What do you think is driving the lack of (a) attention from the federal government, and (b) attention from the national media? Is it just that we're all focused on Iraq, or is it that, unlike NYC after 9/11, we have to strain to see the same city survive?

The more I think about it, the more astonishing it is that Katrina doesn't loom larger my imagination or, I assume, that of your average American. A city disappeared.

I'd be happy if they just replaced the street signs in NO.

I read somewhere that Edwards is going to announce in New Orleans. Politicking, yeah, but maybe he'll focus some attention on the disastrous response by the—holy shit, there's a new iPod thingy? Balls!

Tim, recovery stories are boring. Especially when they're stories of incompetant recovery. Right now, the legislature is fighting with the Governor ("Babs") over firing the company in charge of one of the largest reocovery efforts.

more specifically:

ICF has been harshly criticized by lawmakers - culminating with a resolution last week directing Blanco to fire the company, though the Legislature has no authority to do so.

The Road Home program gives repair or buyout grants of up to $150,000 to homeowners who have suffered damage from hurricanes Katrina or Rita. Few homeowners have received aid, however. More than 89,000 people have applied, but only 87 have received their housing recovery grants through the $7.5 billion program, according to Road Home statistics.

What do you think is driving the lack of (a) attention from the federal government, and (b) attention from the national media?

Part of it is likely the money factor. A fucked up NO just doesn't have the same impact on the economy as a post 9-11 New York, or a post Northridge quake Los Angeles. Those kind of towns have a huge edge in money and influence, so their shit gets done.

To be cynical- rich white people use the 1 & 9. Poor black people use the streetcar.

Am I wrong to think that the 1/9 carried orders of magnitude more people than the St. Charles line?

But, vastly more important, the damage in NYC was extremely localized, effecting a well-defined set of facilities. Whereas NO - and its surroundings, don't forget - was largely wiped out. What do you do first when a city has been, for all practical purposes, wiped away? There is no precedent in modern America; really, the only precedent I can think of is bombed European cities after WW2, or maybe Sarajevo (Japanese cities in WW2 having been much less industrialized pre-war). But I'm not even sure Sarajevo was as thoroughly devastated as NO.

But Christ, wasn't it like 3 months before NO even drained completely? It would be like the Chicago Fire lasting 3 months - if ashes were a natural breeding ground for vermin and disease.

1: The answer is at #7. Sad but true.

The damage in New York was slight when compared to the damage in the Mississippi delta. In New York, a few huge buildings were destroyed and needed to be cleaned away, and a few thousand feet of subway tunnel collapsed. And how many potential repair workers were lost due to the tragedy? Not many. In New Orleans, on the other hand, the entire utility grid was destroyed; miles of roads; the levees, of course, were a first priority; thousands of homes and buildings destroyed; basically the entire infrastructure was wiped out, and half the population dispersed (particularly the class that does manual labor, I suspect).

I'm quite sure that differences in the disasters have a lot more to do with the pace of recovery than the differences in the class of the victims.

At least when comparing indicators like when public transit comes back online, I hasten to add. Not saying that New York didn't get more recovery than it needed because of class, or that New Orleans hasn't gotten less.

10 & 11 get it exactly right. Plus, 9/11 was a terrorist attack, and there was undoubtedly significant pressure to bounce back as quickly as possible, to show 'em who's boss, or some such.

And, on the other hand, the first construction for the Freedom Tower® was laid in yesterday.

Anybody else watching the Dear Leader talking to the press?

Hypothetical questions are dangerous.

15: Why? What would happen if I were to ask one?

This whole edifice could come crashing down. Did anyone notice the prez quoting Billy Bragg just now?

Was it this quote?

No, it was something about "ideologies clashing."

But, that would be a good'un.

Will no one mention the fact that NYC just fucking rules?

I heard that John Edwards thing too. It's absolutely fantastic. He's trying to be the Bobby Kennedy of our time, and I think he means it. He's also polling at 30 percent in Iowa, to Hillary's 15 percent.

21 is heartening.

Going to work for him? And if you do, can you find out if the campaign in New York needs litigators, or people willing to write content, or anything else I might be able to do?

(I am echoing LB's 23, exept s/New York/New Jersey/ and strike out the bit about litigators. I'm good at grunt work like stuffing envelopes and (much as I hate it) calling people from computer-generated lists.)

9's right. WTC = white businessmen. NO = poor black people.

It's absolutely fantastic.

It is refreshing to see a Democrat act like a Democrat for a change.

There's nothing I want to do more. Except perhaps my 6 or 7 upcoming projects in theaterland.

Politics is my mistress and not my wife, but only just barely. My wanker friend Ryan has the same conundrum. (We met on the Dean campaign; he founded Exploited Immigrant Gay Hookers For Dean.) If I were to go to work for Edwards, the commitment would be total. I couldn't do it with one foot still in the theater world. And I just...can't...leave...right...now.

