Thomas Oliphant provides insightful commentary to Howard Dean...
Four problems Dean must overcome
The Boston Globe, By Thomas Oliphant, September 7, 2003
WASHINGTON
The Democratic front-runner in New Hampshire had better be careful about acting like the Democratic front-runner nationally -- which he isn't. Howard Dean went for the muted tie, softer voice, and sober visage to decorate a muted demeanor at the candidates' debate in New Mexico last week. But his too obvious attempt at avoiding serious mistakes came at the expense of the clarity and passion that his most fervent supporters know and love as his trademarks.
In acting as if he believed all the pregame baloney that his competitors would arrive in Albuquerque determined to cut him up, Dean left the evening open to those who saw the debate as a chance to put their own better feet forward (particularly John Edwards and Dick Gephardt). The former Vermont governor was flat by comparison, and unusually flat for a guy famous for his spirit.
The joint appearance in one of the several states that will do its voting the week following New Hampshire next Feb. 3 is the beginning of an important month of campaigning, which is organized around a series of these debates that will provide an early test of how valid early impressions of the candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire seem to a wider audience.
This is also a period during which the shape of the race may change. Two Southern-based candidacies (Edwards and Bob Graham) may become one (the insider betting is that Graham is in deeper trouble). And there may be a fresh force not entirely unlike Dean's in appeal if former General Wesley Clark ends up running.
Howard Dean may be slightly ahead of 1988 winner Gephardt in Iowa (or he may not be, given error margins in polling). He is definitely ahead of John Kerry in New Hampshire. But except for some buzz in California, that is as far as it goes outside of his stupendous successes in fund-raising and Internet-based organizing. He has done well with his opposition to the war in Iraq and his attitude toward Bush; but he is far from having provided reasons to support his candidacy that have broader appeal, especially on economic policy.
Following the time-honored columnist's political philosophy -- Kick 'Em When They're Up -- four potentially serious problems were in evidence Thursday night in addition to the Dean camp's poor judgment in slipping him a tranquilizer:
He has to decide if more or fewer of which kinds of troops need to be in Iraq to oversee its reconstruction and resumption of sovereignty. Dean supporters get angry at those who say he has been urging more troops and they are correct that there is no explicit quotation to that effect.
However, clarity is not his strong suit here. Dean's comment Thursday was that more troops are needed for security but that they should be from other countries and Iraq itself. His direct quote -- "ours need to come home" -- was unsettling because it implied advocacy of withdrawal as opposed to internationalization. Take a day, Howard, and figure it out.
Dean also continues to be annoyingly flippant and unresponsive in response to criticism of his advocacy of the repeal of all the Bush-era tax cuts -- including provisions like the child tax credit, lower and broader bottoms rates, and marriage penalty easing that benefit low and middle-income Americans.
At times his campaign has accused his critics of desperation, at others he has labeled them part of the deficit-producing mess in Washington. Thursday he tried to belittle the criticism by offhandedly claiming that most middle-income people at most got a hundred dollars or so in tax cuts -- a patently false assertion that ignores a serious issue.
Dean either needs to think through the critical issue of international trade thoroughly or concentrate on expressing himself clearly. He had little trouble deflecting a shot from Joe Lieberman that he was advocating that other countries mirror US labor, environmental, and human rights before they can be worthy of free-trade deals.
However, his assertion that he advocates that the standards of the International Labor Organization be applied -- but either the ILA or American law would be fine with him -- lacked the clarity one expects from Dean. Even more unsettling was his holding up of the policies of the notoriously protectionist European Union as a model. The point here is that one looks to presidents for leadership on tough issues like trade, and it is impossible in this world to be multilateralist on security issues and unilateralist on economic concerns.
Dean needs to stow his bragging about his long incumbency in Vermont and its national relevance. The state's progress in extending health insurance coverage primarily via Medicaid is interesting but not particularly instructive. And the fact that the state's budget has been balanced even though it is that rare place where balance isn't constitutionally required begs a question or two.
Dean is a work in progress, not a finished product. In order to go further he should spend less time basking in his supporters' adulation and more time becoming a better candidate.
