Catherine- you may not like what I'm going to say about why Democrats all over the US are jumping on the Kerry bandwagon but this is a blog and that being said, it is an open forum of sorts. Below is a copy of an e-mail that I sent to my Dad earlier today on my take of the whole situation and his response:

Just read an interesting analysis on MSNBC's slate.com about Kerry.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2095311/

As a political scientist I think you will find Saletan's analysis of why Democrats are voting for Kerry quite interesting. It seems that "electability" as opposed to "issues" is why Democrats jumped on the Kerry bandwagon. What a bunch of maroons.

It baffles me though. The Dems abandoned Dean because he was a New England liberal with a "fiery" tempermant and then rallied behind Kerry because he was a New England liberal with an "even" tempermant???

Dean had a solid opposition to Bush on 3 key issues in my mind:

1) the Iraq invasion
2) the No Child Left Behind Act
3) the Patriot Act

Plus he had proven leadership with results as a 5-term Vermont Governor including expansion of the "Dr. Dynosaur" program which provided health care for 99% of Vermonters 18 years of age and younger.

Kerry voted with the Republicans on the 3 issues above and out of the 13 bills he's pushed forth for health care as a senator, not one has become law.

So it seems to me that Kerry can't run on his record of opposing Republicans, he can't run on his record of getting results for Democratic social programs, he can't run on his record of authoring important legislation in his 19
years as Senator (because he hasn't authored anything worth mentioning), he can't beat Bush in campaign fundraising (won't even be close), and he'll be painted as an extreme New England liberal especially once Bush backs him in a corner
about the recent Massachusettes Supreme Court ruling on gay marriages and hammers down the fact that his voting record (with the exception of the 3 key issues above) is more liberal than his Mass counterpart Ted Kennedy! More liberal than a Kennedy . . . the BushDoctors will have a field day spinning that.

And this is who Democrats think is our most electable candidate??? Exit polls showed that Democrats that voted for Kerry did so because he "looked presidential" and they felt he has the best chance of beating Bush. In hindsight, Clark was our most electable candidate even though I would have still voted Dean over him.

Dad, I've taken on the monicker of "progressive independent" since Al went down in 2000 and I will continue to label myself as such because I believe the Democratic Party has truly lost its mind.

I will say one thing in closing . . . if Bush loses in November, it won't be because of Kerry, it will simply be because of animosity towards Bush. It's that simple.

Your thoughts?

My Dad's Response (he's a PhD in Political Science and a card-carrying member of the Republican Party):

I agree ENTIRELY with all you have said.
And...this may surprize you..I admired Dean (he reminded me of Carter in determination), because he did indeed offer a real choice for the
Democrats. Ole "Cash and Kerry" will now be annointed as the Dems nominee , and yet
Kerry is so terribly vulnerable on so many issues that I suspect the RNC is licking its chops! This will be a dirty campaign.....

What I think has happened is that the Democratic Party imploded after Clinton was impeached, and has yet to recover its sense of direction, core
values, and now it siezes on Cash and Kerry!

I'll just add: uh... yeah!

No, seriously, since the NH primaries exit polls have been showing that people say Dean beats Kerry in most categories -- except electability, where he gets whomped. Kerry voters list electability very high on their list.

Cause really, the war hero thing is great (although greater for Clark), but other than that he doesn't have much going for or against him. I don't think you can make much of a case for blandness being a positive attribute, but that seems to be what the voters are doing.

i just don't agree with a few political journalists deeming kerry's front-runner status solely as a result of every single voter voting for him due only to electability. i would like to try to give voters at least little more credit than that.

also, i think democrats have reason to be optimistic about this election, no matter who the candidate may be. amy sullivan, on politicalaims.com, said, "Such a singular focus on next year's election so early by so many Democratic voters must worry the Republicans." people are coming out to the primaries in droves and voting for kerry in large numbers across the board, presenting what i perceive to be a united front and a bigger-than-ever determination to beat the incumbent. in my mind, any of the candidates right now are far better alternatives to bush, and i think a larger number of people than you might expect think that as well.

i don't think democrats are crazy, or morons; i think they're energized and ready to vote in november. i do credit a lot of this enery thoward dean and his campaign and the way they stirred things up; i just don't think dean ever really stood a chance. his role, in this campaign, has turned out to be more of a catalyst than anything else.

i mean, overall, i just don't think you can predict anything about what will happen in the general election. keep in mind it's nine months from now. no doubt it will be a dirty campaign; rove will fight extremely dirty no matter the democratic candidate. but i feel confident that democrats are ready to kick bush out.

Catherine, I think you're giving voters too much credit.

The one time I voted in person at the polls was one of those in-between elections, with a school board seat, a few bond issues, etc. Almost everyone there took several minutes to vote because they hadn't read about what they were voting on beforehand. I would surmise that the people who vote in those elections are more politically conscious than people who vote in presidential elections and primaries.

So I'll have to agree that "looking presidential" is a great way to pick up a lot of votes from the lazy American public.

"Kerry voted with the Republicans on the 3 issues above and out of the 13 bills he's pushed forth for health care as a senator, not one has become law."

This is a valid and important point, but I'd be surprised if this is the kind of argument the republicans advance against Kerry. The voting public simply does not follow policy arguments very far, even if those of us up here in the Beltway do. I imagine that harping on Kerry's voting record will get a big yawn from America.

With Bush looking ever more vulnerable and irresponsible with both cash and troops, I think Kerry just needs to toe the line as a responsible, level-headed statesman. This is something he seems to project, and Dean, not so much.

It's not a done deal either way, but as Andrew Sullivan noted (and god forgive me for quoting him), the comparison between Bush's mealy-mouthed stammers on Meet the Press and Kerry's "booming" voice must have the White House nervous.

I was a Clark fan myself, but that's how the cookie crumbles...

i can concede that it's likely a significant amount of voters chose kerry because of the presidential electable blah blah blah aspect. but i really don't think that was the ONLY reason, and i remain convinced that a lot of people probably voted for him because they actually wanted to. i'm just totally against sweeping statements made by pundits who are in their own little beltway world and have fallen into the trap of thinking that everything they believe is exactly what the voting public believe.

and if tens of thousands of voters think kerry is electable...maybe he is? that's an assumption, but i can't count it out.