switched positions based on the other night's loss, or the retarded media hype over his speech. I disagree with you 100%, but if you were to honestly make that case I'd respect it.
But this? This is wrong. Suddenly parroting anti-Dean talking points that you had vocally rejected less than a week ago? That's hypocrisy, man. And it's only compounded by the casual way you slip it into a post. You've gained a reputation for being a pro-Dean observor. I think you at least owe the Deaniacs who've come to this site because of that some sort of explanation. Heck, for many of us you're our favorite political observor and for you to just casually repudiate so many of our beliefs without even explaining why is a little insulting.
I've always respected your political analysis, but this type of sudden polar reversal in beliefs is alien to me. In the days after the 2002 midterms, you were willing to speak about how the DNC needed to regain its voice. But lately you seem to have jettisoned that theme. I really do wonder why. I dunno... I'd like to keep coming here because I do enjoy the banter on the diaries, but I have to say that my confidence in you has been severely shaken.
