Mmm... an interesting perspective. However, since he is simultaneously trying to "support Bush and oppose Bush", it is unlikely that he will use his credentials to attack Bush.
And I do not believe he is at all interested in changing the country. He has been in Congress long enough. As you sugegsted, what has he really done?
He's just like Bob Dole to me (i.e a sense of entitlement - "we owe it to him now").
(P.S. -I remember reading with amusement a few months back a piece by NYT's Bill Keller in which he cited how creepy it was that Kerry had his "heroism" on film for all to see - hmm - a "win the nomination, free" card, perhaps?)
First off, I gotta say that I am really glad that Kerry and Dean have (publicly anyway) seemed to tone down the "feud" since the debate. And I realize that this blog is our chance to opine, vent, whatever and so obsessing about Kerry is only natural, especially considering the nastiness to come out of Lehane's mouth.
Buuuuut, am I the only one getting a tad tired of the Kerry-Dean thing? That includes reading anything that Kerry does or say or doesn't do or doesn't say as evidence of how much Dean is threatening him. It's official, okay. Kerry has his knickers in a twist over Dean. Yep, this helps him establish himself as a "real" candidate. The only place this is going to matter is New Hampshire. Yeah, that's important, but whether or not Dean comes in first OR second, it'll be news and give him a push. There's a little matter of the primaries after that. And the constant carping/crowing/sniping between the two camps, if it continues or escalates, may well come back and bite 'em in the ass in those states because both of their messages are being drowned out by the "feud." Not to mention that when Dean gets the nomination he's going to really NEED Kerry's supporters. Won't happen if trashing Kerry becomes the raison d'etre of the primary.
Don't forget that the electorate consistently values style over substance (how else to explain the current resident of the White House?) A lighter touch, humor, a Reaganesque "There you go again" response from the Dean camp would be a heck of lot more effective than the "gotcha" stuff and sarcasm and Kerry-bashing. Hell, I'm a Dean supporter and I've already got KDF (Kerry Dean Fatigue)over the bickering. I know it takes "sharp elbows" to advance in the primaries but it's starting to look less like that and more like "running with scissors." From both camps.
Just my take anyway. . .
eileen
From one Eileen to another 
: I agree 100%. Also, I must say this: Despite our upset over how the Kerry campaign is being run, and despite our strong preference for Dean to win the nomination rather than Kerry (or any of the other seven), let's not be unduly blind. "What has Kerry done really?" Plenty. He is an enormous asset to the Senate and always has been. He has been on the right side of almost every issue I can think of, even if he is now over-playing politics and trying to have it both ways now on the war and tax cuts.
My point is, in the grand scheme of things, Kerry is not the enemy. Yes, we have to beat him now if we want Dean to be the one to beat Bush. But beating Bush is the ultimate goal and realistically, Kerry may just wind up being the one nominated to try to do that. I'm trying to remember that even though we can do better than Kerry (and hopefully, we will) we could also do a lot worse.
i agree and accept your critique, Eilieen.
There is a difficult mjiddle ground. I woudl still vote for Kerry over Bush. But we have to thread the needle between doing Democrats harm in general and not critiquing Kerry enough regarding the Dem. nomination. I think our purpose is noble, though of course we might err on one side or another, being human.
what disturbs me is that Kerry seems to be focused too much on his self interest. His tactics are incrdibly harmful to the entire field. Dean has been an exemplar of restraint, the only misstep by the campaign on this was posting to the Notepad too much about it. Hardly a major flub.
We do have to call Kerry out on these tactics so that they cant continue. Its bad to squabble. But leaving teh issue alone, and leaving Kerry free to continue these tactics, is going to be more harmful. I hope Kerry switches targets soon because that would benefit him as well as teh Dems.
Kerry must win NH or he's done. It's that simple. Unfortunately his attacks won't end anytime soon I don't think.
Kerry does not wear well over time. Few will want spend 4 years listening to him daily.
