As you may have read by now, Kevin has come out for Edwards as his preferred candidate. In some ways, I’m inclined to agree. I’m still back-and-forth between Obama and Edwards, and I suspect I’m not alone in this feeling. On the surface, I like Edwards better on policy, but I also can’t shake the feeling that Obama (who I also like on policy, just not as much) will ultimately make a better, more electable candidate in the general (and don’t ask me why I get that feeling, because I haven’t been able to put my finger on it — something to do with the fact that he’ll be more appealing to the “median voter,” I suppose, but I don’t know why I think that, either…).

The problem I have, however, is a deeply-rooted fear that there are a lot of people, like me, who put Obama and Edwards as #1 and #2 (or vice versa), with Clinton as a distant third, and that those people will in effect split the “not Clinton” vote, allowing Clinton to get the nomination with a plurality. I don’t think that’s a good thing.

Don’t get me wrong: I’d still take Clinton over anyone in the GOP field; she’s just far from my ideal candidate, for many of the reasons Kevin pointed out. Plus, there’s the pre-existing bitch/hate narrative that exists, fairly or unfairly, that you just know the media will seize on in a general.

In a perfect world, we’d have instant run-offs, even in the primaries, such that this wouldn’t be a concern. But we don’t live in a perfect world. And as it is, I don’t know how to fix it. But I do fear that if a front-runner between Edwards and Obama doesn’t clearly emerge in an early state, Clinton could win by default. I don’t think that would be good for the Democratic party or for progressivism.