Rough Christmas for Howard Dean, eh? From The Washington Post editorial page -- which signals its posture by referring to him as "Mr. Dean," not "Dr." or even "Governor" -- to, more stingingly, a growing chorus of his fellow Democratic candidates, Dean has been administered fresh lessons in loathing and envy, and surely more are on the way.
Some of the criticisms of Dean have crossed the line. Joe Lieberman in particular has behaved appallingly. No Democratic candidate should ever say that Democrat X can't win in November, as Lieberman has said and/or hinted repeatedly of Dean. Suppose Dean becomes the nominee. How does Lieberman endorse him? The answer is that either he doesn't, which would be an act of apostasy that should get him thrown out of the party, or he does, but in such a way as to be completely meaningless. In any event, he has already made it as clear as spring water to his supporters, such as they exist, that if Dean's the nominee, they might as well sit it out.
But for whatever reason, St. Joe enjoys the protective immunity of the pundit class, so he'll never be reproached for his behavior in the way that he deserves. Criticisms and attacks are fine, but saying, repeatedly, that a member of one's own party will lose in November is way, way, way out of line -- it's the kind of mischief one would have expected from Al Sharpton.
And, because Lieberman's pundit protectors seem intent on equating him with the Clintons, it should be noted that the Clintons, however they may feel privately about this race in general and about Dean in particular, have publicly spoken very differently than Lieberman has. Bill Clinton told me for the November issue of the Prospect: "I don't believe that either side should be saying, 'I'm a real Democrat and the other one's not,' or, 'I'm a winning Democrat and the other one's not.' . . . [T]hese kind of ad hominem attacks . . . are dead-bang losers." The first formulation is an implicit criticism of Dean, to be sure; but the second one is an equally clear warning against the kind of game Lieberman has been playing. As for Hillary, she was asked point-blank in early December if Dean could beat George W. Bush. She did not equivocate or play any kind of coy game. "Sure," she said. "Absolutely. Any of our candidates can. Whoever emerges from this nominating process will be a competitive candidate. We can put together a winning combination to take back the White House, and that's what I'm going to work on."
So Lieberman -- and, to a lesser extent, Dick Gephardt and John Kerry -- are playing dirty pool. They would all do well, with each in his own way clambering to grasp the Clinton mantle, to emulate the Clintons' example here. And Dean is absolutely right that Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe should have quietly drawn a line in the sand weeks ago: Attacks on policy grounds are totally fair game, but attacks on electability are beyond the pale.
Dean, however, has handled this mess poorly from his end as well. For him to say, as he did the other day, that his support is "not transferable anymore" to another candidate brings him almost down to Lieberman's gutter level. And he should not have chided McAuliffe publicly; that's the sort of thing you say quietly over the cell phone, not loudly through the press.
I'm on record as writing that the Deanophobic Washington establishment ought to give some thought to trying to understand the Dean phenomenon instead of reflexively rejecting it, and should start thinking about making its peace with Dean, who after all stands a strong chance of being the nominee. I stand by those assertions. But traffic on these political streets flows two ways: It's also incumbent upon Dean to give the Washington Democratic establishment some reasons to believe in him and in his electability.
It's just three weeks now until the caucus-goers of Iowa assemble to send forth a candidate, and for Dean they will be three crucial, delicate weeks. He has his core supporters; of that there's no doubt. But now arrives the moment when Dean, if he is indeed going to secure the nomination and become a credible general-election candidate, has to start thinking more about the voters who aren't already part of his movement than the ones who are. He needs to start brandishing his centrist credentials, and he should think a little more before he opens his mouth sometimes. Most of all, he must refuse to get dragged down to his opponents' level by responding to their attacks.
The Bush campaign plans to paint Dean as angry and pessimistic. There's a very simple way for him to appear sanguine and optimistic -- and, by the way, presidential. He needs to start today.
Michael Tomasky is the Prospect's co-editor and executive editor.
