struggle

In these times when it is once again fashionable to accuse Commander Chávez of mistakes, whether real or imagined. As we mark 13 years since his untimely death on March 5, 2013, I would like to highlight the value of truth in his political actions. Truth was manifest in the responsibility he assumed for his actions; the consistency between his words and deeds; the acknowledgment of his own mistakes, when it is easier for most people to point out the mistakes of others; and his sincere efforts to correct them. To the above, I would add that when he had to make tactical and strategic shifts in the course initially set, Chávez always had the political honesty to explain in detail why he was doing so, and he courageously took responsibility for them before the people.

There are countless examples which can be found in many of his speeches. I will mention just a few. Beginning with the day of his introduction to the Venezuelan people, February 4, 1992: “Unfortunately, for now, the objectives we set for ourselves were not achieved in the capital city, that is, we here in Caracas did not manage to control power… And I, before the country and before you, take responsibility…” Then in the streets and in the 1998 election campaign: “Let’s go to the Constituent Assembly,” and on February 2, 1999, in what would be his first act of government, he signed the decree calling for the constituent process, and we went to the Constituent Assembly.

In April 2002, he surrendered to the coup leaders, without thinking about saving his own “skin”: “I am an imprisoned president; you decide what to do with me.” After his release, with a cross in his hand, he stated that “it was necessary for all sectors of the country to make a greater effort, with all the goodwill we can muster, to be able to live together in peace, accepting the rules of the game.”

In 2005, he called for the Bolivarian Revolution to take on a socialist character. In the 2006 election campaign, he said, “Let’s go for socialism!” and explained in detail why this strategic shift was necessary. He outlined the characteristics of our socialism, 21st-century Bolivarian socialism, which, as he insisted until his last public words, had to be “essentially democratic” or it would not be socialism at all.

In the elections of December 6, 2006, Commander Chávez obtained the highest number of votes and was re-elected. In December 2007, while awaiting the results of the referendum on constitutional reform and hearing reports of a close count, he called a meeting of the party leadership in Miraflores. I said to him at that meeting: “President, let’s wait for the final count, and if we lost, we lost, but if we won, we won.” He replied with a sharp look: “I don’t want a victory like that, let’s go out and acknowledge defeat now.” And that’s what he did.

In September 2010, we won a majority in the National Assembly. Without a doubt, it was a resounding political victory. But Chávez identified a warning sign: in quantitative terms, the difference in votes between Chavismo and the opposition was minimal. Once again, he assumed political responsibility. In January 2011, he published the “Strategic Lines of Political Action,” a deeply self-critical document.

Late May 2011, he told me: “Elías, I feel like something is wrong with me.” June 2011, after undergoing the necessary tests, on national television: “Cancer cells have been detected in my body.” Easter Week 2012, during a mass in Barinas, broadcast live: “We must be aware that I have an illness that limits my life… Christ, give me your cross.”

On the night of December 8, 2012, in a public address, he raised the possibility of not continuing among us and explained in detail the constitutional procedures that would have to be followed if he were to be permanently incapacitated. That day, once again, he decided to tell us the truth, no matter how hard it was:

Some colleagues told me it wasn’t necessary, or have said in recent hours that it wasn’t necessary to say this. In truth, I could have said almost everything I said tonight from Havana… But I believe that the most important thing, what my soul, my heart, and my conscience tell me, the most important thing… has been this, Nicolás. The most important thing.

“The most important thing”: telling the truth, explaining the reality to the people, the decision he had made, and the steps that needed to be taken.

But that political honesty was not just an individual value. It was the political conviction that the people formed a collective wisdom, a conscious body that knew how to understand and draw its own conclusions about situations. That is why he was so careful to keep them informed at all times.

I once heard him say: “There are those who say that you shouldn’t speak plainly to the people, because then the adversary will seize on that truth and manipulate it against you.” That, Chávez said, is to think that the people are mentally eunuchs. The people understand, more often than not, more than some leaders. For Chávez, speaking the truth was always a decisive show of trust and respect for the people.

