David Kusnet at AP

gives his two cents on Saturday's Democratic candidate debate.

He seems to be quite impressed with Gephardt. Kusnet even says some nice things about Edwards, and it appears the debate was largely between the two and which one presents the more "populist" message.

Interestingly, Kusnet doesn't mention Florida Senator Bob Graham, who is the class of the bunch. Maybe he assumes, like all of the other presidential hopefuls seemed to have assumed Saturday night, that he will certainly be the vice-presidential running mate of whoever gets the nomination (Gore should be dragged kicking and screaming to the Democratic convention to be nominated for re-election).

Anyhow, Gephardt wasn't at all bad Saturday even if he has all of the "charisma" of a blank sheet of paper. He appears to know what he's talking about. Edwards is still pretty green, but I have come to the belief, in the absence of President Al, that the ultimate ticket for the Democratic nomination will either be Edwards/Graham or Graham/Edwards. While Graham is pretty low-key and colorless, he has the necessary experience, and while John Edwards lacks the necessary experience, he clearly has the communication skills (not trivial considering that sack of shit we have squatting in Al Gore's house right now). They complement each other.

People will think I'm nuts for suggesting it, but assuming we have fair elections, it is probably the only real ticket that is electable (without Gore, of course). The Democrats have the Northeast and the Far West, so they must cut into the very narrow and vital Republican base of the South. The best way to do this is with southerners. Clinton and Gore knew this truth. Now people were somewhat offended by Graham's remarks to the effect that yeah, the last three Democratic presidents all came from the South and basically they have to court the South by trying to get that region out of the Civil War and the best way to do that is have southerners on the ticket, but it's the truth, unfortunately.

Any other combination without Gore in the equation is a recipe for disaster. Kerry is vulnerable on being from Massachusetts although I think he would make a good president (well, to be honest ANY of them would be better than Usurper Boy). The others also have problems of one type or another. Howard Dean, the idol of the anti-establishment liberals, is a disaster if Democrats should be crazy enough to nominate him. The more I see of this man, the less I like him. He might be a very nice person, but he comes across as a completely arrogant prick in the few times I have seen him. My reaction to him is visceral. I get really bad vibes from him.

Dean is supposed to have a very strong grassroots organization, though a lot of it seems to be web-based. I doubt that many people in the real world have heard of him. I don't think he is any Paul Wellstone in that regard (and almost any other regard). But I am highly suspicious of him, and I do not like it that he and Kerry are going after each other like a pit bull dogfight. The more each of them does it, the less chance either of them has in getting the nomination. If by some miracle either of them does get the nomination, the victor will be bruised so badly he will be hard pressed to go against the Rove smear machine. It's like a rerun of what Bill Bradley tried to do to Al Gore, and, no doubt about it, Gore was hurt. Republicans took some of the shit hurled at Gore by Bradley and used it themselves (while trying the rig the election "just in case").

The difference will be, of course, the Republicans won't have to steal the next election or rig the USSC.

The paranoid in me thinks Republicans might be contributing some money to Dean's campaign in order to knock off Kerry and any other stronger candidates. Dean is the least electable of all of the candidates running, even less electable than Kucinich or Sharpton, and he seems to be the McGovern of 2004. In other words, the boy the Republicans really want to go up against Usurper Boy.