Four problems Dean must overcome
The Boston Globe, By Thomas Oliphant, September 7, 2003
WASHINGTON
The Democratic front-runner in New Hampshire had better be careful about acting like the Democratic front-runner nationally -- which he isn't. Howard Dean went for the muted tie, softer voice, and sober visage to decorate a muted demeanor at the candidates' debate in New Mexico last week. But his too obvious attempt at avoiding serious mistakes came at the expense of the clarity and passion that his most fervent supporters know and love as his trademarks.
In acting as if he believed all the pregame baloney that his competitors would arrive in Albuquerque determined to cut him up, Dean left the evening open to those who saw the debate as a chance to put their own better feet forward (particularly John Edwards and Dick Gephardt). The former Vermont governor was flat by comparison, and unusually flat for a guy famous for his spirit.
The joint appearance in one of the several states that will do its voting the week following New Hampshire next Feb. 3 is the beginning of an important month of campaigning, which is organized around a series of these debates that will provide an early test of how valid early impressions of the candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire seem to a wider audience.
This is also a period during which the shape of the race may change. Two Southern-based candidacies (Edwards and Bob Graham) may become one (the insider betting is that Graham is in deeper trouble). And there may be a fresh force not entirely unlike Dean's in appeal if former General Wesley Clark ends up running.
Howard Dean may be slightly ahead of 1988 winner Gephardt in Iowa (or he may not be, given error margins in polling). He is definitely ahead of John Kerry in New Hampshire. But except for some buzz in California, that is as far as it goes outside of his stupendous successes in fund-raising and Internet-based organizing. He has done well with his opposition to the war in Iraq and his attitude toward Bush; but he is far from having provided reasons to support his candidacy that have broader appeal, especially on economic policy.
Following the time-honored columnist's political philosophy -- Kick 'Em When They're Up -- four potentially serious problems were in evidence Thursday night in addition to the Dean camp's poor judgment in slipping him a tranquilizer:
He has to decide if more or fewer of which kinds of troops need to be in Iraq to oversee its reconstruction and resumption of sovereignty. Dean supporters get angry at those who say he has been urging more troops and they are correct that there is no explicit quotation to that effect.
However, clarity is not his strong suit here. Dean's comment Thursday was that more troops are needed for security but that they should be from other countries and Iraq itself. His direct quote -- "ours need to come home" -- was unsettling because it implied advocacy of withdrawal as opposed to internationalization. Take a day, Howard, and figure it out.
Dean also continues to be annoyingly flippant and unresponsive in response to criticism of his advocacy of the repeal of all the Bush-era tax cuts -- including provisions like the child tax credit, lower and broader bottoms rates, and marriage penalty easing that benefit low and middle-income Americans.
At times his campaign has accused his critics of desperation, at others he has labeled them part of the deficit-producing mess in Washington. Thursday he tried to belittle the criticism by offhandedly claiming that most middle-income people at most got a hundred dollars or so in tax cuts -- a patently false assertion that ignores a serious issue.
Dean either needs to think through the critical issue of international trade thoroughly or concentrate on expressing himself clearly. He had little trouble deflecting a shot from Joe Lieberman that he was advocating that other countries mirror US labor, environmental, and human rights before they can be worthy of free-trade deals.
However, his assertion that he advocates that the standards of the International Labor Organization be applied -- but either the ILA or American law would be fine with him -- lacked the clarity one expects from Dean. Even more unsettling was his holding up of the policies of the notoriously protectionist European Union as a model. The point here is that one looks to presidents for leadership on tough issues like trade, and it is impossible in this world to be multilateralist on security issues and unilateralist on economic concerns.
Dean needs to stow his bragging about his long incumbency in Vermont and its national relevance. The state's progress in extending health insurance coverage primarily via Medicaid is interesting but not particularly instructive. And the fact that the state's budget has been balanced even though it is that rare place where balance isn't constitutionally required begs a question or two.
Dean is a work in progress, not a finished product. In order to go further he should spend less time basking in his supporters' adulation and more time becoming a better candidate.
posted by Pamela J. Leavey at 8:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home