I've been thinking a lot (prematurely of course) about what kind of candidate the Democrats ought to run in 2008. There's been a lot of talk about experience and record of accomplishment, but this really just doesn't figure in to it for me. No Democrats in the federal government can point to any recent achievements, since the Republicans have been in charge for five years now. Al Gore comes the closest, but he lost the election in 2000 to unaccomplished Bush despite having been in a popular and successful administration. This doesn't mean Gore wouldn't be a good candidate, it just means that the record of achievement argument doesn't help him.
[criterion after the flip]
Is an actual Democrat
The Democrats could have won the elections of 2000 and 2004 by nominating George W. Bush, but this wouldn't do much good. Our candidate doesn't have to be terribly liberal, but a record of kowtowing to the Bush Administration is an immediate disqualification. A candidate who has demonstrated exceptional progressive credentials gets bonus points.
Disqualifies: Biden, Bayh, Lieberman
Bonus Points: Gore, Feingold
Is able to articulate issue positions in a way people can understand
This was Kerry's biggest problem: despite being one of the most liberal members of the Senate, he came off as wishy washy and uninspiring to the base. Of course, this didn't stop the Republicans from hammering his voting record. Gore also had a similar problem in being unwilling or unable to tie himself to Clinton's popular policies. Dean's issue was exactly the opposite: despite being moderate on the issues he became seen as a left wing loon because of his sometimes inflammatory rhetoric. Clinton was the master of framing himself.
To me, this is Obama's biggest appeal. He's quite liberal on the issues, but has been able to get a message out in a way that people understand and agree with. Al Gore 2005 also would seem to win points in this area. Of course, under the pressure of a campaign, everything changes.
Appears natural, likeable and charismatic
Yes, this is stupid. Unfortunately, it's also very important. People want to like the guy or gal for whom they vote. This is a particularly difficult criterion to fill when you're trying to please a million different constituencies and fend off ad hominem smear attacks at the same time.
What was painful to me about Kerry was his painfully obvious pandering. His very candidacy was a blatant attempt to shore up Democratic military cred, and those photo-shoots with him hunting were absolutely ridiculous. I don't hate Kerry, but his very candidacy was by nature on the defensive. If we pick a candidate just because he can win a particular state or shore us up on the military, this will be obvious and a losing strategy. It doesn't hurt Wes Clark that he was a general or Mark Warner that he could help bring Virginia into play, but they have to bring it in other areas first.
The point of all this is that there is no way to test somebody's ability to get the message out or their likeability in a campaign until primary season. So I'm waiting 'till then to decide, but that's not going to stop the speculating.