Okay, that magazine cover is from 2004, but I’m seriously wishing the Democrats would drum up a "Draft Dean" movement right about now. The party regulars made him DNC chairman as a consolation prize for having screwed himself right out of the nomination last time, but also with the clear expectation that they could keep an eye on him there and he wouldn’t cause them much trouble…or at least not run against Hillary in 2008. But he’s done nothing but irritate the Old Boy Network. He insisted on a 50-state effort in the 2006 elections and put the party back into the majority in both houses, he’s developed grass-roots efforts that this year are paying off in vast increases in Democratic voter turnout not just in primaries but in caucuses, and he still manages to speak his mind whenever he gets out from under watchful eyes long enough.
The collapse of the Dean campaign four years ago had little to do with Dean’s positions as a candidate, or even his regrettable "YEAARRGGHH!" moment, but about a level of support that was a mile wide but an inch deep. He fostered a lot of superficial enthusiasm from people not terribly involved in old-school politicking, especially younger voters who wanted "change". So here we are four years later, and all those college kids who were sure Dean was unstoppable are now the young adult crowd that packs the halls everywhere Barack Obama goes, enchanted by the same nebulous notion of change, but only a little wiser about presidential politics. Unfortunately, this time their dream candidate is just as superficial as they are. Meanwhile, the older and more cynical crowd is jumping on the bandwagon out of their own unhappiness with the catch-phrase "Anyone But Clinton", without paying much attention to the point down the road where that chant is likely to bite them in the ass.
So, congratulations to Barack Obama for putting together a coalition of the unwilling and the unthinking but you’ll excuse me if I muster up no enthusiasm. I’m not convinced that he has the nomination in his pocket because I am convinced that the Clintons will fight a scorched-earth battle to win the Pyrrhic victory of getting the nomination at the price of alienating all those newly-motivated Democratic voters who aren’t QUITE motivated enough to support whichever candidate gets the nomination, just their candidate.
Some people say this all means that the time has come for Al Gore to swoop in and save the day, but his obvious disinterest in returning to the world of electoral politics means the net has to be cast a little wider to snag a draftable candidate. John Edwards could make a case for being that guy, and I would be okay with that, but why not Howard Dean? Surely the political newcomers would thrill to the deus ex machina theatrics of a convention that resurrects a candidate that people were so enthused about. Surely the media would have so much to write about that their heads would explode. Surely the Republicans would be cast into confusion without their pre-cooked campaigns against "Billary Clinton" and "Barack HUSSEIN Obama". And we would get a battle-tested, wiser candidate as the nominee, more committed to a progressive agenda than Obama or Clinton and perhaps a chance at real political change instead of just superficiality.
Unthnking seems a little harsh….I personally have thought myself to death throughout this primary season.
In this context, I mean “unthinking” as in allowing one’s emotions to override one’s reasoning, as the Newsweek article describes. If there is a less harsh way to express this within the context and the style of the rant, I am open to your suggestion.
Yes, then it’s true, ultimately I went with Obama because he’s inspiring. Basically that was the deciding factor for me. I’ll vote for either one.
I still think that both Hillary Clinton and John McCain do more for democrats as senators than Obama has. Obama will be a great second term president.
What Obama has tapped into more effectively than anyone else, and is imprecisely labelled as a desire for “change,” is a hunger for leadership, for inspiration, for something beyond the dysfunction we see presented in the news media from one moment to the next. Senator Obama just personifies this wish more than anyone else, which does not mean he has the ability to deliver it. A president, after all, doesn’t make the laws, Congress does. But the president can have a tremendous influence on the agenda and be a powerful figure for the nation. And we’ve seen all too clearly the role the president can play in bringing the nation together (or not), building respect for our nation around the world (or not) – well, you know what I mean.
Had he still been on the ballot (and had I gone to the caucus) I would probably have voted for Richardson. As qualified as I believe he is, though, I don’t see him as an inspirational figure. Your idea of a resurgent Dean is intriguing, though people in both the Clinton and Obama camps have worked themselves into such a zealous froth they could never see past it to see him.
What Obama has tapped into more effectively than anyone else, and is imprecisely labelled as a desire for “change,” is a hunger for leadership, for inspiration, for something beyond the dysfunction we see presented in the news media from one moment to the next.
I’m not so sure that it’s a desire for leadership or inspiration so much as a desire for novelty as a substitute for meaningful change. George Bush has given this country leadership.
I hope that Richardson gets the VP slot. They might need him for the Hispanic vote. I suspect that if Obama gets the nod, that Hispanics will stay home in droves next November and then we’re all doomed.