“I
will send American troops anywhere in the world .. to defend the United
States!” sounded Howard Dean in New Hampshire just before Christmas, in a clear
response to his competitors’ attacks on his foreign policy. The attacks are
accurate only in that Dean doesn’t have direct foreign policy experience, but
this is a guy who traveled around the world (inc. inside the Iron Curtain),
when he was only 17, who has visited 50 countries as chief
executive of a state or tourist. That alone puts him head and shoulders above
Bush, who as the princely son of a Veep and
President, was never even curious enough to leave our shores. Most of the FP criticisms of Dean have
been manifestly unfair, a knee jerk (and
increasingly desperate) reaction to the vast
appeal his courageous stance against the
Iraq war has engendered. He did, as he points
out, support the Gulf War, and military force
in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. The “the capture of
Saddam has made America no safer” line was preceded by “the capture of Saddam is a good thing
which I hope very much will keep our soldiers safer, but” in a detailed
7 page LA speech on foreign policy.
And honestly, who can argue with that, when
2 sworn enemies N. Korea and Iran have or
imminently will have nukes, Pakistan is one
terrorist attack from having their 30 odd
nukes at Al Qaida’s disposal (Pakistan helped
create the Taliban, 1/3 of their intelligence
service were radical Islamists, Pakistani
troops even were fighting on the Taliban
side against the Northern Alliance before
9-11), Russia has tons of unsecured fissionable
material and bombs for the taking and a Mafiya
that could do it, only 10,000 Americans remain
in Afghanistan, but Bin Laden still runs
free. The day Saddam was captured, Musharraf
survived the first of 2 assassination attempts;
he is all that holds Pakistan in the alliance
with America against Al Qaida, and despite
problems, the least corrupt leader Pakistan
has had in many years. Meanwhile our youth
and treasure is being poured into the sands
of Iraq, which has unseeingly absorbed them
for 5000 years. Libya’s unilateral surrender
of WMD technology was in the works for 10
years, though it was obviously timed to boost
Bush for maximum beneficial effect. A brawny
belligerent stance towards the world works,
Khaddafi’s surrender seems to say to the
average American, but we never invaded Libya-
this was a victory of 2 decades of sanctions and the exhaustion of pariahhood,
though Muammar is still manipulating America by announcing it right after
Saddam’s capture.
Dean, unlike past Dems, doesn’t back down or change course
when advised by the pundits or weak-kneed advisors. He is confident in the
accuracy of his positions and soundness of his morals. Al Gore could have
dissected Bush like a biology class frog in the debates if handlers hadn’t tied
him in a straight jacket of ‘be nice’ restrictions.
“They all voted for the war, Ididn’t, it seems my kind of foreign policy experience is the kind
we need in the White House,” said Dean in a Town Meeting in Manchester,
to loud applause.Indeed, after
Saddam’s capture, the other candidates waffled again, trying to ride the
updraft of patriotism and Bush support created by it. Only Lieberman openly
supports the war, though perhaps, like many neocons, more because he thinks
it’s good for Israel’s security than America’s. (The only terrorism Saddam was
committing outside Iraq was paying a $25,000 bounty to families of suicide
bombers in Israel.) It’s not - the radicals drawn to Iraq will go to the West
Bank when America leaves, and the resistance movement is a breeding ground for
terrorists. Attacking the wrong enemy doesn’t boost our security (just as
putting the wrong man in prison doesn’t), because the system itself is damaged
and discredited, the guilty villains are still out there, and the waste of
forces and resolve cripples our ability to react to them.
The Iraq War was a moral, strategic, and tactical idiocy;
fought more for Bush’s psychological need to exceed his father than any
rational rationale. The 73-27 pro war Oct 2002 vote in the Senate was the most
stunning I’ve ever seen, especially when contrasted to the 53-47 squeaker in
the totally justified Gulf War. The reasoning, we were told, was that the Dems
thought that because they mistakenly voted against the first war and they were
wrong, they had better vote for this one. WHAT? This President lost the
election by 540,000 votes! Despite the drubbing the Dems took in the 2002
election, they didn’t get the message- that nobody votes for a coward.
Courage transcends and crosses barriers of class, party, and race; and Party
Democrats better understand that before they carve Dean down with a plethora of
lies and half-truths- they might destroy the best thing that’s come along for
the Democratic Party in a decade. Dean’s combative honesty is striking a deep
chord in voters of all stripes, after being deluged by the blizzard of lies and
Orwellian propaganda created by the Bush Admin.. For 3 years, the Dems have
been getting steamrolled by Bush and the Repubs, often voluntarily- only Dean
addresses this sorry state.
