There is considerable risk in Dean's scorched earth approach, but it may be the only way to smoke Bush out. Bush has a mean streak and he's not attractive when he gets angry, he doesn't have that much control over himself in the best of circumstances, a small man who gets pissed when a reporter suggests the the Ahnold mess in CA briefly eclipsed Bush's coverage in the press.

If the political season really turns bad for Bush when Congress reconvenes in the fall, look for a big mis-step before year's end. The other factor of note: the other Dems and the congressional Dems are going to notice that running against Bush works. Joe Biden has already learned this lesson. Look for all of them to come out swinging this fall.

I agree that running hard against Bush is a really good thing to do right now. The Bushies have been getting away with murder and nothing was getting through the Wurlitzer smog. Now that Dean shows there is a real campaign with real money, all of a sudden all the candidates will get more air time. As long as they spend a greater percentage of their time focusing on Bush screwups and lies, the overwhelming sense that there is something seriously wrong with Bush's governance will be a meme that will be impossible to stop. So I just say, "bring them on!"

I think that Rove is certainly scared, and rightly so, of unleashing Democratic fury against Bush. There's no doubt that unvarnished criticism from all quarters will pull back the curtain on the Mighty Wizard, and make him truly vulnerable.

On the other hand, I think that Rove would give up his firstborn to have Dean as the Democratic nominee. Dean can be as angry as he wants, and as critical of Bush as he pleases, but he is the easiest to paint as being himself far out of synch with the mood of the American people. While people talk as though Dean's "feistiness" will somehow perform some political magic to counter his perceived softness on national security, and his far too liberal adoption of civil unions, one need only look at Dean's record in Vermont itself to see how unlikely this is.

In Vermont, in 2000, Dean managed only by the skin of his teeth to be re-elected Governor, just barely clearing 50% by a few votes. This was in VERMONT, arguably the most liberal state in the country, and his numbers went way down in no small part because of his civil unions stand.

I ask, if Dean's "feistiness" can hardly manage to counteract a threat in VERMONT, how on earth can he hope to defend his distinctly leftist positions on the Iraq war and tax cuts in America at large?

The man is no political Houdini. He is a thousand feet short of the political talent of Clinton -- and even Clinton knew instinctively how important it was to adopt moderate positions to be elected in a national race.

Dean ain't no liberal. That's always been silly.

Dean is partisan as hell, though, and that's a problem.

Here's a snippet from my essay on why Clark's nonpartisan approach is the necessary road to travel in 2004:

That said, a partisan electoral victory is critical, obviously, to changing the direction of the country. And that victory will come to Clark not because he makes a big deal out of the fact that he's a Democrat but because he makes a big deal out of the fact that he's a strong proponent of institutional health, and the current Republican Party leadership - which is distinct from the Republican rank-and-file who DO like healthy American institutions - is not. That is, if this election is about who can best use degraded institutions to totally corrupted ends with a clear ideological endpoint (Delay) or to vague ends with no real endpoint (Democrats), then the GOP wins handily. If, however, this election is about using our degraded institutions to totally corrupted ends with a clear ideological endpoint OR to a renewal of our institutions, then the party of institutional health wins.

This is the sort of talk the Democrats need if they are going to defeat Bush. I'm not so sure that allowing insiders to state that the tactic is aimed at upsetting the Kerry campaign is a good idea. I can see this leading to Kerry blasting Dean, who blasts back, and Karl Rove start ordering the victory champagne.

The strategy has to be Bush and his screwups, not internecine warfare. If the Dems blow this one, then the moon will certainly be down.

Frankly and MattS.
I agree that Dean is not the strongest candidate in a national election. I can see our statewide Dem's in GA doing the Dukakis duck and run if he is the nominee. However, according to some Dean supporters, since I live in GA, my opinion does not count. I think the thing that probably bothers me most about Dean is that his supporters tend to be knee jerk on issues. It's things like I'm voting for him because he was against the war is the main one. Now there is nothing wrong with being against the war but that is the sole reason someone is voting for a candidate? It reminds me of 2000 when the GOPer's I knew said that they were voting for Bush because he was "more pro-life". I just shook my head. Apparently you can't just be "pro-life" you have to be "more pro-life" just like you can't just criticize Jr.'s handling of the war you have to be against all war?

Dean supporters
PS. I am not bashing him,

Make no mistake: Dean is going for the kill and wants to winnow the field.

He's proving that he's better qualified to win battles, decisively defeat opponents, finish the job, and bring it home. On time and under budget. Just what the American public isn't getting from Bush.

It's everywhere by now. New Zogby poll has Dean at 38% in New Hampshire, Kerry at 17%. Significant jump from previous polls. Quite a few people decided to make up their minds there in August, looks like. I wouldn't have expected that.

Frankly, MattS and Ga6thdem,

I'm usually the one who says don't eat our own and everybody keep your eye on the enemy, but I simply don't understand some of your positions and would like an answer.

Frankly0, forget it.

MattS, I know you're extremely excited about Wesley Clark, but why can't you also accept that much of what Dean is accomplishing is good for the party. If, as now seems likely, Dean wins the nomination, would you support a Dean candidacy? Yes, he's a Democrat. At this point, while I've never been a partisan fan myself, I believe it's absolutely essential that all progressives and moderates act in unison to defeat the incredible danger facing our way of life. From my perspective, that means a political party of sufficient cohesion to challenge the unbelievable and mindless of the Republicans. Hell yes, we need to be partisan in this fight.

I've said it before and, at the risk of offending, I don't think POTUS is a starter position. I know, I know! He has a lot of political experience in the Pentagon. I contend, however, that's entirely of a different quality than working difficult compromises with obstreperous and venal legislatures. I simply don't accept that we all need a knight in shining armor to swoop in and save the party from all the helpless nebishes currently contending. As I've said before, he seems like a fine man. If he gets some experience, either in a cabinet position or as VP, he could be a viable contender. And yes, it may seem odd to accept him as VP, "only a heartbeat away fron the presidncy", but I'm willing to take my chances that the POTUS isn't going to drop dead early in his first term.

Ga6thdem, Could you please give me some SPECIFIC reasons you think Dean is WEAK on security. YES, I know he was deferred 1Y by a SELECTIVE SERVICE DOCTOR, for back problems. The military wants people who can run and march long distances. Flat feet and asthmatic conditions are also reasons for dererral. Contrast that with a priveleged, cocaine snorting, God-struck recovered(?) DRUNK who was somehow assigned a coveted flying position in the Texas Air National Guerd, despite scoring 25 our out of 100 on a test taken by THOUSANDS of other applicants. This paragon on security apparently failed to show up for most of the second half of his sworn service, was de-certified for flight duty for failure to report for a required medical exam (probably because he'd fail the drug test) and who's service records are now all strangely redacted. Since it was during the Viet Nam war, that should qualify as DESERTION.

The SCLM may want to dismiss these facts and portray a former Governor who's balanced 11 budgets, fought for health care for as many people as he could get, supported businesses and cut some social programs for budgetary reasons, as WEAK on defense, and proposed state's rights for cosideration of gun control, civil rights and other issues, but why the hell do you buy into that? This is IMHO, the rankest kind of Republican spin. Basically, he has a better claim on security affairs than a drug abusing deserter can possilby claim.
Why then, do you accept the, to me, completely unfounded claim that he's WEAK on security?

Disclaimer, I've long been a Kerry supporter. I'm disappointed by his so-far somnambulent campaign, but I'd be happy to support him in the election. The same goes for Dean. Would you?

Folks, it's simple:

Scorched earth is good now, because this isn't just some personality contest; Dean isn't just lashing out at some guy he doesn't like (although there is an obvious element of personal dislike). There are issues, and tremendously important ones, that other candidates approach very timidly in their efforts to appear centrist.

The Democratic base feels sold out by this timidity, and conversely they feel emboldened by Dean's fearlessness. These people would be very stupid indeed to stop feeling emboldened if Kerry or Clark got the nod. Dean, if it comes to that, will tell his people to throw not only their votes, but their money and their voices, behind the nominee--and unless they are profoundly petulant, they will do it.

And thus, Dean will have proved to be the man who revived the party from its post-blowjob hangover.

DeminNJ
This has nothing to do with his draft status. The only problem I see with this is that he can more easily be branded anti-patriotic than some of the other candidates. He has no experience in National Security. His platform on national security is weak. He makes statements like "we shouldn't have gone it alone in Iraq". This is not a unilateral war, it is marginally bilateral. And Bush's military credentials, as you put them, can not be legitmately criticized by a candidate who did not serve. Now, whether this will matter with the electorate is a different point altogether. The criticisms you make regarding Bush's military record can only credibly be made from a candidate like Kerry. Look, Clinton was smart enough to not criticize Sr.'s military service. The democrats are hemorraghing on National Security and Defense with the electorate. And you want us to put up a candidate with no experience in this area? All the points regarding Bush's past can not be made by Dean without making himself look stupid. I'm getting tired of people accusing me of buying into media spin. I get this information from the Dean campaign website and his supporters. I see Dean vs. Bush on ns and fp as bad vs. worse. Can't the Dems put up a candidate who can be seen as good vs. bad? Fighting is good but it won't make up for a lack of issues. What we need is someone who has the issues and will fight ala Clinton.

Matt Davis
I hope you are right.

"The democrats are hemorraghing on National Security and Defense with the electorate."

Well, if we continue to run away from this and merely accept the notion that bombing the hell out of some country halfway around the world because it "makes us feel good" is synonymous with "defense" than Democrats will always be seen as weak and we might as well hand over the deed to the WH to the GOP right now and stop wasting our time and money. And if we don't have people on the national scene reframing this debate and doing it quickly, GWB will have recruited so many "terrorists" that no American will be safe anywhere outside the borders of this country. We're spending $400 billion a year on "defense" now and that seems not to be enough. So, how much should we spend? $500 billion or a trillon? It will never be enough if the "enemy" is someone with "boxcutters" and some rudimentary skill that can cause massive damage, and if the "enemy" is easily recruited from groups of young, poorly educated men who are easily seduced by visions of some sort of glory.

BTW -- BushI -- hero of the Gulf War was rejected at election time; so, why does everybody continue to believe that nothing will change in the next year? GWB support next year might be limited to the right wing in this country and al Queda abroad.

frankly0: Dean faced a third-party challenge from a progressive in 2000, because many Vermont liberals were angry about his fiscal conservatism. So, in a year when he was getting death threats for his civil unions stance, and someone on his left got 10% of the vote, Dean still polled 50% in the election.

Surely his detractors are correct that some voters would be turned off by Dean's anger in the general election. There's no way of knowing until (if) it comes, so I'm happy to disagree, but I believe the fire in his belly will be a net gain. It fires up his base, and I think it also ensures that any attempts to characterize him as another Mondale or Dukakis will fall flat. The fact that he's a fighter will I believe end up helping him on national security and defense issues, because people won't think he's a wimp. We've already heard the press corps speaking in admiration of his energy and endurance. They will serve him well in a general election.

