In today's New York Times, Bob Herbert wrote:
"The Dems may indeed sink like the Titanic next year. But I don't think Dr. Dean is the problem -- at least, not yet. The problem is the party itself. God and the Republicans have blessed the Democrats with the high ground on one important issue after another, from the war in Iraq to national economic policy to health care to education to the environment.
But like the Union general George McClellan, the Democrats have been too timid to take full advantage."
(http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/12/opinion/12HERB.html)
Attacking Dean, Senator Edwards stated today:
"If all we are in 2004 is a party of anger, we can't win," Edwards said in remarks prepared for delivery Friday to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco.
"If all we are is divisive and angry and if all we do is attack President Bush and each other, then we will not win the White House in 2004," he said in a speech that aides billed as a critique of Dean's campaign methods. "And we won't deserve to."
(http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-edwards-dean,0,6519669,print.story?coll=sns-ap-poli
tics-headlines)
Read both pieces and tell me, are these two irreconcilable visions for the Democratic party? Who is right? Are they both arguing for the same thing? Which philosophy, Herbert's or Edwards', will help up beat Bush in 2004?