This is the strongest field of Dem candidates in 20
years:Kerry, Clark, or Dean all are qualified and
popular enough to be President. War hero
Kerry’s weak showing has been a surprise,
but voters couldn’t reconcile the eloquent
young man who asked Congress ‘how do you
ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam’,
with the somewhat somnambulant current candidate,
dulled by financial and political success.
Though finally aroused, Kerry diminishes
himself with the latest inevitable fervent
attacks on Dean. Stuck on windshields at
large Dean speech in Exeter NH by the Kerry
campaign, were DEANRON flyers with a Boston
Globe article alleging Dean tax breaks for
the conglomerate. Boosted by Ted Kennedy,
Kerry's explosive rise in Iowa after corrosive
press and candidate attacks on Dean is the
big news. Clark flaunted his impressive credentials
by jetting off to the Hague to testify in
Milosovic’s trial, but his commitment to
the Democratic Party is thin, and being a
military commander is quite different from
being a political leader (without the army
of Repub dittoheads). Whether or not the
Veepship was offered, Clark making it public
was very bad form. One report has the Bushmen
imposing a total news blackout from the Hague
during Clark's testimony, lest the decorated
General's chops be compared to Bush's AWOL
ones. Dean's only serious misstep is portraying
a devout religiousity that may be largely
absent- but truly, it is sad that flaunting
ones religion has become compulsory for candidates.
Dean’s foreign policy / Nat. security team includes 5
generals, admirals, and colonels, a Nat. Security Advisor, and CIA director. He
is talking of urgent real security issues: tripling the budget to buy
the loose fissionable material in the FSU (something I’ve been harping about
for a decade-pan rt.);
increasing security for the 19 million shipping containers that flood America
every year- a desperately important subject (see Stephen Flynn); funding alternative schools to the hate-mongering
madrassas in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia (or
closing them), rebuilding the alliances damaged
and circumvented by Bush’s arrogant war,
increasing funding and integration of intelligence
agencies rather than co-opting them with
preordained findings; building a world-wide
anti-terror alliance rather than insanely
cranking up the long idled nuke-making machinery.
Bush’s popularity may be 59% (already 50%
Jan18), but that’s a soft number built on
the decaying detritus of his deceptions:
most of them think Saddam and Osama are pals-
a dangerous level of delusion. One huge terrorist
bomb in Iraq could make those numbers plummet,
and the media may stop ignoring the enraged
families of the unfairly dragooned Nat. Guard
and reservists.
At the end of a NH town meeting, a visiting Chinese student came up to Dean, “I'm a little worried that you sound
kind of aggressive to China." (about his answer to my question about
Chinese purchase of our bonds).
DEAN: “Well, China is going to be one of the
greatest security challenges and possible threat over the next 50 years- I
don't think there's going to be a war, unless they invade Taiwan... but I don't
think that's going to happen. But we have to handle it perfectly, with
extreme care and tact… because we are now very much interdependent",
- expertly summarizing the prickly security
relationship w China in 15 seconds. The student
didn't expect that- he expected some sugar
coated diplomatic stroking, but it impressed
him enough that he blinked and said, "People who say you don't
know foreign policy are wrong." Dean’s startling
candor is his greatest asset and greatest vulnerability- his words will be
selectively excised by assassins for arrows to sling. Lately his people have
been trying to limit that, but that has it's own dangers: sometimes Dean rushes
through the boiler plate phrases so fast that he stumbles over the words, and
his boredom shows. He comes across as a decisive leader, rather than a
politician- and the truth is- all Presidents decide foreign policy after
extensive consultation with experts, not by their native hunches. Dean’s
youthful travels show a man engaged and exposed to world from the earliest age.
The lurking question is whether the monolithic media may be
lining up against Dean like they did against Gore, hunting and pumping simple
negative dishonest story lines (that Boy Scout Al Gore is a liar), instead of reporting the facts. The now
pro-war Wash. Post ran a low-blow editorial
Dec 18 attacking Dean, with some real whoppers-
like sending Nat Guard troops on interminable
deployments to an optional war was SOP. Newsweek's
cover story on Dean uses photo's in which
Dean looks ominous, threatening, frowning,
or a picture rotated 50º so Dean looks like
he falling over to the left (get it?); and
they harp over piddling 3 or $4000 Dean contributions
from corporations, but when did they report
on the tens of billions ripped out of the
pockets of Cal. voters and handed over to
Enron, Duke and other Bush pals when he cancelled
the Clinton price cap on Cal. energy prices
his first day in office (which rose up to
90-fold)? Fineman enthused over the Clark
surge on LiveTalk while taking questions like, "Why does Dean hate members of the American
military?". Time also thrashed Dean. There may be enough
honest players in the press to prevent this
behavior; but the incipient bat may
be his so called gaffes or the rift between
Dean and the Democratic Leadership Council
.. in the trashy high school rivalry obsession
that media types have. And as they knock
Dean, they will boost Clark, because a big
surge from the second placer is a good story.
