It looks like John Kerry is headed for the Democratic nomination for President. Things sure change quickly. A week or two before the Iowa caucuses, it looked like Howard Dean would be the nominee. The Punditocracy (word copyrighted by Harry Shearer) all agree that Dean made a few missteps. Perhaps it wasn’t the missteps that caused the problem, but the underlying issues that led to the missteps. Or was it a changed circumstances on the ground in Iraq? Dean was popular mainly because he was the only Democratic candidate who came out clearly against the war. The problem is now that the situation in Iraq requires a more nuanced approach. Not even the left can agree what we should do. Should we leave Iraq and bring the troops home? Should we stay and help support a democratic government? These issues are unclear and the electorate realizes it.

Howard Dean’s approach to the Iraq issue might be the right one, but he has not articulated a clear program for what to do. He is weak on defense issues whereas John Kerry being a “war hero” can portray himself as strong in this area. The centerpiece of Dean’s position on Iraq is that he opposed the war. The best part of his program that he would implement would be a NATO-led coalition to maintain order and guarantee disarmament and transferring civilian authority in Iraq to an international body approved by the UN Security Council. www.deanforamerica.com But this program is no different from every other Democratic candidate, including John Kerry. Most Democrats can agree on this program as well as quite a few republicans.

So can John Kerry beat Bush? The Punditocracy agrees that this is the reason he is winning in the primaries. Electability. People will vote for a person on the basis of what they think others think of him. It is a strange concept; it requires understanding what other people think. This is a nation driven by polls and public opinion. In such an environment, every voter becomes his own pundit. It gives great power to those who distill the “public opinion” from the myriad of voices and views across a nation of millions.

What about John Edwards, Wesley Clark, or heaven forfend Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich? I recently did a quiz at presidentmatch.com to find out which candidate was closest to my views. Unsurprisingly, Kucinich was closest to my views. He is the farthest left of all the Democratic candidates. For this reason, he doesn’t stand a chance in hell of winning. In fact, I don’t think he has polled above 10% in any state. He is simply not “electable”. Of course, if people voted for him because they like his views rather than what they think others think of him, perhaps he would be electable. Al Sharpton came in second. I have heard a lot about his comments during the campaign. He is usually credited with having the best lines during the debates. His views may be close to mine, but he is also accused of focusing too much on race as an issue, much more so than Jesse Jackson, whom I voted for in previous elections. I am mainly wary of his previous experience in politics, which is mainly as a gadfly rather than as a person who actually governs. In any case, I think these two are in the race not to win the presidency, but to influence the party platform. For this reason, when the primary comes to my state and a nominee has already been decided, I will likely vote for Kucinich.

After the debacle of 2000, I think a lot of leftists are afraid of being left out in the cold. Nader and the Greens did so well not because the left (myself included) thought that he stood a snowball’s chance in hell of actually winning. Rather, we thought that a strong showing by Nader would shock the Democrats into not taking the left for granted. The left and environmentalists were upset by the treatment we received from the Clinton administration. We had thought that electing Clinton would be the answer to our prayers after 12 years of Republican dominance, but Clinton was more centrist than center-left. Many important issues for the left and for environmentalists got ignored. Unfortunately, the plan backfired and Gore could not carry key states without the left. The irony is that Gore was more liberal and even more environmentalist than Clinton. He should have been the Green’s dream candidate, but he was tarnished by the legacy of Clinton.

Now, it is not mainstream Democrats that are flocking to the left to bring them back in the fold. Instead, the left is scared silly of being left out in the cold. The left has backed Howard Dean rather than Dennis Kucinich partly because he was the strongest voice against the war, but also because he was thought to be more mainstream than Kucinich. Now that Dean is faltering, many on the left are ready to line up behind Kerry. This is mainly because, unlike Bush, Kerry is someone almost all liberals and leftists can live with. The most important goal is to get rid of Bush. The secondary goal is to force the Democratic party to become more liberal without becoming unelectable. For this reason, the Democratic party will be more united than they have in years, perhaps decades. The left is ready to compromise on many issues if it can get support for others. If John Kerry is the nominee, then everyone in the party (and some who left came back) will stand behind him. Personally, I plan to do some volunteering for the Kerry campaign when it gets into full swing for the general election.