[Pinkerton, a pundit] suggests that the two senators--Kerry and Edwards--may be "more electable" than the governor (Dean). You've heard this kind of nonsense alot in the last few days and, being charitable, it's perhaps best to chalk it up to the lingering shock of Monday night. Suffice it to say, it's an antihistorical notion that a sitting senator is more likely to be elected president than a governor. Mr. Edwards at least has the advantage of having practically no meaningful career, but by the time the GOP gets done with John Kerry's voting record in the Senate he'll be nothing more than Ted Kennedy with a fresh liver.Ouch! Bummer!
It is probably inevitable that Karl Rove and the $100 million-plus Bush campaign juggernaut will try to tag any Democratic opponent as a Chablis-sipping, leftist elitist. But the record of Kerry, who has represented a liberal state in the Senate for 20 years and has often voted accordingly, provides a good deal more fodder for such attacks than the studied centrism of Lieberman or the shorter resumés of Edwards or Wesley Clark. Moreover, Weld has already shown what these attacks would look like-even with his far-right hand tied behind his back. Yes, some of Weld's punches landed below Kerry's belt. But they were rooted in facts, and Rove would hit much harder. This is one reason long-serving senators have so much trouble getting elected president; they have to vote on bills they did not design, and those votes end up in opposition research.