I tend to evaluate a candidate based on three key factors.
- Electability (E). How likely a candidate can win in the general election.
- Policy Wonk Index (PWI). The strength of a person's policy proposals and understanding of issues.
- Partisan Toughness (PT). The ability to fight on a purely political level for advantage in D.C.
Now, how would I rank the candidates on a scale of 1 to 4 (1 being Best)?
John Kerry:
E: (3.5) Kerry is largely a paper candidate. He has height, a military record, campaign experience, and the support of his party. On paper, that should be a huge advantage. In reality, Kerry has a soft underbelly that is vulnerable to cheap shot Gore-ings. Also, he often does not convey sincerity.
PWI: (1) Kerry is smart, has tons of Washington experience, and understands how government works.
PT: (3.5) Kerry's personal relationships with Republicans in D.C. have insulated him from fully grasping the magnitude of the GOP threat. And his years of living the collegial Senatorial lifestyle have declawed him. With a Kerry Presidency we could easily see Clinton redux: The GOP goes after him personally, drags its heels on his initiatives, and blames him for governmental ineffectiveness.
Overall Score: 8
-----------
Howard Dean:
E: (2) Had the DNC embraced Dean from the outset and touted him as a protoypical Democratic Governor, Dean would get a 1. Unfortunately, they didn't and people are naturally skeptical of an insurgency. It makes Dean seem less experienced than he is. But his fighting skills are as good as anyone else's.
PWI: (2.5) Strong on domestic issues but weak on foreign policy (but right on judging the Iraq threat), Dean is the flip side of Clark.
PT: (1) You have to be in it to win it. More than any other candidate, Dean understands that the GOP is trying to push the entire Democratic party into the sea. Although he doesn't have the Washington ties, he's not going to be babbling that he is still relevant a la Clinton.
Overall Score: 5.5
-----------
Wes Clark:
E: (1) Clark's hardest job is to get the nomination. Having done so, he would mop Bush up. A majority of Americans want a different leader. Clark has the fewest weaknesses of any candidate, as the "Clark is a nutty conspiracy theorist" meme is unlikely to have any currency down the line. Although, his socially liberal positions undermine what Strength in the South he would naturally have. His tax plan is probably the most palatable to voters.
PWI: (2.5) Dean's alter ego. A ton of foreign policy experience. Little domestic policy experience.
PT: (3.5) The flip side of Kerry's too close to D.C. problem. Clark is a partisan novice. But let's be honest, only someone who has already been on the receiving end of Tom DeLay's hammer is likely to understand what he is up against. Clark may not yet understand he is in a political war.
Overall Score: 7
-----------
Edwards:
E: (3.5) Although Edwards' message of two America's is fantastic, he comes off as too young and inexperienced. He is not the right messenger...yet. It is critical that Democrats clearly present voters with a choice between Bush and someone who reads the newspapers. If Edwards keeps saying that he doesn't know what the Defense of Marriage Act says then he will get blasted.
PWI: (4) Edwards is the weakest here. Although he has good values and judgment, his depth of knowledge on many key policies is lacking. His learning period would be longer than anyone else's.
PT: (2) Edward's stump speech and fights for patients' rights indicate that he is a guy who is willing to go to the mat for the party and his constituents. I think he is second only to Dean in relishing a fight with the Congressional leadership.
Overall Score: 9.5
-----------
I tend to weight the Partisan factor higher than normal because of the extreme need for a Democratic President to take the fight to the GOP. This is why I would support Edwards over Kerry today, whereas I wouldn't have in '92 or '96. But I wonder how other people would break it down.