I posted this in a couple of diaries by a pair of hand-wringing Clarkies, but it was suggested that I make it a dairy entry. So here 'tis
When sportswriters and fans were all agog over the latest Yankee "dynasty" and its "mystique and aura" in the run-up to the 2001 World Series, Diamondbacks' pitcher Curt Schilling remarked that Mystique and Aura were just two dancers at an exotic nightclub. The D-Backs beat the Yanks in seven.
I am reminded of Schilling's remarks when I read the comments of many of the Clark supporters, because so much of that support seems to reside in the belief that the General's presence (just a synomym for either mystique or aura) will immunize him from the Rovian attack dogs. That's naïve at best.
All the candidates are human which means all will have blemishes for Rove & Co to attack. Clark is no different. He will be cast as inexperienced with no elected office background, no legislative experience, no domestic policy experience and no governing experience. And the Wurlitzer will drone that in times like these we can't treat the Presidency as on-the-job training. No matter that it's hypocrisy. It will stick because Clark has no real counter.
Then there's Clark's area of expertise - foreign policy. But that really boils down to military command at foreign outposts and battle experience. Of course, foreign policy is much more. And even on his trump card, the military, Rove & Co are poised to trot out former colleagues who will say all sorts of catty things about Clark's career - egocentric, ruthlessly ambitious, left bootprints on the backsides of everyone the lean, young Cassius climbed over on his way to the top, not a team player, and so forth. Yes, they will be exaggerations or bitter responses to Clark's success, nonetheless they will resonate.
Dean has a string of accomplishments to which he can point - governing accomplisments like balanced budgets, health care (Safe by Six, seniors' presecription coverage), and civil rights. He can demonstrate that he can work across political divides because his Vermont record is replete with examples. There's no doubt his foreign policy credentials are his Achilles heel. But is that a problem for the electorate?
It wouldn't seem so since we tend to elect governors to the Oval Office by a wide margin over sitting Senators (once in the 20th century), Congressmen (JQ Adams was the last, and he had help) or retired generals with no experience. That says to me that the people value chief executive experience over diplomatic experience. It also says that the electorate trusts the candidate to surround himself with advisors who make up for the expertise he lacks.
As far as Dean's gaffes are concerned, Liberal Oasis has a pretty good analysis of Deans' missteps to date. Fortunately, his worst has been his most recent flap over the sealed records.
Why fortunate? Because the sealed records flap concerns procedural arcana that no one will remember come the general election. It isn't an issue that affects people directly. And Dean was essentially right.
The flap over the Flag was directly connected to reaching out to working class Southern whites on the issues of jobs, health care and education. I agree with Liberal Oasis. He made lemonade from those lemons.
The other major flap was the Medicare statements fromn 1995. While he didn't handle that with the same alacrity as the Flag non-issue, he has effectively diffused Gephardt's and Kerry's disingenuous attacks and establish that senior health care will be a priority in a Dean administration.
I think the recent focus on Dean by the Republicans - the ads, sending Gillespie to VT - shows that they don't see Dean as a pushover, but rather that he's shaping up as a formidable candiate who can beat them. Could he still fall to the Wurlitzer? Sure. But I think he has less chance than any other candidate for one major reason. That reason is the Dean organization.
Trippi put up another bat yesterday to raise $200,000 by Friday midnight to combat the latest round of RNC ads in Iowa. By 9AM this morning, they had raised over $106,000. The Dean organization is in all 50 states and it's ability to coalesce almost instantly to respond to any attack gives Dean far and away the best chance of drowning out the Wurlitzer's drone. By opting out of matching funds, Dean will be able to keep up the counter-offensive all the way to the convention.
No other campaign has this advantage. Clark's campaign is still going through the organizational throes that Dean's campaign worked through nearly a year ago. It's simple to me. If Dean can't beat Bush in '04, no Democrat can.
Addendum
Much is being made about the reference in the Gillispie speech to Dean's earlier comment about the size of the US military in the future. The comment about the military was made in the context of the need to preserve our multinational alliances that Bush was wrecking. It had nothing to do with cutting the (bloated) defense budget or some sort of unilateral disarmament. We already don't have the largest military. Both China and India have more troops active.
Then the was the infamous Saddam quote that the rs are spinning as half-hearted enthusiasm for the topplling of a brutal dictaor who used to be our best friend. Before you get too worried about the Saddam quote, I'll bet you'll get the same quote or similar from the family members of those who have been killed or maimed for life during the Iraq debacle. By next November, a lot of Americans will be questioning whether the removal of Saddam was worth the cost in both lives and dollars.