January 11, 2004
WHICH IS THE STUPID PARTY AGAIN?:
Dean: Dominator or Detonator? (David S. Broder, January 7, 2004, Washington Post)
Howard Dean is now racing the clock to see what comes first -- nomination or detonation.The former Vermont governor is closing in on the honor of leading the Democratic ticket at the same time that his critics and rivals are busily converting his own utterances into controversies that could blow his chances to smithereens. The nightmare possibility for the Democrats is that the two might happen at once -- that Dean will polish off his opponents just as he commits the gaffe of all gaffes, the one for which no repairs are possible.
It is hard to recall another challenger who has simultaneously outdistanced, out-organized and outmaneuvered the other candidates as thoroughly and swiftly as Dean has done, and at the same time has so thoroughly demonstrated a penchant for embarrassing himself.
Whatever happens the rest of the way, it is clear that the doctor has an instinct for the political jugular -- other people's and his own.
Gotta love it: Mr. Dean needs to wrap up the nomination as quickly as possible before even Democrats figure out he's unelectable.
MORE:
Will the Real Howard Dean Please Stand Up? (Joe Klein, Jan. 11, 2004, TIME)
[T]here is a monumental "on the other hand" with Dean. There is a recklessness about the man, an adolescent screw-you defiance that runs much deeper than the steady stream of gaffes produced by his projectile candor. In Exeter, N.H., last month I watched as he called the moderate Democratic Leadership Council "the Republican wing of the Democratic Party." I could see the "Republican wing" dig occur to him as he was talking about the need to bring Democrats together. His face lit up, his eyes danced, and he couldn't resist the pleasure of the zinger, even though it undercut his intended message and might cost him support down the road. He knew exactly what he was doing.Posted by Orrin Judd at January 11, 2004 11:32 AMThe carelessness extends to many of Dean's policy statements. His position on trade, for example. Dean assumes that the threat of American tariffs would force countries like China to raise salaries and standards—but such a threat would merely be another form of the arrogant, ineffective unilateralism that Dean has rightly criticized in Iraq. Trade sanctions require global cooperation. Recent history suggests that most countries, including those of the European Union, are more interested in low prices than in human rights (especially in China). In any case, as Bill Clinton used to say, the factory jobs that have gone away aren't coming back, and the only way to create new ones is the hard way—through innovation and a better-educated work force. But Dean's brand of straight talk leaves little room for complexity, and his self-proclaimed "intuitive" style leaves plenty of room for error.
My Dean problem, though, runs deeper than policy. I'm not sure how all the pieces of his personality fit together. I don't know how his almost casual anger and adolescent taunting coexist with the patient idealism inherent in his belated decision to become a doctor. In my experience, even the most arrogant doctors tend to be careful sorts, but Dean is noisy and precipitate.
He has trafficked in rumors, as when he mentioned on National Public Radio that there was "an interesting theory" that the President was told in advance by the Saudis about the Sept. 11 attacks. He quickly disavowed the theory, but no responsible politician, much less a candidate for President, should raise such slander without firm proof. I wonder about his often blatant cynicism—how he could suddenly, after insisting that his faith was a private matter, say last week that God had inspired his decision to allow gay civil unions. I admire his wife's choice not to be involved in the campaign and his own choice not to take a maudlin autobiographical path on the stump, but these decisions leave a void. They make it harder to know what sort of man he is. I wonder how he delivered bad news to his patients.
The Deaniacs I know will be so torn if he loses the nomination. The root of their love for him is their hatred of George W. Bush. They will not take kindly to the DNC or their candidate burying their man, to whom they've become so loyal. But if they go indy with him, or if they just don't vote because he's not on the ticket, they will put GWB back in office. What to do, what to do?
Posted by: NKR at January 11, 2004 12:55 PMI keep wondering why Dean's wife doesn't campaign with him. Is it because she knows that he will explode, and she doe not want to be covered with the debris?
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at January 11, 2004 01:14 PMNKR --
I have been fortunate not too "know" any Deanics. But I have been pondering the same myself: what is stronger, hate of W or love of Dean? This would suggest a compromise where they follow the leaders and do what it takes to beat W. However, I suspect that narcissim is the other common denominator of the Deanics, and if they feel a W defeat is not going to be fashioned by them, credited to them, and forever reflecting their obviously correct values, they may get disinterested. Your thoughts?
Posted by: MG at January 11, 2004 02:06 PM"what is stronger, hate of W or love of Dean?"
Given that Dean's positions haven't been very different(except for taxes)from Clinton's(or Bush,for that matter)I'd go with hate.
Dean is merely a symbol or vehicle for their emotions,if Nader had been angry,who knows?
What's interesting is reading columns by Broder, Klein or others in the mainstream press and seeing the underlying thought that they know Dean would in all likelihood be a total disaster in November, but for now attempt to tread lightly around the issue when it comes to the Democrats' acutal voters and hope that with gentle prodding, the electorate will come to their senses before it's too late.
Were they to voice their actual feelings, especially if Dean does prevail in Iowa and New Hampshire, their columns would sound something like this, only with Howard's name substituted for Bush.
Posted by: John at January 11, 2004 03:30 PMI'm not basing this on personal knowledge of any Dean supporters, but my guess is that they are probably more in the Nader/Green camp than truely a core of the Democrat party (at least the most committed ones). Because there is no primary for the the Greens or Nader, they get a free shot at influencing the Democrat nominee.
I think Dean appeals to them mostly based on his volcanic anti-Bush rhetoric, coupled with the glow of being from the left's favorite state, Vermont.
If Dean isn't the Democrat nominee, I think they'll go back to the Green/Nader camp and blather on about how even Democrat voters are 'sheeple' for not following their noble lead.
Dean/Nader on the Green ticket, maybe?
Posted by: Chris at January 11, 2004 04:14 PMHas anyone seen the latest on Dean? A voter, Dale Ungerer, pleaded with Dean to tone down his hate rhetoric, and Dean simply blew him away. Ungerer summed up it afterward: "He put me down definitely because he is who he is."
It's all of a piece with the Neil Starkman article a few days ago. "Dullards like you shouldn't attempt any independent thinking because you're so inept at it; leave it all to me instead." That's the message the Democratic Party is sending to their electorate.
Posted by: Josh Silverman at January 11, 2004 08:39 PMHate for Bush, love for Dean? It can't be love - few politicians inspire that, and they are all optimists and generally pretty charismatic (Reagan or JFK/RFK). Who ever loved Jimmy Carter or even Gene McCarthy? Dean is the Pat Buchanan (or Pete McCloskey) of the Democratic party, who suddenly finds himself in the lead, with an organization outside of normal party channels and apparent financial independence.
The hard-core left could not support Gephardt or Kerry in the same way, and certainly not Lieberman. Kucinich and Sharpton and Moseley-Braun are just embarassments and while their words are compatible with the hard left, they just marginalize the MoveOn crowd (and I am sure people feel that). But Dean - he is an unknown. He is not a loon, he does not embarass, and he fights. By comparison, Kucinich is like an angry checkout clerk at a convenience store. If Dean is not nominated, will the lost votes on the left end be made up by any votes gained from the middle? That is the question.
Posted by: jim hamlen at January 11, 2004 10:48 PM