This I take exception to:
Clark, Edwards, and Dean have more conservative records and problems convincing voters that they have adequate combinations of hardness, insight, and conviction. They try to make up for it with emotional appeals. But the realistic voters aren't persuaded- they won't be strong enough, should they make it into office, to perform adequately. The common impression at present is that under pressure Dean will fail, Edwards will cave, Clark will bungle in dealings with a Republican Congress.Strike Clark and Dean off that list, will you. On Dean I'll be brief: he managed to survive whitebread country long enough as a tough but pragmatically liberal governor to deserve a silly putdown like that. I could apply the same rationale about Clark, just for one example pointing out his AA/EO record (of which I doubt you really made an effort to understand it, in spite the umpteen topics that passed the board here) but instead, I'll give you a link to another topic, so that you can see how much convincing power this "liberal" Kerry has, in spite of goodness knows how many deals and compromises in the Senate that he apparently manages to "explain" to an apathetic public. Rest assured, the prodigious silkscreen of that other Senator from NC is regarded just as much, um, as a convincing "liberal" with staying power in "our" quarters. Have at it, and read
this.
Tough liberal eh?
Don't think so. Point out a major feat in his Senate years that most people easily identify him with. Zip I tell you. Well-groomed and smoothtalking, that he is. But since you insist on records... That's precisely where the problem is for me. Saying things with a stern expression like "quit crying in your teacups" doesn't exonerate his, let's say, unstable voting behavior - let alone his outlandish explanations - however well they may resonate with whomever pays little attention, and that I'm sad to admit applies to the whopping majority of Nielsen families that somewhere between Janet Jackson's nipple and reruns of Lacy Peterson's murder case manages to pick up just enough name recognition to back the winner. Because that's what people like most of all: whichever of "the other guys" most appears like "the winner." Smackdown, baby! That's how most people vote; precious few have any clue what the differences between a Dean, an Edwards or a Clark are. Kucinich, the poor sod, has it easier: he's pegged as the commie extremist pinko of the lot.
That's freaking pathetic enough as it is - it's flat out laughable that you somehow manage to present the case that Kerry is more of a "tough hombre" to bring about change. He may talk the talk, but his track record proves he's not confident enough to find his way around when he's supposed to walk all by himself, without reminding pointers to the L-word.
Sorry, but no sale here.
And yes, I can understand how among Dean supporters a similar frustration is reaching a boiling point; go ahead, make your pitch with this fabulous "tough and proven liberal."
But if you don't mind I'll be standing over there, booing with the rest. Oh - and don't come crying in my glass of vodka when your chap folds like an Italian accordeon.