Dean Backlash?
I am sensing a mild Dean backlash in some media reports these last few days, perhaps a sign that people are now realizing he has a chance to win the nomination. I know he has been attacked previously as unelectable by other candidates and the DLC, but now some in the mainstream media are making similarly damaging statements.
The Washington Post has a good article on Dean's formal announcement yesterday, summarizing what happened at the event in Burlington as well as the schools of thought on Dean and where he stands in the polls and fundraising. The Post's Sunday magazine, however, had mocked this late "announcement"--coming after months of campaigning--as "Duh News" in a headline. Personally I think it's a rather smart ploy to get more media coverage. Maybe the Post is voicing the disgust of the press at being manipulated like this, though I'm sure the Dean people welcome the coverage to get the candidate's name out (unfortunately for them, the announcement ended up being overshadowed by other big news made at the Supreme Court yesterday).
The Wall Street Journal, not surprisingly, argues on the editorial page today that Dean's appeal with Democrats is based on anger at Bush and little else. The key paragraphs:
"In all of this Mr. Dean is touching something deep in the current Democratic psyche. The polls all show that while most Americans like Mr. Bush and approve of his performance, a large core of Democrats loathe him and despise his policies. Without control of the White House or any part of Congress for the first time in 50 years, they are increasingly frustrated and angry. Their mood matches that of the liberal pundit class, whose bile seeps through nearly every column. They're mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore. Mr. Dean is doing well because he's as mad as they are.
"Readers of these columns won't be surprised to learn that we doubt this is a winning platform. Americans have come to like and trust Mr. Bush, and Democrats won't prevail in 2004 by asking, as Bob Dole did in 1996, 'Where's the outrage?' There's a debate to be made on GOP policies, but anger is not an agenda, especially in a nation as inherently optimistic as America. The danger for the Democrats in 2004 is that they will indulge their outraged inner liberal rather than compete for the political center."
Last night on the "O'Reilly Factor", O'Reilly and Newt Gingrich were practically salivating at the possibility of a Dean nomination. Many Republicans seem to believe Dean is too far from the center to be any threat. I caught a piece on ABC News last night that also focused on this theme, including a quote from a young volunteer that was basically, "If we're going to lose badly like in 1984, why not lose with someone we're in love with?"
Is Howard Dean really the Ralph Nader of the '04 election, siphoning off the liberal vote to make the centrist Democrats, who have a better chance of winning in November, weaker? (Brief aside: what was up with the big Nader sign behind Dean during the announcement speech yesterday? Watching the Dean people try to stick their signs in front of it as the Green people moved around was amusing, though it distracted from my watching of the speech) Bill Saletan's Slate column from yesterday dispels the notion that Dean is not a centrist (a point the Post makes as well). Incidentally, the title on the article, "Howard Dean, Left-Wing Impostor", sounds somewhat sinister, but the point is valid, I think. As evidence, Saletan links to transcripts of Dean's Meet the Press appearance and his remarks at the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition conference this weekend.
I think that the real reason for the momentum behind Dean is that he has been the best candidate so far at energizing people and offering a coherent message that critiques the president. He just seems to have something to his candidacy, which I can't really say for what I've seen from Lieberman or Kerry thus far. I think Democrats want to win badly, and many sense that the "Bush lite" approach of 2002 will lead to failure.
Admittedly, Dean's Meet the Press performance was poor. I mistakenly wrote on Friday that he had cancelled the appearance due to his family issues over the weekend, and maybe he should have because he did not seem on top of his game. Of course, anyone would look better delivering his stump speech than being interrogated by Tim Russert, but Dean could have done better than this. Nea Pollack offers a humorous take on the interview (I found this link via Oliver Willis). I was discouraged enough by the interview to forget about attending any Dean announcement events yesterday. The announcement speech, which I watched on C-SPAN I felt was good but not great. Dean is still tops in my mind for the moment, but I want to hear more from John Edwards before I make a commitment to a candidate.
|
