Centerfield

Not until I've danced with Edwards....

An affair with Clark? Maybe, but....

There is this matter of the General sleeping with the Clintons. And, there is some evidence that I'd want to check out suggesting he may not be "easy to live with." And, I prefer my partner to have a sense of humor and not be totally consumed by telling me how great he/she is.

True, Clark does have some characteristics that are attractive regarding an "affair" --- good looking, successful, smart, engaging. But, to make sure this is going to be more than a "one night stand" with regrets in the morning, I'll not be making that choice just yet. To continue the affair analogy, the spouse isn't going out of town for another several months, so some would decide not to get in touch with Clark or someone else when we can actually do something about acting out our fantasy.

Edit: .... "so why get in touch with Clark or someone else until we can actually do something about acting out our fantasy?"....

You took that metaphor and ran with it, Pallindrome!

It does seem like the race has shifted in a hugely dramatic way. A few weeks ago, we were blogging about who would emerge as the "Anti-Dean", and whether anyone would even manage to do that.

Now you have to think about who might emerge as the "Anti-Kerry", with Clark and Edwards being the likely possibilities.

It is, again, a question of whether someone can pull it off. Kerry's win in New Hampshire will be big -- by a wide margin -- and while it seems none of us here are interested in him, he will actually draw some of the moderate/pragmatic vote we tend to represent.

Also, all of this will happen very fast -- after New Hampshire, the primaries are all stacked on top of each other. That makes "big mo" an awesome thing to have.

It's very interesting to me that we -- the folks who post here, as well as a lot of more moderate independents and Democrats -- are quite split between Edwards and Clark. The number of folks hopping on the Edwards bandwagon has grown dramatically. The number of people backing Clark has always been big and has included some of the "top-shelf" boggers -- Josh Marshall, CalPundit, the Poorman, etc.

Speaking of Josh Marshall, here's what he had to say about the big Edwards event he attended last night.

I would have a hard time voting for Dean if he were the Democratic nominee, but my inclination would be to vote for Kerry over Bush.

Ironically, Dean's campaign has made Kerry seem more moderate to me by contrast. Kerry's position supporting the war resolution to get the inspectors into Iraq, but urging restraint until the inspectors finished their work seems entirely reasonable. Kerry is probably less internationally assertive than I would like, but Bush is more assertive than I like. And overall, I expect I like Kerry's domestic positions more, though I would like to know more.

Clark is a hothead too who'll have his Scream moment, I'm sure of it.

We need a stable leader with Vision.

I'm no longer a Dean supporter, and am now tossed up between Kerry but leaning more Edwards. I think I'll keep by pants zipped for a few more rounds.

"A stable leader with vision."

I've been more or less in this mindset since Bush took office in 2000, and especially since 9/11.

I've never been convinced that Bush has much talent as a leader. He doesn't communicate well with the people -- mostly not at all. He's just not natural in front of a crowd or a camera.

So far as decision-making goes, I sense that most things in the White House are politically driven. The two biggies for Bush -- the Iraq war and tax cuts -- are not implemented effectively.

Bush just doesn't have fundamental presidential qualities, in my opinion.

I've suspected the American people sensed as much in the lead-up to the 2000 election. There was a pretty dramatic surge for Gore in the final days -- a surge that made him the winner of the popular vote. I think what we had was a poorly run Gore campaign, but people saying, when it came down to it, that they worried about Bush's basic qualifications and were more sure about Gore's.

So, as I see it, Bush was neither judged favorably before taking office nor has he performed well in office.

I think he's weak. The State of the Union speech reinforces that feeling -- it had such a weirdly divisive feel to it.

That being the case, if you put someone next to Bush who is solid, stable, and comforting as a leader, he's likely to lose in 2004.

I think that Edwards, as a younger man, probably has more stamina than Clark. Ok, I'll leave the metahpor alone.
Honestly, I have gone between Edwards, Kerry and Clark for the better part of nine months or more. But Clark dropped down a notch or two in my book when he signalled his support for the anti-flag burning amendment. That is the stuff I expect from the current bozo in chief, not Clark. My family has, for over 200 years, put their lives on the line for my/our freedoms, including the 1st Amendment and it offends me when someone wants to take those rights away.
More recently, Clark's belittling of Kerry's war record has left a very poor taste in my mouth. For those reasons, and others, I've gone over to Edwards, but would have no problem with Kerry either (given that MA is my homestate).

