http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/columnists/molly_ivins/7429704.htm Howard Dean: our man from Vermont We've got a winner here By Molly Ivins Creators Syndicate No one has been waiting with bated breath for me to make up my mind about the Democratic presidential candidates, but I have, and you might be interested in how I got there. I'm for Howard Dean -- because he's going to win. It is the bounden duty of bleeding-heart liberals like myself to make our political choices based on purity of heart, nobility of character, depth of compassion, sterling integrity and generosity of spirit. The concept of actually winning does not, traditionally, influence the bleeding-heart liberal one iota -- certainly not in the primaries. Over the years, I have proudly voted for a list of losers whom only a lily-pure liberal could love. I am rather surprised not to find myself in the camp of the Noble Dennis Kucinich this year. (And believe me, there are supporters of the Noble Dennis who are plenty upset about it, too.) In fact, I initially passed on Dean precisely because he looked like one of my usual losers -- 2 percent in the polls and the full weight of Vermont behind him. Wow. My kind of guy. Having concluded that this was the year to Be Sensible, look for a winner, find a moderate and all that good stuff that the expert political players do, I carefully studied the conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom -- the avatar of all political knowledge, the Washington press corps -- said John Kerry was the man. So despite his resemblance to the finer products of the taxidermist's art, I sat around waiting for him to show signs of life. And waited. Next I consulted my buddies in the union movement, and they said Dick Gephardt was the man. I always like a labor liberal, and Gephardt's eyebrows have improved. I was hopeful for while but concluded, as many do, that while Gephardt is Perfectly Good as a Democratic candidate, he ain't settin' the world on fire. Doesn't seem like a good year for a regular politician, on account of we ain't lookin' at regular politics. These Republicans do not have a different strategy -- they are playing a different game. They don't want to govern -- they want to rule. Next, my lawyer friends recommended John Edwards; and even though my first impression was, "Too pretty, too light," I liked him better as time went on. Good, strong populist streak; some good economic ideas; goes right after President Bush on the economy. But conventional wisdom decided he is too young and untried. Then along came Gen. Wesley Clark, and lots of people were excited. But I never have thought that anyone should start in politics at the top. All those rich guys who run for office want to start at governor or senator instead of running for the school board. Meanwhile, there's old Dean, causin' excitement. I went up to Vermont and talked to a bunch of liberals there. They all said Howard Dean is no liberal. Funny, that's what Howard Dean says, too. And indeed, he isn't, but in politics, everything's relative. The conventional wisdom first dismissed Dean (the man has never been to a Washington dinner party!), then condescended to him, then graciously offered him instruction on how he should be running his campaign -- which seemed to be going along quite well without that input. I talked to some big-money guys who assured me that Dean Can't Win. But of course I'm noticing this interesting thing: Dean has so much money that he actually turned down public campaign financing. (I'm a card-carrying liberal, so I was naturally deeply unhappy over this. But Dean's money comes from Real People instead of corporate special interests, so I'm not that unhappy.) Let me second the notion that this year, the Internet is to politics what television was in the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon race. For a while, I fretted over Dean being angry, or at least appealing to the political anger that is normally manipulated by right-wing radio jocks. Anger makes liberals uncomfortable; we prefer peace, reason and gentle persuasion. Beloveds, it is way past time for us to get mad. Social, economic and political justice are being perverted by the Bush administration. Dean gives quite a speech -- even if you're Republican, you should go and hear him just for the experience. But I fretted about Dean on TV -- TV is so important. How could anyone poker up on Margaret Carlson of PBS, not one of the world's toughest interviewers? But then I saw Dean laugh his way through a Chris Matthews interview (which he should have done with Tim Russert, who was hell-bent on gotcha questions), and I know the guy can take care of himself. So he fights back if you get in his face. That's not all bad. I know -- he's even less of a liberal than Bill Clinton was, but I don't think Dean is a moderate centrist. I think he's a fighting centrist. And folks, I think we have got ourselves a winner here.
Now, say what you will about a Gore endorsement, but I say a Molly Ivins endorsement is not helpful. At least her reasoning isn't "I just agree with all his positions", so it probably won't hurt too bad. And are we sure this is actually a Molly Ivins endorsement? Or did she just copy someone else's endorsement?
I can't fault Molly's view. By the sum of his views you would have to call Dean a centrist, one that could theoretically could counter the Republican's rightest slant in a rational debate. Unfortunately the election of a President in the US is more of a beauty pagent then a debate and I don't think Dean's stiff neck and snearing smile will ingratiate him to the masses. When he says the president is wrong he looks like a smartass. Wesley Clark certainly provides the more electable image. 2004 is probably not winable anyway because of the national paranoia over national security (this from the guy who said Bush the Elder could not lose after winning a war...anyway). However for 2008, I saw Hillary Clinton on Meet the Press last Sunday and I have to say she was very, very impressive. I had not given her much thought before , just Bill's wife. But she looked like she could go all the way to me. Smart, eloquent, personable, with centrist ideas. And who could she face in 2008? Tom Delay? Certainly not Cheney, Powell, Ashcroft...Condolza Rice maybe.
If one has any sympathy for her beliefs she is an amazing speaker, I've heard her in several live interviews and have felt the same way you do. When she was first lady she was already a better public speaker than Al Gore. This is probably the reason the rabid right fears and hates her.
If GWB wins re-election, the Republicans might well find themselves in the same spot in 2008 as the Democrats currently find themselves in, with no real heir apparent to the office... no candidate that seems like an obvious choice. Cheney isn't going to be a viable candidate, there aren't really any impressive Republican congressmen that could make the jump. Perhaps there's a governor somewhere, but not an obvious one (especially since Arnold is ineligible). Maybe Colin Powell, but since he's often been marginalized in this administration, he doesn't seem like an obvious choice to have the backing of Bush, etc. Usually, the prime candidate coming out of an admininstration is someone associated with that administration. Gore in 2000 after the Clinton years. Bush in 1988 after the Reagan years, etc. Even Nixon made his name as a Presidential candidate as Ike's VP, even though it would be eight years later before he'd win the presidency. Now, the situation is a little different since it would be replacing a sitting President of your party rather than trying to beat someone from the other party. Certainly, someone can come out of nowhere in either case, so who knows (Clinton was kind of a nobody in a sea of nobodies, but he was able to beat GHWB in 1992). I do think Hillary is coming into her own as a political candidate/Senator, etc. While she was always a big part of Bill's campaigns and administration, she could never take the spotlight because she was the first lady (or the wife of the candidate). I assume there were times when she had to bite her tongue in public and support the President.... Plus, during that whole Monica thing, there was a level of thinking of her as a victim of sorts, or at least a "wronged" woman. Now, she's starting to come across more as her own person, and coming across as a strong, confident person again. It may not end up meaning anything on the national stage in terms of getting elected, but I think she'll be a decent candidate come 2008 if that all plays out. But that's just what I think, and she will have a lot to overcome, regardless.
I don't agree with Hillary Clinton on much, but she's a top-notch politician. Her biggest fault is that she's a strong-willed woman. Many people just can't get past that. As for Molly Ivins, she's an absolutely wonderful political writer. Her and Jim Hightower are Texas treasures. Love those guys.
Dammit, Molly! You supporting Dean is making my support of Clark close to an untenable position. She is a Texas treasure. I've met her (she lives here in Austin in Travis Heights by a friend of ours) and regardless of whether or not one agrees with her views (which I do), any sane person would have to love her humor and political satire... with a bite. There is little enough of it these days. I've been real busy the last several days, but I'll try to post more here now that things are settling down some (I hope). Not that anyone would notice.