That's my two cents, MattS, Ga6thDem, and frankly0, and while I won't crow over Zogby's latest NH numbers, you have to admit that, whatever Dean's doing right now, it seems to be working.

Exactly what national security and defense experience did Bush have before he was (s)elected President?

Marie,
Your points are exactly spot on. Look, this is why we have to have someone with ns credentials because only they can convince the general public that "bombing the hell" out of a country is not good national security policy.

It doesn't matter that Jr. had no national security credentials in 2000. I believe that the election of 2004 will be on the economy and national security/defense. National security really was not an issue in 2000 and you can't compare the two. The best analogy I see to the current atmosphere is the presidential elections from 1948 to 1972 where defense and ns were issues.

Could you please give me some SPECIFIC reasons you think Dean is WEAK on security. YES, I know he was deferred 1Y by a SELECTIVE SERVICE DOCTOR, for back problems. The military wants people who can run and march long distances.

Why can one NEVER get a direct answer from the Deaniacs on the real problem posed by Dean's story about what he did during the Vietnam war?

Look, the problem with Dean's story is that he received the deferrment for a bad back, and then, within a few weeks, went to SKI IN ASPEN for some number of weeks. If you can't bring yourself to mention the "skiing in Aspen" part of the story, you are just burying your head in the sand, or some other dark place. Now I can perhaps see some reasonable circumstances under which Dean might have gotten this deferment and then gone off skiing (though there IS something about it that seems to be just flaunting his contempt for the whole process, I should think that even back then that it would be very hard for a lot of people to understand why he chose to go off skiing). Yet, suffice it to say, it DOES make it all too easy for him to be made an object of ridicule.

And, as I've said in my first post, Dean, despite his "feistiness" has demonstrated very little ability in a GENERAL election to deal with a real attack. I don't see how a man who got re-elected by the tiniest of margins in 2000 in his own state of Vermont, where he was before quite popular, is anyone we could count on to find a way to counteract the Rove buzz-saw.

deminva,
I won't knock Dean's numbers in NH. They are good. My whole argument, from the beginning, is that we have to look past just winning a certain demographic group in the primaries and into the presidential election. I look at the big picture.

Dean faced a third-party challenge from a progressive in 2000, because many Vermont liberals were angry about his fiscal conservatism. So, in a year when he was getting death threats for his civil unions stance, and someone on his left got 10% of the vote, Dean still polled 50% in the election.

Look, Dean was a popular governor in Vermont, and he barely squeaked by with 50% of the vote. I don't know how this can POSSIBLY be spun into a
positive for his ability to deal with adversity.

If he can't win decisively in VERMONT, a state almost designed for him and his policies, and where he was a known entity and little capable of being painted as something he wasn't, how on earth is he going to win across the United States, where there are all kinds of regions where he is unknown and where his politics are way out of synch with the population?

Given his liabilities, Dean would have to be able to walk on water to win across the US, and he has demonstrated in Vermont in 2000 that he is no political marvel.

Ga6thdem

I'm sorry. I simply can't credit your assertion that Dean, or ANYONE, can't criticize a truly despicable record on defense if they heven't personally served in the military. The truth is the truth, and any of the (approx.) 90% of the population in this country who haven't served in the military are perfectly credible in going after the utterly miserable record of the Bush misadministration on virtually ALL issues of Defense, especially how he "supports" the troops.

As long as he is being led by Don Rumsfeld in military "strategy", he's a complete loser. I hope voters in the south will accord Bush the same regard for the credibility of the Oval Office that they accorded Clinton when he was POTUS. Where was the adulation of the Commander-in-Chief then? If you're afraid the SCLM will continue to support the myth that Republicans have EVER been strong on real, national defense, then I say it's time for the Truth squads, Dean Defense Forces and bloggers everywhere to call them on their lazy, sorry asses and make them WORK for their fat paychecks.

I have no intention of letting liberal ennui and distorted conventional wisdom condemn us to another 4 years of rape and pillage from a group of terminally dishonest, utterly venal CEOs of Doom.

pResident aWol got elected by the tiniest of margins in 2000, one freaking vote.

And you just have to ask yourself are you safer now than you were before Sept. 11, 2001.

With these guys they don't want you to feel safe.
It is against their game plan.
They have no endgame in sight. It will be continual war forever with bigger and badder weapons needed for more and more money to come out of the other funds for basic and general services.

They will invent new enimies and rationales ad infinitum.

You have to attack that mentality head on.

Sometimes I wish I could spell.

That is enemies, I believe.

In Vermont, in 2000, Dean managed only by the skin of his teeth to be re-elected Governor, just barely clearing 50% by a few votes. This was in VERMONT, arguably the most liberal state in the country, and his numbers went way down in no small part because of his civil unions stand

As deminva stated, Dean faced a very strong challenge from the left in that election, in the person of Anthony Pollina, a very articulate Progressive (and, btw, a heck of a nice guy), who pulled down nearly 10% of the vote that year. Dean's achievement of a clear majority in that situation was a massive victory (he still beat the GOP nominee by 15 points). Think Clinton in 1996 (didn't even get 50%), only replace Perot with an even stronger candidate from the left.

Ga6thdem: I hear your point-of-view, and I can't say that it's wrong, of course. What I believe, however, is that Dean's is the only stance that is a winner for the Democrats. Bush is screwing up our foreign policy, but it is very, very difficult to make that case without being against the Iraq War. I saw something from the Edwards campaign slamming Bush for his "adventures abroad." How can he make that case? He can't be against Afghanistan. He voted for Iraq, so he can't be against that. So, what is he talking about? There is nothing worse in American politics, especially in foreign policy, than looking like a hypocrite. And, while you can make a very, very nuanced argument that voting for the Iraq resolution was not an endorsement of what later happened, it's a really, really hard sell. Saying Bush is screwing up our security, and Iraq was part of his general bungling, is a much, much easier case to make because it's true. And developments in Iraq are making that case very strongly. As Clinton said, it's far better to be strong and wrong than weak and right. I think in this case Dean's both strong and right. His position vis-a-vis Iraq now is virtually indistiguishable from uber-hawk Lieberman and makes much, much more sense than Bush's. As for experience, I think the comparison to Clinton's or Bush's lack of foreign policy experience when elected is wrong because that was a time with no front-burner foreign policy issue. However, throughout the Cold War, Americans elected Governors with no foreign policy experience and that was a time when the world, literally, could end at any moment. Reagan, for example, had no fp experience, and he changed American politics. Experience is the least important variable on foreign policy.

As for Bush's military record: it won't be an issue no matter who is the nominee. Sorry, it makes me as mad as anyone, but it just won't be an issue. Why would it be now, if it wasn't in 2000? The press never, never changes its collective mind unless there are "new" revelations. To them, this issue was covered in 2000, nothing to see here, move along. Barring some major revelation about Bush doing lines on the wing of the plane he was supposed to fly, nothing about his "military" years will come out.

By the way ga6thdem, may I say it's very nice to see you out here in blog-land again . . .

I didn't say Dean couldn't criticize Jr. on defense, I said he couldn't CREDIBLY criticize Jr. Someone who makes the statement that the US must one day prepare to no longer have a strong military on national tv is going nowhere with this issue.

BriVT-Thank you very much for your eloquent defense of Dean. No knee jerk responses and I appreciate that. You make the point that Americans elected Presidents who had no foreign policy during the Cold War. While this is true, it is only true for the last half of the Cold War. For the first half of the cold war foreign policy and national security experience were very important. I happen to think that since 9/11, we are in a national situation similiar to what happened in 1948-1972. Everything cycles around.

Ga6thDem:

Well, JFK in 1960 was seen as a very young, fresh-face kind of guy. The GOP tried to pin the "inexperienced" label on him because Dick Nixon had a wealth of experience, but it didn't keep JFK from winning. But the JFK "outsider/new direction" image is instructive.

Insiders just don't beat incumbents. The last member of Congress to beat an incumbent was Benjamin Harrison in 1888, and he had been Governor of Indiana for years and ran his campaign from his "front porch" to emphasize his outsider credentials. On the other hand, the political landscape is littered with Senators and other insiders who lost to incumbents (Dole, Mondale, McGovern, Goldwater, etc.). Incumbents are turned out on a wave of revulsion about the direction of the country. That's why Presidential campaign teams obsess over the "right track/wrong track" polling number. A winning campaign for someone challenging the incumbent is that of an outsider trying to bring a new [blank] to Washington. Dean is really the only one who can do that. Edwards could just barely pull it off with a perfect campaign because he is a young looking one-term Senator. But, he'd have troubles with his lack of any other relevant experience.

Look, do I wish--politically speaking--that Howard Dean won a Medal of Honor in Vietnam when he single-handedly saved his platoon from certain death by dragging them all to safety under heavy machine-gun fire? Sure. But, there are no perfect candidates. To me, Howard Dean is far and away the best shot we've got, and his campaign holds the promise of bringing about a true change in our political life.

Notwthstanding his sprint in the polls, Howard Dean’s interview in the Washington Post yesterday was an enormous disappointment for the anti-intervention movement.
In The Dean Deception, Justin Raimondo has this to say:

Dean, the alleged "anti-war" candidate, agrees with Condi Rice's concept of a "generational" project to bring "democracy" to Iraq, and joins Bill Kristol in questioning the depth and endurance of the President's commitment.

It’s time to look elsewhere.

Dean's achievement of a clear majority in that situation was a massive victory

Excuse me, but getting barely 50% of the vote for an incumbent Governor in a state as amenable to your policies as Vermont is NOT, repeat NOT, a "massive victory." It is evidence of a very limited ability to fight real criticism effectively. Any way you look at it, if you only get 50% of the vote, 50% of the voters voted AGAINST you.

How could such a politician hope to win in the far more hostile environment of the US Presidential race?

And beyond that, the great voter anger shown toward the civil unions issue even in VERMONT, the most liberal state in the nation, is hardly a harbinger of good things when Dean tries to go national, is it?

BriVT
JFK ran as a cold war hawk. So you really get back to the fp and ns issues.

I really don't want to get in a discussion of outsiders vs. insiders. You can find examples of both losing or winning. The last time we ran a NE Governor against an incumbent was Dukakis. Now, that's not to say that Dean can't win. The conventional wisdom at that time was saying that VP's don't get elected President. Well, that was wrong. Sorry, but Dean has made some comments that I really can see as coming back to haunt him in the general election. Yesterday, for example, he basically blamed Clinton for the recession. He seems to have a problem with interviews. I know he is billed as a straight shooter but he needs to shoot off his mouth a little less. Taking it to Bush is fine. He certainly can debate Bush on the economy and balanced budgets. He has credibility in this area. I just think that when he makes statements like on national TV like "The US must be prepared for a time when we no longer have a strong military" he hurts himself and his campaign greatly.

