(First posted at
apostropher.com)
I've said many times below that the Democratic race is still too close to call based on the actual delegate counts, and that's true - a mere 15 delegates separate Kerry and Edwards and the smallest state holding a primary on Tuesday, North Dakota, gives out more than that. But momentum is indeed a real factor, until it is stopped. That stop, as Dean's campaign discovered, can come quickly and without warning.
On discussion boards around the web, many commenters are lighting into Kerry's and Edwards' stands on specific issues - No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, etc - and the campaign that Rove can run against them. This misses the point, in my never particularly humble opinion. This election will not be a referendum on the Democratic candidate; much more so than any recent election, it will be a referendum on the incumbent. I'm increasingly confident that he is going to lose that referendum... as long as the Democratic nominee doesn't implode.
That, in a nutshell is Dean's problem, and Clark's as well. The Iowa and Trippi debacles, along with Dean's tendency to make statements that he spends the next week clarifying, all contribute to a picture of campaign that is almost, but not quite, in control of itself. Clark is new to the retail politics game, and I've watched his campaign holding my breath, waiting for the next wince-evincing slip-up, which gets delivered on just about a weekly basis. Put simply, these guys don't look like professionals and they make voters who just want Bush removed nervous.
This, I believe, is the reason that the two candidates showing growth are Kerry and Edwards. Kerry is the staid, establishment, central casting Democrat. Edwards is the polished, slick, TV-ready candidate. In a nutshell, they seem like the two least likely to screw up badly on camera. I know that the very lack of polish of which I am speaking is a central point of appeal for many people. But it is 2004 and elections are won and lost on television.
Bush is currently as vulnerable as he is precisely because he lacks those very skills. He's not particularly telegenic, he's not a rousing speaker, and he doesn't think well on his feet. His handlers don't let him get anywhere near a microphone without a script stapled to his forearm. His State of the Union address actually produced a dip in his approval ratings. He has gotten better than he was at the beginning of his presidency, but that's like saying, "Well, at least our point guard has quit dribbling the ball off his foot and is just making bad passes."
I remain convinced that Edwards is the best candidate to put forth, based on demographics, policy, and charisma. Barring something surprising, though, it's difficult to see how he arrests the flow of support toward Kerry. However, I think Kerry can pull out the victory too, though I worry about him having the same traits that caused the media to turn so viciously on Gore: he's much smarter than most of the press corps and doesn't make any attempt to hide it. But again, this election will be a referendum on Bush, first and foremost.
To use another vaguely applicable sports metaphor, the flow toward Kerry and Edwards reflects a desire by Democrats nationally to put up a prevent defense and force Bush to beat them by throwing downfield. It isn't necessary this year to send six guys across the line at the quarterback. Just don't make any big mistakes, win the field position battle, and run out the clock. Sound uninspiring? Maybe. But it got the Panthers all the way to the Super Bowl this year.
Voters are looking for the safe bet. Kerry, that most establishment of establishment Democrats, seems like just that. I'd rather see Edwards knock Dubya senseless in a debate, as he surely would, but if it's Kerry, then it's Kerry. Before anybody huffs off angrily and declares they are staying home or voting third party rather than cast their lot with this or that candidate, please remember these four words: Four Supreme Court Justices. Four are 70 years old or above and a couple have had cancer already. That outweighs any policy objections you could possibly have.
Yes, I know Kerry can be dull and Edwards can be trite, and neither of them will ever reach the levels of entertainment that Bill Clinton provided. However, compared to four more years of Dick Cheney yanking the strings of his Texas meat puppet, they would be gifts from heaven.