OK - for those whose number one concern is winning the election this fall - and for those who recognize we are not just voting for a PERSON but an ADMINISTRATION - here is how the field looks.
- John Edwards - as far as I can tell, he has the least negatives. Trial lawyer meme is a nonstarter. His political inexperience could be a worry, but I sense we need to take a bit of chance to beat Bush. For my mind, he has the demeanor, the personality, and the political skill to best take the Democratic argument to Bush this fall. His populist message is the right one for Democrats - both morally, historically, and politically. He will be the most competitive candidate in the South. Even if he doesn't win many states there, he will force Bush to play defense more than the others. His life story is a bit of a cliche in some ways, but I think it plays very well with Joe Average Voter. From more than a few sources, I've heard this guy is the best Democratic campaigner since Bill Clinton - but minus the zipper problem.
- John Kerry - as stated over at TNR, I do fear he is Bob Dole to Howard Dean's Pat Buchanan. Although I'm not entirely convinced. His military service is impressive, and should not be underestimated by Kossacks. His life story plays well with those who aren't political junkies or insiders. His ability to win working class and moderate voters at a rate much higher than Howard Dean in both NH and Iowa does raise eyebrows. He does have a long voting record, that is quite liberal. At least we know the GOP line of attack - Massachussetts liberal out of touch with American values. I don't think this has the bite it once did, but my sense is is that it still plays well in red state America. Probably the most "experienced" candidate running. Also seems the most "presidential," can pass the "commander and chief" test, as Ruy Texeiria describes. His speaking style, while improved, does leave many cold however.
- Howard Dean - his candor and forthrightness are appealing, as his rather unconventional record vis a vis the liberal/moderate/conservative spectrum. However, his call to roll back all of the Bush tax cuts is general election poison. Also seems to have temperament problems and an inability to stay on message (potentially corretable, though). But more than anything else, I don't think he passes the "commander-in-chief" bar for enough people. They see Dean (plus the Dean scream), they see Bush - Bush will strike Joe Average Voter as more "presidential." Also, Dean's ability to play well outside voters who are very liberal and/or college educated in Iowa and NH vis a vis Kerry does not bode well for the kind of non-blogosphere appeal he will need to win the election.
Incomplete/?) Wesley Clark - As it stands, I would have to rank Clark as potentially the least electable Dem. But it is still too early to tell - Clark has the next few weeks to prove himself. On paper, of course, he is the perfect Democratic nominee. But that is paper, and in the flesh, he just does not come off as convincing. He does not seem particularly good as a campaigner, and his campaign has made a few rather bizarre moves. In particular, the trumpeting of Michael Moore and Clark's appearance on the cover of The Advocate. Also, he seems not particularly comfortable or knowledgable discussing domestic issues, which for a Democratic candidate is a huge problem. Democrats are the "domestic issues" party, and if a candidate cannot make a convincing case in this realm, the candidate will not win. Again, Clark has obvious plusses, but he'll have to start showing them soon if he wants to be the nominee.