Howard "Oracle" Dean Part 2 - The Transcript

I talked earlier today about re-watching an interview with Howard Dean on the day the statue fell in Bagdhad and I remarked on how prescient some of his comments were about what might go wrong. I decided to take the effort to transcribe the interview here so others can see what I am talking about.

(All spelling mistakes are mine. There are a couple of places where the Governor flubs his comments. I chose to transcribe them as spoken instead of correcting them to what Dean obviously was trying to say. The 1st host is Gloria Borger. I don't know the name of the 2nd host.)

Howard Dean on CNBC, April 9, 2003

Host 1: Our next guest is one of the leading Democrats opposed to the war with Iraq.

Host 2: Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean is a candidate for President and is very vocal about his anti-war views. He joins us live here in Washington where he’s just been to a Children’s Defense Fund Forum with all the other Democratic Presidential candidates. Governor Dean, when you look, I’m sure you’ve watched these celebrations in the streets, when you look at that does that make you have second thoughts about opposing the war? These people are clearly grateful for what we’ve done.

Dean: No and I think we should be very proud of our military, they were obviously the strongest and the best in the world and they’ve done a terrific job and I’m delighted that Saddam Hussein is gone. But, the problem is that this is a preemptive war and this sets a pattern for other countries and for us into the future. I would not have done it this way. I have long believed that Saddam should have been removed and have said so. But, this is not the way I would have done it. This sets a lot of precedents for our foreign policy in the future, first of all. Second of all, we now have to administer Iraq. So, as I say, I’m delighted Saddam is gone. I wouldn’t have gone about it this way. And now we have the very hard work of trying to fuse this country into a lawful democracy with middle-class values, where women fully participate in the economic and political decision making of this country. And that’s going to be a hard task with three ethnic groups that don’t get along very well.

Host 1: Governor, doesn’t the President though deserve some credit here? You gave the military some credit but what about the President of the United States?

Dean: Well, I disagree with the policy Gloria. So, certainly I’m not going to, as I have refrained from doing, make partisan remarks about the President. But, I don’t agree with this policy. I think the policy of pre-emptive war is a new issue for the United States, a new place that we have never been before, and certainly the military is very successful. I never had a doubt that if we were going to go to war that the military would be successful. Now we have the very hard work of governing this country, of trying to bring it into the 21st century, creating democratic values and we’re going to need some help and I think the President should turn to our NATO allies and to the United Nations because we don’t want to be seen as an occupier. Right now we’re seen as a liberator and that’s terrific. But, when we are seen as an occupier, we may lose lives as we did in Beirut when the marines went there and we need to guard against that.

Host 2: But let me ask you, why should we turn to the United Nations when among the leading powers in that group are France, Russia, China, all of which opposed us and didn’t help in the war effort.

Dean: Because turning to the United Nations is not, we’re not doing it for the United Nations benefit, we’re doing it for our benefit. Ultimately what’s going to happen is, as we stay in Iraq, and begin to build the institutions for the rule of law and democratic rule that’s going to take some time. And, the longer we’re there, the more we’re going to be seen as outside occupiers. So, we need to share that responsibility. The United Nations and other countries have been very helpful in Afghanistan. They will be helpful in Iraq. And I think they need to gradually brought in.

Host 1: Well, I have to ask you a political question since you’re running for President. 71% of the people in this country supported the war, just over half of democrats supported the war, will an anti-war candidate, such as yourself, have difficulty winning a general election in this country in which national security may well be an issue?

Dean: National security is an issue, but I believe that the President can be criticized, and probably will be, for not enough attention to homeland security. Bob Graham for I both voted against the war, principally in some ways because we didn’t feel that the President was taking on the real issues which are North Korea and Al Qaeda. Both of which are far more danger, dangerous to Iraq. Iraq really did not pose an immediate threat to the United States. In fact, there have been no chemical weapons that have even been found yet, although I believe there will be at some point. So, I think the real issues in the campaign are going to be Homeland Security and are going to be the economy. The economy is not getting better. And the election is a long ways away so the answer to that is I think I’ll get some credit for standing up for what I believe in the face of 71% of folks who have a different point of view, at least for now. But the most important part is as Governor I’ve balanced budgets, I’ve brought people health insurance and I think that’s the direction this country needs to go in.

Host 2: Governor Dean, thank you very much for being with us.