And “most importantly,” it was also to make clear for posterity his conviction about the democratic path of the revolution he had led:

In all circumstances, we must guarantee the progress of the Bolivarian Revolution, the victorious progress of this revolution, building the new democracy that is here mandated by the people in the Constituent Assembly; building the Venezuelan path to socialism, with broad participation and ample freedom, which are being demonstrated once again in this gubernatorial election campaign, with candidates here and candidates there. Freedom, complete freedom.

With the power of truth, the truth of his project and his life, Chávez managed to accumulate immense political strength based on the moral autoritas he gained by never peddling falsehoods or shirking his responsibilities, much less in defeat or when he made mistakes. That same moral authority comes not only from consistency between words and deeds, but also from trying to act despite difficult circumstances as well as from recognizing and explaining when and why it is not possible to achieve a certain goal. I stand by that way of doing politics. With Chávez forever!

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

Translated by Venezuelanalysis.

Source: CEDES

SINGER Anne-Marie has sparked concern after branding herself a “wreck” in a new social media message.

The star tweeted a lengthy message in which she also suggested people “wouldn’t care” about her “emotional” struggles.

Anne-Marie, 34, took to X earlier today to share the rare personal message in which she also addressed her parenting struggles and ‘mum-guilt’ amid attempts to revive her fledgling music career.

The star began by writing: “Feeling emotional today. Sorry I been distant.

“Not sure if you care but I do. I’m working really hard to get this right.”

Her concerning post continued as she addressed her compromising work-life balance.

TOUGH TIME

Anne-Marie says she felt ‘mad’ & like a ‘bad mum’ but was scared to ask for help

CIAO OLD ME

Anne-Marie promises ‘spicy’ new album and reveals star she turns to for advice

The Ciao Adios singer penned: “Still figuring out how to be a good mum AND write the best album you’ve heard from me. It’s intense.

“I want to post, but I look and feel like a wreck most of the time.”

She added: “I know you don’t care about that though hahah.

“I miss you all so much and hope you are feeling as happy as you can be.”

Anne-Marie signed off her message by posting: “A cuddle is needed.”

The mum-of-two’s post sparked worry among her fans as many rushed to check in on the performer and insist they “do care” after her troubling words.

One said to her: “Anne marie you never ever need to apologise for being distant. You’re balancing being a mum, being human, and creating something beautiful for all of us that’s a lot for anyone.”

Another echoed: “We all care about you so much. You prioritise yourself, your health and your family.”

Another alarmed fan penned: “I’m proud of you. Speaking out is already so brave.”

Before a fourth went on to comment: “You didn’t have to force yourself, we care about it and care about you. Take care yourself and kids love u.”

Anne-Marie welcomed her first child with rapper husband Slowthai in February 2024 months before he faced a trial relating to charges of rape.

Her partner faced a criminal trial later that year whilst she was pregnant with their second child.

Slowthai was ultimately found not guilty of the crimes.

The couple’s second child was born in April last year.

The singer has been attempting to head back to the top of the charts after her latest single released failed to make a dent on the singles charts.

Her latest single, Depressed, managed to reach number 41 – a far cry from her top ten streak of hits eight years ago.

A collaboration with Aitch, also released last year, also failed to chart.

Speaking to The Sun last year, she affirmed her plans to continue working on her fourth album despite recent setbacks.

She told us: “Next year there will be new music.

“I think I need to switch it up a bit… Will I be rapping? Who knows.

“I am definitely switching it up.

“I need to make it exciting again, you know.

“I can’t just come back as the same Anne Marie I have been for ten years.

“I am going to do a little spice.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday sharply criticized “fake MAGA-manufactured outrage” over his comments about his low SAT score in Atlanta Sunday during his national book tour.

Conservative commentators, Trump loyalists and right-wing media outlets accused the California governor and potential 2028 presidential candidate of disparaging Black Americans when he was discussing his struggles with dyslexia.

