Andrew Sullivan has some wise words over on his blog:

"And Dean could also save the Democrats from a left-wing split. In 2000 Al Gore lost in part because of the far-left Ralph Nader challenge. Dean has managed to bring these voters back into the fold without making any drastic policy commitments that could come back to haunt him. Kerry in comparison? Gore redux."

I've said it before: I think this is one of Dean's strengths as a candidate. But I also want to say a word on what I perceive to be a central problem with his campaign. Dean's lightning rod issue has always been the war. It was his early and vocal opposition that galvanized the Democratic base and "earned" him all those superdelegates that let him claim he's still in the race even if he loses across the board today.

But most voters--including, I suspect, most undecideds--didn't start off opposing this war. They had questions, yes, and probably have grave doubts about the way Bush has prosecuted the conflict since. But for a variety of reasons--fear of WMD, the dream of an democratic arab state, and just plain old patriotism--they were originally willing to give W the benefit of the doubt.

That's why, when the cards are down, Dean hasn't been able to get much traction among undecideds by blasting Kerry (and others) for their flip-flops on the war. In their hearts and minds, most voters are more closely aligned with Kerry's ambivalence. His early support and subsequent reversal resonate with them because it mirrors their own change of mind.

When Kerry says he was fooled by sexed-up pre-war intelligence, most americans think, "me too." And so, when he expresses his opposition to givng Bush a blank check now, it's perceived as strength not hypocrisy. By contrast, Dean's hard-line stance and constant haranguing of other candidates on the issue has made him look petulant and (worst of all for a democrat)weak on national security.

Months ago, I predicted to a friend that Dean was dead because of his early opposition to the war. (I believe my exact quote was: "Dean is done. Stick a fork in him.") As time passed and Dean's surge persisted, I wondered if that prognostication would prove my Waterloo.

But I really do think Dean is done this time if he can't pick up at least one state today. (And it's not looking good.) What's more, I suspect the issue that originally propelled him to the top will have been a driving force in his equally spectacular downfall. Pretty ironic, in the final analysis, dontcha think?


- posted by bigmouth @ 5:09 PM