Google News Democratic Primary Poll for 9/5/2003

		This Week (9/5)			Last Week (8/29)
1	Howard Dean	4490	18.9%	-0.5	1	4250	19.4%
2	John Kerry	4420	18.6%	-0.5	2	4190	19.1%
3	Dick Gephardt	2730	11.5%	-0.5	3	2640	12.0%
4	John Edwards	2480	10.4%	-0.6	4	2430	11.1%
5	Joe Lieberman	2280	9.6%	-0.9	5	2300	10.5%
6	Dennis Kucinich	2180	9.2%	+2.0	7	1570	7.2%
7	Bob Graham	1920	8.1%	-1.6	6	2130	9.7%
8	Al Sharpton	1520	6.4%	+0.6	8	1270	5.8%
9	Carol Moseley Braun	1080	4.5%	+1.1	9	763	3.5%
10	Wesley Clark	676	2.8%	+1.0	10	405	1.8%

The top ranks remain essentially stagnant from last week. Which means that Kerry's campaign rollout is not producing any real impact on media coverage. Furthermore, every report on his rollout includes a mention of how he has had to do do this due to the surprising front-runner Howard Dean.

Surprisingly enough, this appears to be the week of the also-rans, as all the lower tier candidates saw their shares increase, especially so in the case of Kucinich. Why he has gotten such a jump I haven't a clue.

Bob Graham continues his drastic plunge of the last few weeks. One month ago he was at 17.9%. Now he is at 8.1%. I think this indicates that the establishment media has decided that he is no longer a serious candidate and have written him off.

I've been doing this poll for about three months now. So I decided to go back and generate a chart to show how the various candidates have progressed.

The battle for media share has pretty much all been about Dean and Kerry for the last three months. It will be interesting to see if any of the other candidates will become the media focus before the primaries begin.

(Methodology: All numbers are taken from the hit counts when searching on the Google News Service for news stories containing each candidate's name. Click on each name to rerun the search. You will get different results as the numbers are constantly changing. I make absolutely no claim that these numbers have any real meaning.)

Howard "The Oracle" Dean

At last Wednesday's meetup, during the period when people were streaming into the room, I ran some videos of news reports on Howard Dean as a kind of warmup act. One of these reports was an interview with Dean on CNBC on the day the statue fell in Bagdhad. If you get a chance I would urge you to watch this interview. During it Dean made some predictions about how things would go wrong if we didn't internationalize the post-war effort immediately. He said the perception of us among the Iraqi people would quickly turn from being liberators to occupiers. He said that we would begin to suffer casualities that would rival the deaths in Lebanon.

Nearly every one of the predictions he made has come true. The only one he missed on was his prediction that WMD would be found, but I think we can forgive him that one since pretty much everyone predicted the same thing (including myself).

In praise of sound bites

New Krugman:

Just four months after Operation Flight Suit, the superpower has become a supplicant to nations it used to insult. Mission accomplished!

One of Krugman's greatest skills is his ability to reduce complex problems to a simple sound-bite that still manages to convey much of the complex point. Some may deride that we live in a sound-bite culture, but why should people be expected to have degrees in economics or a thorough understanding of foreign policy in order to engage in a dialog on these matters?

The problem is not sound-bites. The problem is bad sound bites.

Debate Re-assessment

You know, the more I think about it the more I think that Dean did alright by himself tonight.

You see, many of us early adopters came to Dean because of the passion he was bringing to a contest that was defined by its lack of same. Unfortunately, with that came some of the early Dean memes about him being nothing but the angry candidate.

As more people start watching this process (and it is still very early), they will be coming to it with some media-programmed assumptions about what the candidates are going to be like. If the media has been selling Dean as the angry candidate, watching a performance tonight where Dean was calm, cool and collected may actually leave them with a better impression than it would have if he had been screaming and pounding on the podium.

I haven't watched any TV commentary on this yet, but reports I have heard are that several commentators have called Dean's performance "Presidential".

That's the kind of thing we want to hear!

Update: I have to wonder how much of a difference having fewer participants in these debates would have on Dean's performance. As it is, each candidate can go 10-15 minutes before they get a chance to speak. If the field winnows down to 3-4 candidates then they will all get a lot more face time and a better chance to really show their character.

Debate Impression

Individual assessments:

Dean: A serviceable performance. Loosened up as time went on but still to hesitant in his answers, especially on foreign policy. Resorted to stump speech lines to much. Didn't hurt himself but didn't help himself either. Advice to his handlers: give him a few days off before each debate. Get some seasoned debate coaches in to loosen him up. You've got the money for things like this, use it.

