The way I see it.

An e-mail correspondent noted that I seem to be pretty down on Howard Dean, and wondered how I feel about, for instance, Wes Clark. Well, yes, I am pretty down on Howard Dean, and I have mixed emotions about Wes Clark. In fact, I have mixed emotions about the entire Democratic field. I have a preferred candidate, but I don't see a perfect one.

Despite my enthusiasm for the Stop Dean forces, I'm still a charter member of the Anybody But Bush club, and if it came to it, I'd vote for the Doctor over the Resident. I'd prefer it doesn't come to that, but there it is. But in analyzing the candidates for the nomination on two scales - electability and acceptablity - I find Dean at the bottom of the pool of actual contenders on both. Here's how I see the field as it stands:

John Kerry - Kerry's my pick, based on the fact that I think he's the candidate most likely to send Bush packing after the general election, and the fact that I think he's likely to be the best of the bunch in the actual role of President.

Kerry's suffered a bit from early labelling as the presumptive nominee - although I've never seen any evidence that he made that presumption. Once he was built up, though, he was also the most prominent target to be knocked down, and because of his percieved strength in New Hampshire, he became the main target of the most negative campaigner, in the field, Howard Dean. It had an effect, but there was a reason he was given that early credibility. Kerry is a proven campaigner, with a record of winning tough elections against popular Republicans. He's a proven money raiser, and is the only candidate other than Dean to cross the $20 million threshold in this race. He adds to that an outstanding record as a US Senator - a leader on the enviroment, on education and on international policy. He's also the only candidate in the field that combines legislative, executive and military experience.

On the basis of his political history, I give him an 8 on a ten point electability scale. On the basis of his impressive - and impressively consistent - record as a Senator, I give him a 9 on the acceptablity scale. Not my perfect candidate, perhaps, but a highly electable candidate who's likely to make a very good President.

Total - 17

Dick Gephardt - Gephardt's my second choice. Except for his tilt toward a bit more protectionism than I think is economically sound (as a port city resident, I'm acutely aware of the economic importance of trade), and his insistance on giving up the Democratic tax relief that was inserted into the Bush tax package to finance his health care plan, his record is generally strong on issues important to progressive Democrats. Those two exceptions, though, have an adverse impact on both of my scales. Electability - 7. Acceptability - 8.

Total - 15

John Edwards - Although his tenure in the Senate too short for Edwards to have established the kind of consistency that would raise his acceptablity score for me, he's an appealing candidate in many ways. He's telegenic, well spoken and has a compelling personal story. How he would actually govern is a bit of a grey area for me, though, resulting in a 7 on the acceptability scale. His appeal as a candidate earns him a 7 on electability, making him a solid third among the candidates for the nomination. He belongs on any nominee's short list of Vice Presidential prospects, though, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him in the White House someday.

Total - 14

Wes Clark - Although Clark's military background would make him formidable in a general election focused on security concerns, most of his views are still being fleshed out, and some are fairly disturbing, support for a flag-burning amendment to the Constitution and for the Pentagon's School for the Americas being cases in point. In Edwards case, I don't really know enough, but what I know is encouraging. I don't know enough about Clark, either, but the more I learn, the less I like. Electability - 6. Acceptability - 5.

Total - 11

Joe Lieberman - Poor Joe. He gets bashed all over for his perceived conservatism, but he's actually racked up a pretty good voting record with a variety of progressive inerests. He chooses, though, to emphasize his personal social conservatism in a way that disguises his many progressive credentials. That emphasis gives me the best indication of how he would govern as President, and holds him down to a 5 on the acceptability scale. Although he was on the national ticket just three years ago, he's failed to offer a good reason for choosing him to top it next year. Neither his personality nor his message are compelling, and I can't score him higher than 5 on the electability scale.

Total - 10

Howard Dean - I've asked in several forums for Dean supporters to suggest three areas in which Howard Dean has taken a consistent position based on principle over the course of his political career. I've conceded reproductive choice as the first, and I'm willing to offer up balanced budgets as a second. The first is an important Democratic issue, the second more in line with the Rockefeller Republicanism that I think best describes Dean's political stance. No one has offered a third, and those two just aren't enough. His near-mania for balanced budgets, in fact, is one of my greatest concerns about his likely performance as President. His record establishes his willingness to make the most draconian cuts to vital services. Combined with his pandering to the NRA and his general hostility to due process, that holds his acceptability score down to a 3.

He really can't do much better on the electability front. Although his willingness to enlist his feisty temperment in an often effective assault on Bush (and, unfortunately, almost as effective an assault on his own Party) is very appealing to a substantial majority of the Democratic primary electorate, his inability to keep an appropriate check on that feistiness when challenged and his record of remarkable inconsistencies on nearly every issue limit him to a 3 on that score as well. As a nominee, he's a likely general election loser. If he beats the odds, my best hope is that he'd simply be an ineffective President, but my expectation is that he'd be the worst Democratic President of my lifetime.

Total - 6

Carol Mosley Braun, Al Sharpton and (I hate to say it) Dennis Kucinich are simply irrelevant. None of them will ever be the Democratic nominee, let alone the President of the United States.

There it is, then. Of course, since the electability scale is in reference to a
run against Bush, he can't get any points there, and he's a definite 0 on my acceptability scale, so I'll be voting for the Democratic nominee, even the guy I rank in the single digits. I have a stubborn faith that I won't have go there, though. While there's a scenario for any of six to get the nomination, I still think the strongest chance ultimately resides in the strongest candidate, and I still expect to be voting for John Kerry in November, 2004.