Was Kerry the most electable candidate in '04 after all?

[pragmatic liberal]

Was John Kerry the most electable Democrat in 2004 after all?

Remember that in '04, Bush was always the slight favorite: his approval ratings were around 50% and the election took place in the shadow of 9-11. The Iraq War had not yet received majority-disapproval and the economy, while not great, was generally adequate throughout most of the country. Also, the gay marriage issue was big with religious voters. And though Bush was polarizing, his approval ratings among Republican-leaners and conservatives were actually higher than Ronald Reagan's were in '84.

Which Democrat would have done better? All had their selling points, but I'm inclined to say that the rest had weaknesses that would have made them worse general-election candidates.

Dick Gephardt -- A classic paper-candidate. On paper, he would look like the best one, with prospects of sweeping the Mid-West. However, Gephardt failed to excite anyone and his poor performance in the primaries (4th in Iowa), almost certainly reflected an inability to connect. In-state results don't take place in a vacuum: if Gephardt underperformed nationally, he would not have carried Ohio. And the flip-flop charges were even stronger with Gephardt than with Kerry -- Gephardt was an ardent supporter of the war early on and had flipped on numerous issues throughout his career.

Joe Lieberman -- Ha! Democratic turnout would have been depressed and he would not have challenged Bush on the key issue of the election -- the war or terrorism. Bush likely wins a comfortable victory after what Lieberman calls a "civil, respectful" campaign.

Howard Dean -- He had more passionate support among activists and he was right on the war. Maybe his stronger contrast with Bush would have been enough to put him over the top. My own sense, though, is that he would have been easily branded (unfairly) as a far-lefty, and he'd likely have lost by 5-6 points nationally. Bush would have gotten well over 300 electoral votes.

John Edwards -- He and Wes Clark are the two candidates who one can most credibly argue would have done better than Kerry. Edwards was more charismatic, easier to relate to, and more likeable. He would have likely focused on economic issues and on the war attacked the execution, not the decision. That, however, would have angered liberals which might have depressed some Democratic turnout. Edwards had a tendency also to underperform at crucial moments (his terrible VP acceptance speech, his debate with Cheney) and he would have been trying to change the subject in a national-security election. And on national security, he would have been hard-pressed to make a strong case.

Maybe had he picked Wes Clark or retired Gen. Merrill McPeak as his running mate he could have won. However, the likely ticket would have been Edwards-Kerry, and I don't know that it would have done any better than Kerry-Edwards -- in fact, it may have done worse. (Although maybe Edwards would have done less poorly in the South, possibly saving the Democrats one or two Senate seats like NC and FL, even if he didn't win those states.)

Wes Clark -- With Clark, the issue would have been political inexperience. His primary campaign was chaotic and he would have likely made several rookie mistakes. Also, he had several enemies in the form of other retired generals like Gen. Hugh Shelton, who would have almost certainly have formed the basis of a (more credible) Swift-Boaters-type attack. He would likely have lost similar to Kerry. Did Kerry at least have the potential to do better than he did? I think so.

(Oh, and the less said about Bob Graham, the better.)

On balance, I think Kerry may have been the best all-around candidate that year. No, he wasn't strongest in any one area, but he was acceptable to both liberals and conservatives, generally was acceptable to Iraq War opponents because though he supported the war, he was more critical of the aftermath than many of the others, he had national security experience and he had experience in public service. And though he wasn't very charismatic, he was moreso than arguably Joe Lieberman or Dick Gephardt were.