Kerry: Demonstrated knowledge and experience but did very well to dissuade the impression that he just doesn't have the fire for this contest. He didn't help himself, which means he hurt himself because his campaign desperately needs a boost if it is to stop fading.

Gephardt: Winner of the night I think. Easily the most relaxed and on fire of the participants. Got of the best sound bite with his "miserable failure" line about Bush's handling of foreign policy (and everything else for that matter). This is the kind of attack Democrats need to be making repeatedly in order to bring down the public's impression that Bush is good at foreign policy. Until people like Dean started criticizing him most people never thought there was anything TO complain about. Bravo for Gephardt! He demonstrates how to adopt a Dean approach without just looking like he adopting a Dean approach.

Lieberman: Zzzzz. Still droning on. His "Dean Depression" attack was silly since it seems to imply that the country would be better voting for Bush over Dean. How is this supposed to help the Democrats Mr. Lieberman?

Edwards: The guy has a good stage presence and its a mystery why his campaign simply hasn't taken off. It may be the case of a great candidate with a terrible staff. Wouldn't be the first time.

Graham: Again, a serviceable performance. He needs a lot more than that though if he is going to stop his slide into the third tier of candidates.

Kucinich: Showed some fire and is a good voice for progressive politics, but his proposals just aren't realistic in the world we live in today. Maybe in 20 years after we reverse the decay brought about by Republican dominance. But not now.

Braun: Nothing special really. I frankly didn't pay that much attention to her answers. Sorry Carol but I'd rather have your question time given over to the other candidates.

Final Assessments: I was pleasantly surprised that there weren't more attacks on Dean. The pre-spin on this was that everyone would be gunning for Dean (especially Kerry). Instead most everyone focused their attacks on Bush which is all for the better. In fact, I noticed a distinctly Dean-like quality to a lot of the volleys directed against Bush. Even if Dean does not win the nomination he has permanently altered the nature of the Democratic contest for the better (IMHO). Dean came into this the front runner and I think he is still the front runner. But he needs to do better next time if he wants to open things up. His best moment of the night was when he responded to Lieberman's attack. The casual smile followed by the hard rebuttal works well in moments like that.

Update: I've been reading through the comments on the O-Blog about the debate and it appears that many Dean supporters are harder on their man than the press has been. In fact, the initial press assessment seems to be that Dean looked more Presidential this time around (while Gephardt was "out-Deaning Dean").

Since I follow Dean much more closely than others I may no longer be the best judge of how he does in these kinds of outings. I've heard the stump speech lines so many times that I can recite them in my sleep. Maybe using them in the debate is not such a bad idea (though I have to wonder if Dean is getting so used to them that he just can't deliver them with the same fire anymore). And being a little more laid-back in this format may work better than the firebrand style Dean uses on the stump. Kucinich, who was the most firey tonight, comes off as a bit of a hot-head.

So, maybe this performance actually did help Dean more than I thought. We shall see.

One other thing: I made the comment above that Dean relied a lot on stump speech lines. What I didn't consider at the time is that I haven't heard the stump speeches of the other candidates anywhere near as much as Dean's so I honestly can't say how much they were recycling their own material.

Restoring America

Ezra Klein argues that Democrats shouldn't just focus on retaking the White House in 2004. We shouldn't just write off Congress. He proposes a Democratic equivalent to "The Contract With America" which he calls "The Pledge to Restore America". He offers a good boilerplate for this pledge including a firm commitment to homeland security (as in putting our money where our mouth is), a foreign policy that leads by respect rather than bullying and a domestic policy that focuses on fiscal responsibility.

It's all good stuff. In fact, it might be just the thing that the Democrats will need to unite themselves going into the Fall campaign. Because no matter how rough the coming primary race becomes, the Democrats MUST speak with one voice at all levels when it comes to unseating the Republicans. This pledge, or something like it, might be just the prescription the doctor ordered (pun intended :-).

Spinning taxes

Suggested sound-bite for Democrats when talking about taxes: "Taxes should be as low as is possible, but as high as is necessary".

The first part puts you on the side of the angels and duplicates the Republican message. The second refreshes in people's minds the fact that taxes actually fulfill a purpose which many will agree with even as they grumble about paying the money.

As long as the debate is about just the first part then the "cut taxes" crowd will always win. Democrats need to re-educate the people that their taxes actually do pay for something useful. Once they do that then they need not always fear the "tax and spend" label.

