The Dean scream was a hoot--something I suspect played better to ordinary people than pundits. Then again, if the talking heads keep bashing him, his image is will be harmed regardless. And I do certainly see the point of critics who say that Dean should have realized he was speaking to more than just his supporters at the time. The rant was obviously—and understandably--meant to rally the troops. But he could have mellowed his message to appeal to undecideds who look to be pivotal in New Hampshire as well, and who seem to have concerns about his temperament.

I also fear there’s a bubble behind John Kerry’s sudden rise, one that is bound to burst eventually. I freely admit my own perception has been skewed. I have long dismissed him as a poor man’s Al Gore. (Note how they keep stressing how good Kerry is in debates. Not a good sign.) But he honestly looked presidential in Iowa, and his speaking has seemed almost inspiring of late. I’m just nervous we’re going to wake up in the general election to find Kerry has reverted to the robot who is willing say anything, none of it with conviction.

I am glad to see that Edwards is finally getting some love in the polls. But I think he’s probably a vice presidential candidate at best--for this election, at least. He just radiates too much of an aura of inexperience to head the ticket. And some of that’s not his fault: I honestly wish he had some grey hair and was maybe a little heavier. But he also lacks political experience. If he’s not VP, he should go back to NC and run for governor. I predict that 2008 and/or 20012 will be his presidential election(s) to shine.

I see two Pres.-VP pairings that now make sense: Kerry-Edwards and Dean-Clark. Both have the north-south combination, and both pair candidates with complimentary political strengths and weaknesses. Kerry-Clark would be too deficient in raw political ability. If Kerry regresses to form during the general election, he’ll need someone with more charisma and savvy than Clark to right the ship. And Dean-Edwards would match two candidates whose great flaw is their perceived lack of experience. Dean needs Clark’s military and foreign policy credentials to balance his weakness on those fronts.

Which brings me to the other possibility, which I find intriguing if remote: Clark-Edwards. I actually don’t share the concern of some about Clark’s ability to work with a hostile congress. Clinton demonstrated that an executive can effectively bypass the legislature and pursue a fairly ambitious policy agenda through administrative lawmaking. And Edwards would be there to manage those interactions with congress that would still be required. I just see that Clark has the political skills to top the ticket. He's all biography and no game. Plus, I don’t trust his liberal bona fides on domestic issues. Better to make him VP and entrust him with the reconstruction of Iraq.

Finally, anyone else think we might have a fractured primary process that yields no clear winner come the convention? I personally find the prospect thrilling if problematic in the short term. But I wonder if it wouldn't be in the long term interests of the party.

- posted by bigmouth @ 2:21 PM

 
I’ve honestly felt like Admiral Stockdale in recent months, wishy-washing over whether Dean can really win. I’m still not convinced he can, though I do believe a Dean-Clark (or a Clark-Dean) ticket is the our best bet to unseat Bush. I don’t put much stock in polls this far in advance of the general election. But I do know that the economy is doing better, there have been no terrorist acts in the US, they have Hussein, and voters are *very* reluctant to unseat an incumbent president during wartime. Even if the economy sours, it will be very hard to beat Bush.

That being said, do not underestimate Dean’s ability to draw independent votes. It’s often said that Dean is sort of a pale imitation of McCain. Hmm..whom does that remind me of? Ah yes, W! And W was able to pick off some of the more conservative McCainites by playing the plain-spoken outsider railing against the pernicious insider culture of Washington. Dean does the same thing but with a progressive slant, and Dean will pick up the conservative independents’ progressive equivalent: thegreens.

Also, like Bush, Dean has tacked hard toward his party’s base during the primaries, but is well positioned to tack back toward the center during the general election by running on his relatively moderate record as a governor. And is it just me, or do the two men have similar personalities? Dean is obviously more intelligent and inquisitive than W. But the two have a similar swagger--as well as a shared tendency to say whacky things then get a hot under the collar from the criticism. That’s why I agree with Jerry that a Dean-Bush debate would be fascinating. Kind of like watching Kirk fight his
evil twin on star trek.

But does it make sense for Dean to follow a strategy that lost the popular vote? This raises a troubling possibility. Could we actually have yet another election where the popular and electoral votes diverge? The thought gives me shudders. If that happens either this election or the next, I suspect it will be the end of the electoral college. Our generation’s revolutionary constitutional act--and rightly so. For better or worse, the president is the one federal office we all vote for as a nation. It’s time our electoral system reflected that fact.

- posted by bigmouth @ 4:15 PM