Governor Dean's passion (or lack thereof) cost him. His closing remarks were great, but his passionless read ruined any effect.
Dean's coherent and sensible national security views lack the riffs (e.g. "no Rep balanced budget in 34 yrs", "through 2 Bush recessions") that communicate his domestic views and commitment.
We all should remember that Kerry might be the nominee, and if we want to beat Bush we should be reserving our anger for Bush, not using it on Kerry.
I think it's wise for Kerry to save the Bush AWOL issue for the general campaign. It's too early for it to have enough effect on the election if it were to become a major news story right now. It should wait until Bush is in the middle of trumpeting his Glorious Leader militarism thing and then hit him with it. I agree Kerry is the best one to raise the AWOL issue AND the "chickenhawk" issue. When Dean is the nominee, Kerry can raise the issue.
I can't really blame Kerry for reacting to what the SF Chronicle said that Dean had said. The Chron issued a retraction the next day, and in the "debate" thingy Dean pointed this out, said he supports Kerry on that issue, and the whole thing was dropped.
All that said, I think Dean is by far the best person to lead the country into the after-Bush.
Oh, don't get me wrong. . .(and sorry if this sounds contradictory) I don't necessarily hope that Kerry switches targets. It really makes him look small and actually helps Dean. IF - and it's a big IF - the response from Dean (and his staff) is humorous, reasoned, and short. In other words - dismissive without trashing and steering to things Dean wants to talk about that are issue-oriented. It would show who the grownup was, avoid alienating Kerry supporters, and deliver the message that if there's a feud going on, Dean's not playing their games.
I was dismayed to read one pundit opine that the question about Dean, after the "war" was over, was "what will his message be now?" His new message, they said, was that he could attack and fight with Kerry. And since that's the major Dean story that followed his anti-war stance, they have a point. (Especially since Gephardt trumped Dean on health care.)
I just don't think that replacing "Dr. Dean" with "Mean Dean" is going to work in the long run.
Sometimes I think our anger over Bush & Co. blinds us to the fact that it's the optimistic and hopeful messengers who win. Bush knows it, and god knows, Clinton knew it. Anger is fine, if it comes across as a passionate belief in our country and offers a message of hope, that stirs our better instincts. Anger is fine, if it segues into a challenge to the country and asks something of us. Anger is fine, if it doesn't come across as bitterness and sourness and scolding. It's a fine line to tread, I know. And Dean's final speech at the debate illustrated it beautifully. I just don't want it to be trumped - in the media and by his supporters - by sourness and pettiness and digs.
Again, just my take.
eileen
i just think kerry is shamelessly exploiting his military record in a way that should make veterans uncomfortable. the reason i voted for McCain last time, despite disagreeing with 90% of his politics, was he seemed to have genuine humility about his service and his heroism and never felt compelled to tout it at every turn (cause others were doing it for him), but i got the sense that he was really uncomfortable about using it politicaly. the way kerry is using his military service just disgusts me and i'm disappointed with all the Dems i hear who want him to be the nominee just because he was a soldier and Bushy wasn't. somehow it will take more than that.
Speaking of McCain, a female relative of mine who is a 50-something lifelong Democrat would absolutely love to see a Dean/McCain ticket.
This may be more of a debate starter comment but I think it says quite a bit about 1) the recent path of the Democrat party, and 2) the appeal of honest, straight-talking politicians in this day and age.
Actually, I disagree. I think it's understandable to wait for the general election campaign to bring out the big guns on Bush. However, Gore's campaign was very tough on Bradley in the primaries and then rather placid about attacks from Bush, and they have a lot of the same people. So we could have a repeat of that if Kerry wins the nomination.
I don't mind Kerry using his war record, either--he risked his life, he showed a lot of courage--and I find his opposition to the war afterwards really impressive too. The problem is right now he is ONLY running on his war record.
If he refuses to take strong, clear positions on national security issues today, he is going to lose the advantage his medals give him.