“First MAGA mocked his dyslexia and now they’re calling him racist for talking about his low SAT scores,” said Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for Newsom, in a statement. “The governor has said this publicly for years — including with [the late conservative commentator] Charlie Kirk and dozens of other audiences.”

During a conversation with Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens, who is a Black politician, Newsom was asked what he wanted the audience and readers to know about him. The governor, in a long-winded response, said he wasn’t trying to impress anyone, but “press upon you I’m like you.”

“I’m no better than you,” Newsom said. “I’m a 960 SAT guy.”

The governor continued to discuss his dyslexia and struggle to read.

Right-wing personalities pounced.

President Trump’s political operation accused Newsom of calling “black people dumb.” Former Fox News personality Megyn Kelly declared that the comment would “haunt him forever,” and Republican Sens. Tim Scott of South Carolina and Rick Scott of Florida belittled the governor. Rapper Nicki Minaj, an outspoken Trump supporter, criticized him too.

“@GavinNewsom Thinks a 960 SAT Makes Him ‘Like’ Black Americans. Let That Sink In,” Fox News commentator Sean Hannity posted on the social media platform X.

Newsom offered a profanity-laced retort to Hannity, accusing him of long ignoring President Trump’s racist remarks and social media posts, then feigning outrage at Newsom’s remarks.

“You didn’t give a shit about the President of the United States of America posting an ape video of President Obama or calling African nations shitholes — but you’re going to call me racist for talking about my lifelong struggle with dyslexia?” Newsom posted on X. “Spare me your fake fucking outrage, Sean.”

Gardon pointed out that Newsom was speaking to a mixed-race audience during the conversation with Dickens.

Dickens also rejected the allegations that Newsom was being racist.

“Take it from someone who was actually in the chair asking the questions: context matters more than a headline,” Dickens said on Instagram. “The conversation around his new book included him speaking about his own academic struggles, including not doing well on the SAT. That wasn’t an attack on anyone. It was a moment of vulnerability about his own journey.”

Sunday’s event wasn’t the first time Newsom has mentioned his SAT score. The governor has cited his performance on the test many times in conversations about his dyslexia and issues with self-esteem growing up, including during an interview with The Times about his new memoir “Young Man in a Hurry” earlier this month.

“Come on, I’m a 960 SAT guy, governor of the fourth largest economy in the world,” Newsom told The Times. “I’m a guy, you know, with sweaty hands as described in the book, you know, who can’t read a speech, and I’m governor. I’m talking to you. Come on, the whole thing is sort of fascinating.”

Newsom used the low score as an example of the grit and resilience he learned from his mother.

The governor is accustomed to sparring with Republicans on social media. Ring-wing furor over his remarks, whether justified or politically motivated, is likely to continue as he flirts with a 2028 presidential run.

“We’ve gotten so used to loud, chest-pounding politics that when someone speaks about shortcomings, people try to twist it into something else,” Dickens, said in his post on Instagram. “Let me be clear though. This is Atlanta. We don’t need anyone to tell us when to be offended. And history has shown… when we are, you’ll know.”

Hours before filmmaking legend Rob Reiner and his wife Michele were found stabbed to death in their Brentwood home, they attended a holiday party at Conan O’Brien’s house.

Now, two months after the tragedy, the comedian has broken his silence about the death of his good friends.

“To have that experience of saying good night to somebody and having them leave and then find out the next day that they’re gone … I think I was in shock for quite a while afterward,” O’Brien said in an interview for “The New Yorker Radio Hour” podcast. “I mean, there’s no other word for it. It’s just very — it’s so awful. It’s just so awful.”

As host of the Dec. 13 party, O’Brien was among the last people to see the Reiners alive. Their 32-year-old son, Nick, was arrested the following night and charged with murdering his parents. Two sources who attended the party described witnessing a loud verbal exchange between Nick Reiner and his parents.

