THE NATION ON HOWARD DEAN

Nation editor David Corn from last March:

Meet The Nation: Howard Dean

During an interview, Dean acknowledges that he battled fiercely with the Progressive Party of Vermont. In fact, he's even boasted, "The Progressives hate me because they're all big liberals and I'm not, and I've stopped them on many occasions." What has Dean stopped them from doing? "Raising taxes, mainly," he says. "We believe that balanced budgets are important.... 'Progressive' in Vermont means something different than it does nationally. We are a pretty liberal state. It's not entirely out of keeping that I'm one of the more progressive people in the [presidential] race while still being a moderate at home, because if you believe in a balanced budget, that automatically disqualifies you from being a progressive [in Vermont]. And I think at the national level, that's not true." (Progressives in Vermont have criticized Dean for not pushing for a universal state-run healthcare program, for not providing sufficient financial support to state colleges, for underfunding the Agency of Natural Resources and for too often compromising with developers. In 2000 the Progressives ran a candidate against Dean, and their nominee attracted 9.5 percent of the vote--almost enough to cost Dean the election.)

Okay, so Dean makes a good point about the relativity of liberalism given national geography. He's positively a communist by Texas standards, but, still, he does not think of himself as a liberal, and that's something to consider. For instance, note his flaky views on Iraq:

On the stump, Dean has received the most notice for left-of-center stances: his antiwar position and his call for healthcare coverage for all. But on Iraq, Dean has issued what appear to be contradictory remarks. In a February speech he denounced Bush for "focusing...on the wrong war at the wrong time," claimed that he (Dean) was "not ready to abandon a search for better answers" and called for continuing inspections "as long as there is progress toward disclosure and disarmament." But previously, Dean proclaimed that Washington should issue Iraq a sixty-day deadline to comply with the UN resolutions and if it does not, then "we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq." Then, at a Democratic National Committee meeting on February 21, he attacked the Democratic Party leadership for "supporting the President's unilateral attack on Iraq." Aren't these various lines inconsistent?

Hmmm...not quite the flower-in-the-national-guardsman's-rifle type, I'd say. Nonetheless, I must admit to liking some of his positions (in the grand scheme of things, that is) especially on health insurance. He's no Kucinich, but then most Democrats aren't. So should I vote for Dean in the primary? Hmmm...

Click here for more.

And posted earlier today from the Nation's Washington correspondent John Nichols:

Gore's a Dean Man Now

And Gore, openly critical of advisers who counseled ideological and stylistic caution in 2000, is now closer to Dean on the issues than the talking heads recognize. The former Veep's public criticisms of the war on Iraq, the Patriot Act and the Bush Administration's economic policies match the tone and content of Dean's campaign far more than they do those of Lieberman or Gephardt.

But isn't Gore just a blast from the party's best-forgotten past, a sour SoreLoserman for Bill O'Reilly to kick around? That may be how Washington sees it, but Dean has been around the country enough to know that Gore is still greeted with rock concert roars at state Democratic conventions and Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners.

Wait, is Nichols suggesting that Gore is shifting to the left somewhat? That may cancel out some of the pro-corporate influence that worried me in my post on Monday. I also must again admit that I, too, am still pretty pissed off about the 2000 election theft, and I'd probably whoop it up for Gore, too, if given the chance...this is all very interesting.

Click here for more.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$