Politics is your exploited Ukrainian mistress, you cad.

I heard that John Edwards thing too. It's absolutely fantastic. He's trying to be the Bobby Kennedy of our time, and I think he means it.

To mangle a line from Cary Grant, not even RFK was the RFK of his time.

But seriously, the calendar looks very good for Edwards. The first two contests are in Iowa and Nevada, both caucuses. Edwards's ground operation is already established in Iowa. He was surging like crazy in the runup to the caucus in 04; I think that if he'd had one more week, he'd have won. Most of his people are all still loyal to him there, so he begins with an enormous institutional advantage right out the gate, in the state where organization is EVERYTHING. And in Nevada, he already has the backing of one of the major local unions. Plus, he's Southern and appealing and is saying real things about poverty and inequality. As things look right now, I think he's got a good chance of winning both of those, and if he does, it will be nearly impossible to stop him.

To mangle a line from Cary Grant, not even RFK was the RFK of his time.

So true. I'm reading Pillar of Fire right now. Bobby was letting Hoover do some fucked up shit to King.

It would be truly strange to hear the President quoting this song. But then, self-awareness or a sense of shame have never been among his notable characteristics.

I have long endorsed John Edwards.

Speaking of dead Kennedies, anybody read The Man Who Knew Too Much? My friend Dave Duncan is reading it and gushing at me about it.

Will no one mention the fact that NYC just fucking rules?

Indeed it does. Mightily. But NO also rules, in a different, though no less mighty, way.

And count me as on the Edwards train. Who should be VP?

Do you think it helps or hurts Edwards that his success will confound media expectations? Just yesterday morning I heard Bill Press saying it's between Hillary and Barack. I take that as a data point of conventional wisdom. Would Edwards' success make them miffed and resentful?

I think they'd enjoy turning on Hillary like a pack of hyenas, and would expect them to do that to her in the general election even if she took the primarys. I don't know where the press would come down between Edwards and Obama.

Oh, and for those who haven't read any of them, Taylor Branch's trilogy about MLK (Pillar of Fire is the second) is really good. Actually I haven't read the third (At Canaan's Edge) yet, but the first two are great.

36 - No, the media quickly tires of their own frontrunners. They're much more interested in finding out who the "other guy" is.

This was Trippi's strategy in the Dean campaign, to be the "other guy" to Kerry's establishment favorite. It worked way too well, though, and too quickly. Against all odds, Dean became the frontrunner by the end of summer '03. And Kerry got to be the "other guy" by caucus-time. It was truly astonishing.

Deep down, my counterintuitive heart says '08 ends up Edwards vs Hagel.

I'm guessing that the press prefers Obama to Edwards.

Maybe the press will take a "the new cool thing that nobody but us cool people knew about till now that we're telling you" approach to Edwards.

And maybe an Edwards/Obama "Fresh New Camelot" ticket could work.

Also, I don't see Obama's road map to victory. As in, which states he wins in order to secure the nomination. He has some hope in New Hampshire, but if another candidate wins the two contests before NH (IA and NV), then no one will care about him, including New Hampshire voters. After the first couple of contests, people vote for the guy who's been winning.

I'm guessing that the press prefers Obama to Edwards.

Long before the end of this thing, you'll see scores of articles about how Obama's not as great as people thought he was. Remember what happened to Wes Clark? It took like a month after he entered the race for the attack pieces to happen. The press is a pack of finicky little bitches.

41: I'm guessing you're right; the press sees Edwards as a rube, I think, and Obama's slickness and rapid adaptation to Washington meets with their approval.

the press sees Edwards as a rube, I think

If he's the winner, he'll be seen as the winner.

34: I thought you were talking about G. K. Chesterton's The Man Who Knew Too Much and got all excited, but, alas, no.

I think Joe's right, and that Obama's peaking way too early, media-wise, to have a real chance.

Is that part of your research? I have a twisted fondness for Chesterton, which involves a whole lot of pained wincing at the anti-Semitic bits.

Deep down, my counterintuitive heart says '08 ends up Edwards vs Hagel.

You don't really think there's any chance that Hagel will win, do you? It' McCain or some nutter.

The other (horrible but true) thing to remember is that Obama, no matter how hard he tries, is still just a hair's breadth way from "uppity negro" in the eyes of many voters and many in the press.

I think Obama has to be running for the VP slot, no?

Hagel has a perfect 0 rating from NARAL. That's enough for the fundies. I suspect that by primary season, having been an early voice for withdrawal from Iraq is going to be a valuable commodity for any candidate from either party.

In fact, I think the tenor of the pieces will reflect that very dynamic. Look for the stories about how he's too ambitious, or too calculating, or too smart for his own good.

