ANY Dem Candidate Would Be Behind Right Now.

[liberalpragmatist]

People who think that we're behind only because Kerry *sucks* as a candidate are deluding themselves. Don't forget who we're up against: these guys are the most disciplined, nastiest campaigners out there. Personally, I truly think the primary voters made the right decision - I think Kerry was the strongest candidate we had. But even if you think that someone else was stronger, they would all have been attacked. We are in a polarized electorate and while any Democratic candidate would've had at least 45% of the vote already locked up, there would certainly have been issues with swing voters regardless.

Edwards - Despite the fact that Edwards' trial lawyer pedigree is unimpeachable, so was Kerry's war record - they still went after it. Do you really think there wouldn't have been a shadowy 527 about how Edwards was an ambulance chaser who was going to wreck your health care by promoting endless lawsuits against the industry? Moreover, Edwards would've been attacked as a smooth-talking empty suit who didn't have the experience or judgement to be President in the war on terror. And Edwards would've probably found it more difficult than Kerry to attack Bush on the war, given that Edwards was more hawkish than Kerry. If Edwards ever decided to campaign heavily against the war, he'd have been even more attacked as a flip-flopper than Kerry was. Most likely Edwards would tried to have campaigned mostly on domestic issues, but the risk is that would've resulted in a 2002-like outcome.

Dean - Dean would've galvanized the left and many youth and independent voters and would've spoken many truths about the war. He would probably have gone after Bush far more strongly than Kerry has on the war until recently. But it wouldn't have been hard at all for Bushco to turn Dean's undeserved reputation as a hothead against him and Dean would've made some jestful off-the-cuff remarks that Rove and co. would've hammer Dean with. They would've attacked Dean as an out-of-touch, unstable Communist from the land of Ben-and-Jerry's and hippie-communes.

Gephardt - A disaster. Kerry a flip-flopper? Imagine what they would've done to Gephardt. 'Nuff said.

Lieberman - Need I say anything more?

Clark - Clark actually might have been a very strong candidate - on paper he certainly was. But Clark may have had difficulty on domestic issues. He may have balanced that out with a running mate strong on domestic issues and Clark's a smart man, so he may have been fine. But Clark's chief problem would've been his political inexperience. Yes, Clark was a fast-learner and right before Iowa, his campaign skills were really doing well. But Bushco. is ruthless and would've probably have done quite well at exploiting some small Clark gaffes and perhaps painting him too as a flaming-left-winger. Think SBVT? How about the many officers and generals who HATED Clark?

Out of noncandidates...

Hillary - WAY too polarizing.

Al Gore - I can see where Gore would've made a strong candidate and he would've been very forceful, but I think it's just as likely that the new, more passionate, in media-parlance, *angry* Al Gore would've been ripped to pieces by the Bush machine which would've painted Gore as a disgruntled-office-seeker gone wild. They would've attacked him as a bitter, vengeful loser who had become unhinged. It would've been incredibly nasty and would probably have turned off independent voters.

Frankly, the only Democrat I can think of that would have ripped Bush to shreds is the only one whose ineligible to run - Bill Clinton. My point is not that the others were bad candidates. Like I said, I think Kerry was the right choice. You may differ. I think ANY of them could've won given the right campaign and the right conditions (including Give 'em Hell Howard, Dean fans). But we're deluding ourselves if we try to think that any of them would've been immune to the kind of attacks that Kerry's been facing. Kerry's doing as good a job as he can and regardless of what may have happened, he IS the nominee - show him some respect, and cut him some slack. There's no evidence anybody else would've done any better, even though none of them may have done any worse. Kerry's had some problems, he's made mistakes, but it's not over yet. He'll make a great President and this thing is FAR from over. Give him a chance. On Nov. 3, I'm willing to bet the talking heads will be gabbing about "How Kerry Did It".

[wolfgirl]

1. Disagree -

Lieberman would not get my vote. I think he's a dunce!

[agincourt]

2. Bush, Rove, Cheney , Hughes.

tell big whopper lies. The public believes them. We need to come up with a vaccine for RW liars disease.

[mbali]

3. Great post . . .

Thanks for showing how the "if only X were the candidate . . ." scenarios work only in a vacuum.

[BillZBubb]

4. Well, it's certainly debatable. We'll never know, will we?

But Kerry SHOULD NOT BE behind now! That's the problem.

Last Spring, had Kerry not let Bush*/Rove brand him permanently as an indecisive, flip-flopper, Kerry would have a lead right now. Kerry and his advisors blew it and now the flip-flop tag is stuck to Kerry like glue--it is now part of the accepted conventional wisdom.

The muddled Democratic convention message and the failure to immediately smack down the Swiftliars only cemented the issue.

I agree that the race is not yet over, but the "fat lady" is starting to hum.

[liberalpragmatist]

5. Well, I'm Agree Kerry's Made Mistakes

I'm not saying he's run a perfect campaign at all. He's been too cautious in attacking Bush. He's not been forthright enough in stressing his own plans on domestic issues. The convention was good, but in hindsight, we needed to have been less Vietnam-centrist - that should've been a subtext, not the primary focus and Kerry shouldve stressed his own plans and attacked Bush more forcefully on the war.

But all campaigns make mistakes. Kerry's not lost yet. My point is that saying "so-and-so" would've been better is pointless. We never know and it's extremely possible that they all would've had similar problems right now. True, I should probably have titled my post "ANY Dem candidate would have had problems" - you're right, we don't know for sure if they'd all be behind right now. But they'd all have had problems, and it's silly to go on about how "so-and-so" would've been better.

[LisaL]

7. Well, I am not exactly sure how

you can prevent Rove and Co from branding someone? After all, they got Bush selected in the primaries against much more deserving Republicands. They do it by attacking and lying about their opponent. It worked for them in the past, and looks like it's working now. Ceirtanly, they are not winning because their candidate has a leg to stand on. Those people are magicians-if you look at Bush you just left wondering how the hell someone like that can be president? And how the hell can they fool half a population into voting for him again? Bush should be running at 10 % even if he was running against Easter Bunny.

[noahmijo]

6. Concerning Dean

They would've attacked Dean as an out-of-touch, unstable Communist from the land of Ben-and-Jerry's and hippie-communes.

EXACTLY. During times like these we need someone like Kerry who can actually do battle with real ammo against these bastards. They would've painted Dean as a wimp who would open the doors for all Arab terrorists to come and kill us all and use the fear factor to the nth level.

With Kerry I know they are TRYING to do that, but they are failing since his record is becoming well known (Iran-Contra, BCCI)

So this is why from day one I backed Kerry. When this mess is cleaned up in 8 years, I look forward to supporting a Dean/Obama ticket :)

[wurzel]

8. How do we know Kerry is behind? CNN polls???