Three candidates, three bubbles?
William Saletan at Slate has been turning out excellent commentary about the Democratic presidential contenders. Here, he describes "Howard Dean's fatal echo chamber." Saletan shows how Dean's campaign is as much about his campaign as it is about anything else. How perfect, then, that the campaign's defining moment, the point when it went entirely off the rails, occurred as Dean talked to his campaign about his campaign, while America listened. Dean has explained that he was just trying to mirror and affirm the enthusiasm of his supporters who were in that room in Iowa. But, Saletan retorts, "that's the problem. Dean wasn't talking to the country. He was talking to his movement." A classic case of creating a monster and then being devoured by it.
Here Saletan turns to the subject of John Kerry, and finds that he too is existing inside a bubble, albeit of a different nature. Saletan considers Kerry to be an inferior campaigner "who is being propped up as a candidate" by those who campaign well (Ted Kennedy, Max Cleland, Jeanne Shaheen, etc.). Although I suspect that Saletan is overstating his case, his indictment is hardly without merit:
"Physically, Kerry's repertoire is painfully limited. He thrusts his index finger at the audience in an overhead arc again and again, as though launching a projectile. He seems to be trying not to animate his thoughts but to expel them. Above the neck, nothing but his mouth moves. If you showed anyone a video of Kerry with his lips blacked out, they'd never know he was speaking. On television, it often seems as though Kerry is looking at you but not seeing you. In person, you realize he is looking at you but not seeing you. His words are even more stilted, particularly when he ruins a good line by adding prepositional phrases—'in this country … as a fundamental commitment … to all our citizens … regardless of circumstance'—until everyone is silently begging him to stop."
Saletan concludes by warning Democrats "if you nominate Kerry, you don't get the sales force, you just get him."
But Andrew Sullivan thinks that President Bush is in his own "Rove-Cheney cacoon." Says Sullivan, 'From the SOTU, it looks like he's going to run on 9/11. Bad, backward-looking idea. His coalition is fracturing; his reach out to Hispanics seems to have hurt him more with the base than won him new votes; his spending has independents deeply concerned; Iraq is still a wild card; prescription drugs pandering hasn't swayed any seniors; the religious right wants him to attack gay couples in the Constitution - which will lose him the center. More worrying: I'm not sure he even knows he's in trouble."
I think that Sullivan too is overstating his case, and making the familiar mistake of underestimating the president. 9/11 stills matters and, although conservatives are less enthusiastic about Bush in the wake of his prescription drug program and such, I see little to suggest that "his coalition is fracturing." And, though Sullivan may wish that it were otherwise, Bush has less to fear from the gay marriage issue than his opponent will. Nonetheless, Sullivan is correct to this extent -- it is not unreasonable for Bush supporters to feel a little nervous these days.
