Just read this comment from Leon Panetta
in today's
NY Times:
"It's not just Dean, but all of the candidates who ran against the war
in Iraq are going to be weakened by the events of the last few days,"
said Leon Panetta, chief of staff in the Clinton White House. "For Dean
in particular, it makes it even more imperative that he has to make an
adjustment in terms of his positions so he's not viewed as weak on national
security."
Mr. Panetta, listen carefully to what I have to say. Weak politicians follow
the mood of the country. Strong politicians change the mood of the
country.
That is what Dean is attempting to do. By strongly asserting that capturing
Saddam has not made America safer he is attempting to wrestle control of the
dialog away from the Republicans. What Bush and Rove want more than anything
else is for people to believe that Hussein's capture has made America safer,
regardless of whether it has or not. They are trying to change the mood to match
their political goals. Democrats like Panetta are saying we should go along with
the attempt.
What Panetta doesn't understand is that Dean's position is in the
mainstream of American thought. The CBS poll I
pointed out yesterday says 78% of voters say that Saddam's capture has not
made us any safer (some even say it has made us less safe). And what does the
Times article say about the opinion of Americans?
[...] The latest New York Times poll showed that the capture improved
Americans' view of President Bush and his handling of the war but also that 60
percent said the United States was as vulnerable to terrorist attack as before
the capture.
Dean's argument since the beginning has been that the Iraq war was a
distraction in the war on terrorism. It is the heart of his argument that Bush
is weak on foreign policy. Bush can win this fight only if he can convince the
voters that Iraq was an essential part of that war. Democrat's like Panetta want
to concede this point before the battle has even begun. If Dean were to go along
with Panetta's advice then it would destroy Dean's entire foreign policy
argument.
That is why Democrat's like Panetta lose.
Fortunately, this article suggests that Democrat's like Panetta are on the
losing side of the argument within the party as well:
"There is some anxiety," said Pat Griffin, who was President
Clinton's liaison to Congress.
Such concern, Mr. Griffin said, was "a legitimate part of the
process" but "it would be a mistake to say that people have drawn a
conclusion that Dean's candidacy can't work."
At least Mr. Griffen seems to understand that all this talk about Dean's
unelectability is a non-starter and potentially very dangerous.
Some saw Dr. Dean's remark on Mr. Hussein's capture as a sign that he would
remain defiant toward President Bush, a quality that his supporters greatly
admire.
"We don't want a wimp in this part of the country," said
Representative Marcy Kaptur, Democrat of Ohio. "Everything I've read that
Dean has said about Saddam seems to be right on point. Our people have
struggled to make a living and they want a fighter. They don't want some kind
of Hollywood production with hair spray."
The time for figuring out how to "adjust" our views to "match
the mood of the country". Is over. Democrats have adjusted enough. It's
time for us to start insisting that other's adjust as well.