Obviously I'm increasingly breaking my "no primary" pledge, which I knew I would break at some point. But, I'm still doing my best to do "positive" rather than "normative" analysis. I'm trying to comment on what is or likely to be, rather than what I would personally like to happen. In the context of the primary, that means making comments on campaign strategy and predictions about what will happen, and not expressing an opinion on who I would like to win or who I would think would make the best opposition candidate (potentially, but not necessarily, the same thing.)
But, for the sake of full disclosure let me say that at various times I've thought that Kerry, Edwards, Clark, and Dean would make the "best candidate." After having all of these periods, of varying lengths, I decided I didn't have a clue and neither did anyone else. There are certain things which are quantifiable - fundraising, polls - but the rest of it is largely subjective. And, as plenty of Smart People (even Smarter People Than Me (!!)) have differing opinions on this subject, it's fair to say that smart people differ and nobody has the monopoly on wisdom on this subject.
My views on why, say, Clark or Dean could be the "better" candidate are often somewhat contrarian, but unlike Slate magazine or Christopher Hitchens I don't think contrarianism is a sign of wisdom. So, again, what the hell do I know. By March 5, if not earlier, we'll know who the candidate is and then we'll be able to finally keep our eyes on the prize.
