The Scream
Dylan Hogarty '06
Issue date: 2/24/04 Section: Spectator Views
Shortly after the outcome of the Iowa caucus became known on a Monday night in January, former Vermont governor Howard Dean took the stage to concede defeat. What ensued was arguably one of the most embarrassing political moments ever captured on television. Dean, for those of you who have not seen it, began screaming as he listed the states in which he would campaign in the coming weeks. (As it turned out, his campaign did not last long enough to make it to most of the states he mentioned). He then concluded his rant with a primordial shout that journalists have still not figured out exactly how to transcribe. For those of you eager to relive this moment of passion, you can hear it set to music at www.deangoesnuts.com. Many political commentators described it as a major blunder on Dean’s part, a catastrophic loss of focus in his quest for the presidency. I must respectfully disagree with this assessment. The scream was not a momentary departure from a calm, reasoned effort. On the contrary, it was a lot like the whole campaign, which was, in the end, a burst of anger about a single issue. It was not a comprehensive effort to change America (liberal parlance: “take it back”). Looking back, the amazing thing is that Governor Dean got as far as he did. For this, I begrudgingly give him some credit. I must also wonder in amazement at what so many people were thinking when they jumped on his bandwagon, including Al Gore, Bill Bradley, Jim McGreevey and a host of other Democratic notables. (Editor’s note: We have not heard much from any of these folks lately). We are all also left to wonder what might have been. Had he controlled his characteristic rage that night, might Howard Dean have bounced back in New Hampshire? We’ll never know because on that night in Iowa, Democrats realized he was not fit to run to be commander-in-chief. Democrats also came to the realization that while many of them were charmed, most Americans were not drinking the punch, mainly because most Americans actually like President Bush and do not want to hear all the negativity Dean carried with him. So Democrats turned to John Kerry. With the impressive John Edwards still in the race and making a strong showing in Wisconsin on February 17, it is too early to declare a winner, but Kerry is in a strong position. So it’s probably worth looking at his campaign for a moment. Kerry, like Dean, deserves some credit. Two months ago he was forced to mortgage his house to pay for his campaign, which was widely considered dead in the water. Nevertheless, it’s important to ask the question, is John Kerry the best candidate for the Democrats and the best candidate for president? One refreshing thing about Dean was that he was totally new. This diminutive New Englander was something quite different on the national stage. By contrast, in John Kerry, the Democrats have managed to combine the worst qualities of most of their presidential candidates for the past forty years. Kerry has all the elitism of the other JFK from Massachusetts yet lacks the allure of Camelot; he has the national security gravitas of George McGovern, the incoherence of Jimmy Carter, the economic sense of Walter Mondale, the law and order approach of his old boss Michael Dukakis, the waffling of Bill Clinton and the micromanaging style and phony populism of Al Gore. Because he stayed under the radar screen for most of the fall, Kerry has not received the scrutiny that other Democrats like Howard Dean has. But in coming months he will. From charges of Botox treatments to his condemnation of the war in Iraq after voting for it, it will surely be interesting.