I’m going to be blunt. Joe Lieberman’s campaign is the most colossal failure amongst a group of candidates that don’t exactly qualify as superstars. Our proud Connecticut senator had everything before him. He has years of political experience, great popularity in his own state, a solid image of morality and honesty, and most of all, name recognition, an edge which can’t be underestimated. By all rights, he should have been able to ride all of that to the front of the polls, and stay put. But instead, he got to the first part…and then things started going bad, fast. Now that we’re closing in on the first primaries, and invisible is about the best word to describe him. That and hopeless. What’s wrong with this picture? Why did a popular former VP candidate end up as the Democrats’ crazy old uncle in the attic? As Connecticut residents, let us take a look at our fallen star as he struts and frets his hour upon the stage, soon to be heard no more. For his campaign is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Forget the Judaism. It’s hard to analyze the effects of that, and besides, I don’t want to go there. And I’m speaking the obvious to talk about his conservatism. Sure, Democrats shouldn’t exactly be thrilled over somebody who’s more hawkish on Saddam than President Bush, but I won’t tell you something you already know. Rather, the problem is Joe himself. Selling yourself as a candidate is like selling anything else. It’s all about delivery. I think Joe’s advisors forgot that one. The problem with Joe’s campaign, or at least the biggest one, is that he’s executing this campaign like the stereotypical politician that he is. He kisses a few babies, throws on a hardhat for a few minutes, and talks about his legislative record, oh how he talks about that. He’s like an overly zealous golfer after a 300-yard drive. “Did you see me push that Homeland Security bill through the Senate? ‘Cause I sure did, and it was a beeee-uty.” Not only is there no energy or originality, but he forgets that most people don’t trust politicians. That’s why the last guy elected President from Congress still charms the hell out of us forty years after his death. Serious candidates have personality as well as substance. And they’re almost always anti-political, at least on the surface. Lieberman is the most political of any of the guys up there, and worst of all, he’s proud of it. He’s treating it like a Senate campaign writ large. Someone needs to go up and tap on his shoulder and say, “Umm…Senator Lieberman, you’re running for President, not reelection.” Boy, will his face be red.

You can get away with that half-hearted interaction in the Senate. People don’t care as much, and those who do are zealous enough to put issues over personality. Not so in the big leagues. Most voters, unfortunately, are idiots. They vote personality, always have, always will. Howard Dean is a vapid banshee, but at least he gets your attention. Let’s remember that while we scroll over to Joe, drolling on about…oh, who the hell cares. See? Try it sometime, next time he’s up there…if he hasn’t dropped out by then. I don’t think he’s a bad senator. He’d probably be better if he remembered that his job description doesn’t include the words “Running for President 24/7 (no, wait, 24/6) for two straight years.” Maybe he wouldn’t even be a bad president. But on the campaign trail, he makes George Bush Sr. look like Chris Rock from Head of State. And Dan Quayle like Bernie Mac.

Clearly, the biggest surprise thus far to the 2004 campaign has been the meteoric rise of Howard Dean as front-runner (though I’m pretty sure that meteors are better known for falling.) As a result, the previous front-runner, Senator John Kerry, is languishing in the throes of stagnancy like a fly on a web. It’s only a matter of time before the spider of Super Tuesday finishes him off, but he’ll kick and scream as much as he can before the bitter end. Yet within this phenomenon is another intriguing development: How did this guy ever become front-runner in the first place? And, having obtained it, how did he lose it so easily? Once again, there’s little point in me using this article a soapbox to blast him for being such a poor candidate. Rather, his brief rise and crippling fall indicate why the Big D is going home empty-handed this year.

Right from the get-go, the Democrats proved that they don’t have a very solid sense of history. Let’s look at the history of incumbent defeats over the last several years. George the First was defeated because his sound policies were overshadowed by his poor communication skills, and Bill Clinton, say what you will, is a political genius who could charm the pants off of…well, you know how the story goes. Jimmy Carter against Ronald Reagan really wasn’t a fair fight from day one. Gerald Ford in ’76…he certainly doesn’t count. As a U.S. President, that is. Having reviewed that, did the Democrats really believe a wartime president who held a 55+ approval rating despite Iraq and a recession could really be beaten by…John Kerry? No, wait, make that John F. Kerry. Uniqueness, passion, and substance (Oops, say goodbye to Dean) mark those who defeat incumbents. Not a career politician from Massachusetts (and the top 1%) who has a voice for newspaper and looks like a tree. Sorry, I couldn’t resist. His initial ascension marks the desperation of the party for somebody, anybody, to take on Bush, even a Senator (and no, despite what he tells you, he is not another JFK, except on his birth certificate).

