Maybe someday the media will figure it out... I hope the letters-to-the-editor that I read on this site help. We need to keep these reporters on their toes.
Given the Bush administration's abominable, atrocious economic domestic policies, I actually think once the war ends, and it's before the election, Bush will be in big trouble and Dean's message will resonate even more as voters consider how badly Bush has mismanaged the economy.
This is something that I think some of the strategists haven't figured out. It's true that the anti-war movement moved people into Dean's camp, but a lot of us grassroots organizers were already there. I thought Dean sounded like the kind of radical centrist who needs to lead the Democratic Party. I think he's someone who can win the northeast, the mid-west, the west coast, and really help the party in the inland west (some states where the Dems need to make inroads in the Senate).
And a lot of people I talk to who say they're supporting him say they went to him because of the war, but they realized the support him above and beyond that.
But that's one of the things that is critical for us Dean organizers, to make it clear that Dean is more than the anti-war candidate and that his position on the war (while ultimately opposing the way this war is being carried out) is more complex than simply being anti-war. We need to maintain his general election viability.
If Dean's appeal was solely based on his anti-war stance, why don't we see comparable poll numbers and funds raised for Kucinich and Sharpton?
The pundits are just showing their usual laziness, stuffing Dean into a McGovern-ish mold that just doesn't fit. Money is coming and will continue to come; our candidate has established himself as a bona fide contender. Perhaps it took his anti-war stance to elevate him to that status, but whatever the outcome of this war, he's not going to disappear any time soon.
The debates (coming soon!) will force observers to see Dean's appeal for what it really is, beyond his positions on certain policies- the courage to tell the truth as he sees it, and the ability to make his message compelling.
The link in this story is wrong. It should go to
http://www.washtimes.com/comment...403-
5554412.htm
Though what you're doing reading the Wash Times I don't know 
The reason those opposed to the war have rallied around Dean is the same reason that he's going to be the next Democratic nominee and our next president. He's the only canidiate with an explicit and intelligent message to deliver. He'll do the same thing when it comes to health care, education, fiscal policy and all the other issues on which Bush's policies don't reflect America's values.
Dean's stances on issues show everyone that he is a real person, who has spent time thinking about these things and wants to do what it takes to move us to the next level without actually moving us to the next level right away. I see his policies as "bridge" policies, that is, he has the potential to become an effector of change historically. He is the only one with a plan to move the health system in this country forward, his stance on education is pure country doctor logic, his gun control position shows he's not a total reactionary leftie, and his abortion position shows he's not the kind of person who is willing to take rights away from people after they have been granted. On the foreign policy front, his desire to use the international institutions we have put in place to effect the kind of change we want to effect, through eloquent diplomacy strikes a real chord with those Americans (myself included), who regularly wince at the message coming out of Washington today. He also maintains, however, that the president should be ready to use the troops to fix problems only the troops can fix, regardless of international support, if there is an obvious threat to our nation. He is completely for real.
My link is correct -- it goes to the story in the Washington Post.
But FYI, I visit a LOT of different newspaper sites in order to get a variety of viewpoints. I don't march lock-step with anybody.
I think the great pitfall of the conventional wisdom is summed up in the phrase "plausibly look strong enough on defense not to doom the party." I think there is much to admire about John Kerry, but I think too many Democratic bigwigs are enamored of the idea that defense/national security are issues that can (and should) be "neutralized" or "taken off the table" by a war hero candidate. As the campaign against Max Cleland shows (regrettably), it's not hard to neutralize the "war hero" label; and as the snowjob on prescription drugs in last year's election showed, it's pretty easy to keep issues "on the table" if you've got enough money.
What's great about Gov. Dean is that he is not looking to "neutralize" certain issues-- he's willing to talk about them all, whether it's health care or the budget or the war. I think he deserves a lot of respect for taking bold stands and not being mealy-mouthed about them. That may be what is needed most of all in the 2004 general election.
Dean does present a problem to media types because they operate on a "genre" principle. Think of a western movie. When they were popular, people went to them with certain assumptions about what was going to happen. Every character fit an archetypal role that people could grasp. The best movies in a genre use those roles in creative ways to say something interesting. Politics is similar for media types. They look for how people fit into their archetypes of political candidacies in each party. Dean doesn't fit any. Or, he sorta fits one type on some issues, another on other issues. They don't know how to handle it. At least, not yet. But, that's what's so potentially exciting about his candidacy; he can re-invent the roles and redefine politics.
As for national security being such a vulnerability, I just don't see it. For a challenger in an election, his "gestalt," his physical and emotional presence, is what's most important (people thought GWBush was a "regular guy"!). And Howard Dean has a no-nonsense, takin' care of business air about him. He's the family doctor with 11 years of governing. I think this will be MUCH more important than his "Saddam's a regional problem not worth an internationally destabilizing attack" stance.
Jeff, the link in the headline of the story goes to a Washington Times story about the Texas sodomy case (it's actually pretty funny. He says the men were charged for "an act I won't describe here"). I assumed you wanted to link to the article they ran on 4/3 about Dean.
Anyway, I was kidding about reading the WashTimes.
Dean Is a real Democrat. Not a Republican lite. To win our base needs
to be mortivated to get out. He can
do that. We need someone who has
crediabilty on a different Forign Policy. He does. Unlike others he Is
strongly Pro Choice(Kerry and Edwards
couldn't even be bothered to vote on
the Partial Birth Abortion vote) his
Economanic,and environamental stance
Is what we need. He helped the Nurses
In Vermont Unionize so he Is not against Unions(unlike Lieberman) his
signing of the Civil Unions,and his
admittance that Al Gore won the 2000
Election will help him with Minorities. And he Is a true States
rights advocate which will help get
some of the Clinton voters back. And
can keep the Green Party at bay.
Oh! That link! Oops!