Question for the peanut gallery
Steve Soto has backed off a little from his previous attack on Dean's criticism of Gephardt's health care proposal. Yet he is still concerned: My main concern about pointed criticisms from Dean against other Democratic candidates still stands. It was one thing for Bill Bradley to go after Gore in 2000 when Gore had the benefits of incumbency and a positive record to defend himself (even if he subsequently squandered it). It is another thing for a gaggle of nine candidates to sink into a circular firing squad when they already are up against Karl Rove and the corporate media and ATM. This is not the first criticism I have heard from other Democrats on this point. I have heard several supporters of other candidates complain that Dean is being to harsh on their candidate of choice (note: I am not assuming that Steve is a Gephardt booster, I'm just drawing an example). The problem is that very few of them explain exactly how it is that Dean is supposed to criticize an opponent without sounding like he is attacking them? It's all, "don't do this" instead of "why don't you do this instead?" So, here's the question: how exactly should Dean criticize other Democratic candidates so that it won't raise people's hackles yet still get across the idea that he is the better choice for the nomination? Is this even possible?