I’ve been “lurking” on the Minnesotans for Dean e-mail listserv for months now, but yesterday Brian Hurt posted a great reflection that really inspired me — and today he gave me permission to repost it here. Thanks, Brian!

Message: 7
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 02:40:18 -0600 (CST)
From: Brian Hurt
Subject: Thoughts on IA and NHMy thought for the day: Consider where the Kerry campaign was about a month or so ago:<ul><li>Single digit or teen support numbers across the board</li><li>In serious danger of coming in third in NH, his home territory</li><li>So bankrupt that Kerry had to mortage his house to pay the bills</li><li>Dismissed as dead by just about everyone</li><li>Uninspired, lacking leadership, and with a weak candidate</li></ul> That last one is a) not true of the Dean campaign, and b) still true of the Kerry campaign. The more I look at it, the more I think that if I had to choose a candidate to have taken the lead from Dean, Kerry would be my choice. Almost 20 years in the Senate and not one major bill or policy initiative was his. Ted Kennedy does all the real work- if I can be crude, Ted wears the pants in that relationship. He voted for the War in 2002, but against it in 1991- and boy won’t that come back to haunt him. He was the deciding vote that put Daschle into power- the epitome of jellyfish Democrats (no backbone and no brain).

The media itself is admitting it went overboard on the Dean Scream. This is a classic case of how the media ran down Dean- once you listen to the context, it doesn’t seem so over the top. Like all the other “Dean Gaffes”- the confederate flag remark, the Soviet Union remark, etc…

And you want to talk about disappointing finishes- let’s talk about Clark for a moment. You remember General Wesley Clark, don’t you? Cast you mind back 4-5 months ago, when everyone was terrified of Clark? The only person to have raised nearly as much as Dean has? Clark had New Hampshire to himself for the better part of a month (well, him and Lieberman), while everyone else concentrated on Iowa. End result? He barely escaped a fourth place finish behind Edwards, who barely campaigned in NH.

Now there’s a diaster scenario for you. Clark deciding to skip Iowa is proving more and more to be a huge mistake. Much bigger than any stumble Dean has made. Kerry is vulnerable- Clark pulling a surprise win out of Iowa and making Dean take second in NH would have been real bad news. Even had we won IA and NH, I’d still be worried about a strong Clark. Now Clark is fighting for his life- Kerry is the lead candidate to be the anti-Dean.

But for Clark to pull it out, he needs to pull down Kerry. Especially considering they’re both fighting for the demographic that believes we need military experience to go up against Bush (we don’t, but that’s a different argument). Rather than it being Dean vs the world, let Kerry take the fire of being the front runner for a while- as Dave says, let Kerry spend some time digging buckshot out of his butt- and see how well he handles it.

Another thought I’d like to share: Clark, Edwards, and Lieberman, have already in one sense lost a very important contest. Notice how all the articles about the election as a whole are all written relative to Howard Dean. Iowa and New Hampshire weren’t so much Kerry victories, as Dean defeats. We are the center of the campaign. This has it’s downsides- it makes defeats that much more bitter. But remember it makes victories that much more sweet as well. And it gives us control (to an extent) of the microphone.

I read somewhere that George Washington fought nine major battles- of which he lost seven. His genius was in keeping his army from being destroyed, and stayed in the fight. He lost, but was not defeated, if you see the difference. Likewise, we lost but were not defeated.

Some of you might not be convinced by my rah-rahs. One other thought I keep in the front of my brain. Bush isn’t the problem, Bush is the symptom. Reactionary Republicans and increasing corporate control over our culture and our politics is the problem.

Nixon resigned over scandals which would be minor and unnoticed in the Bush Whitehouse. Normally, such a disgrace would throw a party into eclipse for years, even decades. But no, the next electoral cycle the Republicans roared back with Reagan. Reagan begat Bush. Bush went down in flames (despite being “unbeatable”). Solution- plague the Democratic replacement with scandals, most of them pure BS (and the ones that weren’t were NOT the ones you heard about). New face, fresh coat of paint, and here we are with Bush Jr.

Defeating Bush in 2004 simply means the reactionary corporatists will go find some other fresh face to run against us in 2008. Taking our country back is more than just one race, more than just one man. Nor is it just one issue- even one as large and important as the war in Iraq. Or the war in Viet Nam.

Now, if we only had a doomsday cloak…

---

“Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea — massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it.”
- Gene Spafford Brian