52: Yes, I think so.

I don't see Obama's road map to victory.

I don't either. As I said before, he looks to me like this cycle's Howard Dean.

Chesterton makes occasional appearances in my research, usually via the Father Brown stories. The anti-Semitic bits are indeed painful, and TMWKTM is particularly spiked with them, unfortunately. The Man Who Was Thursday is my favorite.

You were with me on liking and not wanting to defend That Hideous Strength, too, weren't you? My friend in wincing fondness.

Can you have a black candidate in the VP slot without sending a different kind of message to black voters? Especially when that black candidate is broadly hailed as the party's savior by the set that gets its news from Comedy Central? (Here n includes me.)

Something's in the air: Chesterton's been mentioned several times around here lately; I did it myself yesterday.

I could tentatively endorse an Edwards/Obama ticket.

The clearest path to a black president is through the VP's office. I suspect most black voters think this as well.

I think Obama would be nothing but positive as a VP choice. Edwards might do well with Wes Clark also.

The other factor no one's mentioning, of course, is Al Gore.

I'm not proud to say it, but I think my profile may overlap a bit with that of the average media-person: over-educated, if superficially so, urban, coastal, cynical, travelled, and then a lot less nice characteristics, like being suspicious of all believers and having the attention-span of a gnat.

To these very flawed eyes, Edwards isn't a serious person. His very specific policy proposals about poverty and inequality, perhaps counter-intuitively, just reinforce that perception: he's so specific on those issues because he's weak everywhere else, and knows it. And since no president ever gets exactly what he campaigned on, the wonky details of his plan are moot. This is a perception that the Edwards people are going to have to overcome to establish that "he's a winner because he's a winner" narrative Joe talked about.

I don't want to be mean to the Edwards people, or reinforce any of the nastiness that sure to come down the pike. And again, I'll vote for whoever the Democrats put up.

This is odd: I had a dream about Al Gore with shoulder-length hair on TV the other night, and thinking that it looked better down than back in the ponytail he usually wears it in. I do not usually dream about politicians, and I think the hairstyle suggested is probably a bad idea for Gore.

61.--I'm starting to doubt that Gore will come in.

Drymala, trying to nochalantly slip in Clark's name. I, however, know better. I saw him on the WesClark Facebook group.

Edwards would be the best SecLabor in galactic history. But his informed populism wouldn't win out against McCain's deceptive populism in a presidential bid.

60: Why is apostropher mouthing what I think? Is he my puppet, or am I his?

OTOH, I don't think we're getting a black VP this time unless something dramatically changes. '08 is when we go with a woman, I suspect. I can't decide if that's a mistake or not--I really want a non-HRC female President, so I lean towards not.

if another candidate wins the two contests before NH (IA and NV), then no one will care about him

I'm not sure this will be true of Obama. I've read a couple of pieces about Obama's stunningly successful voter registration drives (of African-Americans, mostly) in Illinois, and that if he runs, he plans to undertake a massive voter registration campaign in the South. If he does that, everyone will wait to see how he does after the first few northern/white primaries.

J/m, you defender of wealth and privilege, your hater views on Edwards are well known in these circles. You think he's been faking it for the past 4 years? That he's just going to keep riding this Two Americas thing someone fed him once, to see where it takes him?

Anyway, people in Iowa think he's pretty serious. And those are the people who have the most say in whether or not he gets to play or not.

'08 is when we go with a woman

I think you mean '84.

Obama's not as great as people thought he was. Remember what happened to Wes Clark?

Dude, Clark was a horrible campaigner--he made things much harder on himself.

But his informed populism wouldn't win out against McCain's deceptive populism in a presidential bid.

Huh? McCain a populist? How, exactly? Campaign finance reform? An issue that excites maybe 5 percent of the public?

Voters are going to vote for the guy they like the best. Edwards is extremely likeable. McCain is likeable, sort of, but he also has a grumpy old man side to him that's going to be talked about. McCain has his good points, too, but he's by no means a perfect candidate. And the war is a fucking albatross around his neck, let's not forget.

God, I hate Iowans.

I agree with Jackmormon on perceptions of Edwards. That said, and despite the fact that I really like Obama, I'll vote for Edwards in any primary, and he's who I'd work for if I worked for anyone, because I love his focus on poverty.

I'm not sure this will be true of Obama. I've read a couple of pieces about Obama's stunningly successful voter registration drives (of African-Americans, mostly) in Illinois, and that if he runs, he plans to undertake a massive voter registration campaign in the South. If he does that, everyone will wait to see how he does after the first few northern/white primaries.

You think his African American voter registrations drives are going to be more effective than the African American voter registration drives that Bill Clinton runs on behalf of his wife?

his informed populism wouldn't win out against McCain's deceptive populism in a presidential bid.

