Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Should I be on the Dean bandwagon?

I don't know... I keep asking myself how does he attract those who aren't foamingly angry at the Bush administration (present writer included in the group who is angry).

Can Dean convince Chait he can win (though I just remembered Chait wrote the Why I Hate Bush piece for TNR)? What about Ruy Teixeria?

Of course I can ask myself can the others win? It looks like Dean has the better chance than the others, but have major doubts right now. Though I probably shouldn't even paying attention to this stuff -- the rest of America is ignoring Campaign 2004, since it's not 2004 yet.


( 1 comment — Leave a comment )
Dec. 18th, 2003 11:37 am (UTC)
I followed the Chait link, and read the exchange between Dean and Stephanopolous over NAFTA, and Chait's comments. At that point, my thought was, why should I read any further? I had to assume that he would start off with something reasonably juicy, and that wasn't it. George S. characterized Dean as a strong NAFTA supporter; Dean replied that he'd been a NAFTA supporter but indicated that he'd not been a particularly strong one, while commenting that NAFTA had clearly accomplished some good things in his corner of the world.

But - AHA! - we find that, in 1995, Dean had characterized *himself* as a strong supporter of NAFTA!

The degree to which you'd have to be a nit-picker to be disturbed by this is way up there. Seems to me that that sort of stuff happens to a politician who speaks on lots of issues at lots of different times; occasionally a minor inconsistency is going to pop up on an issue that isn't one of his two or three main reasons for being in politics. And this one's *really* minor.

Here's what I think about Dean: he's going to shoot from the hip, and make some gaffes. And they're not going to hurt his support much, for the same reason Reagan's gaffes didn't hurt Reagan. We can trust Dean to do the one thing the rest of the field isn't doing: take on Bush for being the plutocrat/neocon lackey he is.

I've been waiting for a year for one of these guys to be able to sell some people on the idea that he ought to be President. Edwards and Kerry got great press, real early, and have done nothing with it. (I keep on praying that Edwards will drop out of the race and run for re-election to the Senate.) Leiberman excites nobody, nor does Gephardt, who I like, but if he's the nominee, he'll put all good Democrats to sleep. For a couple months, I was thinking that those running now were making Gore look awfully good by comparison (still am, really), and was thinking maybe if nobody came out of the primaries with the nomination wrapped up, the convention might see fit to nominate him.

People are excited about Dean. I don't know if he's this year's McGovern, or this year's Carter, or what, but it's time for the Dems to stand for something. We're seeing our party slip away because you can't beat something with nothing, as I said in a GD thread title the day after the 2002 elections. That won't be a problem with Dean.
( 1 comment — Leave a comment )