Howard Dean as a Model Candidate

In the in midst of this chaotic presidential season, while we wait for the people of Guam to help finally crown a Democratic nominee, I took a few moments today to look back on a quieter, simpler time -- and by that I mean, of course, the 2004 presidential race. And it occurred to me how something somewhat strange happened in that race that went somewhat unnoticed outside the Beltway: Howard Dean passed fairly seamlessly from being a leading candidate to the head of the Democratic National Committee.

Now, that's kinda like running for homecoming queen and instead being happily appointed head of the student council events committee. It's not a glamorous post. It probably involves more headaches than huzzahs. But proms just don't throw themselves, and if your devotion is to your compatriots more than your own glory, it's not a bad job to fill.

It's a cliche that politicians are consumed by blinding personal ambition, that compels them to surmount every obstacle and tear down every foe on their way to a particular office or legislative accomplishment. I don't know how true that really is. But Dean's transition at least from candidate to party chair is a case study in one politico actually wanting to do the hard work of making the trains run on time, getting money in the bank, and making sure all the moving parts of the party run smoothly (or at least don't bring the party to a grinding halt.)

We're too late into this nomination process and I value my peace and quiet too much to turn this post into a commentary on Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. But there's something to be said for taking into consideration what a defeated candidate might do after the will of the people leans against them. For better or for worse, politics on the national level is a team sport. And you have to wonder who is going to keep playing the game, hard, and who is going to take their ball and go home. I'd argue that the example of Howard Dean -- a losing candidate who just figured out another way to contribute, and significantly -- isn't a bad model to hold our candidates up against.

Comments

[dcswampfox]

Just because Obama and Hillary have record numbers of supporters does not mean they will join forces for the Fall. Why democratic leaders are assuming this is a mystery to me.

[tbone99]

Maybe Dean could pull a Cheney, who, when assigned to find a good vice president - looked no farther than the mirror , and the rest is history.

The fact that he was willing to take on on the thankless job of directing the DNC instead needing to be head celebrity, certainly attests to his lack of ego and willingness to build the party over time to represent the values he finds important.

This is so unlike many of the supporters of the two candidates presently running who are threatening to sit this one out or vote McCain, without regard for anything but their own selves, like two year olds throwing a temper tantrum. Democracy is not a popularity contest , it is a construction built by thousands of efforts , many of them seeming like two steps forward and one step back. However it is that continued selfless perserverance that will bring us closer to our goal, not petty ego games.

[bluesnot]

Dean does real work. He doesn't just talk about doing it.

[Dunnage]

The Idiot could cost us Florida in the fall.

[bluesnot]

Dunnage. Washington insider. How's the bubble been treatin' you?

[Lexie]

Howard did not personally cause that problem. It was a committe within the DNC that voted for those rules. I agree, they are very stupid rules, but HE did not cause that problem. And his 50-state strategy has been brilliant. He is a good man.

[rwilliams1961]

Considering the building success of his 50-state plan, his standing up to the Clinton machine when he instigated that plan, and his bringing the anti-war movement to the presidential race (the first time round), I'd be glad to do my part:

HUZZAH to Howard!

[qwr]

Dean lost Iowa because of fear. Kerry's famous criticism of Dean was that the voters should select a candidate and not a critical position (of the war). I disagree. We in fact should choose based on votes, positions, and actions. In this election, the choice is easy:
Obama: a centrist with some progressive leanings
Clinton: a Repub or a Dem based on which way the wind is blowing, and worse than most repubs when it comes to corporate influence
Edwards: a progressive in speech and a Repub in action.

Perhaps Dean's problem was that he expressed what many of us were feeling when he said that he represents the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party."

[FearlessFreep]

Liberals rejected Dean because he was TOO exciting. Idiots!

[BlueAsh]

Howard Dean was trashed and dropped by the mainstream media ostensibly over his "scream," but apparently his earlier criticism of the MSM precipitated it. That and his stance on women's right to choose.

Dean has done a tremendous amount in the short years as the Chairman of the Dem. Party. He brought a fresh perspective to, and re-energized, the tired old Dem Party.

But it was not exactly a smooth transition for him. His insurgence and his success, during the primary season and after it, have been driving the likes of Carville crazy. Carville hardly has anything kind to say about Dean. Ever since Dean replaced McAuliffe (a Clinton faithful) and began implementing measures to reach out to all 50 states (versus focusing on the "big" states as the Clintons have done), the Clintons and Carville have been trying to destroy Dean.

What makes Dean different from the Clintons is the fundamental decency in this man. Throughout his run for the party nomination, Dean didn't do anything destructive to his Party or the democratic process. He didn't poison the relationship between his supporters and that of other candidates. Despite all the negative press on him in recent years, he has kept his focus and steadfastly pursued the 50-state strategy, which resulted in the Dem's comeback in 2006.

