The liberal, anti-war, hard core Democratic activists in Iowa have declared that the ability to beat George Bush in November is overwhelmingly their number one factor in deciding which candidate should receive the Democratic nomination for President. In so doing, they gave the biggest bounce to John Edwards. I defer to their judgment. The people have spoken, and progressives need to listen with respect.
I was wrong. I thought that Howard Dean would be best able to energize precisely the kind of Democrat that attended the Iowa caucuses. But the more Iowa Democrats got to know Dean, the less they liked him and the more they came to question his temper, his temperament, and his judgment.
I had hoped that his stupid mistakes were an anomaly that he would learn how to control. But just yesterday, his staff apparently did poor advance work for an appearance at a King Day event and Dean appeared with so many press that there wasn't room for everyone. So Dean had to leave quickly and erupted at the press, "Go get a life." Outbursts like that hardly leave a "Presidential" impression.
Some people in Vermont called Dean "a little Napoleon." It seems that he still fits that description.
Also disturbing to me was the fact that at the last minute, when he was in trouble, his wife suddenly appears on stage with him and announces that she has changed her name to "Judy Dean."
Only one of my correspondents has been trying to persuade me, repeatedly, about the problem with Dean's personality and his inconsistencies. As progressives often do, I was allowing my wishful thinking to cloud my thinking and was holding out hope that Dean was changing. But it is now time to face reality.
The head of the SEIU said that one of his union's criteria is the "hang test" - the ability of candidates to hang out with his members in such a manner to leave them feeling comfortable. I think that the "hang test" makes great sense. In recent history, the candidate who has been elected President has been the candidate who was most "likable." Voters want to feel comfortable with their President on a personal level. They want to feel that they would enjoy hanging out with them at home. They want to be able to identify with the candidate and feel that he is basically an ordinary Joe who can understand them and their needs. They want their President to be upbeat, optimistic, and positive. They want these characteristics because it provides them with a greater sense of trust.
Progressives can lament these inclinations and argue that ideas are what should count most. But if they do so, it is an elitist miscalculation.
When I first heard that Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards had struck a deal a few days ago, it puzzled me. They agreed that if either one of them failed to reach the 15% threshold for getting delegates from the caucuses and the other one did, the one that failed would urge his supporters to back the other. I had trouble understanding how Kucinich could throw his weight
behind someone who endorsed the invasion of Iraq.
But I now appreciate the Kucinich decision. Apart from the war issue, Edwards is running a positive campaign with populist positions on domestic issues, as has Kucinich. And his foreign policy positions at http://www.johnedwards2004.com/foreign-policy.asp indicate to me that his is adopting a centrist, multilateral, old-style foreign policy that differs distinctly from Bush's doctrine of unilateral preemption.
Bush placed the Democrats in Congress between a rock and a hard place. The fact that most of them did not oppose the invasion of Iraq does not mean that they would have undertaken the invasion themselves. Nor does it mean that they would do anything similar in the future if they were elected President. If Bush is defeated, I suspect that the American military will be on a tight leash for some time to come.
So beating Bush is top priority and it seems to me that John Edwards is far and away the most "likable" of the bunch. His people skills are extremely strong. Having been a very successful trial lawyer talking to juries, he knows about to communicate well with a cross-section of the American people. He is very articulate. In recent weeks (thanks in part to Howard Dean), he has begun speaking with more passion, with much stronger response from his audiences. He is very telegenic, young, sexy, and full of positive energy. He was born poor and got rich taking on the corporations in court. He can at least force Bush to spend lots of money in the South, rather than elsewhere.
John Edwards looks like a winner to me. Howard Dean may be another Gene McCarthy and John Edwards another Robert Kennedy. Dean opened the door and showed the way for someone with much greater charisma and more skill to step forward. Now all the Democrats have co-opted Dean's message, which has muddled the differences and made it easier to support someone else.
The Democrats of Iowa have announced that they want the candidate who has the best chance to prevail in November. At the moment, I think that candidate is John Edwards -- if we can surmount the constraints imposed by his acceptance of federal matching funds.