We need more optimists like you, Nathan. So Dean's got the nomination, and we'll beat Bush. I hope you're right, but I'm a bit skeptical. Maybe Dean has it, I'd probably put money on it at this point. The other part -- what happens a year from now -- I'm not so sure.

I'm a contrarian that I think media is far less important than a lot of people credit it. Absent anything else, it can be a deciding factor. But I believe in organization and if we see the welding of the union and Dean operations, combined with the civil rights, environmentalist and other movement groups that will join the mass dump-Bush effort, we will have the organization to make any media bias irrelevent

Not so sure about this. We just saw the power of the media and the persuasiveness of its lies defeat an ergonomics regulation in Washington State -- almost purely on it's overwhelming spending on TV ads, combined with peoples' legitimate fear for their jobs.

Yes, the enviros, (most of) organized workers, other progressives, internet-savvy/politically conscious youth, they'll go all the way for Dean, and organize all of their kind. But how many of them are there, vs. those who still watch/listen to the right-wing talk radio/TV that dominate the media, the newspapers that are afraid to take Bush on (especially if there's another national crisis - real or manufactured)

I hope to hell you're right, and I'll be out there trying to make it happen, but I don't think we've really had any indication yet about how Dean resonates with the masses of Americans who won't engage until the last minute, and who's main source of information REMAINS the media.

I agree with you, Nathan. I tell you, I'm still so excited about this news that I can't hardly stand it!

This spring, I had occasion to chat with a Dem political type with national campaign experience, a real non-ideological guy, who supported the war and is truly pretty conservative. He loved Dean, saying he's got the stuff, ie., he's a leader with charisma and comes across as a bit of a dick (which is not a bad thing for a prez contender). Moreover, he recognized that Dean -- despite the media hype about him -- actually is quite moderate on many issues, e.g. guns and balanced budgets. As my friend foresaw so many months ago, although he's been viewed as a candidate for the left (and not without some reason), the other candidates would end up attacking from the left for being too conservative. What could be better way to end the nomination race and go into the general election against Bush?

Jordan- re: the ergonomics votes, as you said "legitimate fears" for their jobs. It's always the problem of statewide legislation-- higher standards can lead to jobs running to states with lower standards.

The ergonomics vote is distressing but reflects strategic fears at the state level that are different from how people think about issues at the national level. I bet a bunch of folks who voted down the state-wide ergo standards would support a President urging strong national ergonomic standards-- and blasting Bush for forcing Washington voters into what they could feel was a no-win vote.

I just think it's not smart to assume that you can win by having bodies going door to door. I think you underestimate not only the media, but the importance of national security and the prevalence of fear in the U.S., and you also underestimate Bush's ability to use this to his advantage. You can't argue away fear, it's a gut thing. And Dean, next to Kucinich, is the most easily defined as not experienced enough to defend America. Not to mention his dyspeptic persona. You need sunshine, not darkness, to quell fear, and you've endorsed a dark finger pointer. So the ultimate underestimation is how people - swing voters - choose candidates, or whether to vote.

My advice? Keep the college kids away from the blue collar families. Get the older Union people in people's faces, not the Burlington headquarters holier-than-thou's. We need regular people, not intellectuals, not the self-righteous, making the case to regular people. You've picked the wrong candidate, but make the best of it if he wins.

But Jacko2-- It was the blue collar folks in the unions who decided they loved Dean-- apparently his appearances at the rank-and-file meetings were lovefests.

As for "experience"-- Bush had zero on taking office, so it's hard to take that seriously. People will feel secure precisely if they are talking with friends and coworkers about any security issues and understanding why Bush has the wrong approach.

As for "swing voters", the real swing voters are not fingers-in-the-wind moderates, but what Karl Rove has called the "unaffiliated", not so much moderate as ignored by conventional discussions. And the best way to target them is through smaller one-on-one groups who share their community, which is what the whole array of union groups and Internet-driven affiliate groups - "Italian Plumbers for Dean" and so on- will allow.

Dean probably could be a more upbeat guy, but the American people have elected plenty of dour mean-son-of-a-bitches: Truman, LBJ, Nixon. Whenever I hear about the proper "Presidential personality", I always have to wonder how people ignore the diverse personality zoo that's been elected to office.

So Dean is not the Clinton-Reagan upbeat type. An angry as well and I'm not going to take it type may be just what a lot of people are looking for.

Nobody is thinking about Bush lack of experience in 2000....voters only will think about Bush right now, who is, ahem, "very experienced." Now, if things get worse on the war and the economy, Dean will have an easier time. But if they don't get worse, if we don't see an escalation of casualties in Iraq, if GDP growth continues and there's even a small amount of job growth to me this is when his disadvantage kicks into overdrive.

It's critical to remember that Bush is not intensely disliked by most Americans. I think too many Democrats, feeling wounded, fell too hard for Dean because he spoke to these emotions of disempowerment. But most regular non political people don't remotely think this way.

