My Kerry-Dean-Clark Dilemma (An Article)

[liberalpragmatist]

I have a confession to make -- I have never been more confused and more uncertain about who I want to win the Democratic nomination. For much of the past year it was Kerry. Now I lean Kerry, but increasingly I see the good and bad sides of each candidate.

I see potential great things about each of these three. I also see in each an argument for great political potency in the GE and an argument for great political ineptitude in the GE. Moreover, I see great possibilies for each to be a great president, but I also see in each attributes that I don't think would make a good president.

1. In Kerry I see a candidate who on paper is by far the best. He strikes me as a candidate who would probably be the best president, with a long, liberal record and a history of supporting unpopular progressive policies. I see a president who would act sensibly, calm, and analytical, able to look at complicated issues and make sound decisions. In that sense, he seems most unlike Bush -- capable of seeing shades of gray and capable of making well-reasoned, practical, and workable policies. His IRW was a bad call, but the approach Kerry favored cannot be summed up in one vote; his approach was entirely justified and had he been president I believe he would have done it right.

But I see many negatives for Kerry too. The fact is, he has had a major problem connecting with audiences. If he appears to be an out-of-touch Washington insider to Democratic primary voters, won't he appear out-of-touch to GE voters? What's more, while I think Kerry would be a good president, I'm not sure he would rock the boat, bringing to the fore issues that arent' being discussed, such as political reform, child development accounts, etc.

2. Dean, on the other hand, strikes me as someone who would be more creative and more willing to bring up ideas that aren't being discussed. He seems more of a bold risk-taker. But that is counter-balanced by his overtly partisan nature. Most likely, the Republicans will still control Congress, most certainly the House, the Senate, possibly not. Dean does not strike me as somebody who can work with a Republican congress and get legislation passed. What's more, he'd likely be as divisive as Bush. I don't think the partisan balance could be shifted by his administration. It would just mean all out warfare for the next four years as well. Kerry and Clark would be less divisive and more capable, in my opinion, of creating a more solid center-left majority.

Dean as a general-election candidate offers other positives and negatives. His shoot-from-the-hip style, blunt candor, and his position calling for a complete repeal of the Bush tax cuts have the immense potential to hurt him. Frankly, I don't believe his position on the Iraq War will be the albatross others say it will -- his position is well-reasoned and I believe that half the country will agree with it. It's his tax position that may drive others away.

On the other hand, Dean is the only candidate, other the Wesley Clark, to some extent, to truly excite people. He enthuses young voters, and while it's probably wrong to predict a surge in turnout, I think turnout will be higher, especially among the young in this GE, and Dean could be the candidate best positioned to benefit. What's more, though the CW is that he's a sure loser, the CW about Dean has been wrong all along. He has consistently been underestimated in this election, and I think he'll prove surprisingly competitive. What's more, I fear that if Dean ISN'T the nominee, we may suffer at the polls, similar to what happened in '68, and to a lesser extent, '84, when the candidate who generated grassroots excitement lost. I fear that many Dean supporters will stay home or vote Green or Nader, and we need every vote.

Whether Dean can appeal to White Males or not is another question. White males, especially non-college educated ones are strongly pro-Bush. Dean may get a sufficiently high vote total from them on the basis of his feisty style, pugnacious attitude, and outsider-status. But he also may lose them to his support for gay civil unions and his opposition to the Iraq War.

ON EDIT: Dean strikes me as "our Bush." I mean this in both a positive and negatives sense. In personality, they're both prone to righteousness and a shoot-first-ask-questions-later kind of style. That's a plus in some ways because it leads to decisiveness and an ability to get things done. It also would enthuse our base similar to how Bush enthuses the RW. But it also brings with it the fact that I would prefer a president who reasons things through more. Dean sees more gray than Bush, but I fear that Dean may be somewhat reckless compared to Kerry or Clark.

3) Clark is the candidate who in many ways answers the problems posed by the other two, but he comes with his own set of downsides. Clark has significant grassroots support, and his opposition to the Iraq War will keep most of Dean's supporters in the Democratic column. He also keeps Dean's outsider status, and combines this with a more conventional personal charisma and undeniable defense chops. Most Americans will feel secure with Clark leading us. To some extent this is true of Kerry too, but Kerry would have a harder time connecting to White Males than Clark.

