I supported Dean from early last year because he wasn't afraid to speak out and say that the emperor had no clothes when no one else had that message. His early grassroots supporters seemed to be drifting towards him for similar reasons.
But then, sometime last spring, the grassroots movement seemed to take over, and became a movement in and of itself. The campaign became about "people powered Howard" more than his actual positions. Now that it seems unlikely that Dean will be the nominee, I've seen a number of posts here saying that some Dean supports will either not vote in November, or will vote for a Third Party candidate.
My question to these people is how much these people really believed that there would be major changes in Washington if Dean was elected as compared to any of the other Democratic candidates. For all of Dean's talk about the people having the power, I believe that little would have changed (or will change) if he was (is) elected about how business is done in Washington.
Our nation is a democracy in terms of how our politicians are elected, and the grassroots can certainly help a politician. But once they are elected, they do what they have to do to accomplish what they see are their own priorities (i.e. whatever it takes to get reelected, or whatever personal crusade they are on). And what they have to do is compromise! That's the great part of our system of government. Compromise protects us from extremes. Its great for Dean to say he would "clean up Washington," but what does that really mean? Senators and Representatives will always have to look after their home districts, and if the big job creator there survives on a bloated government contract, can you really expect them to allow "a clean-up" that would end that contract? Its been my observation that a little honest graft like this is what keeps the wheels of Washingon greased. Dean understands this. Looking at his record in Vermont, he governed from the middle, compromising with both parties when needed to get his priorities (Health Care) accomplished.
To many on DKOS, the system may seem corrupt or broken. But the pendulum swings back and forth over a generation or so, from "Democratic reforms" such as the New Deal or the Great Society, and back to "Republican reforms" such as smaller government, or, in this current form of Republicanism, supply side economics and religious issues. When the pendulum swings too far one way, problems develop, and the next generation of politicians swing it back the other way. This is the way the system has been working for over 200 years, and both parties will attack whatever the excesses the last pendulum swing caused. If you doubt this, don't forget who the biggest enemy of big business ever was: a Republican - Teddy Roosevelt.
A grassroots candidate may seem like the solution to what ails this country. But one person can not get anything accomplished. It still takes a majority in both houses of Congress. And in making compromises to get that majority, a "grassroots" elected President is sure to disillusion many of his or her grass roots supporters.
Because I never saw Dean as someone who was going to fundamental change Washington, I have no problem with ABB. But to you folks who are Dean or nothing, what did you really expect Dean would have done differently than Kerry or Edwards once elected?