I grew up in SC where Atwater cut his teeth. And I can tell you that Dean will be the easiest to destroy. I have seen them do it all kinds of candidates. What will he do when Jr. uses the comment regarding the military to trash Dean? How is he going to explain a comment like that?
I'm sure that Dean is a great person and a fine Democrat. It is just that nobody seems to be convincing me that he will be able to overcome his negatives in a national election.

Don't get me wrong. I will vote for him if he is the nominee. I just want someone who will win.

the anti-dean people are just as knee-jerk as us dean supporters are accused of being.

theollgicus-whether you want to admit it or not,the security of the world and our country demands that we be in iraq for the long haul. while dean was against the war, he's a realist.

frankly0- a 15% over your opponent is a massive victory. and it is very rare for there to be 3 candidates in double digits and one of them to be over 50%. and russert accepted his answer for the defferment issue in his infamous mtp appearence. this tells me it will not be a problem.

i think us deaniacs come off as mean towards other candidates and their supporters because we see such wonderful things in the man, his platform, and his campaign and are frustrated that other democrats/greens/left-leaners don't see it. honestly, i don't understand how you can be a democrat and not support dean. but that's ok. i just hope you guys all make it to the polls to vote for him next november.

ga6thdem-dean was not on national tv when he made that comment. many credible people came to his defense on that. i don't have the time to find the exact info right now, but i believe one of them was clinton. and where did he blame clinton for the recession? link please.

if you read the national security section of his website, i would appreciate specific areas where you believe his platform on national security is weak.

please email me if you really want convincing - forums like these are not conducive for that sort of thing.

Look, Dean is no Messiah, but it seems like most Dean-bashing can be boiled down to:

Forget his money-raising ability and popularity, there's no way anyone should support Dean. Instead, we should get behind Sen. ________, who, in spite of his poorly run campaign and non-engaging speaking style, is the only person who can beat Bush.

Me, I have to look at it this way: If Kerry can't keep people awake during his speeches, if Lieberman can't keep from getting booed at candidate forums, if Edwards can't consitantly poll above the Sharpton line--if none of them can beat the "patently unelectible Dean"--then there's no way any of them could beat Bush. That's why we have primaries, to weed out the candidates who, in spite of their "impressive" resumes, can't run national campaigns. Based on the current evidence, Dean is the only one who knows what the hell he's doing, which bodes well for the Fall of 2004. Or at least better than what we should expect from Graham, Edwards, et al.

frankly0, I think you've been corrected on this before, but, if not, listen up: Dean went for his service physical, and was rejected by their own doctors. Some TWO YEARS LATER, he spent some time as what he descried a "ski bum" in Aspen. This "three weeks later" bit comes from Coulter/Limbaugh land, and if the country takes information from them, a combination of FDR and Eisenhower won't be enough for a Dem to win an election.

Well, frankly0, I'm pretty sure I won't convince you otherwise, but getting a majority in a three-way race with three very strong candidates is a massive victory. Clinton is widely seen as having cruised to a decisive victory in 96, but he didn't get 50% of the vote. And it's debatable whether Perot took most of his votes from Clinton or Dole (I'd guess Dole, but who knows?). By contrast, I'm sure that virtually none of Pollina's votes were taken from Ruth Dwyer. So, you had a Democrat winning a majority with a very strong Progressive challenger and a Republican after civil unions. That's a strong victory.

Ga6thDem: I think we will probably have to agree to disagree for now (btw, I grew up in Norfolk, VA--Pat Robertson territory--so I'm no stranger to the South). I like Dean a lot from his years here in VT and respect him greatly. But, more than that, I want to beat Bush. I personally think he's the best shot we have for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is his consistency in the realm of foreign policy. Just as Kennedy ran on a "strong on Communism" plank, I think Dean can run as strong on terrorism/security; I just disagree that being for the war in Iraq is the best way to go about that campaign (besides it's always problematic to compare two distinct historical situations too closely. The Cold War was very different from the current situation). I think you understand my point, I certainly understand your point. I feel I'm right, but you can never be totally sure on these things. We still have 5 months until the primaries really get rolling, I'm sure we'll have a better sense then of how things are going. Dean is the clear front-runner now, all the guns will come to bear on him. If he holds the lead, it speaks well for him and he has the best shot of all to win. If he continues to gain strength, he's the absolute real deal and will crush George W. Bush. We'll see through the fall. But my money's on him (literally and figuratively).

And I'm very sure we'll have an opportunity to revisit this later ;-)

Forget his money-raising ability and popularity, there's no way anyone should support Dean. Instead, we should get behind Sen. ________, who, in spite of his poorly run campaign and non-engaging speaking style, is the only person who can beat Bush.

I'm certainly not going to claim that Kerry possesses great political abilities. He's not a natural, like Clinton -- but who is?-- certainly NOT Dean either. God knows Kerry would be better off if he had a more engaging style.

That being said, he simply does NOT have the liabilities of Dean.

Yes, Dean gets great crowds -- great crowds of "Birkenstock liberals", as alluded to in an article in today's NY Times, who are angry at Bush and love, just adore, a man who can't stop bashing Bush.

The reality is that Dean might have been cunningly constructed by Karl Rove himself as the perfect Democratic candidate to run against. He will be a breeze to depict as an out of touch liberal peacenik who wants to force gay marriages on the heartland, however Dean might protest at the depiction.

If Dean practically lost his job in Vermont, VERMONT, because of unpopular policies, including civil unions, how is he going to turn into some unprecedented political maestro, with abilities far exceeding those even of Clinton (who was much helped by his moderate policies in getting elected in 1992), and manage to beat George Bush? Unless Bush simply implodes -- which could happen, I'll admit -- I don't see a hope in hell of Dean winning.

I'll admit also that I have my doubts that Kerry can win, or any of the other candidates. The election is NOT going to be a slam dunk for the Democrats, absent a Bush self-destruction. Yet, in my estimation, Kerry presents, by a good distance, the best shot.

To pedro:

I think there's a difference between being a "realist" and being just another "neo-liberal."

It's hard to know where to begin with anyone who believes that "the security of the world" depends on the incompetence and rapacity of the U.S. occupation in Iraq.

The occupation is not the solution. It's the problem. And now the only options left after our unjust and unnecessary invasion are bad ones.

The least worst option seems to be to grant regional autonomy to the various ethnic and religious factions under some kind of international (UN) supervision. (Not to mention our moral obligation to provide billions for Iraq in reparations.)

Why is it is so hard for Americans to believe that our country is not often a force for good in the world?

frankly0, I think you're unreasonable, consistently unreasonable. As others have stated, winning a three-way race by 50% to @35% to @10 is excellent. You keep parroting the same line: "He barely broke 50. He barely broke 50. Awwwk!" Well, let's try rephrasing your dismissal with the statistics phrased slightly differently: "Excuse me, but winning by 15% is NOT, repeat NOT, a 'massive victory.'"

As for Dean's army physical/ski trip, your horse has keeled over and died. Stop beating it. Dean was diagnosed with a congenital condition that precluded his running long distances. He went skiing. Is it your opinion that young men who received medical deferrals keeping them out of Vietnam should have forgone all athletic activities? Or is it somehow unseemly that he skied "so much"?

Perhaps you understand that the two--the deferral and the skiing--are UTTERLY UNCONNECTABLE, but you worry about the mileage the Reps will get from it in the general election. I don't worry, because I know how the Dean camp will respond to any complaints about what he did during Vietnam.

Some TWO YEARS LATER, he spent some time as what he descried a "ski bum" in Aspen.

Well, if indeed Dean did not make his way to Aspen until two years later, then I was misinformed, and stand corrected on the point of the interval that had passed.

Yet let's see just how Russert put it in his interview:

Several articles in the last year have noted that after his deferment, Dean spent 80 days skiing in Aspen, Colorado.” And then The Aspen Times wrote this profile. “In Howard Dean, we could have a president who spent the winter of 1971-72...pounding bumps on Aspen Mountain. ‘I paid $250 for a ski pass and skied 80 days on Ajax. It was the greatest mountain. ... I went to work pouring concrete for a small company.’” Why were you able to ski on Ajax Mountain, pounding your back, and pouring concrete, and not serve in the military?

Saying that the time interval was two years and not a few weeks does take away some poignancy from the story, but it hardly alters its impact in any basic way.

Somehow, the notion that Dean would spend 80 days skiing in Aspen, and had worked pouring concrete, does suggest to many people that he was getting away with something, and did not mind at all flaunting his getting away with it, however fair the perception might be.

"The reality is that Dean might have been cunningly constructed by Karl Rove himself as the perfect Democratic candidate to run against. "

Or maybe it's Kerry: out of touch patrician who doesn't even know who to eat a cheesesteak

Or Edwards: Prettyboy trial lawyer who is dangerously inexperienced.

Or Gephardt: Old-style liberal out of touch with American values, kinda like Mondale.

Or Lieberman: You wanna listen to that wimp for four years?

Again, even though I've donated to Dean, I don't think he's the perfect candidate. But instead of worrying about what the Boogeyman is going to do to our standard bearer--'cause he's going to try to destroy any one of them, and will if they don't fight back effectively--let's project who has the style, organization, and guts to take it to Bush. Right now, that man looks to be Dean, and that's why people are responding to him.

frankly0,

I can spin Dean barely squeaking by with 50% in his last governor's win:

Northeastern voters are generally considered more liberal than the average American voter. Dean probably stepped on toes to get his state's spending in control and trended toward more centerist positions in general.

Fewer Vermont voters may actually mean Dean would be more appealing to more national voters.

I'm not saying I'm right, but you asked for spin.

BriVt: "Look, do I wish--politically speaking--that Howard Dean won a Medal of Honor in Vietnam when he single-handedly saved his platoon from certain death by dragging them all to safety under heavy machine-gun fire? Sure."

I don't since I see no correlation between such an act and having the ability to govern effectively and representive the US credibly abroad. Acts of bravery are admirable, but stopping acts of national violence would be even better.

John B. - good post. (and you're not alone on the spelling errors or in my case very frequent typos).

Re Dean's Foreign policy
I read the speech and looked on the website. When he states that he was against the war in Iraq because he didn't believe we should go it alone is a mistake. I have discussed this with other Dean supporters with no satisfaction. We didn't go in there alone-the British were with us. Or is it my imagination that British soldiers are being killed? Anyhow, this statement looks dumb. If he thinks that we should have gotten NATO or UN approval, then he should say so-not use "go it alone". It sounds like a lack of knowledge of the situation.

