September 07, 2003

Dean's Big Mistake

[From the Chicago Report]

Dean is queitly making his first big mistake of Election 2004, even though much of his supporters are unlikely to notice. McCain, like Dean, was known for his “Straight Talk”; his say-what-I-mean-and-mean-what-I-say attitude was the secret to his overnight rise from dark horse to front runner. After McCain won big in New Hampshire, which Dean is likely to do, his campaign caught fire. But Maverick Johnny made one fatal mistake, playing to his strengths instead of his weaknesses. As he became more popular he stepped up the anti-status quo rhetoric. He didn’t go out of his way to answer his critics but instead waxed on about Skywalker and the Death Star. Inevitably McCain went to the well one too many times with his anti-special interest mantra, condemning Pat Robertson (and thus a Republican constituency) of being an “agent of intolerance.” By this point, any hopes McCain had of broad appeal were dashed. Not necessarily as a result of this specific statement, but as a result of over-playing the maverick role, to the point of making the less idealist mainstream voter concerned about his ability to govern effectively.

What does this have to do with Dean? Everything, obviously.

Dean's rhetoric has made him an election super star. It has supercharged many in his base. But a look at polls tells that, while he might be leading in the maverick's utopia non as New Hampshire, he still has work to do nationally. Yet, like McCain, Dean is not playing to his weaknesses. He is not showing that he can appeal to the more mainstream American. He is not cozying up to soccer moms and suburban moderates. He is not demonstrating a complex and subtle understanding for the stakes in the Iraq Campaign. Instead he's in California this weekend holding Bush personally responsible for the recall fiasco, at least according to this Tribune story. Dean was quoted:

The right wing of the Republican Party is deliberately undermining the Democratic underpinnings of this country ... I believe they do not care what Americans think and they do not accept the legitimacy of our elections.
Never mind the fact that the Recall provision is provided for in the democratically amended California State Constitution. This kind of speech is more befitting of a Jesse Jackson or Ralph Nader, a presidential contender. This kind of pure conspiracy theorist tripe doesn't have much currency with the centrist wing of the party and will likely drive the wedge between Dean’s supporters and Independent/Moderates even further.

Instead of building bridges to the DLC, Dean seems set on a personal crusade, against Bush, against centrist Dems, and against “politics as usual”, a crusade that will be enough to attract enormous amounts of press and a considerable cabal of devotees, but not the nod from the party. If he continues down this path, he’ll be having lunch with John McCain at the diner of history’s failed campaigns

Posted by Mike Van Winkle at September 7, 2003 02:19 PM
Comments
Comment #2359

So basically your saying that Howard dean is the Anti-Gore. He is not constrained by focus groups and polls and he actually speaks his mind. His supporters and I am one eat that up. Howard Dean is a centrist democrat. He has a centrist platform and voting record. Dean honest talk is refreshing and the Democrat faithful have been waiting for it. Voters want a strong candidate and with a year to go Dean has already campaigned harder than Gore ever did in 2000.

Posted by: Jake of 8bitjoystick.com at September 8, 2003 03:51 AM
Comment #2361

First off, Dean is a centrist on some issues and a “liberal” on others. He’s definitely not going to convince the mainstream he’s a centrist when he is for a huge single payer health care system, a complete repeal of the Bush tax cuts and the protection of gay marriage. Right or wrong these issue will allow him to be paintef LEFTY (I say this with a hint of regret because I support gay marriage).

Secondly, he sounds like a left-winger…a Nader type. His venom, his claims that Bush is driving the recall election in order to undermine democracy. He sounds radical which is the next best thing to actually being radical.

Lastly, I am not saying that Dean should stop being the Howard Dean that got him this far. I am not saying he should be like Al Gore. But when you consider that Al Gore was a creature of the American political machine being the anti-gore might just make you unelectable.

You can like him all you want, his brashness, his straight talk, his honesty. But if he can’t get elected, what difference did it make?

Posted by: Mike Van Winkle at September 8, 2003 08:04 AM
Comment #2365

Dean’s medical plan is not a single payer plan. Dean is currently ahead of all the other Democrats and has raised more money. I don’t think Democrats who have sided with Bush and voted with Bush have shot in hell of winning. I think he is the only electable one of the bunch.

Posted by: Jake of 8bitjoystick.com at September 8, 2003 11:38 AM
Comment #2372

Arent you arguing that dean is doing exactly the opposite of what McCain did? McCain lost the Republican nomination because - in your words - was “condemning Pat Robertson (and thus a Republican constituency) of being an “agent of intolerance.”

Dean is doing just the opposite of this - he is showing the mainstream democratic party that he is willing to use his clout to advocate for broader party issues - thus shoring up the Democratic constituencies in time for the general election so he can go after undecided voters.

Posted by: Glenn Brown at September 8, 2003 02:40 PM
Comment #2381

dedicated to van Winkle and all other neocon apologists, re Dean. HE’S GONNA WIN!!
DEAL WITH IT!!
WHOOP ASS FOR YOU FOR THE REST OF YOUR SORRY AMORAL LYING THIEVING LIVES!!!

Posted by: Peteypuck at September 10, 2003 05:23 AM
Comment #2429

“Strategically, Dean is way ahead of the pack. He has fulfilled the affirmative part of the campaign: giving people enough reasons to vote for him. Now he has the luxury of focusing on the negative part: dispelling the reasons to vote against him. Accordingly, his preparation for the last two debates seems to have focused on acting presidential and conveying competence in military and foreign policy. Tonight he accomplished both.”
http://slate.msn.com/id/2088124/

Posted by: Dan Wylie-Sears at September 12, 2003 04:14 PM