Centerfield

Allow me to say that Howard Dean doesn't need me to defend him; nor am I doing so in any case.

That said, I think it might be a good idea to remember that this is 2004 not 1992. Even Bill Clinton, I think, would appreciate that.

A lot has happened in 12 years. You all don't need me to remind you. The party is at a different crossroads now than it was in 92.

I believe Clinton saved the party in 92; that is his true legacy. But he saved it through sheer force of personality -- top-down.

To be viable now, the party needs to be invigorated from the bottom up.

I think that only happens if the party can define for itself the two or three things that it really stands for.

It won't do for it to be tactically smart; that was Clinton's genius and when Clinton went, so went the party.

The GOP is tactically smart but it also has a couple of ideas that define it: lower taxes, strong defense, less government. Argue all you want over whether it's baloney or not; but that is the position it holds in the public mind.

What is the position that the Dems hold?

That's a tough one. You could try any of the following:

*strong defense
*economic growth
*health care
*fiscal responsibility

Problem is, #3 and #4 might conflict under present fiscal circumstances. If you can find an agenda that includes both, it's golden. You have to succeed at #2 on the list to pull it off.

I am, of course, including "strong defense" on the Democrats list. Neither party should ever consider conceding that to the other.

Wow!

It's tough enough for a Northern Democrat to win (JFK was the last one)

Then to run as a dove on foreign policy and a Social Democrat on economic policy.

It will be a stunner if he actually wins. My estimate 11 months out--he'll do better than Mondale but worse than Dukakis.

*sigh*

Ok, does anyone else understand that Clinton didn't cause greatness but rather was elected into it? His economy is from the Reagan and Bush era work. I'm glad that Dean doesn't want to emulate Clinton...because Clinton wasn't that great of a republican. And saying he was the most successful democrat in the last 25 years isn't saying much because the only other democrat in the last 25 was Carter and we all know how that turned out...

**correction** I meant that Clinton wasn't that great of a democrat. My apologies, my mind is in a million different places at once and at times it's hard to think completely straight.

You could try any of the following:

*strong defense
*economic growth
*health care
*fiscal responsibility

#1 is owned by the GOP
#2 is too vague -- please clarify
#3 is too narrow -- please expand it.
#4 means balanced budget? If so, GOP gave it away, so the Dems can claim it.

Of course this is just my opinion, I might be wrong. But I doubt it.

Jon,

While the economy was coming out of a recession when Clinton came into power, he (i.e. Robert Rubin) nurtured it so that the expansion continued for quite a long time.

As Blair has conserved the best parts of Thatcherism, Clinton conserved the best parts of Reaganism. It's sounding like the Dean Democrats want to extirpate Reaganism root and branch.

What I'm hearing is a combination of the foreign policies of McGovern with Mondale's domestic program. As an Independent, I won't cry if the Democrats go down to defeat, but I certainly don't want the Republicans to win in a landslide.

#1 is owned by the GOP.

Why? I've personally had the sense over the last couple years, since 9/11, that the Bush team isn't that great at dealing with the myriad threats that face us. Reorienting our intelligence services, securing materials that could be used in catastrophic attacks, countering the threats arising in Iraq -- I sense, on the whole, that we're not doing a great job in the war on terror.

The Democrats should be talking about the real threats and what to do about them every time a microphone is put in front of them. They should talk about it in the "positive" sense -- e.g., what needs to be done and how to do it -- and criticize the president by contrast with that agenda. Instead, they *lead* with criticisms of the president and it all comes across as political.

#2 is too vague -- please clarify.

I think the best simple, shorthand way of staking claim to the economic issue is to advocate Clintonomics. You can offer the details, when asked -- controlling spending, fiscal responsibility, low interest rates, and middle-class tax cuts.

#3 is too narrow -- please expand it.

You're right. And I don't personally know how to do that. I see the health care system as a major issue, but one I don't understand well enough to have a preferred plan. There is this from the Committee for Economic Development, but I'm not sure if it's enough.

#4 means balanced budget? If so, GOP gave it away, so the Dems can claim it.

Yep.

After reading Dean's entire speech, I don't find the comment about Clinton to be a rejection of his policies. I'm not sure what it says but that simply proves that it's a part of the speech that's not well-written.

Here's the way I would say what Dean MAY have been trying to say: The 'era of big government' in the sense of 'bigger is better' is indeed over, but the GOP approach really offers no path forward -- they see government as an evil, even in its role of regulator.

And I find myself in agreement with much of what Dean describes as the challenge for the future. The relationship among govenment, business and individuals IS out of whack and although I don't agree with all the details of what Dean proposes, we do need to have a national discussion about these issues.

Nat'l Security: I prefer Clark's approach. Strong on defense while being a responsible member of the international community. Scrap the truly counter-roductive pre-emptive war idea.

Ecnomic Growth: I agree that Clinton wisely leveraged some of the Reagan-Bush policies. But the goal of economic growth should be full employment and an expanding MIDDLE CLASS -- not just expanding profits.

Health Care: I have no solution, but surely we can figure out a viable solution IF we have the political will. One of the best ideas I've heard is to decouple the responsibility of providing heath insurance from the employer-employee relationship. Government WILL have some role despite the commie-pinko-socialist comments from some. It's simply become too big an issue for government not to be a major actor.

Fiscal: We need to reduce long term debt. The devil is in the details, but let me offer this: surely we should do everything we can to assure the opportunity of a higher education for every young person of every economic situation. Can you explain how that would be a long term loser!?!

This isn't related at ALL, but why do they disinfect the seringe before administering lethal injections??
More.

Oh, and third, I have increased the size of the comments box. Enjoy!
Keep up this great resource.