McCain's too hawkish to ever agree to be on Dean's ticket (doubt he would agree to be on any Democrat's ticket, honestly.)
Agree Katherine, just trying to make a point about trends among Democrats. She doesn't expect it in the least.
Quick question for anyone out there: did Kerry vote for or against the first round of tax cuts?
Allan Todd, Kerry voted against. I believe all the Democratic presidential contenders were against.
Thanks, I couldn't remember! Just making sure he didn't go along with Bush on anything other than the war (which is bad enough).
Well, he DID vote for a $350 billion tax cut this time around. Yes Bush wanted more but the Senate Rebublicans got their tax cut with the help of Kerry, Lieberman, and Edwards.
it's tricky to attack that $350 vote. basically, if Dems DIDN'T vote for it, Bush was going to get ALL of his $700 million. so it was a compromise (which obviously would NEVER have been the case if Dems still controlled Congress). would it have been smart for Dems to vote for a NO tax cut amendment, knowing it was doomed to fail? I don't know. if i were Dean, i'd be careful about using that vote.
Mr. Trippi,
We may not be able to attack Bush for his AWOL status the way Kerry could, but our guy can still go on the offensive for the made for TV event last week. Bush doesn't get to parade around in a jump suit when he's cutting veteran's benefits to the tune of $6.2 billion (down from the $28 billion proposed by the House Republicans).
Attack Bush on veteran's benefits and make this -OUR- issue before one of the other campaigns grabs it.
Eileen raises a good strategic point:
Kerry is going to attack Dean. He pretty much has to, because as we all know, if he doesn't win NH he's basically toast. That's the disadvantage of being the front-runner, you're providing all the wind resistance (just like in cycling).
Knowing this, Dean has an opportunity to pull some political jujitsu (and he was a wrestler...) - give short, relatively light-hearted answers to everything Kerry says. By doing so Kerry is saying "Dean is a threat", Dean is saying "Kerry is not a threat."
Stay focused on why Dean is better than Kerry, not why Kerry is bad.
IHL: I think it would have been smarter to vote no. The tax cut HAS to be repealed in the long term (hopefully January 2005); now the $350 bill has Democrat fingerprints on it and will be harder to attack. Plus, Bush probably wanted $300 and just asked for $700 to make sure he'd get what he wanted. He's playing hardball and the Senate is playing catch.
DAmienWG: Good point on the vet benefits vs. Bush playtime. He cannot be allowed to "own" the national security issue.
IHL wrote:
"would it have been smart for Dems to vote for a NO tax cut amendment, knowing it was doomed to fail?"
We had 50 no tax cut votes (47 Dems, Jeffords, McCain, & Chafee). All we needed was one more Republican defector. Daschle wanted a cut to pass. He just didn't want it to be irreparable.
DAmienWG, I smiled at your plea to make supporting our troops / cutting vet benefits Dean's issue before one of the other campaigns grabs it.
When I was a kid and I'd put my name on the chocolate milk container in the frig. Dibsies! Only to return to an empty container. 
... Hey! No Fair!
"We may not be able to attack Bush for his AWOL status the way Kerry could, but ..."
Well Kerry just may not get around to that. There seems to be a little problem. He doesn't appear to be taking NH, IA or SC. It's a little tough be the anointed one these days. He put his name on the milk container and now some Vermonter is over there churning up a batch of ice cream.
Aziz, it would be too much of a gift for Kerry to address Dubya's service record right now - read, I think it would be a mistake on Kerry's part. The rest of us could look on in innocent wonder and cluck, "My my, what has gotten into those boys? WE do not vote for what a man was in his long ago youth - hero or reprobate; WE vote for the future that the man-they-have-become will lead us into."
Dean/McCain National Unity ticket. That would play big with independents. Failing that, we can still hope for Dean/Clark
This is a stupid question, but I am new-what DID Howard Dean do during Vietnam?