I didn’t even notice this last week, but the New Republic has done something interesting. It has officially endorsed Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primaries. But it has also provided space for some of its writers to endorse other Democrats. Here’s the case for Dean, for Clark, for Edwards, and for Gephart. Finally, here’s the case against Lieberman. And there’s also the New Republic’s ongoing anti-Dean blog, Diary of a Dean-o-Phobe.
I haven’t looked at all of these yet, but they should make for some interesting (and lengthy) reading.
The main argument for Clark, like you said in a previous post, is that he has a better chance against Bush. But does he really? I’ve seen quite a few national polls with theoretical matchups of Democratic candidates vs. Bush, and Dean comes the closest to beating him, several points ahead of Clark. So it’s a flawed assumption that Clark would do better in the general election.
Not to mention the fact that Clark has voted Republican his whole life. If he really “saw the light” sometime in the last two years, that’s a credit to him… but I’m reluctant to make the standard-bearer of the Democratic party someone who has yet to show his loyalty to the party or his committment to its values. I mean, anyone can _say_ he’s going to do something and then not do it (see Bush’s 2000 campaign!). I want some sort of record to give me confidence that he’ll follow through.
Another point on electability: if Howard Dean does win the nomination, he is almost certain to pick a running mate with foreign policy experience and/or is from the south.
The Democratic candidate will definitely get ripped apart by the Republicans, no matter who it is. We need to nominate someone who can withstand those attacks, and I think Dean’s recent performance proves he can do that. Check out http://www.octalouie.com/dean/dean-sacramento-2003.mp3 , it was first speech of his I heard and I was instantly hooked.