Joe Klein: It was a bit unsettling to see the Democratic front runner use the hallowed stage at Cooper Union as the forum for an address on...fund raising.
Dean tricked out his speech—a prepared text, delivered indifferently—with references to the power of the special interests and the need to clean house in Washington. But no amount of populist cant could disguise the fact that the speech was about process, not ideas. Indeed, Dean's whoosh of a campaign hasn't featured very much creative policy thinking.
Think about it: Apart from his early stand against the war in Iraq, what has distinguished Dean's candidacy from that of the other Democrats? The propellant for the Dean surge has been almost all style and process—the Internet successes; the monthly Meetups; his stirring, plainspoken pugnacity; the joyful abandon of his campaign—and the sense of community he has aroused in his supporters.
http://www.time.com/time/election2004/columnist/klein/article/0,18471,538907,00.htmlThis is something I have thought about for some time. Think about when Dean people speak about the campaign - or even when they talk about Kerry and Clark. How often do they talk in terms of the strength of Dean's
policies?
Almost invariably, I hear Dean people come to three points: Dean's persona/appeal, his grassroots efforts, and the fact that he didn't vote for the IWR.
With the possible exception of his persona, I don't find any of those points the basis for which to elect someone to 4 years of office.
I was particularly struck by Dean's closing speech for the Detroit debate. He didn't end by speaking of his overall vision, or even about a particular issue. He talked about how wonderful his grassroots were. It seemed a strange choice for someone who has established themselves as the front-runner and is trying to look Presidential.
To what extent is the Dean campaign about itself?
<
>