Ralph or Teresa?
Who cost Kerry more votes? I think it's a no-brainer. Teresa did. Personally, I liked her. She exuded a certain ivy-league detachment. But she did not help her husband get elected.
A public appearance during a Presidential campaign is a job interview. At a job interview, you have to make the person who is going to hire you feel that you are enthusiastic about the job, that you respect the work you are seeking. If you spend the interview staring off into space and talking to friends on your cellphone, you are not going to get the job anywhere.
For better or worse, Americans expect the President's lady to be up for performing a ceremonial role in the government. Teresa, baby, looked like she would rather have been eating eclairs.
posted by Bert S. @ 10:29 AM
2 Comments:
Teresa did more damage than that: it was her money, and her money almost exclusively that knocked Dean out in Iowa. After that, he was spoon fed by McAuliffe.
(see thekickassliberal.blogspot.com where no nonsense shit will accumulate: little stuff that slips into the drain, a toothpaste cap, a q-tip, and eventually you get a whole rising bowl of shit. Call me a dreamer)
Without rehashing the whole miserable campaign, I think whether defeating Dean was damage or not depends on your point of view.
Of course, she wanted to help her husband. My point was that she should have kept on wanting to help him once he was the candidate.
As for Dean, he had no small part in his own defeat back then.
Anyway, the Republicans would have loved to have Dean run against them. The Dems understood that, remembered Mondale, and thought they were selecting someone more centrist who had a chance of winning in a country that is slowly shifting to the right.
Post a Comment
<< Home