Who to Vote For: Dean
by Kevin

I want to go on the record here as being opposed to the MoveOn primary. It is not that I think the primary itself is a bad idea, it is just that real campaigning has barely begun. There has only been one real debate, and there has not been a lot of time to feel out the candidates. Part of my process for deciding who I am going to vote for is dependant upon seeing how a person handles themselves through a campaign. Policy positions are important, but they are meaningless if the person holding them is not a good enough politician to put them into effect. I do not think that we have seen enough of the candidates, at this point, to come to any solid conclusions.

Having said that, I am a member, and the primary is a good idea, if poorly timed, so I am going to vote. I offer this analysis of my decisions because, well, this is a blog. Keep in mind that my choice is not necessarily going to be the person I will vote for in the TN primary. That is almost a year away, and a lot will change by then.

From a policy perspective, it is refreshing to see that a lot of the candidates have a lot of issues I can wholeheartedly support. I support Kucinich's health plan, because it is the only one that appears to address rising costs. The idea of a "Department of Peace" - even if it sounds like a Ben and Jerry's flavor - is actually a very, very good one. A arm of the US government with real power and a real budget dedicated to expanding democracy and human rights would be worth more than a million Departments of Defense.

Edwards has the economic message down perfectly: work must pay. His concentration on programs and tax cuts for the working people of the country captures the one great thing that Clinton got right: if people work, then they should expect their government to help make sure their work does not go unrewarded.

Dean's foreign policy is muscular without being stupid. He has the proper focus on the real threats, does not seem willing to indulge in ideologically based flights of fancy, and is smart enough to realize that it is very hard to make people love you when you are pointing a gun at them. Violence will occasionally be necessary, but it always creates new problems, and should therefor be used as a last resort. His focus on eliminating the deficit is also something I approve of, if for no other reason that budgets with no or small deficits make it easier to practice the kind of Keynsian economics that I think are helpful to the nation.

I will not vote for Sharpton, partly because I am still a bit mad about the Bradly incident, and partly because he doesn't seem to have any position beyond "Bush is a bad". I am bang along side that idea, but a bit more than that is needed.

I will not vote for Mosely-Braun, because I was in Gary when she was the junior Senator from Illinois, and she made mis-step after mis-step. Her almost invisible campaign has not convinced me that she has learned anything about politics.

I will not vote for Graham, because, aside from his criticisms of homeland security, he is entirely too conservative for me. Same thing for Lieberman, except that he is not very good on Homeland Security, and I think he would lose a fight to a wet noodle. I have not forgotten how he rolled over on national TV for Cheney in that first debate, and I have not forgotten how poorly he handled the Enron scandals in Congress.

I will not vote for Gephardt because of his war vote. Not because he voted for the war, exactly, but because of the manner in which he did it. By coming out when he did, he cut the legs out form under those Senators who were trying to get a more restrictive measure through the Senate. Once he caved, it became inevitable that Bush would get his way. I will not forgive him for that.

I cannot bring myself to vote for Kucinich because of his flip flop on abortion rights and because of his inability to control even a little bit of his message. I consider abortion rights tightly coupled with privacy rights, and I am always leery of politicians who do not seem to grasp that. More importantly, Kucinish has been unable to move the press off the "monnbeam" candidate theme, even a little. Part of that, of course, is a lack of money, and part of that, of course, is the generally lousy nature of our mainstream press. But Kucinich has not helped the situation. His Department of Peace is a stupid name, playing right into the press's stereotype, and the original message on his campaign web site read like, well, Ben and Jerry's flavor. He should be able to do better than that.

I will not vote for Edwards because I have seen very little fire from him, and I am not entirely comfortable that his response to Bush's tax cuts are to talk about different tax cuts. Yes, relieving the tax burden on the working people of the country is a much better idea than allowing the non-working investment and inheritance class to free-load of the rest of us, but the Dems need to be talking about tax cuts in terms of what those cuts cost us in education, in health care, in protecting the institutions of capitalism from corruption, in homeland security. Edwards seems to avoid that issue, and thus leaves me with the impression that he is either unwilling to pick a fight on our ground, or unable to recognize what our ground actually is. Either way, it does not inspire confidence.

The choice between Dean and Kerry is the hardest one. Both Dean and Kerry have good positions on health care and foreign policy. Kerry is an actual combat hero. Dean is a bit better at laying out the choice between tax cuts for the free-loaders and essential services for the nation. Kerry has his apparently royally pissed off wife's fortune to spend. Dean has the best grassroots effort I have ever seen. The decisions comes down to effectiveness, and I think Dean is the more effective of the two.

Kerry's war vote will turn off some voters. I am willing to accept the vote and move on. I do think he genuinely agonized over it, and I do understand the idea that forcing Bush to go to the UN might slow down the rush to war enough. Kerry was wrong, but I think he was understandably wrong. But Kerry also does not come across with much fire, and I have an easier time seeing him succumb to the "Goreing" process than Dean. The press already seems to dislike Kerry the same way it disliked Gore, and I haven't seen much to convince me that Kerry is better able to handle it than Gore was.

Dean, on the other hand, comes across as your independent minded, devil may care grandfather. He seems genuine, honest, and forceful. He is also relentless in his attacks, and his organization seems both quick on the uptake an effective in its operations. Whoever comes out of the field in 2004 is going to face well financed organization that is completely ruthless. Bush, Rove and the Republican Party stooped to a racist whispering campaign and openly questioning a war hero's sanity in South Carolina to beat McCain; they publicly questioned the patriotism of Senate Democrats; they called a man who lost three limbs in Vietnam - a place Bush avoided like SARS - a coward; they staged a banana republic "mission accomplished" photo-op while American troops were still dying in Iraq. The 2004 campaign will not be pretty. Beating Bush on the issue will be easy. Surviving to get to the issue will be much, much more difficult. Right now, it looks like Dean has the best combination of good ideas, image, and organization.

| Other weblogs commenting on this post