What will happen in NH?

[Mort from NewYawk]

I think that out of all the candidate, Edwards has the best chance of winning now.  Edwards has personality (which Kerry lacks) and he has the Big Mo'.

I agree with that. Edwards might get overshadowed if he does badly in NH though. I think Edwards should hit NH hard, try to get one of the top 3, or at least a close 4th. That would keep him alive for SC, which is supposed to be his big breakthrough. Kerry is looking strongest right now, b/c he has nothing to lose in NH. The others could all go down in a heart-beat, if they're unlucky.

I think Kerry could lose a lot in NH.

The Democrats want earnestly to nominate someone "electable", and seem to be vetting their candidates one at a time.

Kerry's the front-runner, so now he gets the media scrutiny and the attacks (Clark is already on him: "It's one thing to be a hero as a junior officer...but I've had the military leadership at the top as well as the bottom". Yeah, and these guys both want to hand over the war on terror to the UN).

If the play between the story in the media and the NH outcome begins to look bad for Kerry, he could come out of NH crippled, just as Iowa crippled Dean. Then the Dems will look at Clark or Edwards, whoever's on top.

Will they find anyone electable?

[Mort from NewYawk]

I would love to see both Clark and Dean swamped in NH, because I don't trust either of them, and I'd like to see Joe come in at least 3rd.

However, as I mentioned in another thread, Clark is picking up a lot of liberal support and endorsements, perhaps courtesy of Bill Clinton.

I admit that at this point, it doesn't seem this is the year the Democrats want to settle on a guy like Joe, who supports pre-emption and doesn't exude the requisite "fire" on TV.

So, although anything can happen and I believe the guy would make a great President, I'm not allowing myself to hold out too much hope until the next unexpected event occurs.

[Mort from NewYawk]

I guess if you buy into Dean's argument that it was the media's fault that he lost last night, you could see Mort's scenario playing out.  Dean made Dean lose and Clark will be the person that causes him to lose should that come to pass. Kerry is a much better candidate than he was a year ago.  He's better with the soundbite. He's more on message. He's looser. He and Edwards both seem to be hitting their strides at the right time, but Kerry has the cash from his mortgages to make a real run now.  Edwards, I'm not so sure.  So, I'm saying that Kerry won't Dean himself (I like that Dean is such a useful verb now).  He did that last year and learned from his mistakes. Had he not shown any evidence of learning from his mistakes, I'd be worried.   If Kerry falters it will likely be because of his beliefs. Dean didn't really lose because of his beliefs so much as his style.

I agree with you completely. Kerry could and should fail because of his flip-flops an foreign policy, and Dean failed because of his campaign personality.

My point about the media is not that they cause these failures, but that they focus on perceived candidate weaknesses selectively, mostly focusing on the front-runner.

If a candidate survives the scrutiny, he may go on to win.

I just don't think the Democrats know what they want this year, or, if what they want is someone "electable", perhaps there's no one who fills the bill. Thus, there's an interesting play between the media spin and the sentiment of the voters.

[Mort from NewYawk]

I agree with you completely. Kerry could and should fail because of his flip-flops an foreign policy, and Dean failed because of his campaign personality.

What flip-flops? On the war? He's relaxed into a pro-war, anti-"its execution" position. He ran that way in Iowa and he should run that way here.  He has to be comfortable in his skin on the issue.

If Kerry isn't flip-flopping, then he's straddling the fence on the war issue, and I don't think it will play:

I voted for the war, but I was duped about WMD, but now I support the war, but not the money needed to build the infrastructure to guarantee the peace, but I would vote for the $87 billion if it came out of a repeal of the tax cuts, or maybe just if we internationalized the war, which is the only way we'll get out of Iraq, anyway.

A very muddy position (no different than any of the Democrats except Lieberman). Maybe the Democrats will paper it over and nominate the guy, but I doubt the country will buy it except if sufficient progress isn't made over the next nine months.

[Mort from NewYawk]

If Kerry isn't flip-flopping, then he's straddling the fence on the war issue, and I don't think it will play:

I voted for the war, but I was duped about WMD, but now I support the war, but not the money needed to build the infrastructure to guarantee the peace, but I would vote for the $87 billion if it came out of a repeal of the tax cuts, or maybe just if we internationalized the war, which is the only way we'll get out of Iraq, anyway.

A very muddy position (no different than any of the Democrats except Lieberman). Maybe the Democrats will paper it over and nominate the guy, but I doubt the country will buy it except if sufficient progress isn't made over the next nine months.

The problem is that James Carville, Stanley Greenberg and Bob Shrum's group did a poll that showed that while Dem primary voters are solidly anti-war, they prefer a candidate who goes the Kerry route: vote for the war to give yourself general election cover, but bitch about how Bush has executed the war.  You have a right to your views, but they represent a minority opinion in the Dem primaries and so aren't very important to candidates.

As to whether the poll respondents are right that such a position is better for a general election campaign, I can't say. I'd guess that they are right, though.

But do you think that they can get elected with such a position?

Can the Democrats run a Kerry (or Clark), who talks up his military background but emphasizes multilateralism and diplomacy over the pre-emptive doctrine, against Bush and win the broad middle, the popular vote and the election?