Tuesday, February 01, 2005
I'm not thrilled about it, but it looks as though Howard Dean will be the next DNC chair (or so the New York Times would have it).
My objections to him are below, and there's not too much to add, though I am disappointed that he's chosen to quarrel publicly with Harry Reid over the issue of judicial nominations. If he's in office, he won't serve the position well by airing disputes in public. If that means he has to starve himself of some publicity and his groupies of red meat, so be it.
Dean's challenge will be to speak for the party, not just for Howard Dean. He's apparently won a lot of support by wooing the various members of the DNC - presumably he's assured them of that. According to the Times, he's persuaded them "that he was not the liberal and undisciplined caricature that many said they saw last year." That does remain to be seen. How many other Democratic candidates decided to call liberal opponents Republicans?
I hope to God this guy surprises me, but I'm not making any leaps of faith where he's concerned. I wanted to be pleasantly surprised by him in the fall of 2003 as he was gathering steam, but the campaign that unfolded turned out to be a shrill farce worthy of Spinal Tap. Dean was not the most adaptive candidate on the campaign trail; I'd rather say that he boxed himself in. So, my expectations of his performance in office are pegged pragmatically at "modest." In the name of Edmund Muskie, Howard, try to stay above that bar.
My objections to him are below, and there's not too much to add, though I am disappointed that he's chosen to quarrel publicly with Harry Reid over the issue of judicial nominations. If he's in office, he won't serve the position well by airing disputes in public. If that means he has to starve himself of some publicity and his groupies of red meat, so be it.
Dean's challenge will be to speak for the party, not just for Howard Dean. He's apparently won a lot of support by wooing the various members of the DNC - presumably he's assured them of that. According to the Times, he's persuaded them "that he was not the liberal and undisciplined caricature that many said they saw last year." That does remain to be seen. How many other Democratic candidates decided to call liberal opponents Republicans?
I hope to God this guy surprises me, but I'm not making any leaps of faith where he's concerned. I wanted to be pleasantly surprised by him in the fall of 2003 as he was gathering steam, but the campaign that unfolded turned out to be a shrill farce worthy of Spinal Tap. Dean was not the most adaptive candidate on the campaign trail; I'd rather say that he boxed himself in. So, my expectations of his performance in office are pegged pragmatically at "modest." In the name of Edmund Muskie, Howard, try to stay above that bar.
