StudioGlyphic

Is it over?

Only 15% of all delegates have been assigned to one of the Democratic candidates. At this point, John Kerry has 6%, Howard Dean has 4%, and John Edwards and Wesley Clark have 2% each. Yet the consensus among pundits and reporters is that the race is tied up for John Kerry! Dean has been written off, despite his second place standing, in much the same way that Kerry had been written off by last fall. The voters in Iowa proved the pundits wrong about John Kerry, yet the media have shown no qualms about anointing John Kerry as the presumptive nominee. Last I heard, the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC News, CNN, and MSNBC don't select a nominee; the choice is up to voters.

New York Times Delegate Count

Mickey Kaus of Slate.com and Kausfiles (admittedly anti-Kerry in his bias) offers this perspective on Kerry's front-runner status:

"If you a) take the number of delegates Kerry has won so far and b) add the number of superdelegates he already has according to the N.Y. Times (101) and c) assume he wins the remaining elected delegates at the same rate he's been winning them (approx. 52%) and d) assume, generously, he gets all the currently uncommitted superdelegates (about 500)—and [sic] Kerry still doesn't mathematically wrap up the nomination on March 2, the date of the huge 10 state superprimary, or even by the end of the March 9 four-state southern primary...."

What do you give an 800-lb gorilla? Anything he wants. And the gorillas that are California, New York, Texas, and Massachusetts have yet to decide.

But what about electability?

The question that apparently is first and foremost in the minds of many voters is some mythic notion known as electability, which according to Microsoft's spell-checker is not even a real word. In essence, since John Kerry won some prior contest, he's the one voters should support. If this is true, then no state outside Iowa and New Hampshire will ever have a say in the election of a President. It's important to understand the underlying concern which has given this question of electability such prominence: the election of George Bush to a second term would be a disaster. Yet the notion of electability is a sham.

The nation is divided 50-50, or, to be more accurate, 45-45. But even the so-called independents tend to lean one way or another, and vote appropriately on election day. In other words, the swing voter does not exist for all intents and purposes. Elections in the last decade have been won by exciting and mobilizing the base. The Republicans understand this very well; the Gingrich revolution, the close head-to-head match between Gore and Bush, the Republican gains in 2002—all of these efforts involved mobilizing the base and turning out the vote.

Yet some Democrats insist on adopting the so-called third way centrism of Clinton, pointing to his victories in '92 and '96 as proof of its effectiveness. But Clinton only won those elections by pluralities. In both elections, Perot ran as a third party candidate, cutting into the Republican vote, in much the same way that Nader cut into the Democratic vote in 2000. Yet the Clinton New Democrats took these less than inspiring victories as proof-positive that Democrats could only win as centrists, in much the same way that the Bush administration took his 500,000 vote loss to Gore as a mandate for radical policies that are out of line with most Americans.

The Democrats need a candidate who will stand up for American values and principles, a champion of positive change, an energizing force that Democrats and independents and Greens can rally around because this is how you win elections. For those of us who live in those states that represent 85% of the vote, we need to consider first and foremost not electability, but appeal. After all, the Democratic nominee will be supported in the general election by Democrats and progressives; if our choices now are based on media distortion of the importance of 15% of the vote, then we will be less than enthusiastic for the nominee, and if our enthusiasm is only lukewarm, that will be reflected in the turnout. Turnout is the most important aspect of this campaign. How important is it? In 2000, states like Florida, New Hampshire, Ohio, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania were determined by only a few percentage points, which translates to one or two voters per precinct! Every vote counts (except in Florida)!

The outlook

I am more optimistic now than I have ever been during this administration. More and more Americans are beginning to realize that George Bush does not deserve another term. His approval ratings are dipping below 50%, and the chickens are coming home to roost. Unless he quickly comes up with some job creation, health care, or education related program activities, he will continue to face sliding numbers. He will try to run as the wartime president and use the threat of terror and the language of fear to coerce Americans into accepting a second Bush term, but the newly Dean-inspired Democrats will counter with a message of hope and trust, jobs and health care, education and the future of our children. They will take on Bush for every lie and deception related to pre-war intelligence, the budget deficits, the tax cuts, the prescription drug benefit bill, the No Child Left Behind bill, the Healthy Forests initiative, the Clear Skies initiative, etc., etc.

Moreover, if elections are truly won by turning out the base, this primary season is an extremely positive sign. Turnout for all contests is much higher than it's been in recent elections, and all the Democrats have raised enough money together to compete with Bush head-to-head, toe-to-toe (they've spent most of it, but it's the sign of support that's important). It will still be a tough fight, but if everyone supports the eventual nominee and makes an effort to bring another five voters to the polls in November, Bush will follow his father as a one-term president.

Finally, if a good number of the 97,488 Nader 2000 supporters in Florida vote Democrat in November (Bush "won" by 537) and the Democratic nominee holds onto every Gore state, the electoral balance will shift in the Democrat's favor. While I agree with many of the things Nader was saying in 2000, and with the Green Party's political stances in general, the President of the United States has far too much power to risk a second Bush term. Go ahead and vote Green for local offices—even statewide offices—but there are times when it is better to be pragmatic than principled.

What this all means is that the Democratic nominee's chances are very good. So please choose the nominee who best represents your interests and values. Whether that is Clark, Dean, Edwards, Kerry, Kucinich, or Sharpton, don't waste your primary or caucus vote by voting "strategically"; there will be time enough for strategy in the general election.

For those of you who still want to vote strategically, consider this: open races make for more media coverage. More media coverage translates into free advertising for the Democratic message against Bush. His State of the Union speech got second billing to the media coverage of the Kerry-Dean upset and the Dean post-Iowa speech. The sagging poll numbers and the focus on the Democratic race pushed Bush in front of the cameras—not his best venue. Tim Russert skewered him. Let's keep the race open and exciting and dominate the airwaves.

