Why I Don't Hate Dean [View All]

[DrFunkenstein]

Note to mods: Please don't can this thread, because it is both sincere and valid. The distinction between hatred and dislike needs to be addressed, and it is in that spirit - not flaming - that I present my case.

I want to make this clear to the Dean faction - I do not hate Dean. There is no powerful emotional force driving me to take him down. I will certainly vote for him, and will try to focus on my hatred of Bush if Dean becomes the nominee. That way, I will be able to muster some amount of enthusiasm without thinking too much about the obvious. Which is:

I do not like Dean. Please do not pretend there is no difference.

There are two reasons I do not like Dean.

1. The months of nastiness, distortion, and hypocrisy. I began by appreciating his policies, which are at least a pale version of Kerry's. But after awhile, the attacks got to me. No that's not quite true. It was the way he went overboard when, after months of focusing on Bush, the other candidates finally began hitting back.

Trippi on Sept. 4 said, "They ignored us for seven months; now they're attacking us."

While the other candidates (all of them) took Dean's hits with class, Dean immediately went off the handle, even as he was inventing new slams for Wes Clark.

The thin-skinned hypocrisy, even more than the Rove-lite mud-slinging was what got to me. On top of that, his reactions to criticism, especially when confronted at "Rock The Vote," demonstrated that he lacks a patient, Presidential temperment. People will notice this, hopefully sooner rather than later. Which brings me to...

2. The fact that Dean makes a very, very, very easy target for the GOP makes me very, very, very anxious. On top of the perception that Dean is an anti-war, civil unions Governor from a quasi-hippie state of 600,000, is the sheer fact that Dean has provided an endless supply of quotes and film footage of him looking like a rabid Chomsky-lover. Here is a small taste of what would be in store:

http://www.gop.org/Newsroom/RNCResearch/TLvideo2.htm

It doesn't matter what his actual ideology is, liberal or centrist. What matters is that he appears radical and, frankly, unstable. Even if he is truly a centrist, as I believe, he is an extremely polarizing figure that likes to speaks Bush's language of a black and white world. That truth of the matter is that language inevitably favors Bush, especially in a time of national crisis when people are desperately looking for security.

Beyond that, Dean is clearly out of his water on foreign policy. I know that his supporters will say he was smart enough to oppose the war, but that doesn't make him smart enough generally. His policies are too often reactive to Bush, and the comment about getting a "good staff" (and putting Clinton in charge of the Mid-east) made my heart sink.

If Dean gets in a situation like Bush, with his Defense Dept. and State Dept. going at it, and mounds of intelligence briefings, I simply don't trust his judgement. I honestly wouldn't want to put him under the strain of, for instance, the Cuban missle crisis, considering how he handled Edwards and Sharpton. That sounds silly, but there is a very good chance that there will be something like the Cuban missile crisis between 2005-2009. I want someone I can trust, and Dean simply seems too unstable to be trusted at that level.

And I don't think America will trust him in 2004, either.

--------

You can call me a Dean hater if you want. I don't think it is true. I don't like his personality (that of a thin-skinned bully), I don't think he has a chance against Bush, and I ultimately don't trust him. But I don't think that is hatred, and I leave it to the DU community to judge that for themselves. I'm sure many of the responses will be predictable, but I am trying to be as open and frank as possible.

--------

A side note, I hope people notice that my criticisms do not apply to Gen. Wesley Clark, Sen. Edwards, or Congressman Kucinich - all candidates whom I have deep respect for. I believe that DU would be a heated, but much more civil place if the contest was between these candidates. I truly think that Dean has brought some real bad blood into this contest. I'm sure his supporters will blame Kerry, but I remind you that, as Joe Klein puts it:

"The 1996 Senate campaign between John Kerry and William Weld was the rarest of events in latter-day American politics: a civil, closely contested, intelligent, and wildly entertaining brawl."

A debate between two committed progressives like Kerry and Kucinich would be super intense (and intensely interesting!), but it would also be respectful. Personally, the thought of these two progressive gladiators going at it sounds like a dream - the kind of stuff you'd see between the founding fathers.

To make a slightly ahistorical point - I can't see Jefferson calling Hamilton "Bush-lite."