First, Andrew Sullivan wrestles with Dean:
"On the issues - going soft on terror, raising taxes, neo-protectionism, paleo-liberalism on race - I have a hard time even considering Howard Dean as a potential president. On character, I think it's pretty clear he's an unpleasant person - prickly, angry, self-important, know-it-all. So why do I find myself rooting for Dean to win the nomination?
"In part, of course, it's the lack of a credible alternative. I like Lieberman on substance but he's unelectable and his religious grandstanding gives me the heebie-jeebies; Edwards has run the classiest campaign, but these are not the '90s; Gephardt is too left on economics and healthcare; Kerry is about the worst candidate I've observed since Al Gore. Clark - well, I have a visceral aversion to his megalomania and to the cynicism with which the Clintonites have rallied around him. A campaign based entirely on regaining power, by using a candidate as a cipher, is a dangerous thing. Besides, I think Clark is a crackpot.
"My hankering for Dean is therefore a little like Bill Kristol's. I think it would be refreshing for this country to have a real choice and debate this year, not an echo or yet another focus group.
"I don't think Dean will go all fuzzy on us this summer, if he's the candidate. I think his hatred of Bush will shine through, and give a voice to millions of people who feel the same way. I think his belief in the supreme importance of government in people's lives deserves debate, and represents what the Democratic party is ultimately about."
washingtonpost.com |