Clark's biggest negative is that he's a newcomer to the political stage. He runs the risk of screwing up in the GE over something a more seasoned candidate would not. He also has no experience actually dealing with a legislature, and it's an open question as to how well he can work with a Republican House.

If any of these three win the nomination I will be happy. Actually, that's true of all of them.

4) Gephardt and Edwards are good candidates, I just don't feel either of them offers me as much. Edwards is smart and has good policy provisions, but he seems to much of a retread of Clinton to excite any real enthusiasm. He'd be better as Veep or Attorney General. Gephardt may electorally be strongest, but he's bland as bread and comes from a very old-school Democratic camp that's very high-spending and his platform would cancel out our ability to criticize Republican spending. Lieberman, while he's given a bum rap here, is too centrist for my tastes and is running in a way that would divide the left so much that we would not win.

So, my main dilemma is between Kerry, Dean, and Clark.

[Upfront]

1. Relax

Dean won. Its over.

[robbedvoter]

2. But, but, but - i thought it was over. Gore, Rove media agreed

that we are done with the primaries, time to lose to W and go home now. Non?


Why do I even bother with reality checks?

[quinnox]

3. good post

I see it a little differently, I like Kerry, Gep, and Edwards.

But you are right about a couple things, Gep is bland and Kerry does seem to have some problems connecting with voters like a Clark can do.

[jjmalonejr]

4. Kerry's the best candidate.

Support him in the primaries.

Support whoever wins the nomination in the general election (as I'm sure you will).

And relax. Not because it's over...but because you can't control what happens. For now, support for the person who seems to think the way you do.

Sounds like Kerry to me.

[Sensitivity]

14. Then Why isn't he winning??

[isbister]

15. Re: Then Why isn't he winning??

He's tied with everyone else at zero, isn't he?

Oh, you mean why isn't he favored by the corporate (especially tv) media's pollsters?

1) We've seen them ignore the facts with bush and company, letting him slide on most issues. Could it be that the man they want to represent the Democrats in the fall is where they want? Most republicans seem very happy.

2) Were those the same pollsters that did such an excellent job in the 2000 election?

[Raya]

16. Keep Smiling, Big Corporate Media is with your Guy. We are screwed!

[rucky]

5. Good Analysis - Same goes for me

same candidates. same reasons - PLUS Kucinich.

My reasoning is that if I'd be happy with either one of the frontrunners, I may as well vote for DK to show the party that the progressives are still here. Plus, he's the one I agree with the most - by a mile.

[farmbo]

6. Great Post. Good points.... When all else fails...go with the money.

And that means Dean.

Clark is a sitting duck from April to August due to his use of matching funds. Rove will have him in the fish barrel for five months without the legal ability for Clark to fight back. Only Kerry and Dean have bitten the bullet and declined federal funds.

Kerry hasn't been successful in raising funds from Democratic voters, although his personal fortune may buy him some extra months of competitiveness.But he DESPERATELY needs a primary victory in NH, which looks like a long shot bid at this point.

Dean has his warts, but he has inspired record numbers of supporters to get out the ol' checkbook. He raised more money in a single quarter than any democrat, including Bill Clinton who was a sitting president at the time.

That was my journey to Dean.

[HFishbine]

7. In the primaries

vote for who you think would be the best president. Any of the three in your top tier could beat Bush, so imagine a country lead by each and vote for the one that you find most personally inspiring.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Nicely stated, here's my take:

They are my top three also. Edwards and Kucinich have appeal too but were never really in the running for me. I am playing to win from start to finish this time. I wanted to back a candidate, who I could feel good about, who both had a real chance of winning the Democratic nomination and of beating Bush in November. Very early I toyed some with Kerry while still backing Dean. While I thought Kerry might have a broader appeal in the Fall than Dean, the passion both behind and in Dean put me in his camp. This summer I switched to Clark and have stayed firmly behind Clark ever since.

