Dean is radical enough to capture the Democrat’s nomination, but too radical to capture the White House. This, of course, pleases the Clinton tag team to no end, because Hillary is gearing up to be crowned in 2008.
The next five years will be very interesting.
P.S. I know some of you weren’t even born in 1972, but a quick google will enlighten you on McGovern’s campaign. Hint: He didn’t win.
Memo to Hillary and Dubya: don’t count your chickens before they’ve hatched.
Besides, Hillary is ruthless enough to take real time stock of the situation, and if it looks like strong opposition to Bush gains any real traction, she’ll jump in with both feet. As I said in the Hillary thread, she’ll play RFK to Dean’s Eugene McCarthy. ('68 election)
This will, of course, deeply divide the Dems, and give Bush the opening he needs to win - like Nixon in '68.
I’m hoping she surprises me and keeps out of the election even if Dean does gain real momentum. The odds on that are vanishingly small, though.
I only have a non-US resident foreigners viewpoint but a lengthy piece on the Dean campaign came up on the BBC last night - very interesting.
I am happy to bow to greater knowledge of the politic process of GOM, but is this really the overwhelming majority realpolitick viewpoint. Possibily, even probably, but I personally find it hugely depressing if so. He didn’t sound at all radical to me - but then I was convinced by Chomsky’s thesis in “Necessary Illusions - Thought Control in Democratic Society”. Anything to the left of centre-right seems to be hammered by the media as “too radical”…
I too hope hope Hilary holds off - or crashes and burns to badly she had to limp away forever. Far too many people with links to her financial affairs have committed suicide whilst placing the gun 10’ from their body, or accidentally fallen out of helicopters for my liking. Or do those issues not matter either to the American electorate?
Was McGovern the best President you guys never had? Or should I reserve that tag for Garry Hart (who was McGovern’s speechwriter IIRC).
I’m no expert. Fineman is the expert. That’s why I included a link for him.
hmmm Thought control is not far from our term “spin”, imo.
The Clinton body count is not considered important by liberals. Anyone who expresses concern is part of the “vast right wing conspiracy”. You’ve heard of that, right?
GOM: the Bush body count is somewhat larger. You have heard of Iraq?
I’m willing to even cede you Goldwater, as it was a piece of radical wisdom back in the day that had he been elected, Vietnam would never have happened because he could never have gotten away with it. That alone would make it worth it.
First of all could you provide a link to Fineman’s actual article?
In any case the Dean=McGovern meme while conventional wisdom in some circles is far too simple-minded. For one thing Dean is no straight lefty. His governing record in Vermont is quite moderate. Expect him to stress that during the general election campaign.
Secondly Vietnam was a bi-partisan mess started by a Democratic president. Iraq is Bush’s policy. Once the public comes to realize the enormous cost and difficulty of the post-war and if no WMD are found (as seems likely) I think it will be a liablity for Bush. Dean is in the best position to exploit that.
Interestingly enough the Economist magazine also had a column a while back pushing the Dean-McGovern comparison (they called him “two parts McGovern to one part McCain”). However in the latest issue they retreated from that and suggested that a better comparison could possibly be with Jimmy Carter in 1976.
GOM; Goldwater!?! Strewth - I take it from the smiley that this was a wind up!
Mind you virtually my complete knowledge of Dean’s policies comes from one BBC report. You haven’t got a link to the Economist article that isn’t subscription controlled have you?
These sorts of simple-minded, superficial comparisons to historical figures are nothing more than that. The issues and the electorate are far, far different today than they were in 1972, 1976, or 1992.
That said, the relevant questions are whether Dean can capture the Democratic nomination and/or the general election. I’m quite sure he can get the nomination, but not at all confident of the general. Dean’s actual record of pragmatic centrism would serve him well, but the civil unions thing will (though it makes me very sad to say it) make it very, very difficult to win the White House.
That said, I’m starting to come around on Dean’s candidacy. He’s doing many, many things right, and I believe he would be a formidable campaigner against Bush. I’ve already sent Kerry a sizable check, and I’m now considering doing the same for Dean.
If Dean is the new McGovern, does that make Bush the new Nixon?
The whole premise is that Dean is a “radical”. For the troglodytic branch of society, the gay-bashers and the no-“socialized-medicine” crowd, that’s true, and it’s true of most politicians for that matter. But the charge isn’t based on any other facts than that and his party affiliation, and won’t stick any more than it already does.
“but the civil unions thing will (though it makes me very sad to say it) make it very, very difficult to win the White House.”
I seriously don’t think it’s that big an issue. As far as I can tell most of the Dem candidates support some kind of civil union. Even Dick Cheney seemed to support something similar during the VP debate in 2000. Besides I think social issues are going to be a distant third to national security and the economy.
I think Dean’s biggest challenge is going to be national security ,like the CW suggests, but I think it is surmountable:
At some point he will have to formulate and articulate his national security policy particularly the circumstances in which he is prepared to use force. He should continue to stress that he has supported previous wars like Gulf War1 and Afghanistan and that his opposition to the recent war was based on national interest and not some kind of pacifism.
He needs to pick a VP candidate with strong national security credentials; Clark is the obvious choice.
If he gets the nomination he needs to surround himself with Democratic foreign-policy establishment types like Richard Holbroke. The public may not know or care but the media will and that will indirectly affect public opinion.
If he does these things I think he will definitely be a tough candidate.
Not to hijack this thread, but I’d like a cite for this “Clinton caused the deaths of XX people” bullstuff. This board is for fighting ignorance, not spreading conservative porn, so either put up or shut up.
