|
Edited on Wed Jan-31-07 10:08 AM by karynnj
We always spent a week in the summer in Vt. One year, we took our kids to Montplier, which has to be the tiniest state capital in the nation. We took the kids, then ages 5 through 10, on the tour through the capital building.
My oldest was the same age as Dean's daughter, Ann. The older gentleman leading us (and another family through the statehouse) took my daughter into Dean's office (he was not there and the legislature was not in seesion) to show her a picture of his daughter. He then spent most of the time speaking - mostly to my 10 year old daughter about what a good governor he was, how he was a doctor and what a good person he was.
Any politician will suggest more in his/her vision than they are likely to be able to do. That's only natural. A better test is whether he did move in the direction of the vision expressed. I have a bigger problem of some one who moves away from the direction of their vision or someone, who when given a chance to do what they said, doesn't. As someone who spent one whole week on vacation a year in Vt, I am completely unqualified to even consider judging Dean using this criteria.
As, to your question. Each race and each candidate is unique - and who is closest depends on what set of Dean characteristics you were most looking for.
-If you mean you were looking at his record in VT, he was a moderate Democrat. Ignoring foreign policy, this is closest to Vilsack or Clinton (though my reaction was the same as those recorded up thread.) Obama is more liberal and progrssive in his combined US and Illinois Senate. Edwards was more conservative, but also more of a protectionist (trade).
-If you mean as one with an outsider, insurgency campaign, there is no one currently in who is obvious. The party is making entry far more difficult. The primaries will be more bunched than ever with some big states included in the mix. (This makes an early frontrunner harder to dislodge and significantly adds to the cost.)
Of those not in, Al Gore is closest in many ways. Feingold would have fit very well. Ironically, before he said he wouldn't run, Kerry could have been another possibility. He had no party support - but was right on the issues and would have been a grassroots candidate. He also was speaking with more intensity on the war than anyone else - as in his Dissent speech. Clark, has considerable network support and fits on that level, but he seems very non-Deanish in others. (This is not a negative - some think the Dean intensity - which 2007 Gore, 2007 Kerry, and Feingold have - may have been a problem in 2004. The question is - could the country, more awake in 2008 accept it.)
If the party succeeds in cutting the candidates to the top three, I suspect that Obama may end up with the Dean support. He was an activist on the streets of Chicago, a civil rights lawyer and he has a good record on health care (Il). Fair or not, Edwards does not seem authentic a leader of the grassroots. There are two many shifts from the past, which I think are honest, but stemming from an immature political mind.
- he was not political (or passionate on an issue), for the first (at least) 40 years of his life. No one, even marginally political, really doesn't remember if they voted for McGovern or Nixon.
- His record includes voting for the 2001 bankruptcy bill, that people like Kennedy, Kerry, Dodd, etc voted against. I looked but couldn't find any comments by him in the Senate record. For fun, I used the search feature on Thomas - the Senate record to see the count of hits for "poverty" as the key word for both him and Kerry for 1999, 2000, and 2001 - Kerry had considerably more hits. (I did this a few months ago - if I did it now I would use Hillary and compare 2001 only.)
- His shift on Iraq is because it is clearly not working. What I don't see is an explanation of when war is an option - and am not comforted by the Iran comments.
Hillary cannot be Dean because she is 100% the establishment in the party.
|