Playing the Safire card is hardly credible evidence of a Dean disaster. Here's my question: will "moderate" Dems support Dean if he becomes the candidate? (Quotes because Dean's positions, down the line, have to be regarded as moderate.) It's going to suck if a faction of the Dems decide not to support Dean because they agree with Safire and Will et. al. that he's unelectable.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the republicans ***have*** control of the senate? 50-49-1. And they have the Vice President.

What would make this overwhelming is if they can shut off debate, which requires (under current rules) 60 votes. Even the most optimistic projections for the senate don't anticipate a pickup of 10 seats for the republicans.

Emma: I think Safire's a blowhard most of the time. But just because he says it doesn't make it inaccurate.

Look at that picture. Are little old ladies in Kentucky and Montana and Arkansas going to vote for that man? The answer is no.

If you don't think Dean can win, you shouldn't support him for the nomination.

And Rob, 50 percent isn't really control. I'm talking 55-44-1 type control. If Bush gets that, then you ain't seen nothin' yet. It'll make Clarence Thomas look like Thurgood Marshall.

Let's start by demolishing my credibility first: I'm for Kucinich. But Dean's my number two man. As to whether he can win votes in rural states, I think you underestimate him, for two reasons. First, he comes from a rural state, and will be far more versed with issues of rural, agrarian, and extractive-industries American than any of the other candidates. Some of his most controversial positions will appeal to exactly those folks: guns formost. Second, he's a populist, not an elitist. He's called an elitist by his opponents who see only the pedigree, but his politics and mode are pure populism, which will appeal again to that same electorate. (Particularly when compared with the Republicans.)

I have yet to hear an argument that makes me think he's not the candidate most likely to win.

I'm not so sure that even with 55-44-1 that Bush could ram through his agenda. Granted, the Dems would be forced into two years of defensive warfare, but that's highly, highly doable.

Dole did it between '92 and '94 with a core of forty-three senators (I think) that were able to gum up the works for months. Daschle isn't nearly as experienced as Dole, but I think that he's pretty darn good at exactly that sort of parliamentary manuevering. (Which would, I might add, make him a terrible president.)

Emma: He's a hothead, a complainer, and a rich Yankee. Trust me, it isn't going to play in the middle.

Deep six the populism thing, will ya? Mike Dukakis was a populist, too.

Rob: The total disarray of the Democratic Party would make 55-45 a lot more to the White House's advantage than it would have six or eight years ago. Dole and his troops were a lot more organized, and it was much less mean and nasty time.

As to Dean's electability - I think there is an over-emphasis on the middle-of-the-road swing voters. I think the key is bringing out those somewhat marginalized voters who are uninspired by anything out there.

GW did that, and the party was 100% behind him. I think that Kerry, Dean, and possibly Edwards could have what it takes to beat Bush - but not if they tear each other to shreds in the meantime.

I find myself in line with much of Dean's platform thus far, but I would endorse whoever could be Bush. I don't think Kerry can do it - the guy is just not charismatic, he's a "Washington-insider", and his internal campaign problems this early in the game are troubling.

My only fear is that the Dems will leave this dog-fight going far too long.

I agree with "nader." This needs to get settled well before the convention.

The battle to beat W is all about the “swing” states. As was readily apparent in the last election the key is to take enough electoral college votes. Assuming a dem can take their traditional strong-hold states of the West, Northeast and Midwest - the dems need some southern states or southern border states to tip the balance in their favor.

I do not believe Dean is the best poised to take these states - in fact I think he can’t. Usually, you need a southerner/southern border candidate (i.e. Truman, Johnson, Carter, Clinton - the exception of course was Kennedy). And, although Dean is pro-gun he is also pro-civil union, and an “elite” northerner (if you read some of the press out the south around the flag flap it is abundantly clear he is seen this way).

As I see it there are only two candidates - Edwards & Gephardt who fit the bill. Even then I think it will be a tough battle.

Amen, Sam.

We forget Clark is an Arkansasan who, unlike Edwards, is not a plaintiff lawyer, and unlike Gephardt, is not a peroxided Gore (This is a different "Sam" posting, with a capital "S") (Jack, nice $100/day fee for commercial solicitation posts).

Well, we'll see how the Dean thing plays out. Based on what I saw at the Engage Oregon conference over the weekend, he's going to have the broad-based support to become the Democratic Nominee.

I think it comes down to a fundamental question. Either you think 2004 will be politics as usual, or it will be politics as 1994. My sense, Jack, is that you cleave to the former view. I think there's a major rebellion cooking, and as a result, Dean's the odds-on fave. If you're right and 2004 is more of the same--an enervated public overwhelmed by apathy and Republican money--then Dean will get thumped.

(Of course, I assume my assumption's correct.)

"More Muslims have died at the hands of killers than — I say more Muslims — a lot of Muslims have died — I don't know the exact count — at Istanbul. Look at these different places around the world where there's been tremendous death and destruction because killers kill." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2004