As far as the continuing situation in Iraq, he proposes sending 50,000 more troops and letting the UN help. If the thing in Iraq is as bad as he says it is-then why is he advocating 50,000 more troops. He is going to have a hell of a time with this if he is President. And I don't disagree that we need to help the Iraqi's. We created this mess so it's our responsibility to clean it up. But what the hell is his exit strategy! Does he plan to just keep sending more and more troops to Iraq forever. He also quoted John Kennedy during the Cuban Missle Crisis. Well, John Kennedy ran for president as a cold war hawk and had the credibility to convince people that he was serious.

frankly0, I think you're unreasonable, consistently unreasonable. As others have stated, winning a three-way race by 50% to @35% to @10 is excellent. You keep parroting the same line: "He barely broke 50. He barely broke 50. Awwwk!" Well, let's try rephrasing your dismissal with the statistics phrased slightly differently: "Excuse me, but winning by 15% is NOT, repeat NOT, a 'massive victory.'"

To begin with, Dean did NOT beat his Republican opponent by 15% - he beat her by 12%, OK?

(link: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.governor.html)

You simply refuse to take into account why this victory is very unimpressive. Dean was an INCUMBENT GOVERNOR in a state where his policies nearly ideally suited the population. He encountered adversity, and just barely managed to get half the vote. I don't care how many opponents he had -- half the vote for an incumbent Governor is no great success, and hardly a sign of a great politician.

And of course Clinton DID just manage himself to get elected in 1992, with less than 50% of the vote. But what is the lesson to draw from this? How about, even a politician of Clinton's genius, and very sellable moderate record, had an extraordinarily difficult time winning the Presidency. And I don't know of anyone who thought that his victory was impressive despite his not achieving a majority vote -- he was thought to have squeaked by, and was regarded as quite a lucky Big Dog to have won the Presidency.

I have always said that Jr. will try to smear any candidate. That's a point not up for discussion. With the press constantly on this story line that Dean is the "New McGovern", he has a much bigger mountain to climb.

Pedro,
The Dean comment was reported by a Dean supporter on Kos' blog. You can go over there and look it up. Dean was on the news last night and Dave (a Dean supporter) reported that Dean admitted that Bush inheirited a weak economy-basically saying that the economic problems our country is having are due to Clinton.

Frankly0
I think that the draft thing probably will not be a big issue. It could be a big negative for Bush if Kerry was the nominee but if Dean is-well I don't know.

Another thing I noticed about Dean's foreign policy speech is that it was long on what's wrong (which I agree with, btw) but short on solutions. Telling what's wrong is fine but you also have to offer some concrete solutions. His solutions just came off as platitudes. And he didn't say how he was going to implement them.

12%. Thanks for the correction.

I still believe your criticism is unreasonable. When Dean signed the civil unions bill, only 38% of Vermonters supported it. He polled far above it. Show me any other candidate who would espouse and act on such an unpopular stance in an election year, face a third-party challenge on his flank, and still win by 12%.

I suggest that, if Dean had won the 2000 election with 60%, he would be less electable as President. The fact that his fiscal conservatism angered Vermont's liberals is one of his strong selling points in a general election.

Or maybe it's Kerry: out of touch patrician who doesn't even know who to eat a cheesesteak

No doubt that's what Rove will say -- though you forgot to mention that Kerry looks French. But here's the question we must ask: is that line going to hurt Kerry as much as the line on Dean -- out of touch strident liberal soft on national defense who wants to foist gay marriage on the heartland -- going to hurt him?

Maybe it's just me, but I've got to think that Dean line is about a thousand times more destructive in a general election.

Frankly0
This is the point I have been trying to make over and over. It's the ability to stick. This is where stereotypes can work for or against you. Dean being Gov. of probably the most liberal state in the union will make a lot of things easier to stick.

I don't since I see no correlation between such an act and having the ability to govern effectively and representive the US credibly abroad. Acts of bravery are admirable, but stopping acts of national violence would be even better

I agree, Marie. A man's military service has little bearing on my views of his fitness for office (however, using Daddy's political connections to get in the Guard and then avoid your service time is a no-no). However, I wasn't speaking of my views. I was just saying that a "heroic" bio in the way Americans define heroism is an asset in a national race. That's all.

Ga6thDem: Dean is not advocating 50,000 more US troops. Every comment I've seen from him makes mention of more troops in the context of internationalizing the occupation. There are many countries willing to offer troops under a UN-sponsored reconstruction effort. That is the only way out of this mess, and that is what I've seen from Dean. It's not a position of just more troops. There could be 200,000 troops in Iraq with fewer American troops than we now have there if our foreign policy was run better.

frankly0, one more time. Clinton won re-election with less than 50% of the vote in 1996, not just election in '92. And I don't know anyone who doesn't consider that re-election a solid victory for Clinton.

I still believe your criticism is unreasonable. When Dean signed the civil unions bill, only 38% of Vermonters supported it. He polled far above it. Show me any other candidate who would espouse and act on such an unpopular stance in an election year, face a third-party challenge on his flank, and still win by 12%.

I suggest that, if Dean had won the 2000 election with 60%, he would be less electable as President. The fact that his fiscal conservatism angered Vermont's liberals is one of his strong selling points in a general election.

It seems to me that your argument is caught between a rock and a hard place. If, as you argue, Dean did indeed achieve something significant by winning despite espousing the very unpopular civil unions bill, then the question naturally arises, if that single issue hurt him so badly IN VERMONT, THE MOST LIBERAL STATE IN THE UNION, how could it possibly play across the US? Bush has already indicated that he is seeking some way to present legal obstacles to "gay marriage", and is surely targetting Dean in doing so. The more you emphasize how unpopular the civil unions issue is in Vermont, the LESS plausible it is that Dean might ever win the Presidency.

As for the "fiscal conservative" line, all I can say is that that is going to have a very limited appeal, particularly when combined with Dean's insistence that ALL of Bush's tax cuts be repealed. I remember another Democratic Presidential candidate who tried to rely on this line - Mike Dukakis. Now, of course, Dukakis didn't have the Dean special sauce, but I guess my whole point is that I don't see how Dean's special sauce has made him into any kind of formidable politician anyway.

Jesus, Frankly, do you even use your brain here? You're griping about Dean not serving.

He was rejected by the frickin' Army. He didn't bring a note from his doctor about "anal cysts", he didn't get a deferrment. He got told, by the Army, "No. You can't serve."

What, exactly, did you expect him to do at that point?

As for "barely winning Vermont", he "barely won Vermont" because he wasn't see as liberal enough". Use your head.

Jesus, Frankly, do you even use your brain here? You're griping about Dean not serving.

He was rejected by the frickin' Army. He didn't bring a note from his doctor about "anal cysts", he didn't get a deferrment. He got told, by the Army, "No. You can't serve."

What, exactly, did you expect him to do at that point?

As for "barely winning Vermont", he "barely won Vermont" because he wasn't seen as liberal enough. Use your head.

BriVt
Re troops: Well here is another issue where he needs to be clear on. How can he put out a number like that when he has no idea how many troops other countries will be willing to send. You see, these comments, reinforce the belief that he is either weak on defense/fp or doesn't know what he is talking about.

And what is his exit strategy? There was none listed on his website or in his fp speech.

Based on the results of the last three presidential elections, I don't see any evidence that the voters give a damn about Vietnam service or non-service. A prerequisite for a successful Dean candidacy, of which I'm sure Howard is aware, is the selection of a VP strong in national security like Graham or Clark. Of course, we should really get over the notion that Bush is necessarily strong on national security. Dean said that he recently realized that even he was stronger on national security than Bush. Dean articulates that at every opportunity, on Iraq and North Korea in particular. It seems more likely that Iraq will be an anchor for Bush rather than a feather in his cap.

Regarding the talk of Bush / Rove will bash Dean because of ___. Make no mistake, they will try to bash the Democratic nominee hard and without factual basis regardless of who that nominee is. I believe the successful Democratic nominee is the one who can repel such bashing and make the campaign be on the Democrats' terms. As we saw in 2000, that matters more than issues because people clearly agreed with Gore on the issues. I happen to agree with Dean on most of the issues, but I am supporting him because he is the one who has demonstrated the ability to control a campaign. That is what will beat Bush.

People who say that Dean must have someone like Clark are making a tacit admission that Dean is weak on foreign policy and national security. If Clark was the nominee, would he need Dean? I doubt it. He could pick some one who would complement him rather than make up for his deficiencies.

As far as Vietnam service goes, people in general, are having a much different look at prior military service after 9/11. I, for one, never gave a whit about it nor thought it was important until 9/11 and everything else happened. You really can't compare the last three elections with the 2004 election. It is a whole different playing field.

. . . And yet another way of saying it is that only a fearless politician would espouse as polarizing an issue as the civil unions bill. If we assume that most liberals supported that bill, then Dean might well have won close to 60% of the vote if there hadn't been a progressive third-party candidate. Bottom line: Dean showed guts and won big--by 12%, even with his liberal base cut away.

And what is his exit strategy? There was none listed on his website or in his fp speech.

There is no exit strategy, because there is no exit in the short-term. Dean said that after the war started, we were committed to having troops there for years. Rosy Bush scenarios notwithstanding, everyone knows that is realistically what will happen unless we decide to cut and run. Dean wants to internationalize Iraq so that the additional troops needed will be from other countries. No, he can't promise how many troops will come from other countries, since he is not in a position to negotiate that right now. All any candidate can do is describe the principles of what they want to do in Iraq and how they plan on doing it. The details just can't be hashed out now.

"No, he can't promise how many troops will come from other countries, "

Well then if he doesn't know a number then he shouldn't arbitrarily pick one. If he is the candidate, he will need some serious schooling on these issues. If someone like me is able to pick apart his speeches and website then you can only imagine what might be coming down the pike from the GOP.

People who say that Dean must have someone like Clark are making a tacit admission that Dean is weak on foreign policy and national security.

More specifically, I think people are looking for experience in foreign policy. Bush did that by promising to have Colin Powell in his cabinet, and Dean can do that with his VP choice. I think Graham or Clark would have broad agreement with Dean on the issues while still bringing experience to the ticket.

frankly0, one more time. Clinton won re-election with less than 50% of the vote in 1996, not just election in '92. And I don't know anyone who doesn't consider that re-election a solid victory for Clinton.

To begin with, Clinton in 1996 missed 50% by just a hair -- he got 49% of the vote. And I think that you have to make a pretty big distinction between the expected voting margin for a President -- which is pretty much always expected to be within about 10%, given how evenly split the country is, and the numbers for incumbent Governors, which very often well exceed 10%. (e.g., in 2000, Pataki won by 16%, even in liberal NY, Taft won by 20% in Ohio, Johanns won by 42% in Nebraska, Owens won by 29% in Colorado, Perry won by 18% in Texas. All of these margins would be simply extraordinary in a Presidential race.) How is it that Dean, as an incumbent governor of supposedly unbelievable political skills, could not achieve more than 50% of the vote or over 12% of a margin over his nearest opponent, in a state so perfectly suited to his policy positions?

