We all know that the Republicans are going to try to make the 2004 election a referendum on gay marriage. Perhaps it won't matter which Democrat is nominated. A Republican strategist was asked on NPR whether it mattered that Dean (the then frontrunner) was for civil unions, not gay marriage. His response, paraphrasing, "He'll be for gay marriage when we're through with him."
Do you think any of the Democratic candidates would be especially vulnerable in the general election to these attacks? Given the above, a valid answer is that it doesn't matter, but think about the fact that the candidates have prepared themselves very differently for this:
Edwards has tried to build some room for "pivot" to the center (the homophobic center, that is) with a pro-DOMA position and no pro-civil unions position. His response to a question in the NH debate on DOMA shows he needs to study up on it before spouting off.
Dean has tried to anticipate the attack and show off his ability to change the subject (to health care and the economy, not god and gays), and to turn it into a badge of courage (replete with body armor).
Clark has tried to embrace a moral position on the issue favoring civil unions and to articulate its merits (oops, my bias is showing). Clark has written off the homophobic vote, but his sincerity and the tightness of his argument have come off well.
Kerry has a pro-gay record, but I have no idea what ANY of his positions are other than "bring it on" and "don't let the door hit you on the way out" and "we want solutions, not slogans"
Now vote in my poll...