The candidate paradox

I was arguing about Kerry versus Dean with a friend on LiveJournal, and had what i think is a substantial insight...

It started with my friend, a progressive who really dislikes Dean, talking about how she likes Kerry more and more, with lavish praise in particular for Teresa Heinz. My response was basically that Teresa Heinz squicks me out - she reminds me of Laura Bush, and i hate how the media is smearing Dean's wife, Judy Steinberg, for staying at home with her children and medical practice. And of course, i think Kerry is a boring, disingenuous flip-flopper, and Dean isn't any angrier than any rational liberal.

Responding to her response, i started talking about how Dean will probably be retooling his image in the wake of Iowa, and how Kerry has obviously made real progress working out his own image problems (albiet not enough to make up for the Saddam bullshit, to me anyway).

This was where i saw the contradiction... either you love the (new) Kerry and hate Dean, or you love Dean and hate the (old) Kerry. Both candidates are in the process of reworking their images. Can either one bridge the gap? Can Dean throw off the "angry" side that bothers my friend? Can Kerry make himself authentic enough for me? Or will Edwards or Clark be able to step in and bridge that gap?

Discuss amongst yourselves. I think i might be on to something here, at least for real voters rather than geeks like us...