Though the apparent ease of the accomplishment contrasted somewhat by coverage suggesting stronger opposition, Howard Dean is now clearly the new leader of the Democratic National Committee. His role and ultimate power is somewhat unclear, but what is apparent is the attempts to smear his record.
A telling suggestion of the prevalent view is a short article in a local paper that spoke of "moderate" Timothy Roemer stepping down from the race. Another editorial, far from atypical, implied the Democrats were digging their own grave for settling on such a radical voice. Expect various mentions of his "scream" at the Iowa caucus and so forth.
I voted for John Edwards as a protest vote in the NY Democratic Primary, Dean officially haven stepped down by then. Many people liked Edwards more than Sen. Kerry, though the realistic among them realized the former did not have the experience and gravitas to win it all (not that the realistic among us felt Sen. Kerry had the best of shots either).
The point being that the supporters recognized his limitations, but also his strengthens, which I feel were not fully taken advantage of during the general election. If Gov. Bush could be spun into a pretty good candidate, I do not understand why Sen. Edwards could not be made into a more successful second chair.
Well, I can -- the Democrats still have not quite learnt how to fight back. It's like chubby not coaching his team to win at the end of the Super Bowl on Sunday: uphill battle, good chance of still losing, but damn it man, give your team a fighting chance! Time management, candidate management -- comparable.
And, the same might be said about candidate judging. Gov. Dean supplied a lot to the table: grass roots advocacy, passion, a fiscal conservative record, a penchant for hard work, a reputation as a honest straight shooter, and an overall moderate record as a governor. He upheld a promise to cut taxes. He carefully handled a court order to protect the rights of same sex couples.
And, state liberals were not too happy about him, including Dean's compromises with state business interests. Meanwhile, he had a good environmental record, did some good things about health care, and so forth. Yes, he was against the war with Iraq (not Afghanistan), but he was right. OTOH, he did not have the experience to be a president in a time of war. And, Dean just did not connect to the voters across the board in part because he could not handle the shift to early frontrunner to long haul.
So, like Edwards, Dean did not have what it takes to be the candidate in November. Nonetheless, they both had some real talents and something to offer the party. And, to the degree the favor powers that be (including apparently the Clintons) do not like him, this is not a bad thing either -- said ptb have been lacking in various departments.
A final thing. Roemer and others argue that the Democrats have to recognize that chunks of voters out there just do not agree with them. They have to accept that on various grounds voters feel President Bush is right. This is basically the temper of the remarks these days, including about "values." It is bloody defeatist. I'm not clear how the Republicans, when they were the minority party, suddenly had an eureka moment, and started to admit the Democrats ("liberals") were right.
Oh, they might show as much with their acts (e.g., Medicare Reform Bill, aside from all the gifts to corporations), but it is not their overall message. They know better than that. The role of the Democrats is to show the people at large how their platform in reality does match what mainstream America believes in.
Howard Dean is a decent representation of this principle -- not his image, his life and deeds. In fact, the push to get those proverbial swing voters is quite arguably advanced with a man who various libertarian Republican sorts felt would have been an acceptable choice, especially if he just had a few more qualifications fitting the times.
A person who the base can appreciate for his willingness to passionately criticize the president, but who deep down is satisfactory to moderates too. As noted by some more balanced accounts, he also has shown a willingness to work with insiders of all types. Thus, I think he has a possibility to be a pretty good choice, especially if given a chance.