Dean As McGovern

Talking Points Memo (also here) and Atrios (and here) are talking about whether Dean is electible. Is Dean another McGovern, destined to lose because of his anti-war stance?

Two words: Max Cleland.

Two more words: John McCain.

So you want to nominate a candidate who has a good military resume, because you think this means Rush Limbaugh will say good things about him? Well, guess what: IT DOESN’T MATTER. The Republicans are going to smear the candidate ANYWAY! And by the time they get done smearing the candidate YOU’RE going to be questioning whether the guy should be in office. (Admit it, it worked with Gore, didn’t it? Even YOU started disliking Gore and having doubts about him, after they got through with him.) IT’S WHAT THEY DO! GET USED TO IT!

What matters is how the candidate is going to fight back. Al Gore didn’t fight back. Clinton did. Dean will.

Just as important, Dean will also have hundreds of thousands of volunteers, walking precincts all across the country, and dragging people to the polls on election day. None of the other candidates have anything even close to that. The Democrats haven’t had that for decades. This is going to put Dean in office, AND it is going to bring in Demcoratic members of Congress and the Senate and local offices as well.

I see a pattern forming. Politicians and pundits from Washington hate Dean and “just don’t get it.” People from outside “the Beltway” are enthusiastic.

By the way, I’ll say it again, I LOVE Clark and I LOVE Edwards. But their campaign staffs just don’t get it.

Update – Oh yeah, one more thing. McGovern was a war hero who was against the war. So if the DLC is really so worried about repeating the McGovern experience they should be trashing Clark instead of running him. In MY opinion, it’s about Washington insiders v.s. outsiders, and the insiders concerned about outsiders getting elected and affecting their Washington insider careers.