I'm not sure this is actually true. McCain has been steadily losing independent support as he's courted the party base, and his oft-stated views on Iraq are going to be an albatross.

Edwards is extremely likeable.

Edwards is likeable, Obama is extremely likeable. Edwards puts a lot of people off, Joe D (and I'm talking solely about Democrats here).

Edwards is extremely likeable.

To some people, Joe. I really don't think I'm alone here. But I'll shut up about it; I don't want to be hating on your guy.

75. yes. Hillary's just never been as popular, even with Bill behind her.

73 -- Jeez, Charles Bird, Edwards, now Iowans... When will the hatred stop?

Albapwned by Drymala.

Guys. Seriously. This "perception" thing is the most mutable, changeable,tunpredictable thing in every race. In the previous primary, the press/public perception of every single major candidate was vastly different depending on what month it was.

You think his African American voter registrations drives are going to be more effective than the African American voter registration drives that Bill Clinton runs on behalf of his wife?

I don't know, but I don't think the answer is obvious.

I don't think we can have Edwards/Obama. There needs to be somebody butch on the ticket. You can have one or the other -- the two together have too much of a touchy-feely vibe and I think they'd have a hard time appealing to the male, independent vote. You need somebody that guys think could kick ass if that was called for.

I also hate candy canes. Now, I must go away.

Tunpredictable! I want to come up with a clever definition for this, but all I can do is point out that it makes a charming word.

83 - I would agree with you. My point is, it's not Obama's trump card or anything. You can't lay low and wait it out while other people keep winning. The media simply doesn't allow it to happen. The winners will be getting 24/7 coverage, and people will forget the losers' names by the end of the week.

82: Drymala is wise. That ineffable 'I just don't have a good feeling about him' reaction, with regard to anyone, is completely media created, and can whip around fast enough to snap your neck.

I also hate candy canes.

I hate candy corn.

Meh, I'm not sure perceptions are as mutable as all that. How "popular" someone is/seems, somewhat, but the perception of Edwards as slick and/or callow is pretty well-established and isn't going away soon, I'd wager. Ditto Clark as prissy, Hillary as calculating, etc.

That ineffable 'I just don't have a good feeling about him' reaction, with regard to anyone, is completely media created

I think we can give people a little more credit for having, you know, at least a smidgen of independent thought.

89 -- you just haven't been eating the right product.

84: Hillary as secretary of state?

(Joke.)

Clark as prissy? That I hadn't heard.

Slick is hardly a disqualifier for being elected president, o-man.

I'm not saying it is, Joe. I like Edwards! He's got my vote! I just don't think he's in as strong a position as you say.

Independent thought, sure. Independent vague emotional perceptions that they're guessing will be shared by enough voters to make a difference? Not so much.

I wouldn't be saying 'that's a media created perception' to someone saying that they didn't think Edwards would be a good president because he's substantively unprepared; I'd be arguing that he was prepared. But the 'seems callow' thing isn't a thought, it's an emotional reaction that's highly influenced by media coverage.

JoeD: You have to remember that as much as ogged hates black people, he hates white people more. Edwards is never going to get a fair shake from the oggeds of this world.

But the 'seems callow' thing isn't a thought, it's an emotional reaction that's highly influenced by media coverage.

I'm pretty sure this isn't right. Press coverage of Edwards was generally extremely positive, and I think the press, more than anyone, ended up surprised that he didn't do as well as they expected.

surprised that he didn't do as well as they expected.

I'd say finishing second and getting the VP nod is better than almost anybody expected.

I just don't think he's in as strong a position as you say.

All I'm saying is, if he wins Iowa and Nevada, he'll be almost impossible to beat. It's not rocket science; it happens like this every single cycle. Momentum is the key factor in determining the nominee. Bill got lucky; Iowa didn't matter because of Harkin, and New Hampshire didn't really matter because of Tsongas, who no one thought would be president. When Bill got second in New Hampshire the momentum began, especially since he'd just overcome the Flowers thing and was easily the most fascinating candidate in the race. So thus the momentum began.

If the caucus would have been held in September, Dean would have won. October, Clark would have won. In January, Kerry won. In February, Edwards would have won.

I'm not saying it's maliciously or intentionally created, I'm just saying it's a factor of the pictures you happen to have seen, and the coverage you happen to have heard. A reaction to someone's personality, when your only acquaintaince with them is through media coverage, doesn't have the same stability or validity as a reaction to a person you know in real life.

But the 'seems callow' thing isn't a thought, it's an emotional reaction that's highly influenced by media coverage.

Are you assuming this b/c it's not in line with your own perceptions? Even on the Daily Show appearances, there's something about Edwards; "callow" might not be the word I'd employ, but "distant" perhaps.