The case for Dean

This wouldn't be a proper political blog post from me if there weren't a Dean blurb. And while I've certainly been guilty of pushing the horse-race invisible primary aspects of the nomination race, I'd like to list the main reasons I support Dean.

Howard Dean is the only candidate with executive experience who has delivered results and has the kind of long-term vision desperately needed in the United States. He is a principled pragmatist who worked with both sides of the aisle in Vermont to improve everyone's lives. Most importantly, he is a good man. Of all the candidates, he is the one in whom I would put my trust to lead the United States.

As governor of Vermont, Dean was a careful manager of the public's money. He balanced the budget every year, fending off demands from both sides of the aisle for unsustainable spending or tax cuts. Increased revenues through the latter half of the Clinton-Gore era were reserved in a rainy day fund that has helped Vermont stay in the black through the current recession and jobless recovery. Compare that to the vast majority of states who increased structural spending and cut marginal rates for the highest incomes with no regard for the business cycle. Better yet, compare that to the Bush administration's reckless fiscal policies with its ever expanding deficits and increasing debt. This is money that we are borrowing from the future. This crushing debt will be paid back by future generations, yet we are doing little to invest in our children to ensure that they will be able to do so. It's time to bring back fiscal sanity and tax fairness and stop shunting everything off to the future.

As a doctor and public servant, Dean has always been an advocate for universal health coverage and children's health care. 99% of Vermont's children are eligible for health insurance, and significant numbers of the elderly, the working poor, and the disabled have health insurance. He managed to achieve these results by building on existing programs and expanding them. He has vowed to do the same for the 44 million Americans who are without health insurance, and advance the United States to join the ranks of every other industrialized nation in the world. This is a moral and humanitarian cause, but it also makes sense in terms of dollars and cents. Emergency room care is the only health care the uninsured receive, and it is the most expensive form of health care, paid out of tax dollars. Preventative medicine is cheaper. We should pay for it and stop cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Howard Dean takes the long view. In addition to providing children with health insurance, Dean also implemented the Success by Six program and other early childhood programs, involving prenatal care, home visits, parenting training, and child care. As a result, child abuse and child sexual abuse rates dropped by more than 45%. Dean is a firm believer in the value of investing in children; considering the effects of early childhood on intellectual development, home environment on educational success, education on crime and income, and crime and income on communities, it makes sense to invest in small children today. This is the kind of long-term vision that Howard Dean would bring to the White House. As someone enrolled in a Planning program that stresses the importance of inter-connections, the future, and the consequences of our decisions, I have a special appreciation for his willingness to look beyond the 2, 4, and 6-year time horizons of most politicians, and think about the consequences 20 and 100 years into the future.

Howard Dean has guts and will. As governor, he got into fights with both sides of the aisle on contentious issues, and won. The most contentious of these was the issue of civil unions. This was not a fight he was looking for; it was thrust on him by the state Supreme Court. He asked the legislature to pass a law creating civil unions, knowing full well that the public could not accept something labeled gay marriage. Some legislators wanted to wait until after the looming election, but Dean insisted on getting the job done before the election and worked with them behind the scenes. Dean signed the unpopular law (polls showed 60% of Vermonters against the law) despite the death threats, and unknown to most people, campaigned for re-election in a bulletproof vest. He was not an advocate, but once the responsibility to do the right thing was his, he stood up and did the right thing.

As a candidate, Dean was one of the first to recognize the failings of the No Child Left Behind initiative. Dean was one of the first to stand up and speak out against the Iraq war, claiming that there was not an imminent threat that would justify invading the country. In fact, his willingness to stand up and question the Bush administration and the Democratic leadership is what initially drew so many people to his cause. It's obvious that the tone of the entire race has changed as a result of his candidacy. Kerry, Gephardt, and Lieberman all adopted his tone. Clark entered the race as Dean 2.0. As one Dean supporter put it, Dean is not an internist; he's a surgeon who gave all the Democrats a spine. It's not just the candidates, either. Many Democrats in the Congress have gotten the courage to become more vocal and daring in standing up for their principles. Considering Dean's early leadership role, one has to question whether we should support any candidate who has adopted Dean's tone (and sometimes his message), yet rolled over and died when critical votes on tax cuts, war, education, and the environment were on the line. Indeed, the value of legislative experience for an executive position is questionable, but when that experience shows a history of wrong votes and political hedging and unethical behavior, that experience recommends against that candidate...

(Sorry. It's been three years of Democrats treating Bush like some kind of unstoppable force and I'm fed up.)

Dean's a fighter. I know he'll have the courage to stand up for what's right. I know he'll tell the truth and be direct, even if it may cost him votes. That's the kind of person I want representing my values and my country. And I know he's got the kind of executive experience needed to lead the country.

What can we do to support Dean?

• Forward this post to everyone in your address book.
  
• Talk to everyone you know about why you support Dean.
  
• Help canvass your neighborhood and talk to strangers about supporting Dean.
  
• Donate money to the campaign.
  
• Put a bumper sticker on your car.
  
• Go to http://www.deanforamerica.com and sign up with the campaign. Click the Get Local link to find out upcoming events and activities in your area.

Time is getting critical. If too many more voters decide to follow the 15% = victory way of thinking, then Dean may not be able to win the nomination. However, we should still support him as much as possible. If he goes to the convention with a sizable contingent of delegates, he will have an impact on the Democratic platform, and we may therefore be able to get our message, if not our candidate, on the ballot in November. Besides, Kerry might fall down an open manhole somewhere. As Diane Watson said today, "to the bitter end."

I will support the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is. Until one is actually selected, I will support Howard Dean.