The major problem with not reelecting Bush is the Democrats actually finding someone distinguishable to run.

Agreed. And I guess my subject line is just to ask how much worse things would have to get before 51% of voters would vote for anybody other than the incumbent. (Oh, and win, too, electorally!) The fact that I perceive some Bush vulnerability now may just be an illusion, but it would be interesting to drive to a place like Fayetteville and take a monthly poll over the next year...

The ancillary problem is that we haven't had a liberal in the White House since 1979, and I think that spells bad news for Mr. Dean, who I like, but who won't get nominated. I potentially like Kucinich even more, but, unfortunately, I don't believe that anyone with a name like ``Kucinich'' has a rat's chance of getting elected to the Presidency. A man with a name like ``Dean'' is much more likely....

I don't think that Kucinich's name would be an absolute show-stopper, but I would agree that "Dean" is an adavantage!

So, for the record, here's the official (?) list of Democratic nominees with my commentary (A tertiary point is that you can't find an official list on the DNC website. The RNC is nice enough to, though.):

Dick Gephardt: Run for President more times than John Anderson, Dave Barry, and Pat Paulsen combined. As the RNC so succintly puts it: ``Expired''

Yup, if nominated, this would be a stupid triumph of paralytic party politics.

John Edwards: The closest thing to Bill Clinton: a younger man from the South with populist, moderate-to-conservative bent. That whole talking-to-the-dead thing doesn't help, though

I'm missing something here...don't tell me he's as loopy as Bob Graham???

Al Sharpton: Come on. Can you say ``Out of his depth'' and ``One-trick pony''? Does he even have a platform?

Does anyone have less of a chance?

Carol Moseley Braun: An intelligent black woman. She'll never win. Also, a candidate from the ambassadorial service? We could use it, but weird

And maybe not pure enough , either.

Joe Lieberman: A Jewish Republican. Who does he represent again?

Aside from the specter of another, different, "The Pope will call the shots!" campaign subtext, I think sometimes that this guy would make a better Republican. School vouchers? I won't forgive/forget.

Bob Graham: I have less of a good handle on him than the rest, and that says something. Something about him just creeps me out, though

We should all be creeped out. Minute-by-minute compulsive diarist of events like "rewound videotape, 7:12-7:17"? Be very creeped out.

Howard Dean: One of the few liberals on the ticket
Dennis Kucinich: Another one, but he seems to have more of an independent mind

I haven't heard that much of Kucinich on radio/TV, so I may not be comparing fairly, but what I like about Dean is not only that he is articulate but that he seems ready to be combative.

John Kerry: Massachusetts democrats have traditionally not done well in nationwide elections since '60. Reasonably solid liberal, though

I don't dislike Kerry, and would rate him as one of the 2 most likely to get the nomination, but he seems to have developed more and more of a dispassionate, senatorial demeanor that I think can be interpreted as noncomittal or even slippery. Not sure if that's fair...

See? None of them really stand out, and the DNC is doing basically nothing to promote any of them. The primary is still more than six months away, but it's almost hard to find information. At least the DNC website features popup ads.

So, I'd say no-hopers include Sharpton, Mosely Braun and Graham: (if nominated, the Republicans will dig up Lee Atwater to make fun of him), with Gephardt, Lieberman, and Kucinich sitting not much better, and maybe Edwards, Dean and Kerry having the best shot.

One of my big questions is who, of the more credible contenders, will be dumb enough to do photo ops with Bill Clinton during that campaign (I won't even mention Hillary!)