The Bush motto: Protect your friends before your country

Remember the story about members of the bin Laden family being allowed to fly out of the country after 9/11 while the rest of the country's airspace was shut down? Remember how many said this story had been debunked?

Well... not only did it happen, it was approved by "Top White House officials":

White House Approved Departure of Saudis After Sept. 11, Ex-Aide Says

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3 — Top White House officials personally approved the evacuation of dozens of influential Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin Laden, from the United States in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks when most flights were still grounded, a former White House adviser said today.

The adviser, Richard Clarke, who ran the White House crisis team after the attacks but has since left the Bush administration, said he agreed to the extraordinary plan because the Federal Bureau of Investigation assured him that the departing Saudis were not linked to terrorism. The White House feared that the Saudis could face "retribution" for the hijackings if they remained in the United States, Mr. Clarke said.

I will not comment on the theory of some that this proves the Bushies were in cahoots with terrorists. You don't need to go that far to assert that this story should be damaging for this administration. For this story, at a minimum, provides yet another example of how this administration bends over backwards to protect its Saudi friends, even in the face of the worst terrorist act in U.S. history.

For the Bushies, protecting their friends is more important than protecting the security of the United States. It's as simple as that.

Poor planning for WMD search

There has been much blog chatter about the "secret report" for the Pentagon that criticized the poor planning for the post-war phase of the Iraq operation. But Kevin Drum points out that the report also criticized poor planning for the search for WMD:

The lousy postwar planning seems like simple arrogance and incompetence to me — they figured they wouldn't need it, so they ignored it — but the lackadaisical nature of the WMD search is rather more puzzling. They surely took WMD seriously, so why the negligence? Was it that:

• They were — again — incompetent?
• They believed that WMD would be plentiful and easy to find, thus making extensive planning unnecessary?
• They knew there was actually no WMD at all, so there was no reason to waste planning time on looking for it?

I genuinely don't know which of these is most likely. It's a real mystery.

Much about this administration is a mystery, including the fact that anyone takes them seriously on anything. But Kevin is right to ask about this. Why was the plan for searching for WMD so poorly thought out?

This administration will have a lot to answer for long into the future.

The Clark Debate

TNR is conducting an online debate on the Clark question. It is much like their previous debate about Howard Dean.

Noam Schieber has a post up that contains many of the same arguments I have made about Clark: that he is a neophyte when it comes to campaigning and that his supporters may be presuming to much if they think the anti-Dean effort will instantly coalesce around him if he were to announce. The latter is a point I am becoming more and more convinced of since I first proposed it. Clark, far from impeding Dean's march to the nomination, might actually fracture an already fractious group contending for the "Anybody-But-Dean" vote and thereby make it easier for Dean to come out ahead.

The Hippocratic Oath and the Presidency

I recently heard an apt comment about Howard Dean: wouldn't it be nice to have a President who has already sworn to "do no harm"? This is a reference to Dean being a doctor and the Hippocratic oath. I decided to do some research on this and I discovered that there is no single standard for the oath and that not all medical schools require their graduates to swear it. Therefore, I do not know for a fact that Dean has taken this oath. Furthermore, the "do no harm" does not actually appear in the versions of the oath that I have found. It is, at best, a compression of the ideas present in the oath.

I did find what is probably the most commonly accepted version of the oath. It was written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University. I think it might be useful to annotate this oath and see how it might apply to the Presidency:

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant: I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

This is essentially a restatement of the scientific method. Science teaches us above all else that knowledge, in order to advance, cannot be the exclusive pervue of a select few. In fact, egotism is contrary to the scientific method since the individual accomplishments of a single scientist cannot be more important then the advancement of science as a whole. A President who followed this principle would openly acknowledge the debt he has to other leaders and would actively seek out their input. He would also share with the world what he knows, where possible, rather than adopt the principle that everything should be a secret unless it is absolutely necessary to release that information.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

This is a call to do neither to little or to much to fix any particular problem. It is, I would suggest, an essential element of pragmatism. A President who followed this principle would not ignore problems until they got out of control nor assume that he has an exclusive view on the TRUTH and that everyone must do what he says.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

Problems cannot always be solved by the simple application of ideological theory or the latest technological doo-dad. Sometimes solving a problem requires the simple application of a sympathetic ear. A President who followed this rule would care about the less tangible qualities of leadership, not just the raw application of power.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