Well then if he doesn't know a number then he shouldn't arbitrarily pick one.

I agree, and I wasn't aware of his specificity. What do you think the Democratic nominee's approach should be regarding Iraq and national security?

How can he put out a number like that when he has no idea how many troops other countries will be willing to send.

g6d: He is going back to Eric Shinseki's comments that we would need a bit more than 200,000 troops to make Iraq a secure place. So, you start with that as a base-line; there are currently somewhere around 150,000-160,000 troops in Iraq (British, US, misc. others). So, we need 50,000 more to make it secure. Without making the place secure, nothing else works out. It's the basic thing that needs to happen. The question then becomes: how do you make this indispensable thing happen? Because you have to make it happen.

The only way to get those troops is by internationalizing the occupation. India would certainly send a division (they barely backed out of doing it), the French, Germans, and Russians have all indicated a willingness to send troops. He can't say: I'm going to get 75,000 international troops and bring some of our boys home for the reason you cited above. But he can state the facts as the professionals like Shinseki see them: we need 50,000 more troops there, and to defray the cost in men and money we need to internationalize the operation.

Do you really think that people are going to buy into "I can just hire the right people" again? Look, Sr. and Jr. have or had basically the same advisors and there is a world of difference in their foreign policy approaches-Sr.-successful-Jr.-failure. The Jr/Sr argument screams out to me that there is no substitute for experience. I'm tired of our party being seen as weak on national security and foreign policy. I don't want someone on a learning curve. I want someone who can step right in and take charge. Someone who already schooled in this area and won't have to be "taught"

Here's one way to think about the civil unions issue, and Dean's electability.

Either the civil unions issue was a major problem for him in getting re-elected, in which case, it will be an utterly intractable problem for him to get elected in a national race, OR the civil unions was a very minor issue, in which case his victory margin was absurdly low given that he was an incumbent governor.

On either horn of the dilemma, Dean is unelectable, and THAT is the point.

BriVT
Dean either needs a new speech writer or something. The fact that I am having to come to a blog to get explanations on where he stands on things is not good. His statements are vague and he doesn't tell you how he arrives at his conclusions, like you just did.

Ga6thDem, if you know of someone with strong national security credentials who can bring out the Democratic base and attract swing voters, let me know. Unfortunately, issues and resumes just don't get you over the top. We need someone who can connect with voters, and Dean's the only one out there who has shown an ability to do it.

A little more background on that 2000 election and then I'm done with it: frankly, you don't know VT politics. The Democratic candidate for Governor in 2002 won 44% of the vote. Dean was preceded and succeeded by Republicans. So, 50% of the vote for a Democrat with a strong candidate to take away the base left support is really strong. Very strong. You can talk about Pataki, Taft, etc, etc, but every state is different.

As for civil unions, it's a measure of Dean's political skills that he signed a measure with relatively low support, went out campaigning on it, and managed to get 60% of Vermonters to vote for someone who was pro-civil unions (the Progressive was, as well). He turned around the politics on it completely. He also got a lot of support because, in the end, most people voted for issues that affected them directly, like health care.

And, after that year, the political opposition to Civil Unions was dead. Over. Kaput. No one cares anymore.

I believe there are four urgent steps that we should take in order to win the peace.

Number one—We increase overall troop strength with more allied troops with the right skills and training. And that means particularly, that people with Arabic speaking skills, and even, hopefully, Muslims. Without adequate security, every other peacekeeping goal is at risk. That means you have to immediately offer NATO a role to give Allies a graceful way to participate. Without real allies in real numbers, especially Arab-speaking, we are asking our young men and women to bear a needless risk for an length of time that is undescribed. We also need greater United Nations involvement in the humanitarian and governance transformation. And the world needs to be invested in the outcome in Iraq

Second, we have to train Iraqis more rapidly to carry out what always was an obvious job—of restoring civil order in the aftermath of the victory. The police functions have to be provided in an adequate form, we need to protect the people, and guarantee the safety of our own troops in that process. Such an effort will require international police trainers and mentors as well as military trainers in an accelerated commitment.

Third, we have to lay out immediately and publicly a clear plan for the transfer of power to Iraqis as soon as possible. The sense of American occupation works against our peaceful goals, works against the transformation of democracy ultimately, works against our troops and their safety, and works against our greater goals in the Middle East. We promised the Iraqis democracy, but we’re sending mixed signals about really letting them run their own country.

Fourth, we must move more quickly to provide the basic services, such as electricity, and transportation. Without economic recovery, the gap between the expectations and the reality will be a major retardant on popular support for the United States activities in Iraq. Peacekeeping is linked to the humanitarian and to the governance transformation and the global investment in that is the fastest, most effective way to be able to strengthen our goals and provide safety to our troops.

We now know that the Administration went to war without a thorough plan to win the peace. It is time to face that truth and to change course—to share the post-war burden internationally—for the sake of our country, for our standing in the world, and most of all for the young Americans in uniform who cannot be protected from enemy attack by an announcement, no matter how well staged, that hostilities are over.”

You guys gotta admit this is a much better plan. And yes, I have seen Kerry connect with voters. He did a smash up job at the VFW. I have seen Tim Russert go away with his hat in hand when he came up against John Kerry. John kerry comes off much better on tv than Dean does. Now, granted I will take the Dean supporters word that he connects with voters in person but he DOES NOT come off well at all on TV. And if a candidate like Kerry can convince the Democratic establishment in SC to back him-well that says a lot in my book. I'm on the left in GA but if you put me on a nationwide scale I probably would fall smack dab in the middle. So I feel that I am pretty representative of what will sell in the rest of the US.

franklyO - the reason that Dean looks the best to me is that he is the only major one willing to go against Bush who doesn't get all mushy.

BTW: if he won by 12% of the vote - that's a pretty high percentage. I don't know which state polics you watch but there aren't many candiates who win by that much in the country.

As for civil unions, it's a measure of Dean's political skills that he signed a measure with relatively low support, went out campaigning on it, and managed to get 60% of Vermonters to vote for someone who was pro-civil unions (the Progressive was, as well). He turned around the politics on it completely.

In reality, isn't it the case that the civil unions issue, largely by itself, turned around the Vermont House from being dominated by Democrats to being dominated by Republicans? So how much did Dean really "turn around" the politics of the issue? I'm sure that the issue is dead in the sense that its opponents feel it is futile IN VERMONT to seek to have it repealed at this time -- but how can I manage to impress on you the reality that VERMONT is not the UNITED STATES?

Again, I ask, if civil unions was so very unpopular in VERMONT, the most liberal state in the nation, so much so that it led to the Vermont House changing hands, how can you begin to imagine that it could possibly sell in the nation at large?

Here's a relevant article:

Almost immediately after the civil unions law passed, the Green Mountain State was roiled with debate. Lawns and barns bore the signature of a conservative backlash called “Take Back Vermont” that based its agenda on rolling back the benefits. In September a number of moderate Republicans lost their primary battles to conservatives who vowed to repeal the law. On Election Day in November, Democrats managed to hold a slim majority in the state senate but lost control of the house. Several Democrats who were key backers of the measure lost to Republicans who played on voter outrage; among the victims was state senator Mark MacDonald, whose district was described by The Burlington Free Press as “ground zero” of the “Take Back Vermont” movement.

http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/827/827_winning.asp

theollgicus:

Bush got us into Iraq- leaving now condemns the country to becoming Afghanistan. I don't want to be there but the solution is to bring in the UN not to leave Chalabi and the fundamentalists to their own devices.

So you can stop posting that on all of the Comment threads...

One final point about an amusing argument that reared its head here.

The argument is that if Dean had achieved a HIGHER percentage of the vote, he would be a more viable candidate nationally.

Now isn't this the perfect argument? What it implies is that there is NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER that could possibly count against Dean's viability. Given ANY number, one could argue that if he were to have a higher number, he would have been less viable; and that if he had achieved a lower number, presumably he would have been less viable. If Dean had achieved only 45% of the vote would he have been less or more viable? Well, wouldn't that indicate that he was moderate enough that he could win nationally? Of course! If, on the other hand, he had achieved 55% of the vote would he be more or less viable? Well, in that case, we would be told that he had won by such a good margin that of course he was more viable!

By this wonderful circular reasoning Dean supporters can justify anything they want.

Preston, The question is whether Dean is part of the solution or part of the problem. Nobody thinks that the U.S. can just abandon Iraq to the winds. But the idea that the U.S. can reconstruct Iraq into a "new," more democratic society, through a prolonged occupation, under its corrupt and incompetent tutelage, is an idea that is open to doubt.

...and then, within a few weeks, went to SKI IN ASPEN for some number of weeks...

It was actually a year and a half later. [sarcasm on]Still, woefully bad form. He should have anticipated that 27 years down the road he'd be running for President and three or four[/off] people like you would be busy attempting to fabricate a serious issue out of this when Bush is getting our soldiers killed in Iraq daily based on a LIE.

Get real.

sheesh and by continuing to deny facts presented to them, dean's knee-jerk dectractors cannot be reasoned with.

nowhere in his speech does he say he was against war in iraq because we were going in alone. as he has said repeatedly, he did not believe hussein was an emminent threat to our nation's security.

if one could view such things objectively, kerry offers no more specific proposals for the iraq situation than dean. oh i'm sorry, he makes a specific mentions including arab speaking allies. well dean didn't specifically say that, but it's common sense to everyone but the current occupants of the white house.

by the way, what's kerry's exit strategy? perhaps some of dean's detractors could point out specific points where their candidate has a better national security/foreign policy plan than dean, instead of continuing to just say, "dean has no experience."

here's a nice side by side comparison of dean, lieberman, and kerry's proposals for iraq: http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_foreign_iraq_reconstruction

i admire kerry's courage and service in vietnam, but this election will be about ideas and visions, not personal stories. when viewed objectively, it is clear that dean has just as good, if not better national security plan than anyone else. that is why he'll win the nomination and presidency.

so what is you or your candidate's plans for iraq theologicus?

again, dean has identified probably the most important part of making iraq a functioning democracy: including women in every part of the process.

oh i'm sorry, he makes a specific mentions including arab speaking allies. well dean didn't specifically say that, but it's common sense to everyone but the current occupants of the white house.

Actually, Dean has said that too, mentioning Egypt and Morocco in particular.

ok thanks for the correction

I opposed President Bush’s war in Iraq from the beginning. While Saddam Hussein’s regime was clearly evil and needed to be disarmed, it did not present an immediate threat to U.S. security that would justify going to war, particularly going to war alone.

This is the direct quote from Dean's website. Notice the last part particularly going to war alone

I'm not trying to be ugly but this is exactly what he has on his website. Perhaps he should change his website if he has changed his views on the situation.