Likewise, the theme on Kerry was the futility
of his noble and earnest effort, though that's
been scotched with his explosive rise in
Iowa. Comparing Dean with the decent, but
stiff, charmless, and uncomfortable George
McGovern aren't accurate- he is more like
Harry Truman in '48. One of the refreshing
things is how Dean immediately slaps back
at attackers- he hasn’t mastered the chuckle
and subtle reply stab of the knife, as if
we’re all best buddies. He needs to, lest
the barbs of competition harden into permanent
enmity. ADDEN: Sadly the coordinated media campaign and
candidate assaults against Dean have sapped
significant strength- we can make you, and we can break you! Harping on Dean's so called anger,makes it impossible to respond without "proving"
their stupid contentions.
I’ve covered the Dem. Pres. Primary campaigns
before- even at this stage, candidates usually
look pallid and exhausted at the constant
travel, endless recitation, and chronic lack
of sleep. Dean looks strong, determined,
and vibrantly healthy. He has double the
money of anyone else and the capacity to
raise much more. New Hampshire looks like
a lock (where they’ve watched him for 12
years), with a 20-30 point lead; he is ahead
in Iowa, despite Gephardt spending enormously
and camping there1; is ahead of Kerry even in Mass.. Dean has an awesome
organization, one that’s flawlessly running
town meetings only 50 minutes and
30 miles apart, exists in every state, is
run by very smart, adaptive people,
and is ferociously dedicated. Before other
Dems ask ‘if we can stop Dean’, they
should ask, ‘Should we even try?’. When Koppel asked “who thought Dean could
beat Bush” in the last debate, it was disgraceful
that not one said yes- “Anyone of us can
beat Bush.” (They reformed in the hand-raising
Jan 4th debate.) The contemptible anti-Dean
ad with Bin Laden’s face filling the screen
was so lacking in sanity and decency that
the Atwaterite creators should be permanently
banished. Lieberman's dedication to Dean's
destruction is distressing, especially when
one remembers that his self-serving morality
speech almost tipped the balance against
Clinton in impeachment. I fear we are seeing
high school teams tear themselves up before
playing in the Majors. Schoolyard jealousies
have no place in the most important election
of our lifetime. Dean has provided a focus
for energy and hope that has energized Democratic
voters, but the Party is acting like an old
dowager host contemptuous of his age and
pedigree. And no candidate has ever won Iowa
and NH and not won the nomination. In person, Dean doesn’t come across as
angry or negative, Bush’s reported strategy
for running against him. I think Rove + Co.
are actually deeply afraid of Dean and the latent
rage at Bush that he could bring to the surface (inc.
among the military). Dean comes off as calm,
but outraged, at the Bush squalor, with an
inherent sense of optimism and hope for what
can be accomplished. A stunning move that
would make the Dean train unstoppable? Gore as Vice President.
Howard Dean isn’t
a wimp, or especially liberal, or a babe in the woods on foreign affairs.
To constantly attack him as such is dishonest, counterproductive, and only doing
the Republicans’ work of slander for them. Likewise, Dean should cool the slams
on the Washington Democrats. Dean could bring millions of the 100
million non-voting couch potatoes out to vote- the DLC may have to accept that
their hammerlock on the Party is over and a new wind is blowing; or they can
keep trying to crush him, splinter the Party, and ensure that their candidate
will lose against Bush. Dean impoliticly made this point: that his legions of
new fans would be unhappy if he is unfairly ganged up on and beaten. Only
Clinton can settle this, if he can recognize how like himselfDean actually is. Against the smooth brutal
wall of Republican unity,Dems don’t have the luxury of messy Primary
business as usual. More terrible terrorist
attacks are assured* and the very Constitution
and 225 years of freedom are at stake.
*Looks like Wesley Clark is having his own
gaffe problem. To claim he could protect
us against attacks is madness.
