Centerfield

Very interesting article. There's some discussion of how Dean might maneuver to the center over on Ruy Teixeira's site. Ruy recomments two basic steps, one of which is to abandon his plan to eliminate the middle-class tax cuts. I don't believe Dean can get away with that big a flip-flop, as bad as that policy will be for him.

There's also an analysis of Clark as the likely emerging "anti-Dean" over at Talking Points Memo.

It goes deeper than that, I think.

Right now he's so anti-Bush that his comments are alienating the exactly 50% that voted for Bush - he can't win without at least a few of those votes, but right now he's scaring non-Democrats. He will have to swing his entire campaign to from being anti-Bush to being pro-his agenda. That's easy to say, but he's been so far into the paranoia weeds that you otta wonder if it's atall possible.

(I wrote that last post)

I'm just not seeing the far-left paranoia on the part of Dean. I hear descriptions of it, but when I am actually exposed to what he's said, I don't find it. Instead, I find reasonable points. Here's something I sent one of my righty friends:

If people get around listening to the simplistic claim that Dean is anti-war in the same way as the most silly anti-Bush lefties, they'll come face to face with the things he's actually saying, which are likely to sound pretty reasonable to anyone who has any misgivings about the Iraq occupation/liberation.

I've spent months listening to people trying to ring the death-knell for Dean because "He's anti-war," but when I look into what he has actually said, I've found something a lot different. Some of the quotes below make me think he might sound pretty sensible to America if things in Iraq aren't going especially well:

"I am not among those who say that America should never use its armed forces unilaterally."

"I am not in the no-way camp. Definitely not. I think Saddam must be disarmed. The problem I have is that I have a deep reluctance to attack a country unilaterally without a pretty high standard of proof."

"I was impressed not by the vastness of evidence presented by the secretary, but rather by its sketchiness." Going to war, Dean said, requires either an international consensus or smoking-gun evidence of an imminent threat—not necessarily both, but one or the other. The Bush administration had neither. "

The president has never said what the truth is, which is if we go into Iraq we will be there for 10 years.... The president must tell us that before we go.

asked if he would favor a troop pullout, Dean said, "We can't do that. We cannot lose the peace in Iraq... If we leave Iraq to chaos, Al Qaeda may move in."

I come away with a completely different impression when listening to Dean on Iraq.

First of all, he clearly emphasizes the anti-war rhetoric. Which is somewhat discordant, at present, since we no longer have a choice as to whether to go to war in Iraq, but what we will do now that we're at war in Iraq.

E.g., his emphasis is on the decisions of the past. The emphasis of his current rhetoric is on the decisions of the past.

Second, while he's made some statements suggesting he supports staying and winning (as opposed to the Kucinich plan of withdrawing), he also at times seems to be playing both sides of that issue.

He doesn't strongly emphasize his commitment to stay and win. He states it when asked about it. And he combines it with policies that tend to minimize our commitment. He rejects the idea of sending more troops, and he opposed sending $87 billion in reconstruction funds.

He politicized that last issue -- criticizing Gephardt in a commercial running in Iowa for supporting the reconstruction funds.

Finally, he has occasionally lapsed into "withdrawal" type rhetoric -- saying twice at one of the debates that we should "bring the troops home".

Dean does not offer us a clear, forceful policy on Iraq. If he had, he might have my vote.

He doesn't have my vote right now either. I'm just suggesting that he is very cagily letting the anti-war left think that he is more anti-war than he is. I think one of the reasons he is focusing on Bush's past decisions is that this is where he can find common ground with the AWL and a strong rationale for getting Bush out. Right now, he's preaching to the converted, who aren't demanding specific answers to the "where do we go from here" Iraq question.

I'd say he seems to be banking on it being too late for the AWL to change horses when he begins changing his focus to attract moderate swing voters. I don't think he can win if he runs as anti-war, and i think he knows that, and is doing his best to look as anti-war as possible without actually making specific statements that can't be explained away when he begins stressing that we must stay the course. Statements in favor of bringing the troops home and against spending 87 million can be easily spun.

I have great faith that a presidential candidate has ample time to reinvent himself for general consumption after winning the party nomination. We might not like it, but that's the way you have to do it to some extent. The fact is that most people aren't listening right now, only junkies.

If Dean were running on his record as a Governor, many in the center would be comfortable with him. As a center-right Republican, I would.

But how is the real Dean, the current candidate, or the Governor? Will he be able to credibly come back to the center for November , and, if successful, will be willing to be a centrist president.

I think the hard core Dems do not want another Clinton centrist president.