To: LindyBill who wrote (25223 ) 1/20/2004 12:35:23 AM From: LindyBill Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793859 Andrew Sullivan THE DEMS GET REAL: If Howard Dean cannot win the anti-war vote, he's a goner. It's clear, however, that he has performed a great service for the Democrats. He was the vehicle for their rage; and he helped vent and dissipate it. That's not to say Bush-hatred has died. The latest WaPo poll shows a higher number of strongly anti-Bush voters - 30 percent - than ever. But the Dems have obviously decided that it's better to get even rather than mad. Dean's implosion also strikes me as bad news for Wesley Clark. He was supposed to be the anti-Dean, but adopted Deanish rhetoric. Both positions are now somewhat redundant. The Iowa voters - not exactly centrists - picked Kerry and Edwards to be the anti-Dean candidate, and the shrillness of the Dean-Clark message (the shrillness that so appealed to Paul Krugman) was just as soundly rejected. Good news for the Dems - and the country. HOW VIABLE IS KERRY? I'm still unpersuaded by John Kerry, although it seems his campaigning has improved markedly. For me, the big winner is Edwards. He's always struck me as a Tony Blair figure - telegenic, personally appealing, centrist. His speech was the best of the bunch last night - and he exudes decency. That's enormously important against Bush because the president's most under-rated political virtue is his general likeability. If Edwards can pick off even a couple of Southern states, he has a critical advantage over his rivals. National security is obviously a huge problem. Maybe he can find a way to innoculate himself on the issue. How does a Kerry-Edwards or Edwards-Kerry ticket sound? In a word: Credible. The Dems don't want to commit suicide after all. For the record, I'd back Edwards against any of the others currently running.