Dean v. Kerry.
Jul. 17th, 2003 12:13 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rivkaI've never followed a presidential race as closely as I'm following this one. When you look closely, the machinery really is quite visible behind the red-white-and-blue backdrops.
John Kerry, for example, never gives a quote about Howard Dean and his supporters without pushing one of two messages: ultra-liberal minority, and angry. Neither does anyone else on Kerry's staff. They quite literally never say a public word about Dean that's not on-message - even if the message doesn't make sense in context.
Take Dean's second quarter fundraising totals, for example. He raised $7.6 million - far more than anyone expected, and more than any of the other Democratic candidates. So Kerry was quoted saying that everyone knew Dean's support was deep, but the question was whether it was broad. On message once again: Dean supporters are a tiny radical fringe - he has no broad support.
Now the FEC's released the full second quarter details.[1] Dean had 73,000 individual donors in the second quarter. Kerry had 23,000. Kerry was arguing that Dean had less broad support in the same quarter that MORE THAN THREE TIMES as many people donated money to Dean.
I researched Kerry before deciding to support Dean. I went to his Senate web page (he didn't have a campaign page yet), and bounced right off it. It felt as if every sentence there was crafted to appeal to donors and voters - it was all so slick and opaque. And Kerry's speeches and press releases still read to me like Extruded Political Product. I don't have a clue about what he really thinks - I can only tell what the talking points are supposed to be. That bothers me.
Sure, I'll vote for him if he wins the nomination - I mean, against this administration, I'd pretty much vote for a yellow dog - but I wouldn't be happy about it. I've grown accustomed to more.
[1] (A fascinating breakdown of campaign finances can be found in an interactive chart here.)
John Kerry, for example, never gives a quote about Howard Dean and his supporters without pushing one of two messages: ultra-liberal minority, and angry. Neither does anyone else on Kerry's staff. They quite literally never say a public word about Dean that's not on-message - even if the message doesn't make sense in context.
Take Dean's second quarter fundraising totals, for example. He raised $7.6 million - far more than anyone expected, and more than any of the other Democratic candidates. So Kerry was quoted saying that everyone knew Dean's support was deep, but the question was whether it was broad. On message once again: Dean supporters are a tiny radical fringe - he has no broad support.
Now the FEC's released the full second quarter details.[1] Dean had 73,000 individual donors in the second quarter. Kerry had 23,000. Kerry was arguing that Dean had less broad support in the same quarter that MORE THAN THREE TIMES as many people donated money to Dean.
I researched Kerry before deciding to support Dean. I went to his Senate web page (he didn't have a campaign page yet), and bounced right off it. It felt as if every sentence there was crafted to appeal to donors and voters - it was all so slick and opaque. And Kerry's speeches and press releases still read to me like Extruded Political Product. I don't have a clue about what he really thinks - I can only tell what the talking points are supposed to be. That bothers me.
Sure, I'll vote for him if he wins the nomination - I mean, against this administration, I'd pretty much vote for a yellow dog - but I wouldn't be happy about it. I've grown accustomed to more.
[1] (A fascinating breakdown of campaign finances can be found in an interactive chart here.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Kucinich has been reading alt.poly...
Date: 2003-07-16 10:35 pm (UTC)He wants us all to be more highly evolved, and he knows just how to demonstrate it! It's all so clear now! :)