I have to say it: I'm anybody but Kerry

[ludwigb]

If Kerry is nominated, I will support him all the way. I will convince myself he is the 2nd coming of Jesus. I will harass my friends and family about how a decent, experienced leader could be POTUS. I will go door to door with his literature and learn to summarize all of his proposals.

But until Clark, Edwards, and (yes) Dean are out of this, I'm anybody but Kerry. Yes, Kerry has his strenghs--he's tall, good voice, experienced, a Veteran, etc. But considering his charisma problems, I frankly don't see how he does better than Gore--in fact he's likely to do worse. Having Edwards or Clark as the VP won't save him--Kerry will still be the ticket's figurehead. The mainstream media hate him (check out Slate and TNR for starters--you may not like them but they do represent the CW on most issues)--they find him boring and calculating whether or not this is true (I happen to think there's something to it, though I don't dislike Kerry) they will beat this meme into the populace. His activism against Vietnam will, despite Shrub's record, be used by GOP attack dogs to rile up the opposition. His wobbling on the war will be contrasted ad nauseum to Bush's supposed leadership--with Kerry foriegn policy will take a central role whether we like it or not. Unless Clark or Lieberman is our candidate, we're likely to lose the foriegn policy debate even if we're right.

I think that Kerry might be able to win, but we have a hell of a lot better chance with Clark, and to a lesser extent Edwards and Dean. With Clark, we can make the simple, obvious, nonideological argument that Bush is just not up to the job on the War on Terror, and that Clark is. Clark can boast real desicionmaking and command experience, Kerry, dispite his Vietnam heroism, cannot. If you watch enough of Clark on CSPAN, you'll see he is the answer to the modern Dem dilemna--to get people who ought to agree with us on social policy on board without culturally alienating them. They can't attack Clark as a liberal--he doesn't look like one or sound like one, and the more people learn about his tax proposal, the better they'll like him. Clark also has the southern identification thing going for him, which will put the GOP on the defensive in the South. He sounds ordinary, while Kerry says "idear". How is Kerry going to win over ordinary Southerners and Midwesterners? By emphasizing his liberal record and pristine leadership on Iran-Contra? I think not. Clark offers a distinctive, likable, and honest seeming personality, while Kerry wears after a while (after all, Kerry was the front-runner and guess what--people tired of him and went for Dean. It could happen again).

I think Edwards and Dean are more electable than Kerry as well, but that would make an even longer case, and this rant has gone on long enough.

Am I crazy?