Given the current situation, Hillary ought to be the one to model herself on Dean--given what she has done, I just can't see that happen.

[Desiderata]

I remember the wails by the likes of Carville, McCallop(I know the name's spelled wrong, but ol' Terry ain't worth my time to look up the correct spelling) and others that Dean wasn't giving all the money he raised for the party to the Congressional and Senate races. These idiots think all that matters is power in Washington DC. Dean knew power is supported from the bottom up: in mayors, state houses, governorships.

The party is now a 50 state party thanks to Howard Dean. The "elites" of the Democratic Party are reflected in the faces of their most elitist members__the Clintons__when power is all that matters, not party nor country.

[dreamsmasher]

Rather than praise someone who shouldn't even be a dog catcher why don't you place blame like the Democrats always do, all of this turmoil and destruction of the Democrat party has happened on Howard Deans watch, so because the Democrats always place blame on whatever Republican is President for anything/everything that happens during his administration I think it only logical that all the blame for the shortcomings and failures of the Democrat party be laid at the feet of none other than HOWARD DEAN!

Heeve ho, Howard Dean has got to go!!!!!!!!

[Lexie]

I always know when an ignorant person is speaking because they don't even know that the party is called the "Democratic Party." When you say "Democrat Party," you sound like Jethro Bodine.

[dreamsmasher]

If that's all you can come up with then I would say that you are the ignorant one, after reading some of your previous post's it's obvious that you are.
It's also obvious that you believe anything and everything that the DEMOCRATS say without question.

Believe me the "Democratic Party" has much more to be worried about than it's members being said to belong to the "Democrat Party"

Democrat Party is a political epithet used in the United States by some people (in many cases, conservative commentators or some members of the Republican Party in speeches and press releases) instead of the name (or more precisely, the proper noun) Democratic Party.

Many members of the Democratic Party object to the term. New Yorker commentator Hendrik Hertzberg wrote: "There"s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. 'Democrat Party' is a slur, or intended to be - a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but 'Democrat Party' is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams 'rat.'" [1]

The above definition is as defined by WikipediA.

With this in mind, yes I think it's fitting.

I feel that Howard Dean should bear the blame for all the bad that has beset the DEMOCRAT PARTY, you yourself want to blame Bush for all the problems that have happened during his administration, don't believe me? Read your own postings!

[tbone99]

Hey- for us single letter typists, it's two less letters.

[abigail1]

we just picked up another long time republican house seat. The stories of the destruction of the Democratic party have been greatly exaggerated.

[dreamsmasher]

Wow I'm so happy for you but the Democrat party is one day closer to extinction due to Obama and Clinton.
If you think that all of the in-fighting among the Democrat party is good then more power to you.

[blaqntelligence]

After all the noise flying around about what a spineless wimp Howard Dean es, this tribute to his service is both uplifting and enlightening. Thank you.

[Gma11]

He always said the movement was not about him.

I supported Wes Clark last time around. Because I read about him in Samantha Powers' prizewinning book, "The Problem From Hell," and because Powers supported him. I really didn't know much about him. I do think he would have made an excellent president. But I was horribly disappointed when he supported Hillary. I certainly accepted it. Their friendship is a long one - all sharing the Little Rock background. And I still could have confidently (although not enthusiasticallly) voted for Hillary up through Super Tuesday. After Wisconsin, my home state, I became sickened that Clark was still supporting her. I've come to associate those who are deeply involved in her campaign with her tactics. Recently I saw Clark on Abrams' show and had to get up and turn the television off.

In hindsight I wish I would have supported Dean.

We badly need a party that belongs to the people again. I admire and fully support Dean's 50-state efforts - and Obama's as well.

[WASanford]

it's called knowing how to lose, something the Democratic party is expert at. Haven't you noticed what a f**k**g mess they've made of their own primary?

[abigail1]

we're getting record turn out, record fund raising, record involvement of voters of every stripe. The candidates have organizations in all states laying the groundwork for an amazing run in the fall. if that is a mess, it is a beautiful one indeed.

[standard]

"Knowing how to lose"? That's an interesting phrase. What part of reclaiming a majority in both houses of Congress--including all but one House seat in New England--competitiveness in the Presidential race in New Mexico and Colorado, picking up a seat in Louisiana just yesterday and growing strength in Virginia and Iowa constitutes losing?

I'm unconvinced, so I'll just reflect on another interesting phrase: "wishful thinking".

In fact, let's try out both phrases in a sentence:

"The Bush-Cheney war in Iraq has been all about knowing how to lose."
"The Bush-Cheney war in Iraq has been all about wishful thinking."

Interesting!

[tbone99]

The Bush Cheney totally BLEW the conservative 30 year plan to take over the gov'nt