by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright January 5, 2004
All Rights Reserved.

wo weeks before the day of reckoning in Iowa, Democratic candidates took last-ditch swipes at front-runner former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, during a contentious two-hour debate in Johnston, Iowa. Hitting Dean with everything but the kitchen sink, his Democratic rivals hoped to derail what seems like unstoppable momentum heading into the Jan. 19 Iowa caucuses. Like other recent debates, candidates preferred to target Dean rather than deal with substantive issues. Accusing Dean of trying to gut Medicare, conceal his records in Vermont and flip-flop on most campaign issues, Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), looked desperate trying to gain traction in their flagging campaigns. Despite the heat, Dean kept his cool, looking more collected than previous debates where he occasionally got rattled.

      Pulling Saddam from a rat hole on Dec. 13 was supposed to be a watershed event in the war on terrorism. President Bush declared the nation “safer” with the Iraqi dictator in U.S. custody. Dean was blasted for disagreeing, believing that U.S. national security was not improved. Kerry and Lieberman were so outraged they questioned Dean's fitness to serve as commander-in-chief. One week later, just before the holidays, Bush's Homeland Security Director former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge declared that national security was perhaps at the most dangerous place since Sept. 11. In the Iowa debate, as he has throughout the campaign, Dean trained his ire on President Bush, insisting that the war in Iraq has not improved national security. By deviating from conventional thinking, daring to state the politically incorrect, Dean distinguished himself early on as the only Democratic candidate willing to go after Bush.

      Iowa's debate was no exception, with Kerry blasting Dean for his reluctance to blame Osama bin Laden for 9/11. This “raises a serious question” about Dean's “ability to stand up to [President] Bush and make Americans feel safe and secure,” said Kerry, questioning Dean's national security credentials and whether he could withstand attacks by Karl Rove & Co. In reality, Dean's problem is not standing up to Bush but dealing with fellow Democrats' attempt to upend his momentum. Dean's entire campaign has presented the most clear contrast with President Bush. Lieberman, whose flagging campaign is stuck in reverse, continued to hammer away, insisting he doesn't know how anybody could possibly think the county was safer since Saddam's capture. Dean said he was “delighted” to see Saddam “behind bars,” but didn't think his capture necessarily improved national security.

      Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt and Clark walk a tightrope supporting the war, yet criticizing Dean's consistent opposition. Dean opposed the war not because he wished to preserve Saddam's power but because Bush shunned key NATO allies, France, Germany and Russia, precisely because they saw no convincing evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to warrant preemptive war. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld still can't decide whether WMD is buried in Iraq or whether the Pentagon got faulty intelligence. Dean was criticized for suggesting that the White House used its intelligence to rationalize going to war. Few Americans early on believed that “democratizing” Iraq and “restructuring” the Middle East justified preemptive war. Only a direct and growing threat to national security could win public opinion. But once WMD couldn't be found, the rationale for war changed.

      Unlike other Democratic candidates, Dean opposed the war because he believed Bush had not made a convincing case. There's no question that Saddam's capture gave the White House a much-needed shot in the arm. With mounting casualties and questions raised about the U.S. mission, Bush's approval ratings began sinking. “The fact is, since Saddam Hussein has been caught, we've lost 23 additional troops in Iraq; we now have, for the first time, American fighter jets escorting commercial airliners through American airspace,” said Dean, rejecting the prevailing wisdom that Saddam's capture improved national security. Dean expected more proof about Saddam's connection to Sept. 11 than wild speculation about his association with Osama bin Laden. To Dean, had the administration concentrated on capturing Bin Laden and dismantling Al Qaeda they would have made more progress.

      Blasting Dean won't resuscitate the campaigns of Democratic hopefuls whose only strategy is on attacking the front-runner. Dean finds himself out in front because he was willing to go out on a limb, taking on the White House—especially Iraq. Dean's charisma outmatches his competition, showing more passion on key issues affecting progressive voters. Though painted as unelectable by both the left and right, Dean shows the same maverick qualities seen in Arizona Sen. John McCaine, whose 2000 campaign called his tour bus as the “straight talk express.” Instead of spin and political correctness, Dean impresses voters with unpolished blunders, often correcting himself after playing fast-and-loose. “A gaffe in Washington is when you tell the truth and the Washington establishment thinks you shouldn't have,” said Dean, reminding voters he intends to keep speaking his mind.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.