Events have moved on and I sincerely believe that only Dean and Clark now have an actual chance of winning the nomination. I concede that Kerry has a real (though outside chance) of boxing Clark out of the final two, by pulling enough support that might otherwise go to Clark from those who want "gravitas" in their candidate (I use that word as shorthand for a certain kind of experience) and combining those votes with enough loyalists who respect Kerry's lifetime of service in elected office. However I think that would only be a set up for Kerry ending up the official "also ran" in the race. Kerry's campaign did not manage to build effectively on his natural advantages. He did not catch fire, and he can not at this point start one big enough to propel him beyond Dean, especially now that Dean has some party regulars behind him also after Gore's endorsement.

The "Washington Insider" candidates, no matter what flavor of liberal/conservative they come in, have been discredited as a fighting force in this election cycle. Perception becomes reality. With Dean having built such momentum, having grass roots organizations in all of the states at play, and with a huge war chest to spend on more mass media buys, very few party regulars will step in front of his speeding train to back a Senator at this late date who couldn't even stay competitive in his neighboring state, and who had to mortgage his own house to keep his campaign afloat.

We can debate whether such perceptions, or treatment, is deserving of John Kerry, or of Dick Gephardt or even Joe Lieberman for that matter, but it is academic I believe. I think the most either of those men can muster right now is too little too late. They have had well over a year of campaigning, and they were routed by Dean's forces. Look at Kerry's and Gephardt's polling numbers after NH, or after Iowa in Gephardt's case, then look at their finances. If one of those men emerges as the perceived Dean Alternative, that will hand Dean the nomination. Pragmatism (bandwagon effect) and idealism (Deans grass roots movement) will both be on Dean's side. No contest.

That leaves Dean and Clark with a chance of actually winning the Democratic nomination. If I believed as Gore stated he does, that Dean was our best and strongest candidate, and that Democrats should close ranks early around him, I certainly would, even though Dean is not my first choice. Right now I would back Dean over Kerry because if Kerry can't win, the sooner the internal blood shedding ceases the better. Kerry has really antagonized many of Dean's supporters with his frontal attacks. If they ultimately are for nothing, better they cease sooner rather than later. I suppose Kerry's attacks on Dean might indirectly help Clark by exposing some of Dean's vulnerabilities, but they won't win Kerry the nomination. If Kerry emerges as the alternative to Dean, I will shift my support to Dean for my own pragmatic reasons, getting on with party unity heading into November.

So why Clark over Dean? First, I think Dean will lose in November, by a significant margin. No I am not convinced Dean will lose. I see the same strengths in him that you outlined above, it is possible for Dean to win, and I would fight for him, but I think we would fall short. I know this is all up for debate, but that is how I see it. Rather than rehash the arguments, I will leave it at that, with it being my considered opinion. At this point I think Dean likely is our second best chance of winning in November precisely because of the strengths he brings to the table, and also because Dean is the only candidate certain to have Dean's grassroots supporters fully on board for the Fall election, and bless their collective hearts, they are a potent force.

Clark however has some important similarities to Dean, as you noted above. He has grassroots support, he has outsider status, he is strongly identified against the Iraq invasion as it played out. He has excitement behind his campaign, he does get press. He is not a failed candidate who has struggled for 18 months to build a campaign only to be polling in the single digits. Clark is able to raise money and he does have money to spend. Clark has for the most part stayed above the intra mural brawls, to the extent any first tier candidate can while running an aggressive campaign. Every candidate's support ultimately fractures, it can never be delivered whole to anyone. But I believe a higher percentage of Dean's supporter will be able to rally around Clark than around any of the other somewhat viable candidates. I think the opposite is true also, Dean would get more active support from Clark supporters than from the ranks of those backing other candidates. Despite significant differences, each camp can recognize and relate to the elements of insurgency present in both campaigns.

