How Dumping Howard Dean for John Kerry Caused Democrats to Lose 2004 Election
By Hassan El-Najjar
Al-Jazeerah, February 14, 2005
The former Vermont governor and Democratic 2004 presidential candidate, Howard Dean, was elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee by acclamation, replacing Terry McAuliffe. (Al-Jazeerah, February 12, 2005).
Dean's election forces a long due analysis of how Democrats lost the 2004 presidential election, when it was supposed to be an easy winning because of the Bush administration's invasion and occupation of Iraq.
So, why did Howard Dean lose the Democratic nomination? And how John Kerry made Democrats lose the election?
The Democratic establishment tossed Dean away when he dared to criticize the Israeli occupation of Palestine. In particular, he called for an "even-handed" US policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At that moment, the Empire rulers on the Democratic side shifted to John Kerry.
They did it by giving Kerry more money than any other candidates. Their pundits in the Israel-First media put their energy in the service of Kerry, ignoring Dean and punishing him for his unforgiven sin of thinking about Palestinians and Israelis equally.
It was an example for students of the American society of how supporters of Israel enjoy a total control over the US political process, this time on the Democratic side of the process.
Through controlling the process in the first few primaries, like Iowa and New Hampshire, they influence the next round of primaries. The outcome is anything but democratic. It's a manufacturing of winning through pouring of millions of dollars and through total control over the mass media.
This leads to the conclusion that the American political process can never become truly democratic until the influence of the wealthy and their media is eliminated.
Party primaries have to be conducted nationally at the same time, like national elections. Otherwise, voters in later primaries will be influenced by results of early ones.
States have to legislate to given free and equal time for all candidates. Otherwise, candidates preferred by the wealthy will get more money enabling them to buy more visibility in the media.
So, how did Kerry behave after the shift in his favor happened?
Kerry played by the rules favored by the pro-Israel media. He wholeheartedly supported all Israeli occupation brutal practices, including the disgraceful Apartheid, Land-Grab Wall. He used much more hardline rhetoric (than George Bush did) against the Palestinian resistance, which he always described as terror.
With regard to the war on Iraq, John Kerry was not different from Bush. He voted for the war. After the invasion, he said that US forces should stay in Iraq until the war is won.
John Kerry did not present himself as a true alternative of George Bush. While Bush described himself as the "war president," Kerry never presented himself as the "peace" candidate.
By supporting the Sharon government policies and by his de facto support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, he turned off anti-war voters and voters who support a just and peaceful resolution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
In brief, Kerry was not a genuine alternative to Bush.
Howard Dean was the real Democratic alternative to George Bush, at least as he presented himself. He could have won.
Now, is Howard Dean still standing for justice and even-handedness?
Is he still a believer in that a just peace is not only over due for the Palestinian people but also better for the US and Israel?
Is he still an anti-war candidate?
In other words, is he a real alternative to the neocon permanent-war strategy or just another horse that the Empire rulers bring to the American people to bet on?
Time will tell. |
