THE MYTH OF ELECTABLE KERRY


Kerry's now fading Iowa bounce seemed based on the myth that the he was the most electable Dem.
There's a pretty strong TNR article to the contrary on this point.


Bush is never going to win a campaign on domestic issues, but he counters with three major strenghts: national security, cultural wedge issues, and affability. Any Dem candidate has to neutralize these strenghts sufficiently to win. On all three areas, John Kerry is a poor choice. Despite his decorated record, Kerry dovish record and hyper-multilateralism will let Bush effectively play the national security card. On cultural issues, Kerry is almost out of GOP central casting with his NE upscale liberal background. And on the 3rd issue, Kerry is going to be easily brushed aside as a dour, liberal pessimist when trying to point out Bush's fibs on education, taxes and healthcare.


The convential wisdom on Dean that he is even more unelectable is probably right - although as the past week has shown he is far more agile a politician than Kerry, and therefore would probably do a better job hammering Bush on domestic issues despite the "angry" label. The other three major candidates all have their weaknesses, Clark strikes me as very likely to appear angry and strident when faced with Bush's bobbing and weaving with the truth. Edwards does not have the track record, nor the policy agenda so far, to cut down Bush's advantage on national security, and for all of Lieberman's wonderful qualities, you would not describe the man as "sunny". Still, any of them stand a better chance than former and current frontrunners. I'm happy to hear that Dem voters in NH are concerned about elctability. I just wish they had a clue about who was electable.