What Clark brings to the table is the capacity to unite the Democratic party behind him, because Clark has not used his campaign to attack elements of the Democratic party. Clark brings a more natural appeal for Southern voters. Even if Clark were not to ultimately prevail in the South, Bush would have to expend real resources there opposing Clark, that Bush could otherwise shift into battlefield states like Ohio if Dean were the nominee. Clark has experiential strengths in foreign affairs and national security that can reassure voters who would like to vote their pocketbook and go Democratic, that it is indeed safe to do so in these troubled times, since they can picture Clark as Commander in Chief. Clark is very solidly Democratic, even Progressive, with his stands on domestic and social issues. Clark can pick a Gore type VP with strong ties to Capital Hill and deep expertise on legislative matters, to make that further clear.

Regarding Clark's campaign, after some serious growing pains in the first 6 weeks, it increasingly has become brilliant, which is an amazing growth curve to pull off, and highlights Clark's natural skills in this area. Give him another 3 months on the stump and you can expect to see further exponential growth in this key political arena. Lately in Town Hall meetings Clark has spoken fluidly about a range of domestic concerns in response to questions from those in attendance. Yes there is an element of risk in nominating an outsider with limited experience in the political realm. To a much lesser extent, that is actually part of Dean's appeal, his lack of national political ties and inside the beltway experience. Somewhat balancing that risk is the element of excitement and interest it would inject into the Fall race. Clark will draw lots of free media converge to himself, which will help offset Republican money. Clark, as we all know, is a very bright man, he doesn't come across as angry until he wants too, and then look out. With most of the best talent that the Democratic party can assemble (which would become available to Clark if he becomes the nominee), I think he will wage a strong campaign. Anyway, that's why I'm backing Clark.

[liberalpragmatist]

10. Good reasoning

As I said in my post I still lean towards Kerry, but, yes, I am realistic about his chances. Your analysis is excellent too, and you're very right that at some pt we have to be pragmatic about what perceptions are, not just what the reality is, b/c that is going to affect the candidate and how well they compete.

In any event, the truth is my support is relatively inconsequential. I'm not yet 18 (will be for the GE) and I don't livein an early primary state, so I won't be voting until November. Nor can I volunteer b/c I have school to attend to.

Thus, my support is just a matter of personal preference.

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. I hope you have some friends like you

I am very impressed and appreciative of both your keen interest and insights into politics. I know you will stay involved, and that you will inspire others to become involved. Whoever gets it should be proud to have earned your first vote in a Presidential Election come November. Thank you for making a very positive contribution to the ongoing debate.

[liberalpragmatist]

12. Thank you

Right back at ya :kick:

[Killarney]

9. Great post

I feel the same way and I am undecided between the same three candidates. Your post put into words (well-written and concisely!) exactly how I am feeling.

[Myra]

13. Great post, thanks.

And I can't help but notice that your Clark "negative" is
the fact that he's new to the political stage.
Not a flaw with the man himself. Good.

But do you ever have thoughts that standard politicians,
beholden to corporations, and are the very ones who got us into
such dire circumstances? What the heck has a standard pol
done for us lately?

[Byronic]

17. Vote with your heart

Don't worry about polls and expectations. Vote with your heart. You'll feel better if you do.

I kinda hope your heart still says Kerry inspite of everything:-)

[catherineD]

18. Clark's had diplomatic experience with 19 nations, most of whom

have awarded him medals because they were that impressed with his skills at leading. Clark doesn't seem to be burning as many bridges as Dean does and I think would be much better at listening to the concerns of congressmen of both parties and finding ways to work with everyone toward new goals. Dean's experience has been with a legislature that is more liberal than he is. And they were less than happy. While Dean's rhetoric has often been so liberal, and he would still be perceived that way, I think, I have the feeling he might become much more conservative in a less liberal environment and end up to the right of Clinton, or perhaps about where W's father was. But maybe that's too pessimistic. Dean's many gaffes incline me to think that he would be far more likely to "blow" the general election (quite apart from the hole in his resume where national defense is concerned) than Clark, whose gaffes came mostly only in the first week or two of his campaign.

[FrenchieCat]

19. Just make sure to

take into consideration those Five southern Senate seats when making your decision...and ask yourself, who has the most natural Coattails?

That's who you should support.

Because at the end, our weakness in the congress may become a laughable joke!