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