In an interview published Friday, O’Brien said he and his wife were very close with the couple, describing them as “just such lovely people.”

O’Brien praised Rob Reiner’s talent as a director and his tireless advocacy efforts. The “When Harry Met Sally …” director was a prominent Democratic donor, noted critic of President Trump and a champion for causes such as early childhood education and gay marriage.

“I think about how Rob felt about things that are happening in the country, how involved he was, how much he put himself out there — and to have that voice go quiet in an instant is still hard for me to comprehend,” O’Brien told The New Yorker.

O’Brien said he considers Reiner “one of the greats” given his impressive track record of directing a series of blockbuster movies.

“To make seven — in, like, a nine-year, 10-year, 11-year period — is insanity,” O’Brien said. “With ‘Spinal Tap’ alone, if that’d been the only thing he ever did, he influenced my generation enormously.”

O’Brien fondly recalled first watching the rock mockumentary “This is Spinal Tap” in college, calling it a “splitting-the-atom moment.”

The pair were not only friends, but also collaborators. Reiner was a guest on a 1999 episode of “Late Night with Conan O’Brien,” and also appeared on episodes of O’Brien’s podcast, “Conan O’Brien Needs a Friend,” in 2023 and 2025.

Authorities allege Nick Reiner fatally stabbed his 78-year-old father and 70-year-old mother at their Brentwood home sometime in the early morning hours of Dec. 14. The couple’s bodies were discovered in the master bedroom by their daughter around 12 hours later, and Nick Reiner was arrested that night in South L.A. by Los Angeles police.

Nick Reiner was charged with two counts of first-degree murder on Dec. 16 and has yet to enter a plea. In January, his arraignment was postponed to Monday after his lawyer, famed defense attorney Alan Jackson, stepped down and was replaced by a public defender.

Nick Reiner has a history of struggles with mental health and substance use. It is unclear how prominently those struggles will feature in criminal proceedings.

Times staff writers James Queally and Richard Winton contributed to this report.

“I am Punch and he is me.”

This is what my daughter recently texted in our family group chat. Her older sister had just asked us if we were “on the baby Punch-kun side of TikTok” because she had become like a “Facebook Mom, watching videos of him all day.”

If we weren’t before, we are now.

Punch is, as millions of his fans know, a 7-month-old macaque monkey living at Ichikawa City Zoo, outside Tokyo. Rejected at birth by his mother, he was initially cared for by zookeepers before being reintroduced to the monkey enclosure. His early attempts to fit in did not go well; the other monkeys gave him either the cold shoulder or a very hard time.

Until recently, his only comfort was a large orangutan plush toy that some brilliant member of staff gifted him as a tool for muscle building and maternal replacement.

Videos of the shy and utterly adorable Punch tentatively circling the larger monkeys, only to flee to the solace of his stuffy after being rebuffed, have drawn increasingly large crowds to the zoo and mesmerized millions on social media.

Messages of encouragement, often accompanied by memes of women (and men) sobbing into their phones over the sight of a yet-again-rejected Punch wrapping himself in the arms of his orangutan “mother,” or cheering as he slowly begins to be accepted by other monkeys, are almost as plentiful as the Punch videos themselves.

“I am Punch and he is me” is clearly a sentiment shared by many. Including those who, like my youngest daughter, were not (as I swiftly pointed out in the group chat) rejected in any way by their own mother.

Everyone knows what it’s like to feel small and bewildered as you circle a social group, seeking a way in, just as everyone knows what it’s like to be rejected by those whose approval we seek.

Of course some of us wept and raged when he once again had to flee some bigger monkey that he had clearly annoyed, but while Punch was certainly cowed, he was never broken. It was impossible not to admire his essential grip when he tried again, and to be reminded that none of us are alone in our attempts to fit in.

When Punch drags his stuffy around the enclosure, you can see some of the older monkeys giving him the side-eye — he is definitely the odd kid in the class, the one who always wore a space helmet or insisted she was a kitten. But the joy that little monkey feels for his orangutan, which he uses as shield, surrogate and playmate, is both heartbreaking and heartwarming.

