In search of a face, and tilt, that can take on Bush

[dudeness]

The squabbling Democrats are battling to gauge the mood of American voters, says Jonathan Freedland.

There is one man who can beat George Bush. Send out a search party: his name is Generic Democrat. Latest polls show that when Americans choose between the current president and a hypothetical figure known only as "the Democratic candidate", the two end up in a statistical tie. Some surveys have even shown our friend Generic Democrat with a slight edge.

The trouble is, Generic cannot be on the ballot paper in November. The Democrats need to have chosen an actual person to take on the President by then, and that task just got a lot more complicated.

For while Bush was putting the finishing touches to the State of the Union address he gave yesterday, the Democrats were slugging it out in what is now a genuine four-way contest.

That is good news for Bush, as Tuesday's breakfast TV in the United States testified. Footage from Iowa showed four exhausted, sweaty Democrats physically punching the air or rhetorically jabbing each other while a White House photograph captured a contemplative Bush preparing for last night's speech. Not-so-subliminal message: let these guys squabble in the playground; I am presidential.

True, Bush's ideal outcome from Iowa's Democratic contest, the first of the 2004 campaign, would have been a knockout victory for Howard Dean. White House planners have been drooling for a year at the prospect of running against the former Vermont governor, who they reckon could be easily lampooned as the latest in a long line of anti-war liberals from the American north-east...more..

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/21/1074360833539.html

[Awsi Dooger]

1. Devastating concession: for once I agree with jackass Pat Cadell

Immediately after the debate Cadell said Democrats were scrambling for a gimmick, hence the candidacy of Wesley Clark the savior general.

Indeed. All year I've been sensing a weird "dosage index" pursuit for the proper pedigree to defeat Bush, instead of merely isolating the best guy, period. We despise the war and Bush is vulnerable there so our champion is Howard Dean. But we need a veteran war hero to combat the national security concerns so there's John Kerry and all his medals. Better yet an actual field general to measure up GW and renounce him for the National Guard desertion, so as long as Clark says he's a Democrat that's wonderful!

As a longtime Las Vegas sports handicapper, it reminds me of all the scattergun rationale I hear from the most reliably innacurate bettors, grasping at every bizarre angle instead of identifying which team is better, how much and why.

John Edwards is the most attractive, charismatic and genuine. He can do more to attract unlikey allies with one speech and smile than others can manage in a relentless week. Edwards' nomination is the genuine fear of numerous Republican pundits and strategists, not because they bullshit but because it makes perfect sense. Kerry's or Clark's pull with vets is fractional and uncertain. Given the nomination and its limelight, that Edwards can charm and tug is beyond reasonable denial.

Over the years I have put together more than a dozen debate-watching forums with generally disinterested voters, friends of mine. Admittedly that has been to aid in political wagering. But you would not believe how obvious it is that looks, personality, spark, demeanor and an upbeat outlook mean geometrically more to that type of critical swing voter than policy garbage. We ignore that at our own peril, i.e. four more years of George Bush.