Even though this site has been up for several months now, I still often forget to post things that I run across in my voracious inhaling of the Internet. My friend "Sean":http://www.nomadfamily.com has prodded me out of this disconnect a couple of times now, including this very post, so in his honor, I refer you to this
Service. Send an email to your friends after the Rapture to let them know where you've gone! This is a free service but donations are "gratefully accepted":http://www.raptureletters.com/gifts.html. The technical details of how this service is triggered--assuming email is still available--are unclear.
Sean, here's your long-distance dedication. Happy New Year everyone! We're at "orange":http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/, people! Keep your wits about you!
Found this NYTimes article by Todd Purdum
about Gore endorsing Dean via "dangerousmeta!":http://dangerousmeta.org and was annoyed. Consider this quote:
bq. But even as he stands to gain, Dr. Dean may also alienate some of the grass roots supporters who have flocked to his crusade, disaffected by politics as usual and disappointed by Mr. Gore's losing campaign in 2000.
bq. The move carries obvious potential rewards, but equally obvious risks, for both men. The sudden marriage of such a seeming odd couple could wind up being seen as so politically expedient as to seem almost unprincipled, playing into the public's worst perceptions that campaigns are about power and winning, not big ideas.
"Dr. Dean may alienate..."? Where is this coming from? To me, the Gore endorsement seems like a significant--albeit mostly symbolic--victory for Dean. But this piece, with mock concern, paints both men as power-hungry opportunists who aligned themselves purely for political gain, akin to Madonna and Britney kissing at the Whatever Awards recently.
What's so odd about Gore endorsing Dean? Dean often invokes the successes of the Clinton administration, in which Gore was, wait a minute, the Vice President. Gore has "spoken":http://anthropomorphy.org/archives/2003_11.html "recently":http://anthropomorphy.org/archives/000021.html and forcefully against the Bush administration, citing their deceptions leading us into war in Iraq, the diversion of resources away from the war on terror and into the invasion of Iraq, and the Justice Department's attacks on civil liberties--all of which Dean has also used in his speeches. Having read and seen recent speeches from both, they sound like natural allies to me.
Gore further gains credibility in my eyes because he has nothing to gain that I can see. What does Mr. Purdum think he's hoping for, the vice presidency? He has a podium due to his stature in the Party, and he is using it to speak his mind.
What is everyone so afraid of in Governor Dean? Why do pundits like Mr Purdum and his colleague "David Brooks":http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/09/opinion/09BROO.html cluck about Dean being too liberal, without saying which of his ideas is too liberal? What is this "liberal" and why is it so bad? Is it balancing the budget? Rolling back the recent FCC media deregulation to ensure diversity on the airwaves? Healthcare for everyone?
The subtext of these and other articles I've seen, and comments I've heard from my friends, is that Dean is too liberal, that he can't win by energizing the "left," that if the Democrats want to beat Bush they should nominate someone who will appeal to the center.
As a Dean supporter I find this offensive. Kerry and Gephardt and Lieberman are all famously moderate Democrats, and they're dropping in the polls and losing campaign staffers because they can't impress even the already Democrat-leaning people who follow the primary race. They're full of forced smiles and warmed-over indignation and mixed voting records, and NO ONE LIKES THEM. Dean isn't a Ralph Nader, making fine sounding ideological noise with nothing to back it up. He's the presumptive front-runner because he has the most people, the broadest pool of donors, and the most money. He's the front runner because more people like him than any of the other candidates.
So what should we Dean supporters do, pundits? We like him the best, but we should drop him for a more moderate guy like Gephardt? A more centrist (but really more conservative) sounding guy like Lieberman? The insufferably aw-shucks bootstrap millionaire John Edwards? A thousand times no. I like Dean, and until one of the others impresses me more, I'm voting for Dean. I don't even care if he does get beaten in the general election, like McGovern, like the conventional wisdom fears. I really don't. Let them try to beat us on policy. But don't try to get me to switch because my guy might come across as too Yankee in the South, or too uppercrust in the plains states, or too whatever-bogeyman-attribute to whatever-demographic-group.
Dean is Dean is Dean, and I've heard his ideas, and I like them, and I think others will like them, and further, I think he has the best chance of any Democrat of beating Bush next year. What else do I need to know?
