Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Scipio · 02-19-2004, 12:29 PM

Dean injected dynamics into the race that might not have been there otherwise, but I'm not going to let anyone argue that Kerry and Edwards wouldn't take Bush head-on when his approval ratings have dropped into the 40s.

Dean didn't invent Bush bashing.

Second, you'd be crazy to run a Dean 2.0 campaign. When Dean's campaign failed so spectacularly in Iowa and New Hampshire, he fired the architect of Dean 1.0, Joe Trippi, and hired a Washington insider, ex-Gore lobbyist to run his campaign.

What did Dean do? He defined his campaign with firey rhetoric, opposition to the Iraq war, and the incorporation (or perhaps revitaliaztion) of a new (or perhaps old) constituency into the Democratic party. Whatever the case, Kerry hasn't adopted any of these three pillars. Sure, part of his success might be attributed to stepped up criticism of Bush, but it hardly defines his message. Kerry supported the threat of force in Iraq, but thought it was carried out too soon, and moreover he thinks that the execution has been poor. Dean opposed every aspect of it. Though Kerry benefitted from Dean voters deserting their candidate, his campaign hasn't become like Dean's campaign.

Same goes for Edwards. He has a moralist populist message, a moderate position on the war, and a more traditional campaign.

So to recap: Dean 1.0 didn't work. Therefore no one would run a Dean 2.0 campaign. All you need to do is look at what Kerry and Edwards are doing. Even if Dean's issues have to some extent been picked up by Edwards and Kerry, it's because voters want to hear about them.

02-19-2004, 12:29 PM	#20 (permalink)
Scipio Mencken Location: College	Dean injected dynamics into the race that might not have been there otherwise, but I'm not going to let anyone argue that Kerry and Edwards wouldn't take Bush head-on when his approval ratings have dropped into the 40s. Dean didn't invent Bush bashing. Second, you'd be crazy to run a Dean 2.0 campaign. When Dean's campaign failed so spectacularly in Iowa and New Hampshire, he fired the architect of Dean 1.0, Joe Trippi, and hired a Washington insider, ex-Gore lobbyist to run his campaign. What did Dean do? He defined his campaign with firey rhetoric, opposition to the Iraq war, and the incorporation (or perhaps revitaliaztion) of a new (or perhaps old) constituency into the Democratic party. Whatever the case, Kerry hasn't adopted any of these three pillars. Sure, part of his success might be attributed to stepped up criticism of Bush, but it hardly defines his message. Kerry supported the threat of force in Iraq, but thought it was carried out too soon, and moreover he thinks that the execution has been poor. Dean opposed every aspect of it. Though Kerry benefitted from Dean voters deserting their candidate, his campaign hasn't become like Dean's campaign. Same goes for Edwards. He has a moralist populist message, a moderate position on the war, and a more traditional campaign. So to recap: Dean 1.0 didn't work. Therefore no one would run a Dean 2.0 campaign. All you need to do is look at what Kerry and Edwards are doing. Even if Dean's issues have to some extent been picked up by Edwards and Kerry, it's because voters want to hear about them. __________________ "Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."