And frankly0 failed to make a point regarding Dean's draft status. If he is the nominee, we can no longer call the neocons "chickenhawks" since Dean got a deferment similiar to many in the Bush Administration. Look, I'm not condemning what he did-he just cannot credibly use the word chickenhawk.

All I see here are massive credibility problems in a general election. Have any of you given a thought to the fact that we could not even be running against Bush? Is Dean still the best candidate then? Think about it. What if there is no Bush to rail against-then where is Dean? Dean reminds me of the leftist version of Pat Buchanan. Remember Pat saying the first thing I will say to Bill Clinton is "You have the right to remain silent". Anger is great if it is channeled in the right direction but done in the wrong way can lead to disaster.

If you read Kerry's entire plan-he wants to get out of Iraq as soon as possible.

And you have to admit that Dean does have no experience in fp and ns. Why do some Dean supporters have to call people who don't support him knee jerk. Many of my criticisms are based on concern and facts. The fact that you don't even know what is on your own candidates website speaks volumes. Sorry.

I'd like to add a quick meta-comment to a thread that has been--by and large--pretty productive (although impugning frankly0's judgments of Dean got a little personal there for a while):

Typically, a post on this blog gets 10, maybe 20 comments. The last two posts I've seen on Dean have topped 80. Those numbers are more like one would see over at the Daily Kos.

Dean may not end up being the guy, but anybody who denies that he has stirred the passions of the party isn't facing facts.

And let me add that I greatly appreciate the civil tone that all of you have maintained throughout this thread. The idea behind this blog when I started it was for people to have a place to civilly debate issues, even if the host took a contrary position or was not necessarily supportive of the candidate in question. I tend to want to withhold my thoughts at times like these so that folks can engage each other since I do not claim to be all-knowing here.

So I would like to second what Matt said, and give my thanks to all of you. Now you can return to your sparring.

Let us be honest here: we can do far worse than have Dean and Kerry supporters toss it back and forth. I mean it could be worse, right? We could be tossing it back and forth as to whether we should run a Lieberman-DLC campaign or a Dean campaign approach, but thankfully we are not doing that.

If you read Kerry's entire plan-he wants to get out of Iraq as soon as possible.

The only thing I found on Kerry's website was his July 10th speech which you have referenced. We all want to get out of Iraq "as soon as possible", but when exactly is that? Do you really believe that implementation of Iraq policy would be different between a Kerry and Dean presidency? If you think Kerry would be a better messenger, fine, but I don't see a significant policy difference.

Cal Pol Junkie,
Thank you for being constructive in your criticism and I think you put it better than I could. Yes, you are right that there is not a huge difference between the two. And yes I think that Kerry would be a better messenger. He has more experience and I think this counts for a lot in this area. People are leary of trusting someone who has no experience. I mean if you were going into the hospital for major surgery, would you want the guy just out of med school or the one who has been practicing for a few years?
That's just how I feel about the whole thing.

Steve,
Why don't you tell us what you think of things? It is your blog after all. Kos is pushing Dean.

I think we understand each other better, Ga6thDem! I was actually a Kerry supporter myself before I defected to Dean. Kerry's got a great resume, we just disagree on the best strategy to win the election.

I just noticed a mistake in my previous post, a bit up the thread.

It should read:

The argument is that if Dean had achieved a HIGHER percentage of the vote, he would be a less [not "more"!] viable candidate nationally.

That is, the way it came out was exactly the opposite of what I intended, which would my argument, well, a bit confusing.

Obviously, Dean is The MAN for the Dems, at least at this moment.

If he wasn't the "It" guy of the moment, the Repubs wouldn't be talking about him, the NY Times wouldn't be covering him, and none of you, nor I, would be blathering about him.

The campaign season lies ahead, and a winner will be revealed at the end of it. It could be someone else who wins. Right now, though, he's the only one out there willing to take it to Dubya. For that alone, all Dems owe this man. (He's going after Dubya in Texas! How crazy and how cool is that? Very!)

On some of the points being debated here . . .

• A 12 percent victory in a three-way race, where one of your opponents is stealing from your base, and you still win over 50 percent of the vote -- that's a HUGE victory by ANY standard in ANY election. That's not even close. That's a REAL winner.
• The history about insiders vs. outsiders -- gov. vs. sen. -- and presidential campaigns is extremely interesting, and if anyone thinks it is really irrelevant, I'd sure like to know why.
• $10 mil. in the 3rd quarter?!? Using a new method (the Internet) to fundraise?!? That's a real contender!
• Weakness on defense issues and Vietnam? A running mate with the right credentials should fix that. Besides, Bush lives in a glass house when it comes to 'Nam. And, I think Dean's stance on the Iraq war and the current Iraq mess should please a lot of people, if you aren't a left-wing nut job and if you're not inhaling Bush's noxious brew of lies.

Last, the few folks who mentioned that Dean won't do well in the South, in states such as Georgia or South Carolina, are completely correct, and it's largely irrelevant to the general election (it could impact the primaries, though).

No Democrat is going to beat Bush in the South. It's just not going to happen. I'd be shocked if a Dem took anything south of Ohio. The Dems are to blame for that, though, for having stopped Reconstruction nearly 140 years ago. Of course, the Republicans are a very different party today, too.

Anyway, the 2004 election will hinge on the Midwest, particularly Indiana and Ohio which both went for Bush, but could conceivably go for a Dem this time around. Missouri could also be a swing state.

Ohio will be the real battleground. It was awfully close last time, and if the Greens crawl back into whatever snake-infested swamp they crawled out of, it'll be closer again this time, only hopefully it'll break for the Dems. If the Greens stay out of it, the Dems should take New Hampshire, too, which will add only 4 more electoral votes, but that'll help.

I think Florida will end up going with Bush, again, if only because Dubya and his brother have already revealed how low they'll stoop to win it.

Personally, I haven't made up my mind, except I won't vote for Bush, nor for Lieberman (is he even a Democrat anymore?).

Indiana is out of reach (unless it's a Democratic landslide), but Ohio and Missouri are top-tier swing states for sure. WV, NH, AZ, NV, and even CO should be in play, depending some on what candidate is running. A bad economy will make some southern states in play, also depending on candidate, like AR and LA, but in such a circumstance the Democrat probably will have enough electoral votes anyway.

yay let's see how long we can keep this going!

Ga6thDem, from kerry's website:
In the months leading up to the war, he stressed the importance of working diplomatically to form the broadest possible coalition so that America would have support in the difficult task of reconstructing Iraq. “We should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with the United Nations’ participation,” he said in his address at Georgetown in January.

most democrats in the late winter and spring were voicing their concerns about going in alone. and yes, this phrasing was probably poor because it negated their whole arguement in the sclm media mind because conservatives i saw were able to respond exaclty how you did - but the british are there too. when in reality, we all know that more nations were needed. i will refrain from any snarky comment about knowing what's on your candidate's website.

your post i was responding to made it sound like dean was against the war simply because we were going in alone, which was not the case.

CA wrote:

> Indiana is out of reach . . .

I agree, to an extent, unfortunately. But I think Indiana is much more doable than any Southern state.

As for the Western states, I hope you're right.

I really just want Bush out, y'know. It will be a tough fight, and I'm just hoping the Dems can do it.

A 12 percent victory in a three-way race, where one of your opponents is stealing from your base, and you still win over 50 percent of the vote -- that's a HUGE victory by ANY standard in ANY election. That's not even close. That's a REAL winner.

You keep forgetting to mention the part in which Dean was an INCUMBENT governor. By how much might a successful incumbent governor win? Well, Mike Dukakis won by 65-29% as an incumbent in 1986; and William Weld a Republican in Massachusetts won by a 69-27% margin in 1994.

So it's some great achievement for Dean to have barely squeaked by at 50% as an incumbent?

Please.

Addendum to the previous post.

Why is it significant that both Dukakis and Weld, one a Democrat, and one a Republican, both won by such large margins, and within such a short interval? Because it demonstrates that it is not purely a partisan advantage that enables huge margins -- it is something about the politician.

What does Dean's 50% victory say about him? Nothing very remarkable, I should think. And this is the man who won't be bothered by all his liabilities in a national election?

Pedro,
Fine distinction here. Kerry said alone or essentially alone.

I didn't mean to be snarky but calling anyone who criticizes Dean to be a knee jerk anti-deanic doesn't win you any points with me.

Now lets go forward. Who can best get us out of this mess?

Frankly, "franklyO," you're crazy!

I reiterate, over 50 percent in a three-way race where one of your opponents is stealing 12 percent of the vote which is your base is a massive victory by any standard.

Is 65-29 percent or 69-27 percent larger? Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that Dean's victory was huge as well.

Is the Indian Ocean huge? Well, yes. Not as large as the Atlantic or Pacific, but huge nonetheless.

I reiterate, over 50 percent in a three-way race where one of your opponents is stealing 12 percent of the vote which is your base is a massive victory by any standard.

Does it finally get true if you keep saying it?

50% of the vote, for an incumbent Governor, is, at best, pretty ho-hum, when you consider what kind of margins incumbent Governors can easily stack up.

Indiana is out of reach . . .

I agree, to an extent, unfortunately. But I think Indiana is much more doable than any Southern state.

It may be out of reach, but it doesn't have to be. The demographics are there. Its just that no pols (including the state democratic party) have bothered to identify these voters, let alone reach out to them).

Lots of out of work people, particularly out of work union people, lots of old people who need prescription drugs, lots of people without healthcare, lots government workers from township to federal level without raises, lots of African-Americans & Hispanics out of the system, lots of soccer moms & dads who care about the environment, lots of reservists/national guardsmen on prolonged duty oversees. There always were people here who were against the war from jump street, but nobody in the "Rah! Rah! Go USA!" local media could be bothered with them.

I think its the politicians of both parties & the media (local & national) who keep telling themselves that Indiana is (still) ultra republican. Its a chestnut that everyone accepts, so no one tries to debunk it. If the democrats actually gave a good faith effort to win Indiana & failed, I laud the good fight, but I hate writing it off without any effort.

I have this (obviously)untested theory that there is a culture of people in urban/suburban areas across the country who have generally the same ideas about various economic/environmental/social issues whether they live north/south/east/west. One reason--geographic mobility: having gone to college in a different region from where they grew up and/or living & working in a different region from either where they grew up or from where they attended college or both. I think these people often identify more with their culture than their region.

Blogs like this one reinforce my opinion to me because there are people from across the country who seem very in sync with each other & could support a particular candidate whether the individuals are from California or Ohio or Alabama.

I also believe that all the major urban areas of the country are full of disaffected nonvoters. They also may have a commonalty of issues, whether they live in Atlanta or Philadelphia, but almost nobody, including the mobile/cultural group, has done much to bring these people in the system.

