randomWalks

A strange thing happened on the way to the nomination. Almost as if to rebuke the Washington establishment, many voters seem to be sending the message that they'd prefer to decide who is electable, rather than be told who is. Support for Lieberman and Kerry in particular seems to have eroded, or at least remained unchanged, in key early voting states, even as the candidates have stepped up their attacks on Dean.

Clearly, in the minds of some voters, Dean's opponents have spent more time attacking him than building a case for themselves.

This is exactly how I feel. Why do candidates such as Lieberman and Kerry think it makes sense to attack Dean? Gaga over Dean, the media are more inclined to focus on attacks on Dean rather than other candidates' positive statements about themselves. (Not that I mind--Kerry and Lieberman bore me.)

The Post's Terry Neal also mentions a surprising statistic that might cheer Zagg:

Voters who lean Democrat were asked whether it was more important to them that a candidate agree with them on their most important issue or whether the candidate could beat Bush. Seventy-three percent said it was more important to pick a candidate on the issues, compared to 25 percent who said beating Bush was more important.