To coin a word, that's the donkeys' problem if they nominate Kerry, as looks exceedingly likely. Bush remains likeable, while Kerry seems loathable (particularly to much of the press, which will dampen their normal enthusiasm for Democrats). And it's not at all clear what the new JFK can do about his loathability index.

I think the bigger problem Kerry has going against him is with social conservatives or the dreaded "Reagan Democrat."

He's pro-choice and somehow he also calls himself a Roman Catholic. Speaking as one, I don't think you can pick and choose what parts of Roman Catholithism you agree and disagree with. And to be quite frank Reagean Democrats are predominantly pro-life.

He also is northeastern, which writes off the south to go along with it. So where exactly does John Kerry's electability come in? Democrats are fooling themselves, even Dean would been able to mount a better fight than Kerry will.

I may not like Bush, but Good luck making inroads on George W John Kerry.

Correction-- That's JF*** "Cash &" Kerry. (Did you know he was in Vietnam, the only hero among thousands of war criminals?)

He makes Herman Munster look like George Clooney.

Actually, talking about Vietnam, I spoke w/ someone who was over there at the same time as Kerry. What I was told is that Kerry's "heroism" consisted of: 1) walking up to a severely wounded VC that lay there, totally defenseless, and shooting him; 2) mis-interpreting the concept of a "free fire zone" (no permission from higher authority needed to engage the enemy) to be 'shoot anything that moves', resulting in the deaths of an elderly couple and a young child.

Now, that's just something I heard from a Vietnam vet, but if this would be confirmed, it would throw the Dems blatherings about "Ooo, we can't find positive records of W showing up for duty, therefore he was AWOL." into a whole new light. But if it's even partly true, then Kerry is a total dishonor to all those vets that did their best to serve their country.

- Eric.

I think we'll test in a few days just how "electable" Senator Kerry is in the South. If he can't carry Tennessee and Virginia with his strong lead, then he'll have problems later on.

Note, however, that WaPo neoconservative columnist Charles Krauthammer thinks Kerry might already have won "the war argument" [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17491-2004Feb5.html ]. "Likability" takes a back seat under these circumstances and may not be very important anyway since the Democratic base absolutely hates the current President anyway.

Krauthammer claims history indicates Americans almost always favor candidates who have military experience, if there is a war going on. For once, I *hope* Krauthammer is right.

MARCU$

For 21/2 years it looked as if the political beneficiary of Sept. 11, 2001, was George W. Bush. But Bush, never a believer in hoarding political capital, spent his post-Sept. 11 and post-Afghanistan popularity on Iraq. The big political beneficiary of Sept. 11 turns out to be Kerry.

Sept. 11 changed the rules of presidential electoral politics. Or, more accurately, it returned us to an earlier set of rules that prevailed in Cold War days. Every single president elected during the Cold War had served in some capacity in the military.

It is no accident that Bill Clinton, who never served, was the first post-Cold War president. It is no accident that Bob Dole, who ran in the second post-Cold War presidential election, got absolutely no political traction out of his background as a genuine war hero. During the end-of-history '90s, military service seemed an irrelevance.

Sept. 11 reminded us that the '90s were an anomaly. And upon returning to a world of mortal conflict with people who really want you destroyed, you instinctively want someone not new to the idea of war.

Well, except for the president who won the Cold War, Marcus. He was making movies during the war...

Anyway, it doesn't matter now that Bush has been CIC for four years. Lincoln didn't have much of a service record, but he managed to win reelection, and Kerry's record (e.g., the accusation that his fellow veterans were war criminals, and his Jane Fonda connections) will come back to haunt him once the big guns start focusing on him.

> Well, except for the president who won the Cold
> War, Marcus. He was making movies during the
> war...

Aw, don't crush my pipe dream Rand! I knew Krauthammer was full of it, but this time time I would not mind if history proves him right.
---
Anyway, regarding Kerry's likeability problem, I guess the best thing the Dems could do is put Edwards on the ticket as VP and give him as much time in front of the cameras as possible. It seems Kerry does have a good track record as an efficient and knowledgeable TV debater, which does not necessarily bode well for the current President.

Of course, none of this will matter if Iraq is a smashing success half a year from now, and the economy is producing lots of jobs at home. And if that does not happen, things will get really interesting after all...

MARCU$

Some other fun facts.

The electorate prefers Governors these days. The last working Senator (not a VP who was previously Senator) to be elected President was John F Kennedy.

The electorate prefers Southern Democrats. The last Democrat from a Northern State to become President was John F Kennedy.

Despite the resemblance of their initials John Kerry is no JFK.

It seems Kerry does have a good track record as an efficient and knowledgeable TV debater, which does not necessarily bode well for the current President.

So did Al Gore...

I just suspect that Kerry's pompous speaking style is going to turn off a lot of people (including a lot of Dems).

Despite current poll numbers, the deck is extremely stacked against the Dems this year.