Reply #53: Rating the field

[kang]

I'd have to say that Edwards has a little more potential to take on Pres. Bush in 2004 than the others running right now. He's young and his speaking skills can only be surpassed by Clinton. However, he's got a very short term of service in elected positions and no matter how well he fights the "trial lawyer" attack by the Bush campaign (he's won some major cases for the little guy) it will have some traction (especially with doctors who are nearly going out of business because of malpractice insurance rates).

His problem is essentially the same as Dean's: Your average American will not trust an inexperienced person to assume the role of commander-in-chief. After Pres. Clinton (Bosnia, Somalia, & Rwanda) and Bush (the mess right now), I've got to say I've got some reservations about governors with no foreign policy experience too.

I like Dean and I think he's really sharp, but he's a small state governor and his position against the war in Iraq (no matter how much he's admired by the Left) would hurt him in the general election. In the end, Hussein was an incredibly oppressive ruler and people just won't care to understand the nuances of his position. I'm not saying he or Edwards can't defeat Bush, but it will take an awful lot of work to make sure people have confidence in their ability to take over the ill-named "War on Terror." Bush and Rove will ride 9/11 and war-time flag waving sentiment as hard as they can, we better have an answer.

As for those who think Kerry is clearly the best choice, I think he lacks the ability to excite anybody other than die hard Democrats. I moved to Boston a year ago and you wouldn't know that he's a senator here. I mean, the convention's going to be here and he's one of the front-runners but I just don't get any sense that people are excited about his candidacy. Besides, the media's already locked in on the idea that Kerry's too careful and sits on the fence with issues. At some point, he's going to go to the well one too many times and talking about his Vietnam experience won't get him where he needs to go. We need a candidate with a vision for this country. I hope he steps up his game.

I've said to anybody who'd listen (or pretend to), I still hold out hope for Bob Kerrey to enter the race. Anybody who seriously looks at what kind of candidate will be needed to defeat Bush in 2004 will understand why I think he's the ideal candidate. Outsider with Insider experience (Governor and senator of NE). Moderate, but not on key issues. For the war in Iraq (in the name of freedom, not hyped intel of a imminent threat), but critical of its handling and the handling of the "war on terror." And finally, a Medal of Honor recipient that can stand next to Bush and say what needs to be said without being accused of being unpatriotic.

Anybody who brings up the "war crimes" issue needs to explain to me how this story would matter to anybody but Greens and liberals who wouldn't vote for anybody but Kucinich and maybe Dean (if he doesn't go center too much). Besides, any time this issue was raised would give Kerrey an opportunity to argue why the US should join and support the ICC (Int'l Crim. Ct.). Although not retroactive, this wouldn't exactly sound like somebody who has anything to hide...except for scars that is.

Probably won't run, but I think Dems need to continue to think outside the box and if you don't think the current choices will get the job done, try recruiting one that you do like.

Hope nobody's offended by my critique of their guy, it wasn't personal.