As he nestles into its body, we see the primal need most animals, including humans, have for touch, for embrace. Of course he drags it around everywhere; short of the zoo staff, whose legs he also clutches, it‘s his only conduit of security.

Which is also something that many, if not all, of us understand. Anyone who says they have never had some personal item or talisman that, just by its presence, made them feel better is either lying, forgetting or a psychopath.

Why do you think teddy bears and Jellycats exist or “The Velveteen Rabbit” was written? In the era of “peak cozy,” with its devotion to lap blankets, hoodies and fleece-lined everything, no one could fail to understand Punch’s attachment to his comfort object.

When I was very small, I had, as many children do, a security blanket known as “Blankie.” It was pink and soft, with a satin edge and an oval stain caused by a regrettable interaction with Silly Putty. I talked to it, slept with it and carried it everywhere; when my mother insisted it be washed, I would sit in front of the dryer waiting for it to emerge.

When it somehow got lost in the hospital while I was recovering from a tonsillectomy, I was so traumatized that my mother drove back to the hospital for days in hopes that it would turn up. It never did but 55 years later, I can see, and feel, my Blankie still.

So I too am Punch and he is me.

Now that the Baby Monkey Who Could is finding comfort, grooming and companionship from others of his kind, there may come a time when he no longer needs his big stuffed orangutan.

Fortunately, it’s available at IKEA for anyone out there who might.

WILLIAMSBURG, Va. — In Waco, Tex., Richard A. Gephardt kicked off his Super Tuesday campaign by deriding Michael S. Dukakis as the Democratic presidential candidate with the most money and “the least message.”

The next day, in Deerfield Beach, Fla., Dukakis castigated Gephardt as “the prince of darkness” for appealing to the angry side of America with his complaints about unfair foreign economic competition.

In part, the two candidates generally deemed the front-runners in the Democratic race, who came here last week for a debate before the cream of the Southern Democratic Party, are flinging rhetorical brickbats at each other because of the 20-state treasure-trove of delegates up for grabs in Super Tuesday’s primaries and caucuses.

Another Struggle

But Massachusetts Gov. Dukakis, the winner of the New Hampshire primary, and Missouri Rep. Gephardt, the winner of the Iowa caucuses, are locked in another struggle as well, one that transcends even as rich a prize as Super Tuesday. At stake is nothing less than the heart, mind and future of the Democratic Party.

And that deeper struggle has injected a bitter, biting element into the campaign because the cleavages between the two leaders are sharply drawn along class, cultural and regional lines.

To put the matter in starkly simple terms, Dukakis, with his core support in the suburbs and among upscale city dwellers, reflects the beliefs and values of the party’s Eastern liberal Establishment, and the interests of the nation’s thriving bicoastal economy.

Gephardt, hailing from America’s economically hard-hit hinterland with his Missouri legacy of Harry S. Truman populism, is striving to speak to and for working-class voters. Such voters have been the foundation of classic Democratic majorities of the sort the party has seldom managed to assemble in recent years.

“Nothing is ever 100% black and white in politics,” says Southern pollster Claibourne H. Darden Jr. As he suggests, the realities of the immediate battle for votes are so complex that the underlying struggle may not be precisely reflected in the election returns across Dixie or the rest of the nation.

“But there’s a real socioeconomic division here,” Darden says. “Gephardt is after the ‘Bubba’ vote–the good old boys, the middle-middle section of the Democratic Party. And Dukakis is the darling of the educated liberals and the suburbanites.”

In a sense, their battle is a sequel to the 1984 contest between Walter F. Mondale and Gary Hart, in which those two argued essentially over whether the Democratic Party needed to change. Although Mondale won the nomination, he lost the election and thus the argument: Virtually everyone entered the 1988 campaign agreeing that the Democratic Party needed to change.

The battle between Dukakis and Gephardt will help to settle the remaining question: In what new direction will the party now move?

