I posted this in another diary, and thought it would be better served presented on its own, so I cleaned it up a bit. I think everybody should do a diary like this... press the case for your guy.
-----------
Howard Dean is no McGovern. That's the first thing. Anyone who keeps pressing that meme knows nothing about the '72 campaign. McGovern wasn't the most assertive guy in the world.
Secondly, as a Missourian, I can tell you that Dean is playing very well in rural Missouri where I was reared and my family and friends still live. This is the thing that tilted me to Dean (away from Edwards). My Republican mother and father hear Dean talk about balanced budgets, and his position on guns, and they say, "He's not a liberal." He's also plain spoken, and has a toughness Americans like.
The "Dean is angry" meme will not be effective. I think Democrats have a misconception about how voters respond to anger. I haven't seen anything from Dean that is as "angry" as Ronald Reagan's "I bought this microphone" moment in the 1980 primaries. And that moment is considered one of Reagan's most shining hours. Many Americans saw that and said, "I want a tough bastard like this defending my country." The "righteous lone man" is a huge part of American culture, from John Wayne to Atticus Finch. I honestly believe one of the reasons Dems quite often lose is because they think Eddie Punchclock wants some soft spoken guy obsessed with politeness. The Repubs know this isn't true, and have used it to win.
Moving on, I think we'll all be surprised at how much his "The middle class didn't get a tax cut because of higher property taxes and tuition costs" argument will resonate with middle Americans. Anyone who pays property taxes knows this is true.
The fact Dean is a doctor is a HUGE help. Based on the most recent Gallup poll, doctors are the second most trusted occupation, second only to nurses. I think health care will be a major issue, and Dean is the best to argue the cause for us.
Clark has gotten his foreign policy arguments down fairly well lately (although his past positions on the war are open to attack from Bush like you wouldn't believe... he's never been able to address this in a concise way).
But whenever Clark talks about domestic issues, he just flat-out doesn't sound like he cares, like he wants to get the convo back to his field of interest. He sounds coached and heavily advised. I don't think there is ANY WAY a Democratic nominee can ever win the Presidency, unless he speaks about domestic issues in a very eloquent way. And the only candidates in this race who speak about domestic issues eloquently are Dean and Edwards (and oddly enough, they do it in very different ways).
The main reason Dean will win is that he is tough, and he is willing to throw "things out" that most Dems wouldn't think about or even consider using. His statement in "Rolling Stone" about how diabetics should be pissed at Bush for the Stem Cell decision is a good example of this. That argument will work with many voters.
Sadly, any Dem candidate is going to be accused of being weak on defense (and Clark is no more immune to this than any of them, I am sorry to say). The only way the candidate can deflect this "weak on defense" argument is to be firm and unapologetic about opposing the war, and have had a consistant position on it. It would also help if they could respond with something like:
"Well I can tell you one thing I won't do. I won't spend a half a million dollars of the Pentagon's money to set up a gambling parlor where millionaires can place bets on whether or not Dayton Ohio will be destroyed in a nuclear blast - like you did, Mr. President. You should explain to the American people why you felt that was necessary, and anything but poor taste and judgment."
And Dean is the only candidate I see being willing to get in the trenches like that, to fight with the same weapons that Bush will. Mix that with his strength in speaking on domestic issues, and the fact that Governor's make better candidates, and I think Dean as the nominee is a no-brainer.
Kerry would make a fine President, and he isn't limited by spending restrictions (which is a HUGE help), but he is a HORRIBLE campaigner, and could not beat Bush. Gephardt is a fine man, and the type of person who is sadly disappearing from politics, but he's had too many losing seasons to be re-hired as head coach. Clark has a lot of resume appeal, but is untested, media-created, can't speak well about domestic issues (even to the extent that skipping debates has become a winning strategy for him), and surrounds himself with scummy people who are responsible for too many Dem losses (cough, Lehane). Edwards is appealing, and is almost universally liked. But in the end, I think that his young face and single-term in the Senate will allow Bush to sell the "young novice" meme.
Dean is the best all around fighter in the field, for all the reasons listed above. It's just a bonus that he has found an exciting new donor base that can serve the party for years to come, and isn't neutered by spending limits that will make him a sitting duck.
