I've made no bones about who I'm leaning towards in the primary season. I like Dean most, not an uncommon sentiment around these parts. But I've also made a point not to bash other candidates. I don't see a point in it. I would rather talk about issues and positives than sling mud around. I've been known to make the occasional dig on Lieberman, and I've oft lamented on Clark's late entry. But I'm about to diverge from form, and I apologize in advance.
John Kerry, in my estimation, should not be our nominee. "Gee, that's a bold statement to make here", you might say, especially given his recent troubles. But these recent troubles play directly into what is bothering me about Kerry.
In 2000, we had a candidate who seemed a shoo-in for the Presidency to me. He was smart, articulate, somewhat telegenic. A policy wonk of the first order, but a seemingly good candidate for the times. He had none of Clinton's pecadillo problems, and was seen as part of the dream team on the economy. Sure, there was rumblings about fundraising problems, etc etc, but nothing too major.
Then George W. Bush stepped into the picture. A man's man, short on smarts, and long on drawl. Behind him lurked a cabal of evil genius tacticians, ready to smooth over any messes, and destroy the other candidate. And that is precisely what they did. Suddenly, Gore was a habitual liar, was constantly trying to change his image, was stiff, a robot, and out of touch with average America. And the hits kept coming. And Gore, god bless him, didn't do a damn thing to change the perception. He hemmed, and hawed, rolled his eyes, sighed...but he let his opponents define him.
I can't shake the feeling that Kerry is Gore redux. Look at his campaign to date. Look at the tags that are stuck on him, and his bizarre and inffective means of trying to combat them. Riding a motorcycle onto the Jay Leno show? Threatening to punch flag-burners? Okay, you're macho, we get it.
I forsee a terrible recast of the 2000 election if Kerry gets the nomination. Gephardt has fire. Edwards has his own, subdued fire. Dean certainly has a fire raging. Clark is a media prince, with a stellar resume. Hell, even Holy Joe can draw boos with the best of them. But they illict emotion. They illicit passion. I get none of this from Kerry.
Now, you might say that the Greens had an impact on 2000, and that is undeniably true. Whether they are a force to deal with this time around is unknown, but more likely that they will vote Dem to stop Bush. The sane ones anyway. But let's be honest. Is Kerry really the best draw for that swing crowd? He lost alot of we Kossians with his war vote. That's a boondoggle I don't want to see.
Don't misread me. I like John Kerry. I think he's a fine senator and a great Democrat. I just don't think he has what it takes to beat Bush. I don't think he can fight that fight. If his current ability to campaign is any indication, he'll get slaughtered. In addition, he's genteel, and senatorial. We've seen it before. It doesn't work.
So that's that. Take it for what its worth; I'm not trying to be partisan, and this doesn't stem from some love for Dean. This is what my gut tells me. It could be wrong. What do you think?