more accurately, dean's position on the war is not the most effective way of gaining voters from the existing pool of voters.
dean should concentrate on other themes in order to compete effectively with the other democratic candidates.
he should
not hide from his stance. that would be useless anyway.
but there's no need to run "war ads" like he did in iowa. nor is there reason to question clark's war stance
read on, for more outrageous commentary...
a disclaimer: i admit this is assuming turnout remains static from 2000. if dean does, in fact, benefiit from a dramatic turnout increase tomorrow, then i may have to revise my ideas on how dean's war stance should be used in the primaries.
my thoughts are rooted in the branding concept
theoria outlned in a diary entitled
positioning a democratic brand.
my response is, in part, a reflection of what i believe dean already stands for: opportunity, equality, and responsibility.
i'd like to apply the branding idea that theoria eloquently describes to the dean campaign as it moves to differentiate dean from his rivals (many of whom are echoing a lot of his early themes).
here are a few reasons for moving
away from the war as a differentiator:
- most of those that are voting on the iraq issue alone have already committed. his primary opponents view dean and clark as the anti-iraq war candidates already. see this tom shaller piece for insight on how dean has already switched focus in iowa. dean's task is to build bridges to voters who currently support other candidates for other reasons. beating people over the head with a single controversial vote (position) does nothing to advance the goal of broadening support. use that issue to kill bush.
- i don't believe the other candidates are going to use dean's stance on the war against him - turns out he was right. they (with the exception of lieberman) attack his lack of international experience... but they don't hit hard at his position. beyond that, there's rough agreement across the board that iraq requires more internationalization.
- by hitting clark on his confused (initially) stance, dean draws attention to clark's status as a general and a war opponent. on the one hand this lends credence to dean's opposition of the war. on the other, dean allows others to compare and contrast a general vs. a small state doctor on foreign policy. now, if dean were using clark's stand on the war to boost his position (thus trying to benefit from clark's supposed foreign policy advantage), that would be one thing. but right now, dean seems content to buy into the "i was against the war first" strategy. it's petty, and distracts from stonger areas of differentiation.
the task at hand is to focus on some themes that credibly seperate himself from every other democratic candidate. that does not mean that no other candidate can lay claim to any of these themes. however, i do beleive that these are the themes that will resonate best for dean as he builds his campaign.
- change
already a big theme. in fact, i think it' already firmly ingrained as part of the dean brand. no one had heard of the guy and now he is one of the leaders in the race... what else can that be but change?
- experience/competence
dean's main strength (besides being the "agent of change", as he can credibly claim), is his record. it should be the retort to every attack, the highlight of every speech, and the foundation of every set of talking points. in my opinion, no other candidate has anything on him here... he has exectuive experience in an elected position - no one else (save kucinich) can say that. add to that the fact that he's been relelected 5 times.
- judgement
he has consistently shown good judgment throughout his political career. the results speak for themselves: he has a great record as an elected official (see "experience/competence"). most importantly, he has made a career of pragmatic, fact-based policy.
ok, discuss...