Okay okay, my self imposed blog black out lasted all of 3 days. And now I'm back posting a diary. Fell of the wagon again (although I did give myself the out of coming back if something momentous happened...)
Anyway, it seems a lot of people have stepped up to praise Dr. Dean now that he's safely out of the way and is in no danger of actually, say, running the country or anything.
I come not to praise, but to bury. Well, not to bury either, but to wax discursive on the Dean experience and where I stand.
As many of you know, I came to Howard Dean because as a practical moderate, with good government leanings, Dean the governor of Vermont seemed like the ideal candidate to me. Almost every time he said anything (even the time when as gov. of VT he trashed welfare mothers) I agreed with him. However, there was a downside, because I often felt that anyone who was so much like me (and said so publicly) was not going to get elected president.
But eventually Howard Dean came to a crossroads. The "progressives" embraced him because of his common sense war stance and civil unions stance, but I think they also hijacked his image (ihlin has discussed this at length, and I totally agree--in fact, as a moderate, if anything I'm even more horrified). The thing is, since the "crazies" and "Deanie Meanies" have become part of Dean's "special interest", I'm afraid he's beholden to them, just as other politicians are beholden to big corporate donors. Someone here on this blog criticized another person for saying Dean should support "friendly" politicians instead of saying he should support "progressive" politicians. This is starting to smack of purity tests and I fear that neither Dean nor the rest of the party is really learning the lesson that the Democrats and fellow travelers have to stand together--not out of fear, but of their own volition. Will Dean be able to criticize the left again when he thinks they're doing something stupid? I'm not sure. Can I forgive Howard Dean for that?
Sometime in about November I think Howard Dean faced the question of "do you want to win, or do you want to say whatever you want?" Howard Dean answered "I think I can do both, but if I had to choose, I'd rather say whatever I want." Wrong answer, especially when you haven't won a single primary contest yet. The better course would have been to hold some fire until after inauguration day. Can I forgive Howard Dean for that?
I don't really want a movement. I want to WIN. It seemed that after New Hampshire that Dean's campaign stance was "I gave my spine to the Democrats, I kept no spine for myself" (points to anyone who spots the obscure Tolkien reference) Dean was the hardest working man in the field before Iowa, but all the air went out of his campaign after NH. Why stay in the race at all if you're not going to contest? Can I forgive Howard Dean for that?
If Howard Dean can whip those BFA crazies into shape and form working coaltion between practical progressive and good government moderates; if he can work on his public image so that he's not that crazy screaming guy, but instead a leader who leads by doing rather than saying (and work on his on-camera speaking style); if he acknowledges that he made some very real, but correctable mistakes, and then corrects them; if some of the candidates he backs actually win, so that a Dean endorsement is not viewed as the kiss of death; if Dean or someone like him finally wins the presidency. Well, OK, then I'll forgive Howard Dean.