Sunday, 02 May 2004

Dead man campaigning. Back in January, during the primaries, I asked whether a vote for John Kerry was a vote for the charismatic Kerry, the "bring it on" Kerry who surfaced two weeks before the Iowa caucus… or a vote for the dead-fish Kerry, the mealy-mouthed zombie who lurched around in November and December.

Four months later, many observers (including the Village Voice) have decided we got the zombie — but I'm not sure yet. The book on Kerry is that he rallies down the stretch; he's best when his back's to the wall, and so on. We already know the race is going to be close, and Kerry may be getting more benefit from being a few points behind Bush at this stage: If Bush were ahead, he could claim the "underdog" mantle and use it to rally his base… but Bush has a narrow, insignificant lead, so his base remains distinctly un-rallied.

Some are starting to think that this year's Presidential election will be decided more by events on the ground in Iraq than by the actions of either candidate — but I think that's mostly because neither candidate has done anything, yet, that would overshadow recent events. A policy speech, unless it proposes a radical change of direction, isn't going to crowd Fallujah out of the headlines or replace the photos of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners (in heaven's name, what were these idiots thinking?) on the news reports.

Kerry's choice of a running mate will be the next campaign event that captures the news media's attention, and Kerry's decision will have some impact. (Just not Gephardt. That's all I ask. Edwards is fine. Sam Nunn is fine. Tom Vilsack is "Tom who?", but I'm sure he'll do fine. John McCain is either a Bush nightmare or a Nader opportunity; I can't tell which.) But, for now, the best one can say is that Kerry has avoided the problem of peaking too early.

- Posted by Scott Forbes at 5:06 am. comments.