Humility is an essential quality. Few things are worse than someone who refuses to admit they are in over their head. They will just make the problem worse. A President who followed this rule would consult with others and be willing to admit that he does not have the solution to all the worlds problems.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

It chills me to think how applicable this is to our present situation in the War on Terrorism. A President who followed this rule would not strut around on aircraft carriers while people are dying due to the direct actions he had taken. He might still take those actions if they were necessary to protect the security of the nation. But he would not glory in the role of warrior-in-chief.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

The problems of the world are not problems on charts. They are not problems of theory. They are problems of human beings. A President who followed this rule would never lose focus on the fact that every single action he takes has real impact on real human beings.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

The magic bullet doesn't exist. Not all problems can be solved with the proper application of force. Sometimes the best solution to a mess is to not get into the mess in the first place. Do I really need to explain how this one applies today?

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

You are not above the rest of society because of your special abilities or your special role. Indeed, those abilities and your high place in society places obligations on you to put others before yourself. A President who follows this rule would understand that he is the servant of the people, not the other way around.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

The greatest pleasure comes from helping others. Praise and fortune are not the rewards for a job well done. The best reward is to be remembered fondly for the things you have done to improve the world around you.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a President who has already sworn to all these things?

Update: The AMA has a registry of oaths on their web page (thanks to 'space' for the link). Here is the oath for the Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University where Dr. Dean went to school (it may have changed since Dean graduated):

Declaration of Geneva

I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity; I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude which is their due; I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity; the health of my patient will be my fist consideration; I will respect the secrets which are confided in me, even after the patient has died; I will maintain by all the means in my power, the honor and the noble traditions of the medical profession; my colleagues will be my sisters and brothers, I will not permit considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient; I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from its beginning even under threat and I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity; I make these promises solemnly, freely, and upon my honor.

Still a pretty good model for a President eh?

Incompetence knows no bounds

The Left Coaster demonstrates that the Bush foreign policy has been as incompetent, if not more so, than its domestic policy.

In short, there has not been one success by this Administration in following the PNAC script. And there will be no support from any of our allies for any new wars we want to start anywhere in the globe, due to our allies’ lack of trust in us and their doubts about our competence.

Looks like the "New American Century" had a shelf-life of about 6 months.

Time flies eh?

Several bloggers are tackling this subject this morning: Billmon, Thinking it Through, Matthew and Atrios.

Billmon makes an especially important observation: by shooting its wad and apparently failing, the Bush administration has effectively burst the illusion of American invincibility:

Power, a good friend recently remarked, is an odd thing -- it's most impressive when it isn't being used. A wise hegemon goes to great lengths to conceal the true extent of its power. It always leaves something in the tool kit, so to speak, so that enemies and allies alike can never be sure exactly what's in there.

But the Bush Administration has let the cat out of the bag. It has exposed to the world the limits of U.S. military power -- both ithe size of the forces (divisions, troops) and the relative ineffectiveness of those forces on a complex social and political battlefield like the one America faces in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.

Even more to the point, Bush has signaled that the financial and political burdens of unilateralism are simply too great for any U.S. administration to carry for long. Forced to choose between greater mobilization at home (more troops, less tax cuts) and compromise abroad, Bush appears to have opted for the latter.

These events no doubt will be noted, and closely studied, by friend and foe alike.

Of course, Billmon and others might be a tad optimistic about the surrender of the PNAC agenda. Its advocates will remain as arrogant as ever and are not likely to admit any form of back-tracking on their agenda. They still hold the reigns of power in this administration and will do so for as long as they can fool enough people into thinking they know what they are doning.

Which brings us to this morning's press release from Howard Dean:

BURLINGTON--Howard Dean issued the following statement this morning regarding the Bush administration's labeling of several European countries as "chocolate makers": "The role of America in the world today is at a crossroads. As we hear disturbing reports that more American soldiers have been killed in Iraq, the Taliban has teamed up again with al-Qaeda, and North Korea is threatening to test nuclear weapons, one can only witness this Administration's conduct of foreign policy with increasing dismay.

"Rather than reaching out to our long-standing allies in NATO--the force best situated to help us stabilize Iraq--this Administration continues to practice a foreign policy based on petulance, this time referring derisively to Belgium, France, Germany, and Luxembourg as 'chocolate makers.'

"This President needs to understand that the reason the world followed the United States in the past is because we exerted strong, moral leadership that was a beacon to nations throughout the world. We did not achieve that position by berating and brow-beating our own allies--we achieved that by working respectfully and cooperatively with them. When I am President, I will restore the honor, dignity and respect that we once enjoyed but that this President has so recklessly discarded."

