After several abortive attempts I’ve concluded that I cannot write intelligently about the primaries. So I won’t try. Ezra over at Pandagon has a post that hits on some of the points that I’ve been chewing on over the last week. This paragraph in particular deserved a second look.

I've been thinking a lot about a Kerry candidacy lately. I've always said he'd be the best president of the bunch, but he's the worst campaigner. I no longer think he's the worst, but I'm not convinced that he's particularly good. Regardless, I'm very comfortable with his positions, his character, his intelligence and his understanding of what the presidency requires. I believe he's mentally prepared for the presidency, I think he understands the historical importance of the moment and is determined not to squander it. I've always believed that about him, he's someone whose dreams were larger than he was, but in the aftermath of Iowa he began to grow. I can see John Kerry as president, moreover, I can see him as a successful one.

My feelings on every candidate are still decidedly mixed. And when it looked like Dean was going to be our man I started preparing myself to support him, despite my misgivings. Getting back on the wagon for Kerry feels a little like trying on an outgrown tee shirt. But it’s not hard to visualize him as president. Casa Warren never really stopped being Kerry friendly, due in no small part to Ted Kennedy’s endorsement. We are unabashed Massachusetts Liberals in spirit if not in body.

My problem this entire time is that I’m more likely to compare candidates to Bush than I am to compare them to each other. Go figure. As to the question, “Can Kerry/Dean/Clark/Edwards beat Bush?” I’m tired of hearing it. Whoever wins the nomination, if he loses to Bush it won’t be entirely on his own. It will be because we decided that beating Bush wasn’t enough.

I know where I stand.