But that’s not the end of it. For even though fate was aligned against him, it was choice that doomed the Kerry campaign, and Kerry himself pushed the button on the self-destruct mechanism. He achieved all this, by listening to the ravings of some lunatic governor from Vermont, and then paying attention. Not only paying attention, but decided that this Dean guy was putting on a pretty good show, and he wanted in on some of the action. Cue the ferocious anti-Iraq sentiment, cue the UN kowtowing, cue the class warfare (coming from someone who’s worth is by marriage 30 times what Bush earned on his own). Even Dean’s biggest competitor became swept up in the Dean craze of style over substance, rage over reason. He might as well just handed the guy his King-until-the-election crown. If Kerry has just ignored the guy and pursued his own motif, he would still be # 1, and the Democrats might be taken a little (just a little) more seriously. Nobody ever said politicians were smart. Well, somebody probably did, but they were wrong. Kerry had no shot from day one. But he would have a made a great Michael Dukakis upgrade had he not indirectly bowed down to George McGovern 2.0. Kerry truly is the story of the 2003-04 Democratic Party. He started out desperate. Then he replaced platform with emotion. But through it all, he’s always been a whiner and a fake. And the emblem of why the donkey will walk away from November with a “W” tattooed on its hide.

It’s very difficult to take Dennis Kucinich seriously, even for the purposes of a mere column. His ideas, such as the “Department of Peace,” and scrapping of America’s nukes (and nobody else’s) make me want to scratch my head and adjust my television. “Imagine,” catchy though it may be, doesn’t strike me as a proper campaign song, unless you’re running for Dear Leader. His followers are the ones holding up the “Bush: World’s # 1 Terrorist” signs at protest rallies. He has the gall to refer to himself as the “progressive” candidate of the race. And besides, he is, as Ann Coulter put it, “a strange looking little man.” But it’s far too easy for me or anyone else to sit down and blast his outer-space politics, so I won’t prattle on regarding what we already know. Rather, I have a theory that while his ideas are certainly extreme even by modern Democratic standards, the mindset behind those ideas is nothing new, nor nothing irregular as far as the Dems go. The philosophy behind his wannabe agenda lies at the heart of everything wrong with his party, a deeply rooted corruption that is not limited to Wesleyan students and the Plowshare movement. It’s nothing more than a more detailed version of the party line.

Let me introduce my point with this, part of his conclusion speech at the Iowa caucus.

Fear led us into attacking Iraq. Fear led us into passing the Patriot Act. My candidacy is about the end of fear and the beginning of hope for America -- hope that we can reconnect with the world community, which will enable us to bring U.N. peacekeepers in and bring our troops home; hope that we can reestablish our civil liberties; hope that we can once again become a nation where we are respected around the world for the quality of our morality, for our willingness to work with our hands instead of our arms.

Finally, we see what is at the heart of his campaign, beyond all the diatribes about the Kyoto Accord and Bush targeting civilians in Afghanistan. He attributes every action regarding of the war on terror, from both invasions to the PATRIOT act, as an irrational act of fear, and that by acting on that fear we’ve made the whole world mad at us for being so petulant. Not only that, but if elected, he’ll make everything better by proving once again just how swell America is capable of being. The underlying principle here is that everything is America’s fault. The world doesn’t like us because we’re jerks, terrorists exist because we denied their liberties, and if we just be nice toward everyone it will make it all better. Sounds crazy, right? Ok, so Kucinich is a lunatic. But what about Howard Dean? He has frequently implied that he would order an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and indicated that he would only invade Iraq if the UN gave him “permission.” John Kerry has the same remedy for trouble and victory: appeal to the UN, get help, we did wrong and it’s time to fess up. Bill Clinton, in November of 2001, went so far as to cite the Crusades as a justification for September 11th. Hillary, when not making racist comments about 20th century icons, visited Iraq only to tell the troops that they weren’t doing a good enough job and needed help. Do I see a trend? America is always wrong, everyone else is always right. That philosophy is not the conjurations or Rush and Tom DeLay. It’s very real, and Democratic leadership is not afraid to admit it. I will not generalize rank and file Democrats, but in terms of leaders, the only thing the US can ever do right is admit just how wrong it is on everything. They don’t necessarily hate America, they just don’t trust it. The only thing setting Kucinich apart is that he formulizes that mindset into concrete form with his ideas, rather than simply implying it. As far as the Democratic race goes, he is not a lone nut appeasing to the boondocks of the left. He is nothing more than their very own Charles Barkley. He says what everyone else thinks.

Obviously, the Democratic race cannot easily be defined as a logical process. However, if there was a shred of reason left in this campaign, it seems to be that John Edwards would be the out-and-out superstar of the race. I’m not saying that I like him, but it seems like he has everything they could want in a candidate. He’s a young guy with a nice-looking family, and he’s cornered the market on a “regular guy” image. His past is probably squeaky clean, he’s eloquent as far as the Nine go, and he’s moderate enough to comfortably court both sides of the fence. His campaign is marked by actual ideas, and if the last forty years is any indication, Democrats dig guys with Southern accents. So why are his poll numbers comparable to those of Al Sharpton? Why is he the most obscure of the serious candidates? I already showed why Gephardt can’t win. Now I’ll tell you why Edwards, in this place and time, never even had a chance.

