NOT QUITE UNDECIDED...

Josh Marshall, blogging from New Hampshire all week, attended a Clark speech, mostly on Iraq and foreign policy, and made this observation:

There wasn't any applause through the entire thing. Not until the end. The issue though wasn't so much that the audience was nonplused as that Clark didn't really give them a chance. This was a pretty dense policy speech. And the few lines that seemed like they might have been written as applause lines Clark plowed right through.

The first few minutes seemed a bit tight. It was ably delivered, if a bit rapid. But then maybe about seven or eight minutes in he started to hit his stride. His interest level in what he was saying seemed to bump up. He was a bit looser. And though he was still delivering a prepared speech you could tell that these were more his words, stuff he'd thought about and wrestled with.

And then it hit me. He's a lot less interested in this campaign than he is with the war-fighting, coalition-building, international relations stuff. This is what animates him. He cares more about his issues than the campaign.

Is that a good thing politically or a bad thing? I think you can play it both ways. Certainly, as I've presented it here, it's a good thing: the candidate who cares more about solving problems than being a politician. But in practice it's not necessarily so clear. Politics is about interaction with people and audiences. The politicians who do well are generally those who relish it.

And therein lies an electability question as profound as any about Howard Dean. In terms of those who would be out to criticize Clark, whether it's Kerry, Dean, Republicans, unnamed Democrats, Howard Fineman, Howard Kurtz, or any number of commentators, doesn't this sort of thing feed directly into one of the creeping memes about him? That being, he joined the race very late, so he doesn't "want" it as much as the other candidates do. Of course, I don't believe that, I believe he's sincere as hell about this. But politics is perception, and Clark turning up the wonk and turning down the enthusiasm could be the General's version of "YYYYAAAAAHHRRR!!!" To not appear agile in the face of impending attacks, whether he is or not, is to Clark's detriment in both his campaign and his electability.

If there's anything Howard Dean has proven, it's that he can connect with audience members at campaign events. He was a centrist elected to the statehouse in Vermont six times, and he didn't do that by getting angry or "fired up" all the time. So said Eric Boehlert a week ago:

And yet the anger issue may be fading, perhaps because reporters and pundits haven't actually been able to uncover Dean's temper. As the Times conceded in its obligatory Dean-is-angry article, nobody has seen him explode during this entire campaign. (The Times did manage to detail, secondhand, how years ago as governor, Dean once slammed his fist on a table.)

All that being said...

The Facts Machine has been a Howard Dean-friendly blog for quite a while now, dating back to spring of last year. The last 48 hours constitute the first time I have ever had serious concerns about Dean's chances for success in both the primary campaign and the general election. His much-talked-about speech to his Iowa staffers, whatever else it was, did not appear very presidential at all. It did, however, get a lot of press. They say there's no such thing as bad press, but as Al Gore could certainly tell us, that doesn't apply to presidential campaigns.

Anyway, I am presently concerned that despite his energy, his solid gubernatorial record, his principled stance against the war in Iraq, his solid organization and his loads of cash, Howard Dean may not be the candidate with the best chance in the general election. I still maintain that he's electable, but is he the most electable?

Thus, a TFM Re-Declaration of Support will be in order. I may or may not swing my support to another candidate in the coming weeks, and the two candidates, aside from Dean, who are most likely to earn my support (and boy, endorsements are very important, particularly this one!) are John Edwards and Wesley Clark. I will be watching tomorrow night's debate, following the results in New Hampshire, and if I've yet to make a decision at that point, then I will make it based on the early February primaries. In the meantime, the links to Dean's site and blog will remain on the left-hand side of this blog.

What do I want to see from my three possible candidates? Here are my "TFM Responds to Success!" parameters:

Wesley Clark: If you need to attack Kerry, attack him, but I'm not impressed by military-service-comparison prick-waving, thank you very much. Also, in the debates thus far, though Dean gets credit for boldly coming out against the war so early and vocally, your statements in the debates on Bush's choices in Iraq have been the clearest, most effective ones of any candidate, more of that would be great. I want the Clintonesque twinkle to get in there somewhere. Dean's been calling you a "Republican" here and there. I don't think that's quite fair of him, but you're going to get a question on those lines, I want to see how you answer it this time out. If you impress me, this will become a Clarkie blog. On the other hand, if you keep doing the petty attack thing with Kerry, you will be the Gephardt of New Hampshire.

John Edwards: Of all the Dems, you may be the hardest one to attack, and it's likely that Kerry Clark and Dean wont even bother. Your economy-related rhetoric is possibly the best of any of the candidates, and you ooze with empathy, even when you don't reach into the "son of a millworker" bag. Your yes-vote for the Iraq War Resolution may have been a liability before, but after Iowa you may not be as vulnerable in that respect. A strong finish in NH, followed by some wins in the south, and you'll be a real force. You're automatically likeable, but you'll need to get dirty, and that may happen in the South Carolina debates next week.

Howard Dean: I want your words, and not your yelps, to be what people talk about. I want to hear your message again. Your principled opposition to the Iraq war was relatively ignored in Iowa, was that a product of your de-emphasis of the issue, or the quirky voting habits of Iowans? Politically, if you win in NH, by any margin at all, that will be a huge story, you will be seen as "resilient" and the new "comeback kid", and people will forget about your little Steve-Ballmer episode in Des Moines. Now might be a nice time to flash some of that doctor cred, or at least a few more sweaters. A win in NH, a redefinition of yourself and your campaign, and I'll stay on the bandwagon.

Whoever wins the nomination -- and it will likely be one of these three guys, sorry Mr Kerry -- will have done so because they were a strong candidate who was viewed by the Democratic electorate as the person best-suited to oust Bush. So in short, when it's over I'll be happy no matter what.

Oh, and whoever gets nominated, my Veep recommendation will remain constant: Bob Graham Bob Graham Bob Graham Bob Graham Bob Graham Bob Graham Bob Graham Bob Graham Bob Graham Bob Graham Bob Graham Bob Graham Bob Graham Bob Graham Bob Graham Bob Graham Bob Graham Bob Graham Bob Graham Bob Graham Bob Graham Bob Graham Bob Graham Bob Graham Bob Graham Bob Graham.