I guess that, in light of how John Edwards has turned out, Kerry goes back to being the best choice of the bunch in 2004, and it would be okay except that Kerry was timid. How he got that way I do not know.
(I mean best for campaigning and grabbing and winning. On other matters, there is that Kerry was extremely weaselly on Iraq. His speech during the debate was a classic piece of work, one of the worst CYA jobs I’ve ever heard.)
Did I tell this story already?
The other day, I read a piece written by Eric Kleefeld for Talking Points Memo. In the piece, Charlie Cook was described as one of the most respected political analysts, and his analysis was treated with respect. Cook was estimating how big the Democratic losses were going to be in 2010. This seemed to me a stupid thing to try to calculate in August of 2009, so I got out the Google machine and did the obvious: go see what Charlie Cook said about Howard Dean for the 2004 presidential race.
What I found was an article from late 2003, in which Charlie Cook said he disagreed with all those other analysts who believed that Al Gore’s endorsement was a big boost for Dean. So far, so good – but what, you may ask, was Cook’s reasoning? You see, what Cook said is that Al Gore’s support wasn’t a big boost, because Dean was already so far ahead of everyone else that the endorsement was like a drop in the bucket.
He finished the article with the sentence: ‘You heard it here first.’
Who pays this guy?