While waiting for the votes to come in today, I am reflecting on the moment when I chose my candidates, after merely following the race. It was around a year ago today, when I saw
this Iowa fundraising event on the Internet from Jan 18 2003. I probably found it via a link on Dean's old website. I watched it again recently, and the impact it had at the time came rushing back to me.
I'd been following the invisible primary all along, mostly via The Note. You could tell who was running for President at that point. (Although Graham, Biden, and Dodd were wildcard possibilities. Had I even heard of Wesley Clark yet? I can't recall.) Gore and Daschle had ruled themselves out by then.
I'd looked at the field of likely candidates and Howard Dean stood out. I was attracted to what he'd been saying -- challenging the President, challenging fellow Democrats for cowering in fear of Bush's numbers -- and what he'd done in Vermont. But I knew I had to see him and hear him before I'd know if he could be the one. He can't just look good on paper.
So I watched the Iowa event video and saw Dean, Kerry, and Gephardt speak. This was what clinched my decision. My two favorites became Howard Dean and John Kerry.
Dean was clearly my favorite, but Kerry was my fallback if Dean's campaign went nowhere. I honestly liked both. The Iowa video also confirmed my opinion of Gephardt (which is really just a hunch): a good man, but would never win in the general election. Not a fresh face, around the block too many times, perhaps. If nominated, he'd be like the Democrat's Bob Dole: there because it was his turn, but not really firing anyone up.
But back to Dean. He was the candidate I knew I really wanted at that point. He was a little rough around the edges, but I saw lots of potential, and figured he had a year of campaigning in which to improve. Side note: as it turned out, I don't think he did improve, unfortunately.
The only problem I had with Dean was that he was something of a longshot then. But I took comfort in the idea that America prefers Governors for President, and that he might be able to break through the field and really be a contender (a la Clinton, perhaps). I was, to my surprise, even thinking about giving his campaign some money to give him a chance to break through.
In the months and months since Jan 2003, I watched Dean nicely break through to prominence, just like I imagined he could. Then Dean and Kerry were in direct conflict. I used to find it amusing that my two favorite candidates were the ones who hated each other the most. Then it became a problem, as all I saw in Kerry, for awhile, was negativity toward Dean.
Anyway, here we are today. It was probably luck that I never changed my favorite candidates, despite a year of campaigning, but I just didn't. (Or didn't bother; I honestly just didn't have the energy to learn enough about Clark to see if I'd prefer him). My devotion has become a little mushier in the past few weeks, though, as I see Dean, Kerry, Clark, and Edwards all as acceptable.
Even if Dean's candidacy ends with a whimper this month, I can see that Democrats owe him a lot for firing people up and showing all of the other hesitant candidates that it's okay to challenge Bush. I can even see how maybe that really is Dean's destined role: the best man to give the party its direction, if not the best man to actually carry the torch.
Regarding Kerry, the problems I've had with him over the year were basically about how he campaigned. There was a long time where he wasn't establishing himself beyond his military credentials, and it seemed all he had to say was, "... but Howard Dean <something negative>." But I admit he's doing better, and although I still have concerns about him, they are probably about equal to the concerns I have about Dean. If Kerry wins the nomination, I can support him. Gore pissed me off with the way he ran against Bradley in 2000, but I forgave it and got behind him once he was the nominee.
---
If you have a "first pick" story, please share. Even if you've changed your pick since then. Try to focus on what you liked about them that made you pick them, as opposed to why they are "better" than the other candidates, if you can see the subtle difference.