It was positive, but it also focused heavily on his youth and the "is he really ready?" question.

Brendan Nyhan makes a good argument that negative perceptions (I'm reinterpreting a little bit here, but I think I'm doing it fairly) are persistent. Generally, Edwards's negatives are really low. But I think that ogged and JM are on to something about the perceptions of Edwards among a certain sect of Dems. (And, strangely and sadly, I think the perception may be tied to his focus on poverty, which is not considered a "hard" issue.)

which is not considered a "hard" issue.

"hard" s/b "exciting", I think.

All I'm saying is, if he wins Iowa and Nevada, he'll be almost impossible to beat. It's not rocket science; it happens like this every single cycle. Momentum is the key factor in determining the nominee. Bill got lucky; Iowa didn't matter because of Harkin, and New Hampshire didn't really matter because of Tsongas, who no one thought would be president.

But these are expectations issues. Victories people expect are discounted. If Edwards is supposed to win IA and NV, two years before the fact, those victories will be discounted.

Are you assuming this b/c it's not in line with your own perceptions?

I try really hard not to pick candidates on the basis of this sort of perception -- I generally get fond of the candidate that I've picked to support on substantive stuff, but I firmly believe that trying to judge someone's ineffable personal qualities from what ABC News shows you of them is a ridiculous thing to do.

106: But not just that -- that a focus on poverty doesn't make you intelligent or competent or serious the way a focus on international relations or trade does.

But these are expectations issues. Victories people expect are discounted. If Edwards is supposed to win IA and NV, two years before the fact, those victories will be discounted.

No. Harkin and Tsongas were regional candidates.

And expectations will always, always, always be with the candidate with the most money.

109. I wonder how much this has to do with poverty being an old issue, and the other two new issues, at least in the sense that recent events have dramatically changed how we approach them.

The thing that Edwards' relentless focus on inequality does is reinforce the idea that he is a candidate with a moral center, and with strong convictions which he won't waver from. This is a huge deal for a Democrat, and the press thinks it's genuine at this point. The details of his plans are totally unimportant. But he's been steadily building a reputation as a man who really believes things. If anything is going to hurt Obama, it will be his unwillingness to take firm stands on issues.

I'd like to live in the country in which I'd enthusiastically support Edwards, because I wish that his issues were the ones that that we will need to confront first in the next 4-8 years, but I don't think they are. Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkey are all poised to enter on behalf of (or in opposition to) the corresponding sects in Iraq. With an existential crisis looming in the Middle East, the Two Americas nearly becomes a luxury issue, I'm afraid. No one has more experience period than Gore, and no one has more military experience than Clark. That's my ticket.

Presuming that Gore can do the right thing and hire Rob Zombie as his personal assistant to butch him up. That beard needs lice, Al!

I'd get behind a Gore/Clark tricket.

109: Yeah, the sad truth is that most/many/a significant portion of elite Dems have basically given up on poverty issues as either insoluble or nonexistent. So proposing to address it is a free shot--nothing is going to be done or nothing can be done, and all proposals are evaluated in that light. (I should shamefully admit that I find myself slip-sliding in and out of this group, largely on the basis of the 90s experience. Reading the communists helps keep me marginally honest on the issue, though....)

I love Al Gore, no question.

117: s/b "reading the communists here," and I'm not sure why the ellipses are there.

Smasher, everyone has the issues they think are the most important issues facing the country.

I want a candidate who can finally get to the bottom of why all these homosexuals keep sucking my cock.

118: Hell, I have dreams about his hairstyle.

Yeah, the sad truth is that most/many/a significant portion of elite Dems have basically given up on poverty issues as either insoluble or nonexistent. So proposing to address it is a free shot--nothing is going to be done or nothing can be done, and all proposals are evaluated in that light.

John Edwards is polling at 30 percent in Iowa.

Am I the only one that thinks Gore would be a mistake? I like the man. I admire his principles. But in 2000, he came across very wooden and nearly indistinguishable from Bush during the debates. (My friends and I joked that each of their responses amounted to "My position is exactly that of my opponent, except we are very different because we have different color ties.)

But, even though the 2000 was close and arguably swiped, there's a sense in which it would feel like we were out of candidates. A rerun. Like the zillionth incarnation of American Idol.

Plus, I think Gore's more useful when he doesn't have to pretend to play the political game.

In any case, it's early days, and I haven't even decided whether I'm going to run.

123: JoeD:

You know Edwards is married and, by all appearances, straight besides, right?

I'm just saying, your talk of elite Democrats and serious issues be damned, crazy people! The person who wins is going to win. Iowa matters. Nevada matters. New Hampshire matters.

My point is, Edwards's message must not be that toxic since he's polling twice as highly as any other candidate in the race in the only state that's important right now. This is how presidents are picked, people.