I've thought for a while that Bush would be all-but invincible in 2004, but I'm not nearly as sure of that anymore with Kerry's apparent ascendancy. I'd still give the edge to Bush but I certainly wouldn't bet the farm and silo on it. The country seems wickedly polarized these days, and so ergo the 2004 race will be decided by two factors: (1) turnout of the party faithful, and (2) the decisions of the centrists like the posters to this forum. I think factor (1) will probably be a wash b/c Bush has the religious conservatives who'll undoubtedly show up at the polls, while the Dems have a party constituency that has such vehement antipathy for the current POTUS that they'd vote for a Ren and Stimpy ticket above the (D) on the ballot. (Moreover, a lot of Repubs *are* ticked off at POTUS, esp. the fiscal conservatives who are shocked at the President's budget requests and fiscal policy, particularly the disastrous duo of the tax cuts and the Iraq quagmire.) So the deciding factor will be the centrists, and IMHO Kerry has a solid chance of grabbing those in the stead of his incumbent rival.

That's in part b/c Bush's foreign policy is essentially run by the neoconservatives, who are perhaps the most radical bunch of advisors since, well, Lincoln's own "Radical Republicans." The assault against Afghanistan and al-Qaeda was extremely popular b/c that's clear self-defense, but the invasion of Iraq far less so (and many of the neocons-- Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, as well as Cheney had endeavored to attack Iraq *before* taking the fight to al-Qaeda, according to Bob Woodward's recent book). And many of the neocons-- especially Richard Perle-- want to wage war against Syria and Iran as well, which would be a FUBAR-worthy debacle considering those countries' modern militaries and the loathing that a unilateral US attack would invite. (We're already being bloodied in Iraq, which had been crippled by the sanctions and international opprobrium.) IMHO this foreign policy-- which resembles early 20th century Japan in many respects-- makes most centrists awfully queasy, and they'll want to turn Bush out if he continues to allow the neocon philosophy to dominate his moves. Even Iraq itself could blow up in his face far more than it already has-- a massive mortar or suicide attack on a base, another Chinook downing, a rocket attack on the Green Zone could easily push the precariously-perched public opinion into thumbs-down territory. And if Iraq goes Yugoslavia on us, fuhgettaboutit; Bush'd be singing the Nixon blues and John McCain would appear on the GOP ticket in '04.

Bush's economic advisors don't seem to be very centrist either. The deficits he's racking up have even drawn a rebuke from the IMF, and no centrist wants to see his/her child screwed 20 years down the road by an Argentina-like fiasco engendered by the deficits we're incurring now. I think people would excuse the deficit if it ensued from Homeland Security and changes made post-9/11. But most of the deficit is a consequence of those gargantuan tax cuts and the war in Iraq, which are on the bubble as far as public opinion goes.

Centrists and independents just want someone who can do the job well, and the two factors above might scare a lot of them away from Bush and toward a Democrat with moderate appeal. Right now, Kerry best fits that mold, and he might indeed siphon those independents away from Bush if he plays his cards right.

The Spanish Armada revealed: Oft-retold myths, allegations, and things left unsaid about history’s most confused and misunderstood battle

I think the outcome of a Kerry candidacy is unpredictable.

On the one hand, he fits some of those basic qualifications -- an experienced, stable leader.

On the other, he is a largely liberal politician from a state and region that produced a lot of unappealing liberal politicians.

He's better than Michael Dukakis or Walter Mondale. He's more articulate and more forceful in the way he speaks. He also stays on message and has a pretty deliberate, calculated way of campaigning.

Most likely, the Republicans will attack some elements of his past -- his throwing away his medals, or one or two other things. They will try to paint him as radical, or outside the mainstream.

I think what we would likely have is a real battle. Both sides would score points. And in the end the American people have to decide if an experienced and stable liberal Massachussets Democrat is what they want.

Incidentally, I heard a piece on NPR this morning about a conference being held by religious conservatives. They interviewed attendees about their feelings about Bush and the Democratic opponents. It was clear they are following the election fairly closely ... and when asked who they feared the most in the Democratic field, a few mentioned Kerry and a few mentioned Clark, but the majority said John Edwards. They said, basically, that they fear someone who sounds like a "regular guy", and some even said he seemed to be a nice guy with decent values.

I think they're right.