State of the Democrats:
The choice of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean as chairman earlier this year was the result of Democrats’ failure to find an acceptable candidate who could stop him. After months of relative silence, Dean allowed his first television interview on May 22 with NBC’s Tim Russert, and then this month gave speeches in Washington and San Francisco that drew heavy press coverage.
1) As many suspected, Dean’s sudden emergence in the last two weeks has been embarrassing for his party. Some have acted to distance themselves from Dean, thanks to his outrageous comments, yet some party leaders are circling the wagons around him.
2) During his period of hiding, Dean received only occasional press for his appearances in small venues—mostly colleges in small towns—where he made outlandish remarks. He declared, in various forums, that Republicans are “evil,” “corrupt” and “brain-dead,” as well as “liars,” all the while receiving minimal press coverage.
3) Dean, who was known among his 2004 presidential campaign staff as an undisciplined hot-head (this later contributed to his downfall), has now taken the same hyperbolic and angry rhetoric squarely into the public eye.
4) Several Democratic members of Congress, but not all, distanced themselves from Dean’s remarks. Surprisingly, the Democrats’ top Senate leaders, Harry Reid (Nev.) and Dick Durbin (Ill.), responded by defending Dean. Durbin attacked the press for actually paying attention to what the DNC chairman says in public. He even told reporters that they “ought to be ashamed” of themselves. Reid, who came under fire himself when he called Bush a “liar” and a “loser,” asserted that Dean had “misspoken,” even though the chairman has vigorously defended all of his comments and apologized for none.
5) This signals that Democrats will not give up on Dean yet. But they would do well to dump him for reasons of both money and style. Political experts know that negative campaigning works, and party chairmen engage in it all the time. It’s one thing to attack an opponent for his views or even his personal life, but quite another to call names or make outrageous statements that needlessly divide and alienate voters, as Dean has done repeatedly.
6) One negative effect for Democrats is that none of this puts an attractive face on their ideas. What little trace of serious political debate Dean has included in his speeches—his denunciation of a recent ruling on United Airlines pensions, for example—is always overshadowed by his angry and divisive rhetoric. Dean has become a two-word joke at Democrats’ expense.
7) Dean’s other problem is his failure in fund raising. Although his defenders note that he has raised more money than his predecessor, Terry McAuliffe, had raised in the same period, he is slipping in comparison to his opposition. By the end of April, the RNC had built an enormous advantage in money raised (more than a 2-to-1 margin), new donors (more than a 3-to-1 margin), and cash on hand (more than a 4-to-1 margin). Big Democratic donors are shunning Dean—three top fund-raisers have resigned. This reduces the role of the DNC in the Democratic Party. The much-maligned 527 groups could become the beneficiaries of this neglect.
8) Fund raising—not public embarrassment—will be the bottom line for Democrats as they look into whether to keep Dean around. Yet they also must worry about what sort of message a purge of Dean would send to their left-wing base. Dean’s ouster could alienate enough Democrats to give rise to a third-party movement or even lead to a Dean presidential candidacy in 2008.
