My Kerry-Dean-Clark Dilemma (An Article) [View All]

[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.