It looks increasingly like the two main things between Howard Dean and the Democratic nomination are…his mouth and his temper. Given that a bunch of Democratic candidates have been excoriated for wimpishness (Carter, Dukakis, Mondale, Gore but importantly not Clinton), maybe this is the risk one has to take to have a winner. ABCNEWS.com : The Note, the purveyors and shapers of conventional wisdom, have 18 interesting observations about Dr. Dean. I was especially struck by numbers 8, 9, 14 & 18:
1. Dean will raise more money in the year before the election than anyone else seeking the Democratic nomination, and that historically in the modern era is (with one exception) the iron-clad predictor of who wins in both parties.2. Beyond money, this year Dean has dominated in message and media, two other fabu things to have.
3. None of the other candidates can overtake Dean in the fourth quarter — they can theoretically do damage to him (although, outside damage with the Chattering Class, we doubt that too), but they can’t cripple him. There just aren’t enough people paying attention yet.
4. What doesn’t kill Howard Dean only makes him stronger.
5. Fair or unfair, the media has not held Dean to the same standards as the other major candidates. Wes Clark’s entry into the race sucked up a lot of publicity and took the spotlight off of Dean at the one moment when critical mass was being reached.6. At the same time, some of Dean’s explanations for his alleged inconsistencies and flip flops are actually pretty convincing.
7. Dean’s core supporters don’t care about Sunday show gaffes and pratfalls, New York Times editorials, or what Terry McAuliffe or the Dingells think.
8. People actually listen to Dean talk at his events.
9. Dean’s willingness to cede control to volunteers in the states for planning events and executing political activities is an act of confidence and strength, and has directly resulted in his drawing unprecedentedly large crowds and building genuine grassroots support.
10. Most Washington Democrats who are scared out of their wits about Howard Dean as their nominee have never been to a Dean event and don’t have a genuine understanding of WHY he has succeeded this year.
11. Skipping the matching funds is a general election strategy, not a strategy for winning the nomination.
12. Governors do well as presidential candidates, and the members of Congress who are running against Dean still for the most part haven’t learned not to talk like they are from Washington (“We CAN get Breaux-Gilchrest out of conference!!!! We can DO it!!!! And then passed by both chambers!!!”). Dean talks like a real person, and voters like that.
13. Dean is no newcomer to national politics; his work on the NGA and DGA (where he recruited ruthlessly) gives him as much applicable experience as almost anyone else running.
14. Howard Dean doesn’t have cable TV.
15. Howard Dean has not developed a general-election winning message on the economy — yet.
16. Dean can theoretically win a general election race against President Bush, but not without growing significantly as a candidate and a person, including and especially in his rhetorical and symbolic relationship to faith, family, freedom, and national security.
17. All of the other five major candidates think they can and should be in the end the Dean Alternative, and each has enough hold on key state and national support that they have no incentive or desire to get out of the race and consolidate beyond one of the others. The pro-war candidates in particular are splitting a piece of the pie that is large, but it is still a SPLIT piece.
18. The people who work for DeanforAmerica have FUN, from the interns in Iowa to the senior stuff; the staffs for the other campaigns don’t always remember to do that.
It seems I am not the only one to have modified their link to the Volokh Conspiracy to eliminate the high volume of posts from the most voluable and least interesting conspirator. As of yesterday, the link in the left margin leads you to a Cori-free version. Not to censor, but because that’s how I decided I liked to read it.
I don’t know if this essay by John Holbo [link corrected] deconstructing David Frum’s book is right, because I haven’t read the book it attacks. (And, if truth be told, I’m especially unwilling to jump to conclusions because I used to know David Frum in college, long ago.) But I will say the Holbo essay is an elegant and very readable piece of writing in itself. Often people who write clearly think clearly too, so I’d bet that if it’s wrong, then odds are it is wrong in an interesting way.
“Radical sartorauthoritarianism”? Gotta love it.
Daily Kos flags a Washington Post article on a new Bush administration tactic to avoid pesky questions from Congressional Democrats — simply announce that you will no longer answer them. Henceforth, the White House wll only aswer questions approved by (Republican) committee chairs. This ensures that nothing troubling will be asked, solving the problem of both volume and content in a single stroke.
Abstractly, you can imagine a world in which the flood of informational requests from the Congress begins to overwhelm the White House, although there is no evidence that we had reached that point. If the White House’s response had been some sort of quota system, eg. N questions per representative per month get priority attention, the rest go to the bottom of the pile, I might understand that. In fact, however, the policy seems to be a response to questions about the provenance of the shipboard “Mission Accomplished” banner that Bush has been trying so hard to disown recently.
This is just dirty. And so is this White House statement, “It was not the intent to suggest minority members should not ask questions without the consent of the majority.” Right. In which case Director of the White House Office of Administration, Timothy A. Campen, should be fired quick, since he sent an email with a policy which can only be understood to do exactly that.
Given the unending stream of humiliations and provocations being visted on them, it would take saintly virtue for Congressional Democrats to refuse to retaliate in kind when, in due course, they become the majority party again. And while I tend to support Democrats more than other parties, I would not generally call them saintly.