As long as these people have their hands on the controls this country will continue to spiral out of control. They may have been forced by the situation into asking for help from the UN, but they will probably fuck that up as well.

Thoughtful vs. Passionate

Ezra ruminates on John Kerry and comes to the conclusion that he would be a better president then Howard Dean because he is more thoughtful than Dean but that Dean is more likely to become president because he is more passionate.

Concludes Ezra: "... in this country we reward like-ability and passion, not thoughtfulness and intelligence."

I only partially agree with this assessment.

The Democrats biggest problem in the last few years is that they have rarely demonstrated the fire of leadership. By that I mean they haven't stood up for their principles and taken risks in defending them. They have "played along to get along". The result has been the creation in the public's mind of an image of Democrats as wimps.

We need leadership that will fight as well as think. I believe the people will reward intelligence, but only if it is combined with the will to fight for what you believe in. As has been so frequently noted of late, why should the people trust someone to stand up for them if they won't first stand up for themselves?

Thoughtful leadership simply isn't enough, whether on the campaign trail or in the oval office (Carter was thoughtful, but he was a terrible leader). I would love it if there were a way to combined Kerry's thoughtfulness and Dean's passion into a single candidate, but we have to work with the material that has been given to us and, if given a choice between the two, we have to go with passion because it is the most necessary requirement to win power.

Besides which, I think Dean can be pretty thoughtful as well and he will bring with him a lot of thoughtful Democrats (Kerry for Sec. of State?). It doesn't have to be a choice between two extremes.

Getting it

More and more commentators are starting to "get it". Today it's David Talbot's turn (to be fair, David may have gotten it a long time ago. This is just the first time I've seen him express his "getting it").

Why Dean and Franken are so hot right now
After years of being kicked in the teeth by GOP bullies, Democrats have finally found two brawlers who know how to give it back.

Sept. 3, 2003 | Nothing is so gratifying to a movie audience as the moment when a sorely abused hero (man, woman or animal) finally feels his strength and gives his tormentors what they richly deserve. From "High Noon" to "Rocky" to "Seabiscuit," America loves to see a comeback, a righting of wrongs, a bully brought to his knees. Which is why, I think, Al Franken and Howard Dean are the men of the hour. For years, we have suffered while right-wing bullies hijacked American politics and media -- persecuting a president for a consensual sex act; stealing the 2000 election; trashing the country's economy, environment and constitutional safeguards; handing the government over to the highest corporate bidders; deceiving the public into a bloody quagmire; and then brazenly smearing anyone who dared to criticize this orgy of dreadful leadership as un-American.

After Clinton left office, and in particular after 9/11, Democrats seemed to lose the will or skill -- or both -- to fight back. The opposition party was a sad palooka slumped to the canvas, cowering in anticipation of the next blow. Think Tom Daschle, the party's "kick-me" standard bearer, being gleefully libeled as a Saddam-hugging traitor by GOP carpetbaggers in his own state while his brave colleagues... ran for cover. This wasn't the give and take of a robust democracy, it was a blood bath.

But month after month, the resentment grew -- you could see it and feel it on Web sites that the corporate media dismissed as fringe. And then finally, it came pouring out, in a wave of money and volunteer energy for the Dean campaign. And it's still cascading, turning a candidate once scoffed at by the punditocracy into the Democratic front-runner -- and forcing his rivals to amp up their Bush-bashing rhetoric to match the party faithful's passionate mood.

Back in March, when I first signed on to Dean's campaign, I was realistic about Dean's chances. I didn't really expect that he might win. I was more interested in supporting his fearless, take-no-prisoners approach to politicking in the hope that it would rub off on the Democratic party as a whole.

Never did I dream that this campaign would be as successful as it has been.

How Dean Can Win

Part Three of Jusiper's response to Dean naysayers is up. I won't summarize here. I'll just recommend you go read it.

Peaking to early?

 

(tip of the hat to Dean Nation for the original link).

Fearlessness and Good Republicans

Please go read this thoughtful essay by Michael Cudahy, an Republican who is working to elect Howard Dean:

This country is hungry to put an end to the partisan warfare that has consumed this nation for the last 15 years -- at least.

That hunger, and a deep discontent with the status quo keeps reasserting itself. It raised its head in '96 with the hope that Colin Powell might run. It reemerged with the McCain insurgency, and I believe that it will finally succeed with the candidacy of Howard Dean.