Cala, it's hard to say, but on the other hand more than a few people are looking back at 2000 and thinking, damn, we would've been better off with the wooden dude.

Am I the only one who saw Vilsack's "The Iraqis need to get over their culture of dependency" thing on the Daily Show and wanted to smack him upside the head?

121: I think Brownback is your man, then.

Here's the poll, by the way. Edwards 36 percent.

Michael, am I going to have to pin you to the floor of the loading dock with my powerful forearms again?

Since the other candidates are gainfully employed, it's hardly a surprise that the guy who's been hanging out there for two years is doing well in Iowa.

129: Oh Jesus, no it wasn't just you. I nearly threw the remote at the television.

Plus, Gore could stand as a symbol of taking back the last 8 years, which the nation will probably be hungry for in 2008. Then again, that's not much of a positive message, is it?

Yeah, I've got the same worry that Gore has a big 'L' still stuck on his forehead from 2000. On the other hand, there's the possibility of a Gore candidacy being able to exploit the 'Please make it didn't happen, Daddy,' vote.

7, 9, 25: Mmm, no. The streetcar drew people from a wide mix of classes, plus tourists from around the world. Friend of mine who's a forester for the feds and part-time Tulane prof said he could get a decent read on world opinion about the US just by eavesdropping on the streetcar.

84: Becks, do you remember Bill and Al's Excellent Campaign in '92? Very low butch factor there, yet they got elected to two terms.

Since the other candidates are gainfully employed, it's hardly a surprise that the guy who's been hanging out there for two years is doing well in Iowa.

Yes! This is true! And it will continue to be true! This is an advantage that Edwards has.

131: He has basically the same percentage as Clinton, Obama, and Iowa's governor combined.

I was just yanking your chain, Joe. Let's go work for Edwards, theater boy.

An issue: what a person needs to be doing while and immediately before they campaign for Preznit. I, for an unexamined reason, am not a big fan of promoting someone from Congress, and this is actually something I perceive as counting against Obama. Governor seems natural for me, or VP, though that could be b/c those are the two positions Presidents have been elected from in my life. Gore, Edwards, Clark, none of these guys holds elective office right now. (Former General strikes me as a generally OK position.) G/E/C's position as currently outside politics might make them more appealing to me, as I, like most Americans, have a knee-jerk dislike of politicians. But I don't know how it will strike the public at large.

You don't think Bill got virility points from being a horndog? (I'm kidding, but I actually think this is kind of true. It meant that fag jokes didn't work, and as the 2004 campaign showed, politics is all about fag jokes.)

135, 136: I've often wondered if that wasn't what Nixon had going on in '68.

140: Don't take ogged with you, Joe. Everybody says that ogged's awfully pretty.

141 -- I think the factor is too unpredictable. It depends on each individual candidate. As I mentioned a couple of times, Edwards's not having a job right now doesn't seem to bother the people of Iowa.

114: With an existential crisis looming in the Middle East

You mean an existential crisis for the US? I'm not convinced of this at all, so I'd like to hear your case.

I will offer the obvious disclaimer that my assessment of Edwards's chances is as unobjective as can be imagined, since I have a political crush on him unlike any candidate in my political lifetime. Including the guy I spent a year writing speeches for.

146: Maybe he meant in a Sartrean sense.

You wrote that "yeaaargh!" thing, didn't you?

149: Good one.

I doubt your sincerity, Joe.

134: But Becks was watching TV, not playing Wii.

147: And I'm a homer. Plus, if my kid grows up to be president, he'll have his generation's version of the Kennedy-Clinton picture.

Keegan is awfully cute.

150: Good one? Um, no. That "yeaaargh!" thing killed his candidacy. I wouldn't put it on your resumé.

I was referring to ogged's joke. Which no one's ever made before, really.

154: He really kind of is. But is "the Apostropher" a title that gets handed down to the first born (or first born male) of every generation? Can there not be many mini-Apostrophers? Why are trying to fuck my pudding kid, Apo?

You mean an existential crisis for the US? I'm not convinced of this at all, so I'd like to hear your case.

I don't drive, but I hear gas is important to some voters.

I'm charmed that Joe has no sense of humor when it comes to politics. Joe, you know Edwards first has to prove that there are poor people in America, then he has to prove that they're not poor because they choose to be poor.

No, he doesn't. He just has to convince people that he'd be a better president than the other guy.

I refer to them as v2.0 and v2.1. Version 2.2 will be the final release, though I'll continue to provide support for all three.

The junior apostropher: a comma?

God, talking politics with hyper-educated people is frustrating. You guys make it way too complex and nuanced.

Which politician is going to buy me a beer?

162: No, he's just a commaner.

Edwards first has to prove that there are poor people in America

We can always just import poor Mexicans.

