A Clark event yesterday, Dean today. How do they compare?
So
yesterday, this Dean supporter went to see Clark speak on campus, and then I gave the report here. Today Dean came, and with Clark's appearance fresh in mind, I wanted to compare the two.
I had planned to do a high points/low points thing like I did yesterday for Clark, but it'd be difficult, due to the biggest difference between the two:
Turnout: Then venue was probably 4-5 times the size of Clark's, but when I got there half an hour early, they were already turning people away to an overflow room. When I gave up trying to sneak in back entrances, I went to the overflow room and found it... overflowing. I ended up back at the main venue, standing on tiptoe outside a door that had been propped open. Unfortunately I could neither see nor hear very well until the Q&A section began.
General impressions: He is not as articulate as Clark. More tripping over the tongue, etc. He was fine, though, and I personally like his speaking style because he sounds more like a normal person than a politician. He was much more subdued than the last time I saw him; animated, but not the fiery Hoho from a few months ago. Kinda more "You have the power. You have the power." than "YOOOOO HAVE THE PAR! YOOOOOO HAVE THE PAR!" No bulging veins.
As I said, I missed much of the detail from his proposal, so I can't really evaluate it. I'm a recovering Republican, so I have to admit that when I start to hear stuff about guaranteeing people sums of money and setting up programs for this and that, it makes me a little itchy.
Rhetoric: One thing that I liked about it for rhetorical reasons is that he has built into the service piece some kind of incentive for social service jobs like nursing, emt techs and other "first responder" types - and he specifically used that "first responder" language. I think that's smart, if they develop the idea of making Americans involved and responsible for the post 9-11 reality and tie it in with security. "You have the power" to deal with domestic security, in other words. Bonus for associating Dean indirectly with the 9-11 first responders.
Another good theme that was new to me was "If we want to globalize the industrial revolution, we have to globalize the good (human rights, environmental protection) along with the bad." To do otherwise is to force the poor in other countries to subsidize the benefits enjoyed by the rich. I liked that "subsidize" part because it brings up something generally I like a LOT about Dean: the ability to sell traditional liberal goals and values in practical rather than emotional terms. In response to each question, he pointed out the cost/benefit side of whatever policy. I think Democrats need to do a lot more of this, and I think it's the key to Independent votes.
Some details for color: A few students held up confederate flags when he first came out. I think this was the work of Dartmouth Review weasels, but we have some pretty wooly Naderits on campus too, so, coulda been them as well. I feel sure that it was more of an orchestrated gotcha than a good faith protest, though, because signs bearing the flag went up around campus that were meant to look like real Generation Dean/Young Democrat flyers, copied the fonts and all. So, to Reverend Sharpton and Senator Edwards, I thank you very much for handing Karl Rove that gift.
Also, Dean cut his appearance off early so that he could personally go over to the overflow room and get some up close time there. I thought that was pretty classy.
There was a sole Kerry supporter leafletting out front. I didn't see many takers.
We have a new resident nut in town, one Robert Haines, who is running to oppose Bush in the Republican primary. He was standing out front of the Dean venue holding a giant cross with an American flag flying off the top, hollering, "I will not kill unborn children! I will not marry sodomites!" over and over again. In a cowboy hat. We don't see that many cowboy hats in New Hampshire.
Conclusions: A direct comparison between the two events is neither easy nor fair, because of their difference in size and in the policy discussed (Clark, security; Dean, education and public service) and the fact that I couldn't hear a significant part of the Dean speech. I will say that Clark has some superficially (I use that word without negative connotations) appealling features as a candidate and as a "package" that Dean doesn't, presentability and foreign policy being the biggest ones. But at this point, I feel that Dean not only has more of a campaign going, but really more depth to his candidacy - it's hard to get from just watching the debates, but there is a sense of purpose and overall rationale to his campaign that I did not pick up from Clark. In other words, Clark is really good, but Clark is just Clark. Dean feels like this bigger thing.
I was going to use this diary entry to comment further on this whole electability debate that has really gotten under my skin. This is already too long though, so what I'll say for the moment is that if a candidate can be as moderate, practical, and reasonable-sounding as Dean, and have as much genuine crossover appeal as Dean, and can't get elected because we Democrats have decided he's unelectable and prepared that meme to hand oof to a lazy corporate press, then frankly, we don't deserve to win.