I'm not sure I have time, but I'm going to try to finally weigh in on this at more length. (At some point nimh said I'd said some "elaborate" things, I don't think that was a compliment... ;-) )
Basically, I don't think there is anything wrong with, "The exit polls show that, by and large, Democrats aren't voting for Kerry because they prefer him on the issues. They're voting for him because they think he's the Democrat most likely to beat Bush." Kerry and Edwards are not terribly far apart on issues. They (especially Edwards) are trying to differentiate themselves, but except for some stuff about trade, there isn't that much, really. They line up pretty evenly on many, many issues. (I can go back and support this part more later if need be.)
So it comes down to style and how that person stacks up against Bush.
The Vietnam thing, as already shown, is just gigantic. Edwards wasn't there. He didn't weasel out of it, he was just too young. This is something that Bush and co. would be all over. National Guard hoo-ha aside, Bush was a fighter pilot, and according to McGentrix (I don't recall seeing it elsewhere, but I believe him) he actually did some sort of missions at some point, and if there is no comparison -- Edwards was a kid at the time -- he can use that for his whole "War President" thing. That's what he wants, that's what he's been planning and going for from long before the campaign cameras were rolling when he did his flight suit stunt -- the War President, Top Gun, fighter pilot, standing up for our country against the evil people who want to do us harm.
Well.
That huge angle is severely handicapped when the opposition is Kerry, not Edwards (or Kerry/ Edwards, which is what I'm starting to hope for.) Not only was Kerry THERE, but he trumps Bush on all fronts. He was in country, he was under fire, and he was a bona fide HERO. Not just a photo op in a flight suit (then or now.) A HERO, who made tough decisions, who knows what war is really like, who took a lickin' and kept on tickin'. Tough.
That's huge. That has nothing to do with policies, probably
shouldn't have anything to do with an upcoming election, but he neutralizes or even makes a liability what I believe was meant to be an enormous aspect of Bush's reelection campaign. Kerry has made it so that the RNC is saying behind closed doors to Republican candidates, "Don't say anything about Vietnam. Let our surrogates take care of it."
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=559758#559758
Now, that's just the fact of Kerry's background. It is not now, and yes, his style has some problems. It has been said, and I'll say again even though I think everyone realizes this, it's not that Kerry is some ideal candidate. He ain't.
He is rich, comes across as too snooty, etc. But for this particular moment, I believe gravitas and a certain remove is more of a benefit than smoothness and charm. There was an article recently that pointed out that during times of war, gravitas is especially valued -- the example given was Nixon (hardly the charmer) beating everyone's favorite uncle, Hubert Humphrey.
Edwards is young. He's pretty. He's smooth. He's a lawyer. He's never seen combat. He's rich. He's a Washington insider. He has many of the negatives that Kerry does, and his positives are, IMO, not in his favor just now.
I personally am equally willing to vote for either. If Edwards pulls ahead and becomes the nominee, well, cool. The single most important personality trait that needs to be personified by the candidate is STRENGTH. Whomever ends up as the Democratic nominee will have at least some of that, since it's been a long, gruelling race, and people like the underdog, too, the scrappy, come-from-behind winner. Currently, though, Kerry the war hero seems stronger than Edwards the lawyer. Or even Edwards the son of the millworker. (I think someone should make a drinking game about that... I'm starting to roll my eyes every time I see it.)
Anyway, I think that on the balance, and I wish I could go and get every scrap of evidence to demonstrate this -- it is from rather extensive reading of online resources, the NYT, and talking to people -- Kerry is the stronger candidate, in many definitions of the word. He is a war hero. He is the frontrunner. (Yes, that lends an aura of strength, even if it's a tautology.) He is tall. (Again, I'm not talking about what should be important, I'm talking about what is important to voters.) He has a full head of graying hair. (Ditto.) He is getting better and better at
campaigning -- today I saw a quote that a woman called herself a "recovering Republican" as the preface to asking him something, and he responded, "Well I have a single-step recovery program -- vote for me."
If Kerry is eventually overtaken by Edwards, I think he will have already accomplished something useful -- the Vietnam thing has been very much in the forefront, and Bush looks like at best a son of privelege who used his Daddy's power to avoid facing the same fire that Kerry did, at worst a snotty-nosed coward who somehow weaselled out of doing even the cushy assignment he was given. There is a bunch of money waiting to reverse that impression, but that impression is there, thanks to Kerry, and I'm happy about that.
, but because it has two tables that neatly encompass a lot more exit poll info than I had scrambled together myself ...
