As we make our way through another Sunday round of talk-show spin and toward a big day of primaries on Tuesday, I'm amazed that the apparent dominant narrative has friggin' Iowa effectively dictating who our nominee will be. "Kerry's Iowa bounce begat the New Hampshire bounce, which begat bounces in Arizona, Oklahoma, North Dakota... for they saw him to be... ELECTABLE."
But what I really don't get, and what I hope the Kossians can explain to me, is how Kerry has won so many votes on the perception of his "electability." How exactly is this charisma-impaired, uber-insider, tailor-made-for- caricature New England "libburl" a more strategically attractive candidate than Edwards or Clark? If I'm a Democrat in NH or Missouri and I don't love Kerry because of his positions, how do I conclude that he's more likely to win, not only my swing state, but Florida or Ohio, than a populist southern Senator who's a rock star on the campaign trail or a brilliant war hero with huge crossover potential?
First of all, the primaries are for the voters to pick the candidate who best represents their beliefs. If the main belief is "I believe this guy has the best chance to win," then so be it... but how do you arrive at that conclusion in the case of Kerry? I have to believe it's just that these folks aren't paying that much attention, or that they're more influenced by a swinish media that's rushing to coronate Kerry than is really good for the country.