Rig--

None of us want to see the Democrats pick a "shoot yourself in the foot" candidate. I gather this is a snide comment by you against Kerry--who actually was a much stronger candidate than Dean would ever have been.   The top 2004 issue was always national security. There is no possible way that a person who wanted to withdraw all the troops from Iraq immediately then would have been seen by the electorate as stronger on national security than a person who fought in combat in Vietnam (Kerry). I've already given much more plausible reasons why Kerry lost in 2004--and Dean would have lost worse than that. If you'd like I can detail the real reasons for Kerry's loss again.

Nobody has ever come up with any evidence that Dean would have been seen as stronger on national security than Kerry--though I have asked for this evidence more than once. And that is by far the crucial issue.

However, that is now (surprisingly) ancient history. The way for the Democrats to pick a "shoot-yourself-in- the- foot" candidate now would be to pick Hillary--who has the burdens both of the 1960's legacy and the 1990's legacy--and will never be able to shed either.

Obama has neither the Vietnam war legacy nor the visceral anti-Clinton feeling-- which is still widespread--to deal with. Moreover, he is a real uniter, not a divider. And not only inspires trust but uplift--and not just among Democrats. Clinton is seen not only as somebody who continues the adversarial politics the US is sick of, but refuses to take stands on so many issues--and on top of that is untrustworthy.

There's no question who's the stronger candidate for the general election--by far. And it ain't Hillary.