166. Doesn't work. They grow fat off our ridiculously-high minimum wage practically the moment they get here.

I don't drive, but I hear gas is important to some voters.

Yes, weisenheimer, I know. I guess I'm just quibbling with the "existential" label. Serious and painful, yes. World-ending, I don't think so.

M/lls, I refer you to comment 13.

132. You know "union worker" is my favorite role-play.

Is that a pipe wrench in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?

Which politician is going to buy me a beer?

You say this as though it's not a gigantic factor.

M/lls, I refer you to comment 13.

Me, antisemitic? No way. I totally don't care that Armsmasher is circumcised.

I'm with Armsmasher. Assuming that Iraq will be even worse in 2008, some kind of military experience should be important. But then my candidates never win, so what do I know. I think Obama's smile is twinklier than Edwards', so that does it for me.

Iraq is an albatross for Bush and it will be for Democrats too, for the rest of this decade at least. Two Americas is compelling and poignant and also not on any foreseeable agenda.

Armsmasher, nobody votes for issues or biography. They don't. I mean, they really don't. In fact, I'll go so far as to say they really, really don't.

"Able to do a good job" is a very low bar, and Americans figure if you've gotten the nomination, you probably passed the test, since other people made the decision to nominate them. They vote for the person they're most comfortable with.

176 is spot on. Also, the VP pick never helps a ticket. It either hurts it or has no effect.

You don't think Gore helped Clinton? I thought they successfully came across as a team of young, energetic, wonky Boomers who were going to get! stuff! done! and make us all happy, and a different VP mightn't have been as successful in creating that impression.

My impression was that Cheney helped Bush in 2000, but I also tend to think of '00 as an anomaly.

Gore didn't hurt the ticket, but I don't think he won it any additional votes.

179: Do you think there was some group of Bush voters who wouldn't have voted for him if it weren't for Cheney's presence in the #2 slot? I obviously can't prove that it one way or the other, but it just seems unlikely to me.

I think the "he's surrounded by really serious, competent people, like Cheney" idea had a lot of resonance with conservatives who had misgivings about Bush being a dim bulb.

I was in my first semester of law school at the time and this was a commonly expressed sentiment among my many conservative classmates, as a way of explaining to themselves and others why they were okay with voting for Bush.

181. I wouldn't be surprised if some waffling fence-sitters were swayed by the added (perceived) expertise and gravitas Cheney brought.

and Americans figure if you've gotten the nomination, you probably passed the test, since other people made the decision to nominate them.

Can I just say that I think this is a Very Important Point, and I cannot believe that the Democrats have not continually hammered the Republicans for not being up to this job? Parties have one important job as regards the American public--check for the basic competence of potential nominees--and the Republicans failed spectacularly.

Of course, at the end of the day most of them probably would have voted for whichever Republican candidate anyway, but I think Cheney did have a positive effect for Bush.

I'm not even necessarily talking about people voting the issues, though I think you're wrong there--they do identify candidates with issues, however nonsensically. How else do you explain people's apparent trust in the GOP on national security despite all evidence to the contrary?

Furthermore, likable though he may be to you, Edwards comes across as a used-car salesman to me, though I'm willing or able to look past that to recognize him as a credible candidate (I'm extraordinarily sympathetic to his focus, though I don't remember all the nuts and bolts of his proposed solution). But I'm saying, none of it matters--he's never going to have an opportunity to pitch his spiel if there's some threat that gas is gonna cost $12/gallon. Lone voice in the NH wilderness. I couldn't tell you, on the other hand, whether Edwards is a hawk or a dove.

likable though he may be to you, Edwards comes across as a used-car salesman to me

This, exactly.

S'cool. The existence of poor people is established post-Katrina. The "it's not their fault" thing does have to be proven, but at least we're not starting at ground zero.

Haha, geddit?

How else do you explain people's apparent trust in the GOP on national security despite all evidence to the contrary?

This is a good point, but it has far more to do with talking tough and sounding tough than anything else, I think. The genuinely extreme leftist element during the Vietnam war didn't help, either. We don't have that sort of thing today.

What I'm saying is, voters make their presidential election decisions almost completely intuitively. They look at someone and listen to him, and they don't really hear the words. They listen to the way the candidate is speaking, and they think, is he honest? Is he a good man? Do I like him? That's pretty much the ball game right there.

When we faced our most extreme national crisis since the Civil War, and people were questioning the very foundation of a democratic state in an industrial society (I'm not even kidding -- read Crisis of the Old Order to get a sense of how precarious our government was at this moment), a very genial and likeable politician ran for president, and was widely thought to be fluffy and insubstantial. His opponent, the incumbent, was an unquestionably brilliant man, a noted economist (well, former U.S. Commerce Secretary, anyway) with a dour demeanor. The fluffy insubstantial fellow won in a landslide. This was 1932.

