For those of you just returning from the moon, Al Gore has officially given Howard Dean his endorsement. As a losing presidential candidate, Gore's support still counts for more than, say, Walter Mondale's. Still, call me when Bill Clinton's about to make a pitch.
As someone who will probably find himself voting for whoever the Dems nominate once the smoke clears (an act of abject futility in Bush's home state), I can't say the recent petulant behavior of the current crop of hopefuls is filling my bosom with admiration. Hello, Joe Lieberman:
"I don't have anything to say today about Al Gore's sense of loyalty," said Lieberman, who had waited to announce his candidacy until after Gore said he would not run in 2004. "I have no regrets about the loyalty that I had to him."
Would Lieberman have regrets if Gore bet on a losing horse in the 2004 election? Because that's what would happen if he got the nomination. We might not end up with a repeat of the Dukakis debacle, but Lieberman. Can't. Win. He alarms potential voters with his bizarre stance on media censorship, his hawkishness, and his utter lack of presentation skills. Much as I hate to invoke the "bad on television" specter of Admiral Stockdale, Lieberman is not a compelling figure. He's a poor public speaker - always coming across as whiny instead of projecting an aura of leadership - and, worse, he's damaged goods.
Lieberman also said political endorsements "don't pick presidents," and he vowed to fight to give the nation "the fresh start it needs, so help me God."
Then withdraw. Now.
He added that it's "less likely now" that Gore could play a key role in any future Lieberman administration.
Thus elevating the phrase "empty threat" to new levels of hyperbole.
Senator Johm Kerry also voiced his displeasure at Gore's endorsement of Dean:
"I was sort of surprised today, actually, by the endorsement, because I thought that Joe Lieberman had shown such extraordinary loyalty in delaying his own campaign, that it surprised me," Kerry said to applause from the audience.
Can everyone please give me abreak about Gore's so-called "disloyalty?" This is politics, for Christ's sake, not a freaking badminton game.
Meanwhile, Erik Smith - campaign press secretary for Senator Dick Gephardt, makes a good point:
"Dick Gephardt fought side-by-side with Al Gore to pass the Clinton economic plan, pass the assault weapons ban and defend against Republican attacks on Medicare and affirmative action. On each of these issues, Howard Dean was on the wrong side," Smith said.
Although I agree with this sentiment, I can't help but wonder what kind of masochistic tendencies one must possess in order to run for president again after two unsuccessful campaigns to win your party's nomination (1988 and 1992). Hell, in '88 they picked Dukakis instead. Gephardt might feel like this is "do or die" time, but the writing may be on the wall for his chances:
With the Dean campaign gaining momentum, a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows Dean widening his front-runner status among the eight other Democratic candidates.
The poll showed that 25 percent of registered Democrats surveyed support Dean as their nominee, with retired Gen. Wesley Clark coming in second with 17 percent.
If I were a member of Bush's camp, I think I'd dread hearing the phrase "Dean-Clark in 2004"
Obligatory comment on obvious numerological oversights:
So what about Dean-Kerry? You might say that John Kerry would be better than Wesley Clark with his shorter first name (The shortened "Wes" seems to be pushing it).
Of course there is also the Dean Braun ticket, although her use of three names Carol Mosley Braun would appear to be a severe liability.
Numerology, bah.
It's pretty clear that in the new millenium, assonance is the deciding factor. "Bush-Cheney" has the sound of a breaking wave. In contrast, "Gore-Lieberman" sounds like a car that won't start.
(Tremble before the prospect of a Gephardt-Kucinich ticket.)
The Dean-Clark candidacy would indeed be a powerful one, at least from a numerology standpoint. An oft-ignored factor in US presidential races is the importance of concise names of asymmetric length. Consider the history:
1976: Ford and Dole thought they had the thing sewn up -- two four-letter last names, what could be better? sadly they ignored the important fact that when a presidential candidate and his veep share the same number of letters in their last name, they lose. Carter and Mondale, woefully outgunned in the short name department, held on for the surprise win.
1980: Jimmy Carter's increasing unpopularity at home could not withstand the devastating blow of a ten-letter opposing candidacy. Reagan and Bush beat Carter and Mondale in a landslide.
1984: Reagan and Bush rolled to reelection over a hapless Democratic party, so inept in their campaigning that they not only nominated a 14-letter platform (Mondale/Ferraro) but their names had the same number of letters! unthinkable.
1988: Whereas the Republicans showed sound judgement in selecting another 6-4 combo (Bush/Quayle), the Democrats continued their losing ways. Dukakis and Bentsen (7+7 -- MORONS) lost in a landslide.
1992: Here the American public reached a watershed moment: could they rely upon electing leadership based solely upon their last names? While Bush and Quayle edged Clinton and Gore in the overall letter count, voters looked beyond the superficial and noted the extreme conciseness of the Democrats' *first* names: Al and Bill. In the face of such overwhelming brevity, the Republicans were forced to concede the White House.
1996: Determined to regain the Oval Office at any cost, the Republicans assembled the perfect storm of short last names: Dole and Kemp. Alas, but their planners forgot the all-important symmetry issue, and Clinton was elected to a second term.
2000: Returning to the tried and true formulas, the Republicans went with the potent 6-4 formula in Bush/Cheney. The Democrats began well with Gore, but the addition of the unwieldly Lieberman (9 letters) was too much strain to place upon their supporters. Bush narrowly edged his competitor in a hotly contested election -- a race that would have seen a different outcome if the names had been more evenly balanced.
Now, in 2004, the Republicans must surely be dreading the Dean/Clark ticket. Never in the modern era has such an awesomely concise yet asymmetrical pair of names been placed upon the ballots. Bush and Cheney could not hope to outperform a 9-letter showing, but if Cheney is abandoned in favor of Libby Dole, the spectre of symmetry would again raise its head. It is possible the Republicans may have an energetic appealing fellow named 'Yee' squirreled away somewhere, but otherwise their hopes for reelection -- at least from a numerology standpoint -- are looking increasingly dim.