Me. Last night I went to bed angry at Dean for several reasons. This morning I mulled it over some over some coffee, and developed more sympathy for Dean. The anger, in a nutshell, is over my impression that increasingly Dean is running against the majority of the Democratic Party almost as strenuously as he is running against Bush. Intellectually I know that this is an "emotional reality", not an objective one, but many of Dean's recent statements have fed into those emotions.
Plus I had just read where a Dean spokesperson had directed a pointed and distorted attack at Clark. I read the attack in this article:
"Clark Is First to Use Bill Clinton in Ad"
By LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press Writer
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-clark-ad,0,5158245,print.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlinesThe article is about Clark's new short TV ad in which a few second visual shows Clinton placing the Presidential Medal of Freedom around Clark's neck for his service to America and NATO in the Kosovo war. Clark won that award, I think it is fair politics to show him receiving it from the only President we had at the time. What's so controversial about that? Spokesmen for both Kerry and Dean saw it differently though, with both choosing the occasion to assert that a visual association with Clinton can't wipe away Clark's prior support for some Republicans. OK, so that bothered me. Clark was minding his own business, promoting himself and justifiably taking pride in a high honor received. No negative attacks on any Democrat in Clark's ad. None, Zilch, and then this?
But then Dean's spokesperson went a step further, in essence he lied about Clark. Here's the quote: "Jay Carson, a Dean spokesman, said the ad "doesn't make up for a lifetime of voting Republican. We're looking forward to seeing the Nixon-Reagan-Bush-Rumsfeld-Cheney ad." Clark has been voting Democratic for at least the last 15 years. He actually voted for the guy who gave him that medal, twice. A lifetime of voting Republican? And where was Clark saying anything negative about Dean or anyone else that justified such an acid response? This attack comes on the very same week that Dean complained that Democratic candidates should be stooped from attacking him. Anyway, that's what fired up my simmering but increasing resentment about the tone and direction of Dean's recent campaigning.
So where is my sympathy, and why do I have any? I sympathize with Dean for having to constantly defend himself against the charge that he can't get elected President. How does someone come back against that type of "end of discussion" charge? "Yes I can" is the obvious reply, but it lacks power, and fails to persuade. Of course Dean would think he can win, but all of the knowledgeable people know better; that's the dynamic that gets put in play here. There is no way for Dean to prove that he is right and that the charge is wrong, not until AFTER the Election if he gets the nomination, and that will be too late to help Dean in the primaries against his critics. I am reminded in small part of the empty Shelton slur against Clark's "character and integrity". The assertion is so nebulous that nothing can be said to totally negate it. At least Dean can get some of his opponents to detail some of the reasons why they think he can't get elected, as opposed to Clark trying to confront Shelton's Sphinx, but the quandary remains. It is a charge that by nature can not be refuted.
Furthermore it is a charge that should never be leveled against any Democrat who has shown an ability to mobilize hundreds of thousands of supporters to his side, surging past recognized party leaders in the process. It is an insulting charge, both to Dean and to those who work for him. It is a self defeating charge for Democrats to slap on a man who is drawing more support than any other current Democratic candidate. It is a terrible admission of weakness to think such a candidate has no hope of prevailing in the Fall. No wonder many in Dean's camp are so incensed at "the Party Establishment".
Does that mean that I believe that the issue of relative "electibility" should be taken off the table? No, certainly not. Every candidate must present himself as the man or woman who can defeat Bush in the Fall, and Democratic voters have to decide who they think is correct about that. Sometimes I make the case for why I think it will be easier for Clark to win the Fall Election than Dean, and I think that is fair politics. It focuses the discussion on the nuts and bolts of each man's relative strengths and weaknesses with the general electorate and with the party base. It's a good debate, and a timely one. But I never say Dean can't get elected. I say I will fight for him if he gets the nomination.
What does it do when some of us frame Dean's candidacy as "suicidal" for the Party? Well, besides possibly wounding our potential nominee, it pushs Dean to argue not on the merits of his positions, not on his record as Governor, not even on the specific failings of some of his individual opponents. It forces Dean to argue that conventional wisdom is wrong, which by definition forces Dean to adapt more of an outsider anti-establishment position. It forces Dean to stress what he has going for him that no one else does, how he alone is positioned to bring victory for the Democrats in the Fall. What good does it do for Dean to defend his record on the Environment, if all he gets in return is; "It doesn't matter, you don't stand a chance against Bush"?
I am alarmed by some of Deans recent comments about "the Republican wing of the Democratic Party" and about how the movement supporting him can't be counted on to back any other Democrat in the Fall election (Quick aside: Yes that is literally true. Supporters are free agents with free will, but a candidate talking that way feeds those tendencies. Candidates for President present themselves as leaders. Leaders can actively work to influence supporters toward party loyalty, as opposed to ruminating about their primary loyalty to the candidate). However significant elements in the Party are pushing Dean down that path. If some of us claim that Dean is sure to lose the war, Dean is sure to brag about his unique "secret weapon" that will bring victory to him and him alone. We are engaged in a polarizing dynamic, and it would be better if we all stopped feeding into it.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