People wanted something to hope for, and they felt more comfortable and hopeful with Roosevelt. This is a rather extraordinary thing. Conventional wisdom states that in periods of crisis, people stick with the devil they know. But they just felt more comfortable with the other guy.

If there's a gas crisis in the Middle East, and Bush doesn't seem to be able to control it, and we're facing a severe economic crisis, I think the 1932 election is a good historical analogy, if not necessarily perfect. Remember, the person on the Republican side won't even have the advantage of being an incumbent. If people want change, and Edwards is the Democrat, and he gives people reason to hope again, and he does it more effectively than the Republican nominee, he'll win.

People want something to hope for? How Audacious.

Maybe they'll hope we can march most of the Army out Iraq's back door into Jordan.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just wish that for once someone will say to the American people, "OK, we've been trying Mr. Likable for the last 8 years. How's that beer taste now?"

Mo, we did that in '04.

Also,

likable though he may be to you, Edwards comes across as a used-car salesman to me

Bill Clinton came across as a used car salesman to just about everybody. You guys seem to think that Americans won't vote for used car salesmen, when recent evidence points to the contrary. I wish Al Gore and John Kerry had seemed more like used car salesmen. They'd be in the White House right now.

Indeed. If the personality type of a used-car salesman were not persuasive to Americans, then Americans with that type of personality wouldn't be in sales.

Right. Distaste for 'used car salesmen' is a HoldenCaulfield-esque desire to shun phonies, and probably needs to be gotten over. Most people see that personality as charming.

Edwards is a successful trial lawyer. Whatever you think of his personality, he got rich making ordinary citizens, twelve at a time, like him better than the other guy.

Okay. I hate America, then.

Yes. And it's worth mentioning that Republicans are far more willing to let themselves be seen as used car salesmen. Bush, Reagan, Romney, and every single Southern Republican. Used car salesmen all.

And the only thing phonier than a phony is a phony who's trying to convince you he's genuine.

Mo, we did that in '04.

Ouch. I'll spare you the lame "But Dean!" I'd offer.

I'm not anti-likability. Yes, basic charisma is very important. I just wish that the likables had a bit more substance to back up all that style. And I'm further speculating that 2008 will look a lot different than 2004 did. I don't actually want to vote for a freaking general, but it might seem far too appropriate.

And the only thing phonier than a phony is a phony who's trying to convince you he's genuine.

This is why I think McCain's stock is overinflated.

By the way, John Edwards's wife is awesome (and an occasional blog commenter, I think).

McCain's stock is overinflated because he's old.

I cannot wait to see McCain's stock fall. I dislike him in a way that only a former almost-true-believer can.

I dislike him in a way that only a former almost-true-believer can.

This is how I feel about Howard Dean.

Really? I'm still very fond of Dean. Don't you think he's been doing good at the DNC, 50 state strategy and all?

Yes, that was good. I think he's a small, petty man, though. I resigned from the campaign in protest when he fired Joe Trippi; you guys all knew that, right?

You know who's doing a good job of deflating the McCain mystique? Alex Pareene at Wonkette. The coverage is uniformly vicious, "look at what crazy old man McCain is up to!", detailed, and pretty widely read by insiders.

(And the guys over at RedState hate McCain with a poisonous, sustained hatred.)

The definitive account is here. With a very sad, disillusioned Joe Drymala quote.

Didn't remember that. Well, I remembered the meltdown, but not that it reflected badly on Dean other than as a manager.

Elizabeth Edwards is indeed custom-made for the national campaign trail. This is from a speech in January.

She said George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have been looking at that same "sign," only for them, the sign with rules and laws--about warrants and wiretapping--was not made for him & Cheney.

She went on to say that as frustrated she was at this administration's posturing, deflecting, and story-changing, she was just as frustrated about the Dems inability to stand up together.

"How hard is it," she said, "to say, 'It's against the law!' and 'He's lying.' "

She went on to list out several of this administration's lies--George Bush was lying, Dick Cheney was lying, Karl Rove was lying.

The audience burst out in applause.

She said, yes, these are ugly words, but they are the right words for this administration.

And I've seen her leave comments responding to blog posts.

apo, enough of the foreplay; let's just form a PAC already.

Elizabeth Edwards is far and away my favorite thing about her husband. She just radiates "smart and decent."

And I've seen her leave comments responding to blog posts.

Also, she sends me e-mail.

Fuck you, Clown.

Hey, I remember reading that article. It left me with the impression that it was actually Joe Trippi that I liked and not Dean at all.

214 - Your impression was very likely correct.

What if Edwards hired Trippi? Is this something that could happen?

No. I don't think it would be a good fit. And Trippi keeps telling me that he's done with national politics, though I'm not sure I believe him. He'd be better working for Al Gore.