Washington Post Still Very Queasy about Dean

Washington Post Still Very Queasy about Dean

Democrats are expressing buyer's remorse before casting a single primary vote. Their problem is Howard Dean. The Washington Post has an unflattering analysis piece by Dan Balz today and a cautionary editorial.

"Dean faces one significant challenge, to go to the next level of his candidacy," said Anita Dunn, a Democratic strategist who was a senior adviser in Bill Bradley's 2000 presidential campaign. "He has not yet achieved the level of admission to what I call that small circle of people in the United States that voters perceive as qualified to be president. That is an enormous hurdle. . . . He has, at every stage of his campaign, when he has faced a hurdle, found a way to move to that next level, but they get steeper." Reports Balz.

The editorial is more blunt: "we are troubled by aspects of Mr. Dean's character and personality. He can be condescending, and unwarrantedly so, as when he said at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire last month, "Mr. President, if you'll pardon me, I'll teach you a little about defense." He is quick to bristle, slow to admit error; see, for example, his ill-considered comments about Southern voters and the Confederate flag. He suffers from what he recently described as "smarty mouth," a tendency to glib remarks and unsubstantiated or incorrect assertions. His citation of rumors that Mr. Bush was tipped off to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 by the Saudis and is now trying to cover up that advance warning is one example of such irresponsibility."

But, as troubling as the Post finds Dr. Dean's personality, it departs from Dean idelogically on Dean's numero uno issue - the war on terror. "We believe the war in Iraq was a battle worth waging; Mr. Dean does not, and he has catapulted himself to front-runner status in large measure on the basis of that stance. Now that Saddam Hussein has been captured, Mr. Dean must confront the difficult fact that, had his counsel been followed, the brutal dictator would still be in power. In some ways more worrisome, though, are his shifting stands on postwar policy. Earlier this year, Mr. Dean was articulating the principled position that the war had been a mistake, but that leaving Iraq too soon would be a bigger mistake. But the candidate has retreated from that view. He did not support the administration's request for funds to rebuild Iraq, and he holds out the illusory prospect of a quick substitution of foreign forces for U.S. troops."

And finally, the Post asks a question that should be asked of every Democrat who champions the United Nation: "While Mr. Dean argues, like his fellow Democrats, for a restoration of multilateralism, he offers thus far little vision of a purpose for America in the world beyond that multilateralism and a narrow definition of security. His fierce opposition to Mr. Bush's policies has won him many Democratic followers; but to rally the country behind him, he will have to describe more compellingly where he would lead it."

Not one Democrat has explained to my satisfaction, or has even tried to explain, how subordinating our our foreign policy to the whims of the French will make us safer.