This is the first post I've ever read on here that I actually think makes a lot of sense.

"Dean gets criticized for lacking foreign policy experience, which is valid, but in a world where the strongest critique of US policy is our failure to organize international cooperation around our efforts, maybe we need fewer brilliant policy analysts and more roll-up-your-sleaves organizers."

As opposed to the foreign policy experience one would get as governor of Texas. What's important then is that Dean (1) surround himself with the right people, and (2) understand the issues involved enough to be able make the right decisions. I'm pretty persuaded that he'd be better on both of those counts than Bush was. Make no mistake - our country faces very real threats right now, and those threats need to be confronted. But Dean, Clark, and Kerry seem to understand that a unilateral military approach to problems has limits, that there's a need for diplomacy and multilateral action in most cases, and that winning "hearts and minds" is often a better approach than "shock and awe".

Everyone says the Dean financing vote was a "gimick" and maybe it was, but it gave the campaign IMPORTANT information about how viable their attempt to go it alone would be.

First of all, if the vote was close (say 60/40 for/against), the campaign would know they have their work cut out for them. They need to win over the 40% who didn't want to opt out, and raise $19 million from skeptical supporters. Might give them second thoughts about opting out.

Second, the vote included a pledge of support that helps them know how much they can expect to raise. I read they were pledged something like $5-9 million. Ten million to go!

Here's something I posted on Daily Kos about Clark's bungle in Iowa:

Clark pulling out of Iowa was the biggest mistake of the season, IMHO.

Lieberman decided to pull out because he couldn't compete. My theory is that reporters called up Clark staff to get their reaction, and they said "We're pulling out, too." -- without clearing it with Clark. Anyway, something like that happened.

This did two things.

1. It legitimized Lieberman's pullout, making a weak and ineffectual campaigner seem justified and inspiring a bunch of "Does Iowa Matter?" articles, when the title should've been "Does Lieberman Matter?". In short, Clark campaign messed up a chance to "rat fuck" Lieberman and go after his supporters.
2. It screwed Clark's endorsement opportunity with AFSCME. Now he pays for it.

Great headline.

Ya know, I rocket around Eschaton and Kos and Calpundit and often participate in the teeth-gnashing/chest-beating frustration at the cluelessness of McAuliffe/Jordan/Lehane/DLC & etc.

But, being a sensible person, there's always a voice in the back of my head saying "wait a second, I'm just some Office Park Dad and these guys have been doing politics their whole lives, WTF do I know?"

And then I read a story like this and, yeah, they truly are complete maroons. Old dogs that can't learn new tricks at best. So the little voice in my head has now been completely discredited, or at least re-assigned to reciting Brad DeLong's "what did we do to deserve these idiots?"

They really are insulated "Inside the Beltway," and in fact do show many signs that the Mighty Wurlitzer's "liberal elites that think they know everything" tune has some basis in reality.

I don't know if Dean will be the next Democratic POTUS or not, but I am really starting to like the "new broom sweeps clean" possibilities of that result. Because the battle with the right will actually intensify if we win in '04, and like Lincoln discovered during the previous war with the Confederacy, our army needs new leadership at all levels.

PS: I'm still p&ssed at Dean for backfilling and "fleshing out" (e.g., clarifying into incomprehensiblity) his Confederate flag remark. It seems unlike him. But note that the immense forces that caused him to waffle and backtrack came from the same people I've just finished excoriating.

Right on Nathan. Listening, which is in short supply in this White House. I seriously doubt that anybody except Bush would have blown the worldwide good will even from the Arab countries after 9/11. He could have strengthened existing bonds and forged new ones for the U.S. intelligence community. If you're fighting terrorism then you got to use counter-terrorism. Why can't Bush accept that reality?

Clark's inability to listen is a key feature of Paul Boyer's profile of him in the New Yorker, too. Boyer presents Clark as constitutionally unable to ask anyone else's opinion, and equally unwilling to question his own. Nathan, it's good to see you pointing it out about him in a context besides the Kosovo war. An unwillingness to take counsel seems exactly what we don't want in a president.

Jacob, I would take that Boyer article with a boulder-sized grain of salt. That guy is a total hack. Check out his history here...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/11/14/3538/3801

PS I'm a Dean supporter, & great post Nathan. I'm back in the Dean camp after a couple of months of fence-sitting for exactly the reasons you bring up here.