Why Kerry in 2004?

In the 2004 presidential election, Democrats rejected these folks: seemingly   principled liberal — Dean —, a principled, but not telegenic moderate, — Lieberman —, and a telegenic, but inexperienced kinda'-moderate — Edwards. (I left out Clark on purpose. Shortly after his candidacy, I concluded he was incompetent. Probably, though, he just got started too late, and thus was too unknown. I just forgot Gephardt. Enough said about that.)

I argue that they rejected them for a more pragmatic choice. Now just wait, Kerry didn't turn out,  to be a very pragmatic selection, and I don't just mean because he didn't win. He had baggage (the "unfit for command" stuff) and he was not as moderate as some at first thought. Moreover, an analytical, intelligent candidate just appears to the public to be indecisive, waffling or pandering. Not to mention the actual waffling. It seems to me, though, that many liberals thought Kerry was a good compromise, he was not your typical liberal on the outside: he was a war veteran, had some experience in foreign relations, and didn't seem ultra-liberal. Again, Iowans, New Hampshirites and other perhaps didn't do their homework, but I think they initially thought their war hero was a pragmatic choice when war and terrorism were lead issues.

But maybe I'm way off. Maybe they just loved his irresistible charm and melting good looks.

I almost didn't vote for the guy because he mispronounced "bratwurst" and thought that the Packers played at "Lambert Field."