I think Rove is exploiting both groups when he does those phony compassionate photo ops. He knows there are educated, well off folks whose hearts genuinely feel for the disaffected, but who practically do nothing tangible for them (too busy with work, soccer, etc)& almost neverinteract with them in real life. When Bush promises to leave no child behind, or to make the forests "safe", they really hope he means it & it makes them feel good to believe something is being done. They rarely know that the programs are not funded or that they are shams. Ironically, these peoples' children are doing an amazing amount of community service work through their schools & churches. Hopefully, this will make a difference down the road.

pedro asks what I think should be done in Iraq.

Since I think the war was unjust, unnecessary and immoral, I also think that the U.S. occupation is illegitimate. I do not believe that the U.S. has any legitimate role to play in dictating the terms of how Iraqi society should be reconstructed.

I think that we owe the Iraqis billions of dollars in reparations (not only because of the war but also because of the genocidal sanctions).

I also believe that the current occupation is both incompetent and rapacious.

Therefore, I believe Howard Dean is incorrect to advocate a continuation of the U.S. occupation, except with a higher level of financial and military commitment. That would only mean the continuation of a failed and illegitimate policy, which will only lead to a greater level of disaster in the end. The potential for further chaos in the region is mounting daily.

What the Middle East needs most of all is regional disarmament and a settlement of the Palestinian quesiton.

What Iraq needs at the present time has been well set forth as follows:

Learning from History
By Thomas Gale Moore

http://www.independent.org/tii/news/030623Moore.html

To avoid the necessity of trying to hold an artificial and unnatural Iraqi state together by force--as the West has been doing in Bosnia for eight years--the United States should withdraw its forces quickly and allow a coalition of the willing to transition the various Iraqi groups to self-determination.

The creation of multiple, independent countries might cause friction with some of Iraq’s neighbors; but, in the wake of a destabilizing U.S. invasion, that alternative is the best among many poor ones.

It allows the United States to avoid the quagmire of indefinite occupation and, in the long-term, affords the best chance for regional stability by aligning national borders with ethnic or religious boundaries. If we insist on a single Iraq, we will be there until we tire of being killed.

The reconstruction of Iraq needs to be carried out under the international auspices of the UN.

The neo-liberal pipedream that the U.S. is prepared to re-fashion Iraq into an autonomous and democratic society, as now espoused (apparently) by Howard Dean, greatly detracts from Dean's credibility.

frankly0 update: still unreasonable.

For what it's worth, I knew you'd take my last point and say it was evidence that I would spin any fact about Dean as a positive. This thread shows a variety of people pointing out reasonable ways to interpret Dean's 2000 victory as a strong one, and you stick with your one fact--he only tallied 50%--like a pit bull on a mailman's calf. You're immune to the fact that a 12-point victory is very big (not as big as a 30-point victory, but still very big).

As for my last point, I was pointing out that the whole wrap on Dean as a tree-hugging, Birkenstock Vermont liberal would be more likely to stick if the liberals in Vermont had all adored him. They wouldn't have run a progressive candidate against him, and he would have polled closer to 60. But polling 60% in Vermont could be a problem nationally, just as a hard-Right conservative from Alabama would probably have trouble nationally. If 60% of voters in a heavily Republican part of Alabama love you, chances are that you're not in the center nationally and are therefore at a disadvantage.

By the way, here are certain facts about Dean that I consider negatives:
1) He lacks experience with national security and didn't serve in the military. Either would help.
2) His TV interviews tend to lack the fire and charisma he displays in speeches.
3) He has said some things that could trouble his campaign later, especially "I suppose it's a good thing" that Saddam is gone.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2084868/

This is an interesting article about Howard Dean by William Saletan. I seem to think it comes across pretty fairly. Comments anyone?

creating multiple countries along ethnic lines is an interesting idea. i've always wondered why that isn't done in africa or other places where there is persistent civil war and genocide.

beyond that, your ideas of what needs to be done resemble dean's:
-Work with the UN to build the largest coalition possible to help us succeed in Iraq;
-Make clear our intention to share decision-making on security and reconstruction issues in Iraq with those countries and international institutions that join the international coalition;
-Prioritize restoring law and order and the resumption of electricity, water, and sanitation services -- they are fundamental to success in all other areas;
-Focus on developing Iraqi capacity to undertake key functions as soon as possible;
-Decentralize the operations of the Coalition Authority and make money more forthcoming and flexible;
-Employ the sizable number of available Iraqis with short term public works projects and get state-run enterprises up and running, even if they must be downsized and privatized later;
Push for UN oversight of the successor to the Oil for Food program;
-Award reconstruction contracts to the best US or foreign bidder in a transparent and open process.

he knows being in iraq is wrong and illegitimate - that's why he was against the war to begin with. these people have no experience in running a country. we need to help them learn how. we are responsible for this mess and need to finish it right. we cannot just pull out and leave it up to someone else to figure out.

deminva,

The fallacy in your argument is that one would think that if Dean were such a popular governor and an effective politician, he might have very easily prevented the rise of signficant opposition both on the left and the right, or at minimum on one of those sides, and he seems to have been quite unable to have done either.

Again, think about the case of the two incumbent governors in Massachusetts, Dukakis and Weld, one a Democrat, one a Republican, BOTH winning by nearly 40% margins, despite being in different parties (so it's not just a partisan or ideological issue).

There's no way that a number just scraping above 50% can be construed as a sign of a powerful politician. It strikes me as the indicator of quite mediocre political gifts.

One other point:

I haven't yet been able to find Clinton's re-election numbers as Governor in Arkansas immediately before his 1992 run, but how much you want to bet that they put Dean's 50% to shame?

ga - it's clear that nothing is going to win points with you. you continue to focus on minor wording instead of addressing your candidate's exit strategy and security plan as compared to dean's - maybe if you had done that we could really be talking about who's best to handle iraq. this is why i have avoided these forums - people just choose not to respond when their positions are credibly challenged or questioned.
i'm sorry i just don't see it as a fine distinction. kerry and dean were making the same point. again, your post i was responding to made it sound like dean was against the war simply b/c we were going in alone. if you believe that kerry's inclusion of those words makes him that much a better candidate, well that's your choice. to me it smacks of the equivocation that has been a problem in his campaign.

My last post raises still a larger point:

We've had any number of Governors who have gone on to become President. I wonder how far back one would have to go to find such a lackluster election performance in his preceding Gubernatorial election as that of Dean's.

My bet is that we'd find that Dean's 50% would be, BY FAR, the worst in American History -- which kind of means he's not exactly the stuff of which Presidents are made.

Thanks, pedro.

I hope you are right about Dean. Your description of his position does not seem to jibe with what came across in his interview with the Washington Post.

I like most of what you say, except I think that as much as is feasible the reconstruction contracts should go to Iraqis. I am more interested in justice for the Iraqis than I am in seeing the U.S. "succeed" in Iraq. (Insofar as the former condition is met, however, I am not opposed to face-saving measures for the U.S.)

Nevertheless, in principle it needs to be understood that the occupation is illegitimate, because the war was illegitimate. The context of unjust aggression imposes severe limits on the viability of the U.S. occupation.

Given that Clinton lost re-election in 1980, it seems fairly irrevelant. He came back and won again a couple of years later, but if 50 percent in a three candidate rate is a 'failure', according to you, losing is pretty clearly one too.

I'm thinking we've got a troll, anyway.

Given that Clinton lost re-election in 1980, it seems fairly irrevelant. He came back and won again a couple of years later, but if 50 percent in a three candidate rate is a 'failure', according to you, losing is pretty clearly one too.

Why did Clinton lose in 1980? Because he was perceived as heavy handed and too liberal. He reflected on his failure, moved to the center, and altered his style, and became the successful politician capable of winning the Presidency.

Where Oh Where is the evidence that Dean has done the same? If Dean had come back from his squeaker with resounding numbers in succeeding elections, he might be believable. As it is, he has not, and he seems to think he's too good to be expected to have to prove himself.

And, except for the fact that I'm pointing out some very unpleasant problems for Dean's viability, what would make me a troll?

Wouldn't a troll be more like someone who starts calling names? Wouldn't that more resemble, say, you?

the saletan piece is crap. there are 4 or 5 things i can point to, but i'm tired of this. saletan has had it out for dean from the beginning and will interpret things the way he wants to. when someone speaks as directly as dean, he/she will make statements that can be twisted into all different ways by someone (uh oh here i go again, a knee-jerk detractor) who tries hard enough.
i will point to one thing in the article. saletan says dean "hates to concede anything." he will change his mind when presented with facts (needle exchange programs), but damn straight he won't concede anything and that's what i want in a democrat. we've been pushed around for the past 5 years and i'm sick of it. in dean i see someone who finally knows what's right for this country and has the balls to stand up for it.

His TV interviews tend to lack the fire and charisma he displays in speeches.

There is probably a very simple explanation for this. In his speeches in front of large very liberal audiences, he throws them the red meat they love. They applaud and salivate. That means to all the kool kids in the audience that he has fire and charisma. Yet they are as much responding to their own response as to the man himself.

On TV, I'm sure that he says exactly the same things --- why would he do otherwise? Thing is, in the TV studio, he doesn't have his pack of supporters cheering his every Bush bash. Somehow, without the built in laugh track, the joke seems to fall flat.

It doesn't bode well for the general election, where TV is about the only way to communicate.

theologicus i should have put that those points came from dean's website. yes i wish he could hit on these more detailed points during interviews, but i guess he figures he only has a limited time and wants to cover many different topics.

Ga6thDem, the Saletan piece, which seems to reflect your own misgivings about Dean, is reflective of the bigger hurdle Dean must cross because he does not have foreign policy experience. His "I suppose that is a good thing", as he later explained, reflects the reality that deposing Saddam is a good thing in and of itself, but it isn't a good thing if he is replaced by civil war, Islamic fundamentalism, and/or another ruthless dictator.

Saletan says, He faults his opponents for supporting the war without knowing the whole truth, though he opposed the war in equal ignorance. He says the facts proved him right, though he didn't have them beforehand. Of course, that basically proves Dean's point, that if you don't have the facts that Iraq poses an imminent threat, you don't invade.

I don't think other candidates' statements would stand up any better if parsed with such a critical eye. However, in politics perception is reality, so Dean must learn to be better than everyone else if he is to be perceived as being equal.

Why I do not Want the U.S. to “Succeed” in Iraq
Needed: An Inquiry Into A Slaughter
by John Pilger
The New Statesman
August 28, 2003

Credible research shows that up to 10,000 civilians were killed in the attack on Iraq, together with perhaps 30,000 Iraqi soldiers, many of them teenage conscripts. A slaughter. These people were killed by weapons designed to reduce human beings to charcoal or to shred them. The British Army littered urban areas with cluster bombs, while the Americans did the same and in greater quantity, adding uranium-coated munitions, whose radiation poison is ingested with the desert dust.