Of course, Dukakis and Gephardt have to reckon with two other major rivals in the Southern contests–the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Tennessee Sen. Albert Gore Jr.

Jackson is expected to run very well here Tuesday, perhaps capturing more states than any of his rivals. But most analysts doubt that he can sustain that success outside the South on the scale needed to make him a serious threat for the nomination.

As for Gore, few believe the only white Southerner in the race can do well enough in his home region to make up for his lack of achievement in the early contests elsewhere.

Meanwhile, what seems to be happening in the competition between Gephardt and Dukakis is that their debate is redefining the governing grammar of the Democratic Party, creating a new syntax in which the definitive phrases are not “liberal” and “conservative” but rather “change” and “pain.”

To a considerable extent the dividing line between Dukakis’ supporters and Gephardt’s backers is based on the degree to which any group of voters feels hurt by current economic conditions and prospects and the urgency with which they want to alter those conditions.

By using his argument against unfair trade practices as an expression of the case for broader change, “Gephardt has found a clean way to tap into the anger of voters who feel the circumstances of the economy are working against them,” said Paul Tully, former political director of Dukakis’ campaign.

Last January, just before the Iowa caucuses, Gephardt defined his populism in the rhetoric of Franklin D. Roosevelt, whom he described as “the greatest populist of the century.” Recalling F.D.R.’s celebrated vow to crush “the forces of greed and privilege,” Gephardt called that dictum “the legacy and the life force” of the Democratic Party.

Listen to Gephardt 10 days ago at the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner in Atlanta, where he warned 3,500 Democrats that America was in decline and demanded change to reverse the tide.

“I want to put a Democrat in the White House in 1988 so we can make America move and soar again,” he declared. “But to move in that direction we must change America in fundamental ways. That’s what the election in 1988 is all about.

Must Stand for Change

“A lot of people don’t want change,” Gephardt warned. “Strong forces resist change for a whole lot of different reasons. You must understand that if you want to change America the only way it will happen is if you stand for change in the Tuesday, March 8, primary.”

This message, says Tully, has visceral appeal to “those Democrats who live in places where the economy is threatening or not encouraging.” Moreover, Gephardt’s insistence on tougher trade policies, denounced as “protectionist’ by the well-educated middle-class supporters of Dukakis, appears to strike a responsive chord among the blue-collar workers Gephardt is trying to reach.

For many of them, political professionals point out, the idea that it is time for the United States to get back at foreign competitors has not only economic significance but also patriotic resonance.

Because of this, many Democratic politicians believe this issue could help win back former Democrats who have turned away from the party and supported Ronald Reagan in recent years because they believed that Democratic national leaders were namby-pambies in dealing with foreign nations.

“The trade issue is a metaphor for the sense that people have that they have lost control of their economic destiny, for the sense that many people feel that ‘my standard of living is slipping, we’re drifting and we’re slipping,’ ” says Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.), a Gephardt supporter.

Dukakis is for change too, Tully asserts. But the Massachusetts governor is a self-decribed optimist. And the kind of change for which he argues is more businesslike and less impassioned, more methodical and less fundamental than what Gephardt preaches.

“It is more of a roll up your sleeves and get on with the work approach,” Tully says. “And it appeals to people who want change but who have a lower level of anxiety than Gephardt’s constituents.”

Central to Dukakis’ optimistic view and to his message of moderate change is the economic recovery in Massachusetts, for which he claims a large share of credit and which he seems to argue has almost unlimited relevance elsewhere in the nation.

“Over the last dozen years I’ve seen the Massachusetts economy turn around and come back strong,” Dukakis declared in a speech last fall on economic policy. “And over the past few months, campaigning around this country, I’ve seen example after example of the kind of strength and determination and spirit it will take to get our fiscal house in order and restore our competitiveness abroad.”

If Gephardt seems to respond to anger and frustration among the voters, Dukakis appears to try to smooth over grievances.

