I know these are topics that are being discussed to death, but I looked around and I haven't seen this idea:
Yesterday Kerry said "I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts Court's decision." (This was preceded by some boilerplate about civil unions, but that's easy to say.) Today Kerry refused to rule out supporting a Massachusetts constitutional Amendment (that's state, not federal) outlawing gay marriage.
I could rant about this for a long time. I did complain, politely but at length, to his Senate and campaign offices, and encourage others to do the same. But I don't expect it to succeed.
Let's leave aside the invidious Kerry-Dean comparisons and the ensuing flame war. The fact is, this is going to be an issue, and all signs point to our nominee playing it safe and relying mainly on the states rights argument against the marriage amendment. This is dangerous for the presidential race, because it allows the G.O.P. to monopolize the moral issue and define the debate. It is dangerous to the Constitution, because a wishy washy opposition will increase the likelihood that the marriage amendment will pass.
The Democratic party needs someone to show leadership on this issue, both for the sake of stopping this ridiculous amendment and to change the terms of the debate in our favor. It will not be the nominee if it's Kerry or Edwards, and it will sure as hell not be Daschle. I don't think Pelosi really has it in her either.
I would like to see it be Dean.
He's been through this before. He knows what to do and say, better than any politician in Ameirca. He gets media coverage, he's a familiar face, he's got an organization, and he's good at making both the moral argument and the states rights argument in clear language.
It could work for him politically. Realistically, I don't think he's going to be the DNC chair. Kerry will be calling the shots, and Kerry does not like Dean one little bit. This keeps him in the news, and gives him a voice and a seat at the table. It gives the party reason to be grateful, but it also sets up a very favorable comparison with Kerry and the Congressional leadership. It keeps his many of his supporters active and teaches them political skills, inside the Democratic party tend but still working as an independent group.
On the other hand, he's been through this before. He may decide he and his family doesn't need this s*** again, after the stress of the campaign. Things got plenty ugly in Vermont, and dangerous. They'll get much uglier on a national level, especially for such a recognizable figure. (A part of me says "are you crazy, do you want him to get himself killed?"--but I don't think that's at all likely and it doesn't do to give into psychopaths.) There's also a political downside: he will be irrevocably identified with this issue, which may hurt his future chances for say, a Senate seat. And I think he may care more about health care, budget balancing, and good government issues than about gay marriage.
If I were Dr. Judy I might put my foot down, and if I were Dr. Howie, I don't know what I'd do. But as a voter (and Mass. resident) who does not want to see this awful thing pass or Bush to win by appealing to people's worst instincts, I really hope he does this.