In my experience, the unseen deaths are far more numerous. Today, malnourished children are dying from thirst and gastroenteritis because the world's biggest military machine, including the British, fails to restore power and clean running water as its most basic obligations require.

This carnage, wrought in an unprovoked illegal assault on a sovereign country, is a crime by any measure of international law: be it the United Nations Charter or the Geneva conventions. The "supreme international crime", the Nuremberg judges decided, was that of unprovoked aggression, because it contains "the accumulated evil" of all war crimes.

Pedro
It looks to me like he knows what he is talking about. Little things matter. Credibility matters. I can see Dean having a very difficult time implementing any of these policies. The general public already thinks that the Democrats hate the military. Dean would play into that perception. I see him as having Clinton's problems writ large. And you never really responded to Dean blaming Clinton for the recession.

My whole concern here is that Democrats have to be better. I think that Dean would probably be good for the economy. I think that the general public (if you believe the polls) any democrat would be better than Jr. Our big weakness is fp and ns. People don't like to admit this, but the fp and ns issues probably cost us in the 2002 election. Jr. made this a big issue and if we don't negate it-we will lose. Fighting is good-it's just not everything. I enjoy the red meat that Dean throws out. I'm glad that he is fighting against the Bush Administration. I am concerned, however, that if he is the nominee, these comments he has made will come back to haunt him big time. People say they like a blunt talking candidate but they really don't. It's kind of like soap operas. If you ask somebody if they watch them they will tell you no, but in reality they watch them everyday.

Cal Pol
Yes, in politics perception is reality.
People complain that candidates are stage managed but when they aren't they look amateurish. It's a crazy world we live in today.

frankly0, I'd like to see Dean improve his TV persona, but if you think TV is the only way for a campaign to communicate with voters, then you haven't been paying attention.

There are also different ways of appearing on TV. Dean's weakest venue seems to be the televised interview, but remember that his "disastrous" Meet the Press interview spurred massive on-line contributions and vaulted him toward frontrunner status. His very unpolished TV persona is for some a selling point--it's evidence that he's not "another slick politician." MTP was the first time my wife saw or heard Dean, and she fell for him right then as she never has for a politician. She's highly suspicious of image, and for her (and apparently for others) his appearance and manner reflect the frankness and intelligence of his answers.

But if you're thinking of classic soundbite TV, the Dean camp can surely create any number of exciting, hearwarming commercials, blending bits of Dean in front of barns with shots of huge rallies with seas of Dean signs. And when you think of the statistics that they'll be able to use to characterize Bush's record, I would argue that TV may be one of Dean's best weapons.

As for debates, well, there are many of us who want to see how Dean does next week.

As for Dean's 50% of the 2000 vote, most of your arguments could be used to explain why Paul Wellstone was a really mediocre candidate. But in substituting Wellstone for Dean, I think we highlight what for me is a central fallacy in your argument (second only to the fallacy that a 12% victory in a three-candidate race is weak). Wellstone was a principled liberal who took unpopular stands that mattered to him. He wouldn't have been a successful national candidate because he was farther to the left than a majority of voters would have liked. And even in Minnesota, he wouldn't pull 60% of the vote unless some total wingnut ran against him. He was a great politician, but because of his willingness to take stands that weren't always popular with his constituents, his poll numbers were never going to be an accurate indicator of his greatness.

Like Dean, Wellstone stood firm against the President on Iraq, voting against the resolution one month before the 2002 elections. Polls showed that a majority of Minnesotans disagreed with him, but his poll numbers rose, and many cited his political courage as the primary reason factor in their decision to support him.

Again, think about the case of the two incumbent governors in Massachusetts

Well, this isn't Massachusetts, frankly0. The 2000 race also had a lot to do with negative feelings about the shark pool portion of the legislative response to the Brigham decision. Don't know what that means without Google? Then you just might not be qualified to tell me what's impressive in Vermont gubernatorial politics.

Dean is not as good in situations where he is sitting down. He sits very stiffly. Always has, whether on TV or just waiting for his turn to speak at a forum. I don't know why, but it's always been that way. He's fine on TV if he's standing (I must have seen him, literally, around 100 times on TV), but in a one-on-one interview he's always sitting, and he just doesn't look "smooth" in that way.

provide evidence about dean's remark, other than that you heard it from someone on the comments section of kos' blog. i mean come on.

dean has the best overall plan for this country. i have liked some of the other candidates' specific legislation they would propose as president - gephardt and edwards with their recruitment of teachers and nurses, but that is what all the other major contenders do best: legislate. dean is a leader.

again, i would like anyone to show me specific ways that another candidates's fp and ns plans are better. seriously, i'm not trying to be an ass. it's a real issue, but having done something 10, 20, or 30 years ago is not a plan for the future.

yes sometimes i wish dean would think a little more about how things he says might be perceived, but that is part of what i like about him. i really doubt that offhand comments from the beginning stages of the campaign are what rove is going to base his strategy around. i honestly hope he does. the dean camp will come back with the lies bush told to get us into war, the cuts in veterans' benefits, etc. and ask who really hates the military. which will be more important to an undecided voter? people who would vote against dean because of some remark he made to some reporter over a year ago probably wouldn't vote for him to begin with.

it appears to me that over 320,000 people (and growing as people see and learn about him) and 37% of n.h. primary voters like a blunt talking candidate.

Pedro-okay I concede that you won't take Dave Cullens word for it. That's fine.

It's all about credibility. Experience in an area gives you credibility. Dean will have a very difficult time, I believe, implementing his policy. He would you rather have a plan (you believe) is better but who has a credibility problem and is unable to implement it or someone who's plan you almost as much but will have the credibility to implement it. Dean has already been stereotyped as ultra-liberal, anti-war

Dean can not credibly talk about cuts to Veterans programs. Comments he made a year ago will matter. Surely he will be talking about his record in Vt. That is the past. Why is something he did in the past in VT important and not something he said a year ago. And if you don't think that some remark he made to a reporter a year ago won't matter-you are seriously naive. Have you forgotten all the crap Al Gore got because of little things he said that were not nearly the gaffes that Dean has made.
It's great that he is doing well in NH. May the best man win. Look, I'm not telling you not to support Dean but we all need to look at our candidates shortcomings and acknowledge them and start working to improve them. It's going to be hell out there in 2004.

You guys are making my head spin with the Vt. Gov thing. I guess it could be spun inside out and upside down.

Didn't a Republican follow Dean into the Gov's Mansion. Winning Gov elections is great but I wonder sometimes if candidates don't learn more by losing. Look at Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan (can't think of any others).

BTW and FWIW - Jerry Brown followed Reagan as Gov of CA.

Didn't Cheney have NS experience and Rummy and Powell both NS an military experience? They have created an unmitigated disaster in Iraq. Why would I want more people with these type of credentials in the next admin?

What most of you seem to have left out of the arguments or "solutions" for Iraq is that most of the world hates us at this point and we are losing in Iraq. We broke it and cannot fix it. Nobody can help us because then they become part of the problem that nobody knows how to fix. The farthest I can project on this issue at this time is that it is going to cost this country a lot of money and GWB is not part of the solution. How the world responds to regime change in this country will inform us of what can come next.

dean has the charisma and balls to not let himself get gored by the press.

policy accomplishments is a different kind of past than a personal story. the former shows you know how to get things done. the latter, while it may give you some credibility, does not automatically mean your ideas are right.

why can't he talk credibly about veterans' issues? it's a budget issue.

i guess it come down to you believing that only former veterans can be allowed to talk about or deal with foreign policy and national security. i feel that is awfully short sighted and do not believe it. many other veterans and people in the military don't buy it either. before dean's rally in nyc on tuesday, a moderate republican who was about to enter a branch of the military (i forget which one) gave a very enthusiastic speech about why he is supporting dean.

Marie,
You made my point regarding ns. You simply cannot replace experience. A lot of the problems we are having with fp are due to the fact that Bush has no experience but believes that it can be hired out to the help. Dean supporters seem to be saying it's not okay for Bush to hire out fp but it's okay for Dean? These advisors are the same ones that Sr. had so you can't say that the advisors will make up for lack of experience.

Pedro,
Dean is already being "gored" by the press. He is being called the new McGovern, arrogant and angry. This is the story line they have chosen to take. These things become urban legend. So he needs to nip it in the bud right now.

Dean could never speak at the VFW. He might be booed. They want people who only served in the military. John Kerry spoke and received a wonderful response. I'm not saying that Dean can't speak about these things I'm just saying that he lacks CREDIBILITY in this area. Kerry's experience doesn't only come from 'nam. It also comes from being on numerous foreign policy committees etc. Look, a governor has no reason to know foreign policy. It's not in his job description. Your example is of one person who is ABOUT to enter the military-not someone who has already served. I don't know who you are talking to in regards to the military liking Dean but I come from a military family and they are not fond of him.

The bottom line is I'm an American first and a Democrat second. When I heard the news regarding NK today-the first thing I thought about is we cannot afford to have a President who is on a learning curve regarding fp. Governors generally take 2 years to "catch on" to fp. Look, if we weren't in the international crisis we are in, I wouldn't be pushing this issue so much. Kerry probably wouldn't be the best candidate. That being said, we are where we are.

Regarding Dean's "balls", if he had balls he would stand up to the neocon special interests like AIPAC and work to put a final end their inflammatory militaristic policies.

From 1973 to the present, U.S. taxpayers have sent the equivalent of $70,200 to each Israeli household.

Israel is denying Palestinians their right to property and citizenship. It is inflaming the Mideast. We will never see peace until our politicians stop opposing U.N. resolutions condemning the occupation, and stop sending billions of our tax dollars to Israel every year.

http://www.stop-us-military-aid-to-israel.net/deanpetition/

"Absurdity in the Mideast," while I think the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is wrong, cutting off funding to Israel is not the solution, I don't think. To do that, we'd have to break the original Camp David treaty, and I don't think that would serve any sane person's interests.

Better to have a U.S. president who is actually willing to lean on both sides, instead of ignoring the Palestinians' plight and their awful terrorists, and doing next to nothing about pressuring Israel to really get back to the table.

Two wrongs don't make a right, y'know.

That's one of the reasons I like the Dems. I expect a saner policy vis-a-vis Israel.

That's one of the reasons I like the Dems. I expect a saner policy vis-a-vis Israel.

Dream on, Brian.

The Dems suck up to Sharon and friends like every other American politician, and, for what it's worth, I gather Dean's about the worst of the bunch. The only major Democratic candidate who has been just a little less eager to kiss ass has been Kerry.

"franklyO," that's not true. Then-President Bill Clinton actively campaigned against Likud ("Sharon and friends," against both Netanyahu and Sharon) and for Labor and Ehud Barak. There is a quantitative and qualitative difference between the policies of this bizzaro-Republican administration and the last Democratic administration.