When the Democrats hold their nominating convention in July, Dukakis told the Atlanta dinner audience that Gephardt also addressed, “I hope we as a party will have learned the lessons of division. Let’s make 1988 a year for the promise of opportunity and not the politics of resentment.”

Ultimately, the argument between these two points of view will be settled at the ballot box.

And ironically, the circumstances of these two candidates and the special nature of those who normally vote in Democratic primaries suggests that–as in 1984–the apostle of fundamental change could be hard-pressed to win the nomination, while the moderate could lose in November.

More Electable

A good many Democrats who have reservations about Gephardt’s policies, particularly his views on trade, are nonetheless interested in the congressman’s candidacy because they think he would be more electable than Dukakis in November.

“Dukakis’ message is competence in domestic policy and the rule of law in foreign policy,” says Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City), one of the House members who–along with many leading Southern politicians–gathered here at Williamsburg for a meeting of the Democratic Leadership Council, a group of moderate-to-conservative office holders. “And, frankly, I’m not convinced it’s a winning message.

“The Gephardt message is very good for blue-collar workers,” continues Berman, who will not decide who to back until after Super Tuesday. “It could help us get back people we have been having trouble holding in general elections, people who were attracted to Reagan.”

Other Democrats are blunter in their assessment: “Dukakis looks like another 49-state blowout to me,” says a high-level Southern labor leader who declined to be identified. He thinks that Dukakis could not draw any significant amount of votes beyond what Mondale received in 1984, when he carried only Minnesota and the District of Columbia.

By contrast, this official believes that Gephardt would “bring the white middle-class and blue-collar vote in the South back to the Democrats. We have to be a party that’s not just interested in redistributing wealth, that’s also interested in helping the middle class.”

But for all Gephardt’s potential assets in the fall, some think he may never have the chance to cash in on them because of the practical realities governing Democratic primary politics, particularly in the South.

“(Dukakis’) is an elitist campaign,” Martin Linsky, a public policy specialist at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, says. “But the primary in the South is a setup for him. He gets the suburban, liberal upper-middle-class vote.” And, as Linsky points out, these are the voters most likely to go to the polls on Tuesday.

Gephardt Might Struggle

Moreover, while Gephardt’s message of change gives him much broader potential appeal than Dukakis, many professionals believe that without the financial and organizational resources Dukakis has amassed, Gephardt will have to struggle to get his potential supporters to the ballot box.

And Gephardt’s ability to win votes by emphasizing basic differences from Dukakis is complicated somewhat by the fact that neither man’s origins quite match his current billing.

As Gephardt’s rivals never tire of pointing out, while serving as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus he was widely considered to be a fixture of the congressional hierarchy. And the legislative connections he fashioned with lobbyists for business and labor have helped finance his presidential campaign–to the tune of more than $350,000, or about 6% of his total contributions.

“Dick, don’t give us that Establishment stuff when you’re out there taking their money,” Dukakis snapped at Gephardt during the debate here last week. And the Dukakis campaign released a negative commercial later in the week attacking Gephardt on just the same grounds.

For his part, Dukakis entered politics sounding more like a neoliberal than a traditional liberal. And even today his views embody his natural frugality and his abounding faith in the efficacy of high technology and rational management.

Dukakis campaign chairman Paul Brountas, who has known the governor all his political life, says: “Certainly Michael Dukakis is a progressive”–a term Brountas prefers to “liberal.” But he adds: “He’s very conservative fiscally. And he’s run the state in a tight-fisted way.”

In the end, many believe the outcome of the Gephardt-Dukakis battle in Dixie may depend on whether Gephardt can reach the voters whose anger is fueling his candidacy.

Chris Scott, president of the North Carolina AFL-CIO, contends that Gephardt’s argument for retaliation against unfair trade practices has great appeal in his state, where the textile industry has been hard hit by foreign imports.

“Gephardt’s trade message can romp and stomp in this state,” Scott says. “But I don’t know if Gephardt can get the message out.”