Stephen Greene notes that the punditocracy is starting to distance itself from Kerry. I’ve long said that hatred of Bush would not be enough for the Democrats, and so far Kerry has offered exactly two things to the electorate: he’s not George W. Bush, and he served in Vietnam. Neither is sufficient.
The Democrats missed their big chance by nominating Kerry, probably the weakest candidate they could have nominated. Dean would have energized the liberal base like no other despite being a loose cannon. Lieberman would have severely eroded Bush’s numbers with moderates and conservatives (in fact, Lieberman, despite being boring, would have kicked Bush’s ass all the way back to Crawford.) Gephardt could have gotten the blue collar vote firmly on the side of the Democrats rather than the blue-blood patrician that is John Kerry. Edwards had the charisma if he were lacking the experience.
I’m admittedly not the biggest fan of Bush. I admire his toughness on the war, but thinks he needs yet more of it. His economic policies have been mixed – for every pro-growth tax cut has been a spending proposal that threatens the economic stability of this country. He’s missed many opportunities, from the disaster in Fallujah to caving to Ted Kennedy on education reform.
Yet given the choice between an imperfect conservative and a man who represents the most regressive tendencies of the Democratic Party, it’s no contest. Even the liberal intelligentsia is starting to realize that Kerry is rapidly squandering his best opportunities to beat Bush. While the race is still close, by the end of the week it could very well not be.
The rats are starting to flee the sinking ship, and how long will it be before the voters begin to follow?
Kerry has a better chance of beating Bush than any of the other nominees. I would have never voted for Joe Lieberman, and reckon millions of other real Democrats wouldn’t either. I can stand a centrist to an extent, but the only positions where Lieberman differs with Bush are social wedge issues which I don’t care about. Nader would get 15% of the vote if Lieberman was the nominee and would win more than 40 states. Dean would have self-destructed long ago. Nobody would elect such a loose cannon to the White House (at least not a Democratic loose cannon…even Dean is more stable than Bush). Gephardt’s appeal to blue collars may have helped in West Virginia, but would have kept New Jersey and Connecticut yuppies at home. Gephardt’s hawkish stance on Iraq and phony demeanor would have cost him millions of votes among Dems and independents as well.
Kerry was the best the Dems could do this cycle, and while I’m far from enamored with him, your cute attempts to destroy Kerry supporters’ spirits by writing his political obituary at the first sign of Bush poll strength in months could and likely will come back to bite you.
Lieberman was a candidate I could vote for. Though I’m not a democrat nor a republican, I felt comfortable with choosing Lieberman. Though I think that modern politics would eat him alive. Everything has to be glib now. They made fun of Gore for being to robotic. REALLY! Have you seen him speak lately?
I think that Democratic party would work hard to appeal to the left and that would be close to enough to make a strong ticket while eroding Bush’s moderate support.
I do agree with Mark though that Gephardt would be a worse choice than Kerry. In fact I think he would have been the worst choice. To me he represents what has been stereotyped by the media as a “Career politician”. Intersted more in his job than the people he represents.