I said before that he based his platform on a series of ideas, of new initiatives and folksy values. Usually, that would be a big asset, but now it’s a crippling setback. Because the Democrats have proven that they don’t want a campaign of ideas, plans, and hopes. They want a campaign of anger, vitriol, and yes, hatred. They’ve worked themselves into such a frenzy over Bush, they can only find satisfaction with someone who will provide a channel for that rage. Why else do Dean’s supporters write off his countless gaffes and flaws? He’s the only serious candidate giving the people what they want: Not so much a campaign as a crusade. As a result, it doesn’t matter if Edwards comes off as the reasonable, electable candidate. He doesn’t incite his followers into wael-raes, so they have no use for him. It doesn’t make a bit of difference if he’s the most “regular” fellow on the podium. Not only he is painfully overzealous in his quest to prove himself as normal, but Democrats don’t want normal this time around, at least the majority of them don’t, if polls are any indication. They want a representative who will justify their all-consuming righteous fury. If the nomination is as hateful as they are, then they can pass off that sentiment as normal and acceptable. John Edwards can’t be that man. Sure, he’s a Bush-basher, but his focus on vapid rhetoric isn’t nearly enough for the mobilized Democrats of the primary phase. He’s just too…normal. How passé. So this time around he’ll have to pack up and head home, and keep on fighting for me in the halls of the Senate (listen to one speech, no, one sentence of his, and you’ll see what I mean.) Maybe he’ll be called back once the Democrat leaders remember that elections are held on Earth.

Dick Gephardt surprises me. I thought he was just “yesterday’s candidate” but he’s actually become a viable player and a definite alternative to Dean by being, umm, sane. At least, most of the time. Yeah, he did call Bush’s foreign policy a “miserable failure”, then turn around and gush about how he was for Iraq the whole time when we caught Saddam. Yeah, he did say that Bush “has declared war on the American people.” But you know what’s worst? I’ve got all of Dick Gephardt’s problems right down to a very simple solution. He’s just your average Democrat. Ho-hum., (yawn). Let’s consult the list. Hugely pro-labor? Check. From a big farm state? Check. Gushes on about how much of a regular guy he is? Check. Skittish defense record? Check. Obscure rhetoric about evil Republicans? Checkmate. But there’s nothing remarkable, nothing to set him apart from the crowd. Besides, as my mother says, “He’s boring.”

I’m not going to discount his political potency. I think he definitely has a shot at the nomination, especially as Dean continues to dig his hole amongst the Dems. If the Golden Boy fails, then it will be natural for the Democrats to go with what they’re familiar and comfortable with, a case in which Gephardt’s lack of distinction may come in handy. But that won’t do them any favors in the long run, because while putting Dean on the national spotlight is equivalent to committing mass suicide, there’s no advantage in taking Gephardt as an alternative. The Democrats, more than anything else, need to energize the base. Since George Bush will be tough to beat, they need to counteract their usually dismal turnout with someone who will motivate them to do so. That’s why Dean was so special, until they realized how psychotic he was. He was someone that really inspired passion in his followers, few and isolated they may be. Gephardt may have more mainstream appeal, but I don’t see anyone worked up in a frenzy over him. He’s just another Dem, so if they throw him against Bush, your average joe schmo Democrat voter will have no more motivation to vote for him than he did for Gore, and Bush is in a far stronger position than he was in 2000. Sure, the whole business about being a regular guy, all the pro-union business, the anti-rich routine, that works great when you’re a Representative from Missouri. But this is the presidential race, and the last guy to win from either house of Congress was none other than John F. Kennedy. And as Lloyd Benson might say, “You are no Jack Kennedy, Dick Gephardt.”

I have to start big. I have to announce my entry onto the stage with an epic, all-consuming account of the key issues, the real important stuff, and cut it to shreds with my opinion and analysis. But, all I’ve got is the Iowa caucus. All I’m left with is the “naïve nine” as Sen. Zell Miller so wonderfully put it. But, I’ve got to deal with the cards that are dealt me, and so, I will inaugurate my column by doing what every conservative pundit/commentator must do: Analyze the candidates one by one. I was going to do it based on what they said today at Iowa. In fact, I was going to do it simply based on their 45-second conclusion speech. But then I realized that they all just spewed out the same trite about increasing the welfare state, being such regular joes, and how the decision is now in the hands of the people. So I’m going to cheat and approach it from a general perspective. For the next nine days, I’ll approach one candidate and break him down. Give me comments on how I’m doing, I’m still trying to figure out how in God’s name I do this column business.