The text of an email I sent to friends today:

I admire what Dean has done for the party. As an early adopter who was willing to speak his mind, he energized a huge segment of the party and broke the ice a year ago when it was still politically questionable to attack Bush.

But he’s not electable. Why? The statements and energy that gave rise to Dean’s army of supporters is the reason why many independents (and centrist Republicans) won’t even consider him. And, yes, we’ll probably benefit from greater-than-usual turnout of registered Democrats in the general election because of (a) the high degree of national partisanship, (b) Dean’s effectiveness at fanning the flames of the far-left, and (c) the large number of primary candidates. Turnout in both Iowa and New Hampshire was far, far above the 2000 mark. But I think Dean would just collapse in the general election, winning only a small share of states, and certainly none in the south.

And I don’t think the election is entirely about the far-left. I think it’s about winning the middle. I don’t expect to convert any of you to Clark’s side, but I honestly believe that he is the only Democrat who can win in the general election. But before I say that, I’ll focus on who I believe the big three will be in a few months – Kerry, Edwards, and Clark. As Michael Moore said, “The decision in November is going to come down to 15 states and just a few percentage points. So, I had to ask myself -- and I want you to honestly ask yourselves -- who has the BEST chance of winning Florida, West Virginia, Arizona, Nevada, Missouri, Ohio? Because THAT is the only thing that is going to matter in the end. You know the answer -- and it ain't you or me or our good internet doctor.”

So we have to get those 15 states. That is essential. I have two major points:

1. North versus South. Kerry has a ton of momentum now, but I don’t see him winning – at least in those 15 states. To borrow from a letter I received from one of my campaign buddies: “No northern democrat has won the presidency in forty-four years. And that was before the civil rights movement, when the south voted democrat consistently. Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton: all southern democrats who won southern states and the White House. Even southerner Al Gore won the popular vote. For forty years, this has been the shape of the electorate. Every northern democrat who ran for president lost. No matter what they said, or how they said it, they lost. If we want a democrat in the White House next January, we need a candidate who can win southern votes, and the last four decades have shown without exception that the only way to win southern votes is to put a southerner on the top of the ticket.”

I’d love your feedback on this point.

2. Core election issues. It’s not surprising that the core election issues are going to be national security and jobs. Again, I’d appreciate hearing any contrasting opinions. That being said, I think we need a candidate with a strong national defense background. That leaves us with Clark and Kerry. If you think Edwards looks young and inexperienced now, just wait until he tries to argue with Bush on military force.

Again, feedback would be great.

And I want your opinions on Clark’s tax proposals. I could describe it mysef, but I’m sick of typing, so I’d prefer to just cut-and-paste one from Moore:

“Clark has committed to ensuring that every family of four who makes under $50,000 a year pays NO federal income tax. None. Zip. This is the most incredible helping hand offered by a major party presidential candidate to the working class and the working poor in my lifetime. He will make up the difference by socking it to the rich with a 5% tax increase on anything they make over a million bucks. He will make sure corporations pay ALL of the taxes they should be paying. Clark has fired a broadside at greed. When the New York Times last week wrote that Wes Clark has been “positioning himself slightly to Dean’s left," this is what they meant, and it sure sounded good to me.”

Plus, Clark and Sharpton have been using the same line about rich Americans ($200,000 and up, in Clark’s case) doing “their patriotic duty” by returning the Bush tax cuts. It got a standing ovation from the crowds each of the five times I heard it.

As far as pres/VP matches are concerned, I think we’re still far too early to predict any of that. I know that Bill Richardson is pretty high on the democratic radar – especially because of his experience as Ambassador to the UN, Secretary of Energy, and his stellar approval ratings from Latino voters. But do I see Edwards deciding to become a VP? I really doubt it.

And I’ll conclude with a little anecdote about my experiences with the different campaigns and then another quote from Michael Moore. Yes, I am being lazy. Plus, my room is about 17 degrees and if I type any longer, my fingers are going to freeze. So I’ll wrap it up quickly.

I’ve been to “meetups” for a few candidates, and I’ve spoken to plenty of folks from Clark, Dean, and Kerry campaigns. What struck me most was the makeup of those groups – Dean’s folks were mostly college kids who with a ton of energy, Kerry’s were mostly New Englanders, while Clark’s group had folks from New York, Louisiana, and Arizona. And, perhaps most importantly, about 10% of the group was disenfranchised Republicans who hated Bush. But they also hated Dean, and thought that Kerry was an aristocrat. So they picked Clark. Those are the voters I think we need.

Moore writes, “This is not about voting for who is more anti-war or who was anti-war first or who the media has already anointed. It is about backing a candidate that shares our values AND can communicate them to Middle America. I am convinced that the surest slam dunk to remove Bush is with a four-star-general-top-of-his-class- at-West-Point-Rhodes-Scholar-Medal-of-Freedom-winning-gun-owner-from-the-South -- who also, by chance, happens to be pro-choice, pro environment, and anti-war. You don't get handed a gift like this very often. I hope the liberal/left is wise enough to accept it. It's hard, when you're so used to losing, to think that this time you can actually win. It is Clark who stands the best chance -- maybe the only chance -- to win those Southern and Midwestern states that we MUST win in order to accomplish Bush Removal. And if what I have just said is true, then we have no choice but to get behind the one who can make this happen. There are times to vote to make a statement, there are times to vote for the underdog and there are times to vote to save the country from catastrophe. This time we can and must do all three.”