They develop shorthand for choosing candidates. They want to like them and feel optmistic. They distrust long explanations of policy. Most Americans are not wounded Democrats. They are worried about the world. And they are damn serious about how much money they have in their pockets. They'll be told often how Dean will raise their taxes. Long policy explanations about how these tax hikes will be good will fall on deaf ears...they always have.

I think Truman was sunnier than Dean. LBJ? Well, he became President in a special situation. As did Nixon, who became the candidate of Peace. Funny to think about it, but Nixon was brilliant in that way. Can Dean pivot into being the candidate of security? Don't see it at all.

Got to part company with you Nathan. It ain't over till it's over. If Dean doesn't win Iowa, all bets are off. A win there by Gephardt will keep him alive for the Michigan caucus. Clark could do well in the early February primary states, setting up a showdown with Dean, and possibly Gephardt, in Wisconsin. I think it's way too early to say that Dean has it.

As for the Dean the candidate, while he offers several pluses, he also some key negatives. With respect to issues, his tax plan is a prescription for disaster. If he continues advocating repealing the tax cuts for the middle class, he will not win the general election. Moroever, he needs to improve his debate performance and curb his tendency to exaggerate, shoot from the lip, and appear stiff-necked.

I still think Clark is the best general election candidate in the field.

I think it is WAY too early to call Dean the nominee apparent. If Dean's candidacy has us anything, it is that a viable candidate can appear overnight.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh

Don't know if you're right or wrong, Nathan, but I really needed that pep talk. Thanks.

All I can say is that I said Bush was defeatable well over a year ago when Bush's poll numbers were skyhigh and everyone thought he was unstoppable. As I argued (and to give credit, so did Kos), he has shown himself very vulnerable.

And we will have the organization and unity needed to take him down.

A couple of things. Re. the defeat of ergonomics in Washington, I didn't mean "legitimate" fears about job loss realted to the ergo regulation, I meant legitimate in reference to the economy in general, which made people more vulnerable to the television onslaught and the job blackmail when they finally started paying attention in the final days of the election. The bottom line is that people are still vulnerable to the media.

I'm not saying grassroots organization won't or can't work, I'm just worried that people who aren't in some kind of network already (union, environmental organization, university, church, blog, etc)still rely on the regular media to get their information and form their opinions.

Regarding personalities, I do think people will generally gravitate toward "hope," rather than "malaise." True, we had Truman, Johnson and Nixon, but Truman and Johnson were incumbants when they were elected, there was no (or not much) T.V. when Truman was elected. It's true, we did have Nixon, but we also had Johnson, the war, Wallace, etc.

I'm not saying personality is necessarily desisive if other factors predominate, but in a close election, where people may not understand the issues well (or where one candidate manages to confuse the issues), all other things being equal, George Bush is the guy people would feel most comfortable having a beer with. I can't understand it, but a lot of people who don't agree with him like him nevertheless.

Kucinich always look crabby and pissed off. I think Dean can be funny and ligher, but he has to be somewhat postive (and sunny) about his vision in order to stir the emotions of the uncomfortable masses, rather than just the passions of dissaffected Bush haters.

Speaking as one who is undecided. Can anyone shed some light on why the SEIU is backing a candidate who favors eliminating the 10% tax rate bracket? I'm just a bit puzzled, that's all. (For that matter, Gephardt also favors the elimination of the 10% bracket, and he's picked up a lot of union backing.)

I, too, wish I could be as optimisitic as Nathan. However, when the New York Times leads off with stories about how the economy really looks like it's turning around (which at this moment I'm strangely ambivalent about for political reasons!), it probably is true. That could save Bush, tragicaly.

Nathan,

I am afraid it doesn't matter if Dean wins the popular vote; Bush will never step down, and will use Hayes/Tilden-style Electoral College fraud to stay in office.

Consider:

Scalia tipped his hand in Bush v. Gore in 2000: He said there was no constitutional right for people to vote for a president.

The GOP-dominated Florida legislature didn't really care if Gore won the popular vote: They were determined to ratify a Republican slate of electors, *no matter what the outcome*.

Now the GOP controls the majority of state legislatures.

Do you really think a GOP-dominated legislature is going to authorize a slate of electors for someone other than Bush, even if Dean wins the popular vote in the state?

We know how much Republican legislators respect democracy, given their illegal reapportionment records in Texas, and Colorado, and the travesty of a recall in California.

So even without conspiracy theories about black-box voting aiding the Republicans(and given Diebolt's determination to stamp out any discussion of the issue, I think the concerns *MUST* be valid), the GOP will slam though their choice -- the people be damned.

In my darkest moments, I wonder whether they will even let us leave for Canada, because the doctine of pre-emption says they should shoot us all now while they can.

I am afraid this is not America anymore.

