|
I think Dean has generated a lot of support because of his willingness to voice unpopular ideas, which endears him to a lot of left-wing-liberals who are tired of seeing the democrats bend over and kiss the ass of the Bush administration for fear of alienating "patriots." That said, it's still very early in the game and I think most of Dean's support is less "pro-Dean" than "anti-Bush", and will evaporate if/when any of the other candidates start to look like they have a decent chance of beating Bush. I think Dean's main contribution to the cause at this point is shifting the tenor of the discussion and energizing the core support base.
However much I agree with Dean on a lot of issues, I am not terribly confident he can beat Bush, and (like most of his other supporters) I'll cut and run to whomever looks like they can get that smirking chimp out of office.
I think a lot of people have lost the illusion that Bush is anywhere near the center of the political spectrum, so a centrist who can articulate a clear vision and who engenders confidence in his ability to handle foreign policy will stand a decent chance. However, I don't think we need to have a southerner as the main course on the menu, so to speak. I think Edwards would make a good VP candidate - he's charismatic, well-spoken, populist, telegenic, and in a good position to be groomed for a presidential run in 4-8 years. I have no idea who would be an effective presidential candidate at this point, but it needs to be someone who appears to be strong, who will call Bush fearlessly on his bullshit without alienating more conservative swing voters.
I think it's far too early to give polls any credence, as most people are going by name recognition alone rather than any knowledge of the candidates' positions.
(edited for some grammar)
__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
|