Dig deep into The Washington Post's front page story on how Hillary and Obama are already blotting out the rest of the Democratic field and you come across an interesting nugget from the folded Evan Bayh campaign:
After the Democratic Party's losses in 2004, Bayh saw an opening to run for the nomination by presenting himself as a Democrat who could win Republican states, such as his home state of Indiana. After the Democrats' victories last month, Bayh's advisers found that his experience as a senator and a governor and his potential in red states were less appealing to Democratic activists looking toward 2008.The Bayh camp's research found that activists want a candidate who can give voice to their frustrations with Bush and the war in Iraq and who can channel it into a crusade-like campaign. Bayh's advisers concluded that made Obama and possibly Edwards more likely than the Indiana senator to become alternatives to Clinton.
Here is an interesting insight and fodder for the intra-party tug of war between those advocating an "electable" (centrist) candidate and those who say that the path to victory is by blazing a trail to the left (arguing that such a crusade would inspire an electorate bored or numbed by the muddled middle).
Which should it be, HuffPoers?
Comments for this entry are currently under maintenance but will be restored soon.