Even the bigwigs of PunditWorld probably can't go too far wrong on the basic results. The four candidates that were still competitive - Kerry, Edwards, Clark and Dean - are still in the race. Kerry's string of Tuesday victories give him more momentum. Edwards did very well in South Carolina and looks to come in at least a close second to Clark in Oklahoma. Dean's not out of it, but he looks like more of a long-shot than ever.
Clark's candidacy is looking more problematic, especially with Edwards' strong showing against him in Oklahoma, where Clark was campaigning hard and Edwards wasn't. It seems to me that Kerry and Clark were largely competing for a similar constituency in the party, and Kerry seems to have a big advantage now.
To the Big Pundits, the current story line on Kerry is "electability." As though "electability" isn't an issue in every Presidential nominating contest. So we're likely to hear profound discussions the next week about what makes Kerry look "electable". Was it the firm set of his jaw in the New Hampshire debates? Was it his forceful style in South Carolina?
The press corps know that the Iraq War isn't affecting the voting. Most of the punditocracy don't care about Iraq, so they assume the rest of us don't either. They even have polls to prove it. So Kerry's success can't have anything to do with his criticism of the Iraq War, public concern over foreign policy priorites, or his credibility as a "tough dove."
And, besides , they all know the voters trust the Republicans more on national security anyway. In PunditWorld, as Joe Conason says, "The cultural assumption that Republicans are paragons of flag-saluting martial virtue is rarely challenged, regardless of reality."
No comments:
Post a Comment