If Howard Dean cannot win the anti-war vote, he’s a goner. It’s clear, however, that he has performed a great service for the Democrats. He was the vehicle for their rage; and he helped vent and dissipate it. That’s not to say Bush-hatred has died. The latest WaPo poll shows a higher number of strongly anti-Bush voters – 30 percent – than ever. But the Dems have obviously decided that it’s better to get even rather than mad. Dean’s implosion also strikes me as bad news for Wesley Clark. He was supposed to be the anti-Dean, but adopted Deanish rhetoric. Both positions are now somewhat redundant. The Iowa voters – not exactly centrists – picked Kerry and Edwards to be the anti-Dean candidate, and the shrillness of the Dean-Clark message (the shrillness that so appealed to Paul Krugman) was just as soundly rejected. Good news for the Dems – and the country.
HOW VIABLE IS KERRY? I’m still unpersuaded by John Kerry, although it seems his campaigning has improved markedly. For me, the big winner is Edwards. He’s always struck me as a Tony Blair figure – telegenic, personally appealing, centrist. His speech was the best of the bunch last night – and he exudes decency. That’s enormously important against Bush because the president’s most under-rated political virtue is his general likeability. If Edwards can pick off even a couple of Southern states, he has a critical advantage over his rivals. National security is obviously a huge problem. Maybe he can find a way to innoculate himself on the issue. How does a Kerry-Edwards or Edwards-Kerry ticket sound? In a word: Credible. The Dems don’t want to commit suicide after all. For the record, I’d back Edwards against any of the others currently running.
THAT NYT POLL: A seasoned Republican analyst emailed me this to explain the somewhat dismal polling for the president in Sunday’s NYT poll:
In the most recent Gallup poll, the party ID was 37 percent GOP and 37 percent Democratic. In the AP/Ipsos poll, the party ID was 42 percent GOP and 45 percent Democratic. And in the CBS/NYT poll on Sunday, the party ID was 34 percent GOP and 47 percent Democratic. Is it any wonder the numbers were what they were? This is more evidence, in my judgment, why you shouldn’t trust the NYT polls. (In their last poll, the NYT had a ten-point advantage for Democrats in the party ID.)
That strikes me as a pretty devastating indictment of the polling at the New York Times. Is the skewing deliberate? The Washington Post poll today shows some similar down-draft on domestic policies, but is far more favorable to Bush than the NYT’s analysis. Can we even trust the NYT polls any more? Over to you, Dan Okrent.
IN A PICTURE: Why he lost. Watching his concession speech last night was actually a little disturbing. His sore throat made his voice sound even more like a growl. And he was aggressive beyond belief. Compared to John Edwards’ moving tribute to Dick Gephardt, it was a disgrace.
ANOTHER FALSE ALARM: No blister gas bombs in Iraq. The absence of any WMDs in any usable form in Iraq is, to my mind, staggering. I’m still passionately pro-war, but you cannot sugar-coat this intelligence debacle. The pre-emption doctrine is practically speaking dead.
FIFTH COLUMN WATCH: An Anti-War.com writer pleaded guilty to federal weapons and explosives charges. He was planning to fight for “Muslim causes.”
NOT A DEAD PARROT: Churchill’s pet is still alive – and still using the f-word.
The Dish 