This is not a question of party registration. It is a matter of right and wrong. It is a question of thoughtful policy development that addresses the needs and problems that are facing the majority of people in this country.

I have campaigned all over this country and I have enormous confidence in the basic common sense of the American people. I believe if you speak to them rationally they will listen. I am convinced that one of the reasons that the Dean campaign is gaining such traction is because unlike everyone else they have thrown the rule book away and are beginning to intelligently address the problems that are threatening the nation.

I also believe that they understand that they represent a potential home for millions of disenfranchised traditional Republicans who -- like myself -- are no longer welcome in their own Party.

Governor Dean projects a complete unwillingness to be afraid, and that is the key to taking these people out. From what I am hearing from friends inside the Republican Party, they are deeply concerned by the Dean campaign because they do not know how to deal with it.

I guess I would say to people who have been terrified by President Bush and his administration, "do not be afraid of all Republicans, because there are millions of Republicans who are wonderful caring people. Citizens who embrace the traditions and policies of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower......reach out to them.........and create a radical center where all of us can work together -- even when we disagree."

Please do not tar us all with the same brush. Like all Americans, we love our country, its values and the principles that have made it great. Equally important, we are committed to the vision of the founders of our party who believed, in the words of Abraham Lincoln that, "This country with its institutions belongs to the people who inhabit it."

I can remember the first Dean meetup I went to back in March. 40 people gathered on a cold Winter night in Portland, OR to talk about an unknown ex-Governor from Vermont who was campaigning for a vote we wouldn't be making for another 18 months. That alone was an extra-ordinary thing to witness. But what also impressed me that night was that there were two people in the crowd who were registered Republicans who got up in front of a crowd of Democrats, Greens and Independents and openly confessed that they voted for George W. Bush and that they wanted to do whatever they could to make amends for that error.

There has been a lot of talk about how Dean is drawing in people who have felt disenfranchised from the political system. But what hasn't been talked about enough is how Dean is appealing to a lot of disaffected Republicans who are tired of belonging to a party that is lead by crass political operatives like Karl Rove and Tom DeLay.

I make lots of cracks about Republicans, but that is generally my way of commenting on the leadership of the Republican party. I don't want to fall into the trap of assuming that all Republicans are unfeeling ogres who care only about their own welfare. Republicans are Americans to and they deserve moral leadership as much as the rest of us.

Mr. Cudahy demonstrates this eloquently in his essay. Mr. Cudahy also elaborates on the one weapon that Dean has that the Republican leadership doesn't know how to deal with: fearlessness. The GOP has become so used to operating in a political atmosphere where Democrats cower in the face of Republican belligerence that, when one of them stands up and says "enough", they are flummoxed by how to respond.

When Rove came out a few months back and cheered on a Dean float at a local Washington D.C. parade some people thought this was a sign that Rove was afraid of Dean and that he was trying to fool the Democrats into not nominating him. I think it more likely that it was just another part of Rove's general attempt to keep the Democrats cowering in uncertainty (see the recent Adam Nagourney article about "Worried Democrats"). What I don't think Rove expected was for Dean and his supporters to take strength from Rove's clumsy efforts(*). Dean went on to post record setting Q2 fundraising numbers and bring out 10,000+ crowds in the middle of August more than a year before the election. Here we see a prime example of how fearlessness can slay the mighty GOP machine.

You don't hear much from Rove lately about how he wants the Democrats to nominate Dean do you?

I wonder why?

(* - Over on the O-Blog someone even set up a Troll Goal, a fundraising tool that people could use to donate money to the Dean campaign whenever someone tries to disrupt the campaign.)

Update: I didn't realize it when I wrote this post, but apparently Michael Cudahy is not just a Republican. He is a Republican party activist who ran 8 states for George Senior (according to the folks over at Escapable Logic and at Dean Nation). I wonder how many other GOP activists are ready to bail on Dubya?

The Annotated Bush Resume

Two weeks ago Jared posted the resume of George W. Bush, a document that demonstrates what an incompetent Bush actually is. In response to criticism of said resume, Jared has now pasted a huge page of links documenting each of the items in the resume. Check it out.

Losing vital support?

First Toby Keith, now Andrew Sullivan?

So far, I've been manfully trying to give the administration the benefit of the doubt, especially given the media's relentlessly negative coverage of Iraq. But they're beginning to lose me, for the same reasons they're losing Dan Drezner. They don't seem to grasp the absolutely vital necessity of success in Iraq. And I can't believe I'm writing that sentence.

