Dean Learns Pitfalls of a Popular Hopeful
By JODI WILGOREN - [The New York Times]
September 12, 2003
BURLINGTON, Vt., Sept. 11 - It was at the end of an animated session with supporters at a crowded Santa Fe coffeehouse last week when someone asked Howard Dean how he would make peace in the Mideast.
Eyes alighting, Dr. Dean, the former governor of Vermont who has become the hottest of the nine Democratic presidential hopefuls, at first suggested he had something new to say on the subject that might just make headlines. Then he switched gears and said he would save the announcement for a larger audience, instead offering what he considered his standard line, that he had recently visited the region, believed in a two-state solution and was horrified by the violence among Palestinians and Israelis alike.
Little did he know his comments that "it's not our place to take sides" and that "enormous numbers of the settlements that are there are going to have to come out" would soon create the messiest controversy so far in his campaign.
On Sunday and Monday, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut attacked Dr. Dean's statements as a "reversal of American foreign policy for 50 years," and the two sparred in a televised debate on Tuesday night. By Wednesday, Dr. Dean was forced to interrupt his precious down time to clarify his position on CNN.
The episode has also offered him a blunt lesson in the pitfalls of a surging campaign, particularly one whose candidate prefers to speak without a script.
"He's having difficulty making that transition from being the governor of a small state where politics is sort of low key, to being ? at least for the moment ? the front-runner in a national campaign where the spotlight is much more intense," said Eric Davis, a political scientist at Vermont's Middlebury College.
The Middle East hubbub is hardly the first time that Dr. Dean has given his rivals a target for attack. In recent months, he has been accused of flip-flopping on trade issues, the Social Security retirement age, whether he would accept federal matching funds, campaign spending limits and Cuba. He was also chastised this week by Senators John Edwards of North Carolina and John F. Kerry of Massachusetts for routinely portraying himself as "the only white politician who talks to white audiences about race."
The careful parsing of Dr. Dean's statements are the inevitable booby prize that comes to every candidate perceived to be at the front of the pack. But the mistakes Dr. Dean has made in using loaded terms on sensitive issues like the Middle East, and in shifting positions over time on the trail, also reflect his newness on the national stage and his willingness to speak with reporters in unguarded situations.
Already, the campaign is clamping down; it plans to stop squeezing interviews into car and plane rides between events. But aides insist that the very thing that trips Dr. Dean up with his competitors and the national press is what grass-roots supporters love about him.
"If you want a scripted politician who's looked at every poll and has it all scripted out, there's plenty of them, they run every four years for president," said Jo Trippi, the campaign manager. "Howard Dean speaks his mind. That means, on occasion, he has a misstatement. That's all it is."
But veterans of Senator John McCain's 2000 campaign, which surged in part because of its "straight talk" and unraveled in part because of inelegant remarks about the religious right, say you can't have it both ways.
"You can't have a reputation for being a straight talker and parse your words," said John Weaver, a Democratic consultant who was Mr. McCain's political director. "It's like being a high-wire act. You may be the best high-wire artist in the country, but when the wind starts blowing and they take the net away, it's scary."
In some instances, there are clear shifts: Dr. Dean said in 1995 that he "absolutely" believed in raising the Social Security retirement age to 68 or 70, repeated this June that it was something he would consider and then in August said he had never favored doing so (he later said he had misspoken by denying ever supporting such a change, but does not want one now).
In other cases, it is more a matter of nuance and context ? muddled by the fact that Dr. Dean often improvises a bit based on how questions are asked. Senator Lieberman attacked him last week for saying trading partners should be required to meet American labor and environmental standards. Dr. Dean said that was shorthand and that he meant international standards.
On the Middle East, Senator Lieberman said Dr. Dean's insistence on neutrality belied the special relationship between the United States and Israel. Dr. Dean said later that he embraced the special relationship as a given and that he meant the United States had to avoid taking sides in negotiations.
Then there is Cuba (he was for easing the embargo six months ago, but is against doing so now), Nafta (he supported it as Vermont governor, but as a presidential candidate says it needs reform) and campaign spending (he first said all candidates should adhere to the limits, and after leading in fund-raising, said he would consider breaking them).
Dr. Dean says that sometimes his positions evolve based on new information, selling himself as a pragmatic doctor who relies on facts, not ideology.
"He's flip-flopped on flip-flopping," complained Robert Gibbs, Senator Kerry's press secretary. "They originally billed him as straight talking. Now they're billing his penchant for political flexibility."
Gary Hart, the former Colorado senator who ran for president in 1984, said the scrutiny came with the spotlight and was magnified this year because Dr. Dean surged while the field was still fat, which means multiple opponents piling on.
"All of a sudden," Mr. Hart said, "what you said routinely becomes important."
In his CNN appearance on Wednesday, Dr. Dean did not apologize for his comments on the Mideast but said he regretted using of the phrase "even-handed" in referring to the talks between the Israelis and Palestinians. He explained that he had "since learned that is a sensitive word to use in certain communities" and that he "could have used a different euphemism." Then he went ahead with the long-forgotten news he never made back at the Santa Fe coffeehouse, suggesting former President Bill Clinton be tapped as a peace emissary.
Nobody paid much attention to that.
nytimes.com |
