I was a hardcore Nader-hater in 2000. I just didn't get how anyone could implicitly support a man like Bush by voting third party in such a close race. But as a longtime Dean supporter, I'm now starting to understand how they felt. First, the Dems squeeze out the (admittedly kinda fringe-y) Green-leaners. Now they're working on squeezing out the Deanies. Who's going to be left to vote in the general election as the "approved" constituent group gets smaller and smaller?
And before you jump on Dean's so-called negativity, every attack he's leveled has been related to votes and publicly stated positions. If the Dean campaign is dumpster-diving on the others, they haven't used it. And that's setting aside the fact that it's at least a three-on-one gangup against Dean. I guess that's what irks me the most...for every headline like this:
Kerry Vows to Fight for the Hardworking
there are 20 like this:
Dick Gephardt Says Dean Can't Be Trusted
He can't be trusted? Come on.
I was hoping against hope that one candidate in the last debate, when given the opportunity to ask the others a question, would say something like:
"We're all here battling for the nomination, but we're not doing it for our health. Tell us why you're really running for President...and no cutting and pasting from a stump speech. Why are you doing this?"
or
"A nine-way campaign can get ugly, and tempers can flare. I'd like each candidate to tell the voters about the proudest acheivement of their professional lives."
No net loss or gain there, in horserace terms, and the candidate who, even for a second, squelched the sniping would be the recipient of immense good will from me and, I have to think, lots and lots of other voters.
At this point, if the nominee is anyone but Dean or Edwards (or maybe, MAYBE Clark), I'd have serious second thoughts about ABB. I'm starting to feel, as Dean must be, the strain of staying positive in the face of overwhelming negativity.