1- Ignore all the numbers in IOWA, Dean's indigenous decentralized Linux supporters
are ideally suited for the horse trading
of a caucus, where 10 dedicated partisans
can take over a precinct meeting, which only
1/5 of Dems attend. Whoever manages the meeting
also has an advantage, as leader a Dean person
should often have that slot. Moreover, any candidate under 15-25% in a caucus gets
no delegates (4 or more delegates, candidates need 15%,
3 delegates 16.6%, 2 delegates 25%), so Kucinich,
Sharpton, Braun (who threw her support to
Dean anyway), and many Edwards and even Kerry
people will likely join Dean on the second round of voting (if they get less than 15%). Unlike
the 97,000 Floridians who voted for Nader
in 2000, caucus goers get a chance to do
it again. The distribution of votes will
vary widely in the 1993 Iowa precincts, so
many of the 20%ers may not make the cut;
only Dean and to a lesser extant-Gephardt
has the grass roots organization to contest
every one- youth and labor respectively.
And the help of Harkins' campaign troops.
Kerry's rebirth is the most impressive thing
of the campaign, and Edwards benefited from
the surprising Des Moines Register endorsement. Gephardt's numbers probably
won't change much in the second round- his
popularity is a result of his localness and
powerful union support and has no chance
nationally, but he may pick up some Lieberman
or Clark people. Still, the final numbers
will probably be 5-15 points higher for Dean
than any current polls, assuming they're
accurate.
I managed a caucus in perhaps the most liberal
district in north Seattle- it would have
gone 2 or 3 out of 3 delegates for Jesse
Jackson, who was then making more sense than
any candidate. I swung it to 2 out of 3 for
Dukakis, so had the effect of switching thousands
of votes in a primary. It was the closest
thing to the original participatory town
democracy practiced by the founders, and
alot of fun (my vote should be worth thousands). Then I had to watch
in horror at state Dem. HQ with the Mayor,
Gov., and prospective Cong. Jim McDermott;
as the passionless Greek committed suicide
on nat. TV . "Governor, if your wife were raped and
murdered, would you put down your magazine? A 5-10 minute realplayer video report on
the 1984 Dem Iowa Caucus can be seen on my
audio page http://tomhammers.tripod.com/audio.htm under NEWS RESUME TAPE.
WOW: Jan 21 Never mind. What a surprise. Apparently Dean and Gephardt
beat each other bloody, to the disgust of
stolid Iowans, and Kerry and Edwards picked
up the pieces. Dean was Gored, savaged by the dishonest attacks of smarmy
media pundits and the other candidates that
he was unelectable and too liberal (really a middle of the
road, child of Wall St., fiscal conservative).
Reports have Deans' press coverage 4 times
more negative than Kerry's. Dean's vaunted
honesty failed him when he needed it most-
to admit he got shellacked in Iowa but "the
race was a marathon, not a sprint".
He tried to whitewash the devastating reversal
and looked completely out of touch. His ticket
was punched, but not in the way he hoped.
3 numbers were devastating to Dean in Iowa,
that Dean lost the young, the new voters, and
the opponents of Iraq. They bought into the unelectable argument. Even the anti-war Kucinich threw
his vast support to Edwards. The media sharks, thrilled and excited
at the blood and destruction they wrought
on Dean, tried to complete the rending with
Dean's exhausted laryngitic pitiable non-concession
rebel screech. They won't let up, but the
question is, once Dean is knocked out, whom will they go after next? Dean wasn't, of course, blameless- he shouldn't
have even mentioned Iraq in the last week,
but he hammered it too long and came off
like a one-note pony. He never dealt with
the unelectability issue directly- he needed
to beat down that spectre at every rally,
because it was the silver bullet that could
doom any candidacy against the Great Pretender.
And he kept thrashing the Washington Democrats even as he garnered more and more of their
endorsements. I believe much of Dean's alleged
arrogance and angriness is that he is uncomfortable
and stiff with people, though in one on one
interactions he's impressively genuine. I
also think Rove manipulated the result by
claiming to be eager to run against Dean,
when the Bushmen had much to fear from a
man who really thought they were criminals,
and wanted to do more than just defeat them
in the race. Kerry has had a pass up to now,
and I really wonder if he has the energy for front-runnerhood. He is very good; I
told his people in '99 that I thought he'd
be President one day, but now a bloody struggle
with Clark could weaken the eventual candidate
too much to combat Bush's Wehrmacht. Kerry
doesn't have Dean's piles of money, and Clark
does. Clark has also had a pass over his
Repub leanings and wartime errors (I think
his wounding was from stupidly runing into
his first battle, like in Born on the 4th of July).
Michael Hammerschlag has written commentaries
+ articles for Seattle Times, Providence Journal,
Honolulu Advertiser, Columbia Journalism Review, Media Channel, & Moscow
News, Tribune, and Guardian. He covered the ’84 Democratic Presidential
Primary in Iowa, WI., and DC;was a
correspondent in Russia from 1991-1994; and has written on foreign policy for
24 years.