I respect Dean, a lot. I attended college in Vermont and was familiar with him long before he announced his intention to seek the Democratic nomination. Obviously, several unions believe he is their man, and that's their right. But, after reading many news articles and hearing many radio stories from the heartland and elsewhere featuring quotes from citizens explaining why they like Bush, I believe he cannot defeat the President in a race. Dean will make it close and competitive, but he will not win. National security is still a huge issue, and the bottom line is that in spite of the Iraq debacle, the failure to capture Bin Laden and the coddling of Saudi Arabia and hindering of 9/11 investigations, many Americans, particularly in the more conservative states, still view BUsh as a leader of integrity, principle and determination (??!). Only Wesley Clark has the credibility to ease these concerns and take these votes to the democratic party. And if the economy improves, which as someone acknowledged earlier, stirs conflicting emotions (good for Bush, but good for workers), it will diminish the importance of this issue at election time.

I am so convinced that in the end, political races really come down to personal "likeability" more than anything. It's why Clinton was so competitive, and why Gore was not. It's why Bush, despite all his corporate welfare cronyism, environmental indifference, anti-prescription drug, anti-education and anti-veteran policies can still be so relatively popular. Folks who like him still see him as a down-to-earth Joe Sixpack chopping wood on his ranch and telling it like it is. They believe that after Clinton's sexual antics, he's brought "honor" back to the Oval Office. Dean's personality is not going to fly well with these folks. And despite his NRA credentials, he will still be seen as just another Northern liberal. Unfair, but true. And though the circumstances have been subject to exaggeration, he's proven that he's prone to making verbal gaffes that will prove costly in the general election.

IMHO, Clark is the only candidate who can defeat Bush. A Clark-Dean ticket would be formidable indeed, but it doesn't work the other way around. You need Clark's military credentials in front, not in back. The good doctor will be able to meld his domestic policy experience with the general's foreign policy experience, to create a great team.

Bwahahaha.

Nathan, get out the checkbook. As the old saying goes, the light you see is a train.

Alan Katz makes some excellent points. I think Dean could win some 250 electoral votes, but I can't see where he gets to 270. Plus, Bush would probably win the popular vote by 2 or 3 points.

Clark has the national security credentials and military background that can appeal to some swing voters who would never vote for Dean. Plus he comes across as more likeable than Dean and, at the risk of being repetitive, has a tax plan which would alieniate the middle class.

At this point, I do not think Dean can beat Bush. Clark can.

Just curious, but weren't a lot of these people behind Gore as well? Didn't a lot of them support him and work for him? I'm not sure the organization is that much better to be honest. Maybe, but I don't think it's sufficiently better to make up for all the spinning and money the Republicans will throw at us.

I also believe the media is much more powerful than Nathan. Where do people get their ideas about what is happening in the world? Most of it is from the Corporate Media.
Why is Clark doing well there? Clark is a DLC man. The DLC has already shown it is willing to sell out the common people for corporate contributions. The "Third Way" of Clinton and Blair was originally threshed out in Australia under with Murdoch molding Bob Hawke from the President of the Trades Union Council into the most right-wing left winger Labor has ever put forward.
Media deregulation? You get Murdoch's vote!
The corporate media will tend to be much more merciless on Dean than on Clark, I admit. They already spent considerable efforts to make Clark look like a natural choice, with no political experience, being fired, and only having one somewhat dubious war under his belt.
All that being said, I have "drunk the kool-aid" at the Dean camp, and I don't see any turning back.
"Fair Trade?" Yowza!

I'm a Dean supporter, but I don't know if it's over yet. The field definitely will be culled and it will be down to Dean and (probably) Clark. I wouldn't underestimate Clark's appeal, especially on the "electability" front, but you are correct in saying it's going to be pretty difficult to beat Dean. (At least, for the nomination.)

"I'm a contrarian that I think media is far less important than a lot of people credit it. Absent anything else, it can be a deciding factor."

Nathan, I'm so glad to read someone saying what you're saying. I'd put the emphasis on 'absent anything else' -- because for a while there hasn't been anything else. I agree with you wholeheartedly that media is over-rated, and it's annoyed me that in recent years that Democrats have ignored organization in favor of waging media-based campaigns.

It's my feeling that overreliance on media is directly related to the Democratic Party's loss of Congress, the White House, and many governor's races. The other party has simply done a better job of organizing their core supporters, particularly Christian conservatives. Dean's campaign gives me hope, because it points to how the party can be renewed. It also demonstrates that organizing beats media. I think I read that Edwards has (at least until recently) aired more TV ads in Iowa and NH than any of the other candidates, yet as the polls show, it hasn't gotten him anything.

If you look at the millionaires who've tried to buy their way into office, very few have succeeded. NJ Senator Jon Corzine is one of the exceptions, and the reason he won was that he didn't spend all his money on TV ads -- he spent a lot of it on party-building activities around the state. To me, his campaign was the proof that organizing can win elections while money and media alone are impotent.