While the nine Democratic candidates continue to jostle for rare media attention, and the press continues to savor its chance to filter the nomination process through to the public as it sees fit, the pundits and spin doctors are forgetting one important point. There is a list of things it will take to beat George Bush, and they are not the same criteria the mainstream media is using to determine which candidates to tell the American people about, and which ones to ignore.
Let's call it the Beat-A-Bush-Ability Scale:
First, you gotta be tough. Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys need not apply. Principled opposition to war may be the moral high ground, but not after 9/11.
Many Democrats like myself agreed with war on the basis of freeing the Iraqi people, not the basis of weapons of mass destruction. Regardless, Americans hate Saddam and most are not willing or able to differentiate between him and Usama. Many think (because Bush let's them) that Saddam helped plan 9/11. He did not. Still, you simpy can not beat Bush in 2004 if you opposed the war at all. This rules out Kucinich, Sharpton, Braun, Dean, and probably Kerry, too.
Second, you have to be likeable enough to get people to vote for you. What do you think Bush's whole ranch in Texas thing and that Prime Time spot from the aircraft carrier were all about? Rove believes images and appearances are stronger than thoughts and ideas. What if he is right? Many people agreed with Al Gore's agenda, but voted for Bush because he was more likeable. I don't understand how people can be so blind to the issues, but many figure what happens in Washington won't really change their life anyway, so they simply ignore the issues and go to the polls as if they were voting for class president. I really don't think Gephardt has a chance to be voted class President, do you?
Third, you can't beat Bush running as a Washington insider. I guarantee that Bush is going to make speeches about the "trouble with Washington" and his valiant efforts to "give the people their own money back" as if he were fighting tooth and nail against the special interests he himself practically works for. It's powerfully effective rhetoric, though. If Washington is the problem, then how can you blame Bush. At least he was trying to fix things, right? The flaws in this logic should be apparent to anyone familiar with politics, but most people are not, and you need a candidate who can stand up to these bold face lies. If you've been in Washington for fifteen years like Lieberman, will anybody listen?
Fourth, it's not so much what you say, but how you say it. Speaking skills still matter, even more so in this multimedia day and age. It's not so much substance as style. Witness Bush "beating" Gore in the 2000 debates. Edwards understands this. He built a successful career on knowing how to speak to jurors all across the South. He'll be the most prepared man in the room, with all the facts at his disposal, but he'll also have the ability to put it together in a way that people can understand. Remember what happened in Lieberman versus Cheney? I agreed with Lieberman, but Cheney made him look out of his league. My biggest fear with Graham is that Bush could do the same to him.
Fifth, you have to be able to relate to regular Americans and their concerns. I think Graham and Edwards could both do this, but all those notebooks might not help Graham. So far, I've yet to hear Graham propose the kind of simple but effective new policies that Edwards is talking about. On education alone, I think Edwards is saying things regular Americans will like to hear. With Edwards' knowledge of the law and ability to distill it in terms of everyday life, I think he has the full advantage here, and on all five points in the Beatabushability scale.