People like Sullivan are belatedly coming to appreciate the horrible thought that has been keeping the rest of us up at night: that we are lead by a bunch of incompetents. Of course, earlier in the day, Sullivan posted the following:

SONTAG AWARD NOMINEE: "What brought me here is Dean - and George," said Karin Overbeck, an independent at her first political rally, in Spokane. "For the second time in my life, I'm ashamed of my nationality. I was born in Germany and I was ashamed; now I'm ashamed to be American." - from a New York Times report on Howard Dean's strongest supporters.

Sullivan still has a big wall down the middle of his brain that allows him to question the competency of the Bushies while still looking on the expression of similar criticism by others as somehow just plain nuts.

By the numbers

Everyone talks about the number of U.S. deaths in Iraq. But what about the injured? Courtesy of the Washington Post comes this graphic:

Dean works to ease tensions?

Well, at least Dean appears to be doing his part to ease the concerns of establishment Dems:

Dean moves to end the Democratic family feud Howard Dean, long on the Democratic establishment's you-know-what list for dumping on party boss Terry McAuliffe, has made nice. Insiders tell Whispers that Dean, the front-runner in opinion polls and fundraising, has become the first--and only--of the nine presidential candidates to help McAuliffe raise cash for the Democratic National Committee Presidential Trust. "For all those who think Dean and Terry don't get along," says a party insider, "here's the proof that the feud is over." Another official 'fessed that Dean's plea to big donors was "shocking," but added: "We love this guy now." In one letter shown to Whispers, Dean asks a donor to pony up the maximum $25,000 for the fund. Of course, party officials say the effort isn't totally magnanimous; it suggests that the candidate thinks he has the nomination sewn up. The trust is the kitty that goes to the eventual party nominee to fight President Bush. "He's already looking to the general election," says an official who also noted that the self-declared liberal has started to tout himself as a moderate.

"self-declared liberal"? Sigh. Oh well. I said several months back that rumors of Dean and McAuliffe not getting along appeared to be more of the "let's you and him fight" variety of political reporting. The report that Dean actually wanted to get rid of McAuliffe sounded like a GOP plant designed to get Democrats fighting with each other. I still stand by that theory.

Is Tom Toles "Over It"?

A different shade of yellow

Something else to note from Nagourney's "Worried Democrats" article:

Aides to his rivals said they had drawn a lesson from Dr. Dean's unsteady appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" in June, which was mocked as near disastrous among party leaders but now appears to have served to rally his base around him. Several said they feared that Dr. Dean would be strengthened by conventional political attacks. As a result, Dr. Dean's rivals are all stepping gingerly, waiting for someone else to risk the first shot. "No one wants to be the person to take on Dean," said Ron Klain, a Democratic consultant who was a senior adviser to Al Gore in 2000.

First Democrats were afraid to attack Bush. Now they are afraid to attack Dean. That pretty much says it all right there. Is it any wonder these people are having trouble getting an "establishment" candidate to lead the fight against Bush?

Clark's entry might help Dean?

Matt Singer, over on Not Geniuses, has an interesting post in which he tries to talk down some of the assumptions Clark supporters have about what will happen if and when Clark enters the race. He covers some of the same ground I have (but does it better) plus brings up some points that I had not yet considered. Specifically, the question of support from establishment Democrats. There seems to be the assumption among some Clark supporters that if he were to enter he would almost immediately get the lions share of the establishment endorsements. As Matt points out, a lot of those establishment Dems have already picked their candidates (Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, even a few for Dean). Are they likely to simply drop their guys the minute Clark announces? I think not. Clark's entry, far from solidifying the "Anybody But Dean" movement, might actually fracture it even more and make it that much easier for Dean to win.

The more things change...

Gabriel Demombynes, over on Dean Nation, goes searching into the archives and discovers that Adam Nagourney has written about how bleak the prospects were for Democrats before...back in 1992!

Whiny Democrats

Atrios criticizes the Times' Adam Nagourney for writing another "Democrats can't win" article. I'm going to have to part company with Atrios on this one. I don't really give a crap about Nagourney writing articles like this. What pisses me off is Democrats acting like losers before the first ballot is even cast. "Oh, Bush is going to be soooooo tough to beat next year. How oh how can we ever going to do it?" Bah! If all you can do is worry about losing then could you kindly leave the game and let the rest of us who actually want to win get the job done? Thank you!