How Howard Dean Can Win

By Keith Boykin, in politics
Monday, July 7 2003, 8:16AM

For the past 20 years, I've managed to predict every Democratic presidential nominee. I'm not certain Howard Dean is the right man for the job, but those who think he can't win are wrong. They would do well to spend more time building their own candidates than tearing down Dean.

In 1984, I knew Walter Mondale would win the Democratic nomination. He had to win. He was the presumptive nominee after serving as vice president in the previous Democratic administration under Jimmy Carter.

In 1988, I predicted Mike Dukakis would win. I signed on to work for his campaign in June 1987, long before anyone else thought he had a chance. In 1992, I supported Bill Clinton from the beginning. After seeing him speak at Harvard in 1991, I knew he would win the Democratic nomination. In 1996, everyone knew Bill Clinton would win again. And in 2000, I thought it was obvious that Gore would defeat Bill Bradley for the nomination.

If I had to make a prediction right now, I would guess Howard Dean would win the Democratic nomination. He's not perfect. He may not even be mainstream. But he's the one candidate I think who can beat Bush.

Sure, Joe Lieberman has more name recognition, Dick Gephardt has more experience, and John Edwards has a better chance to do well in the South. And then, of the course, the press seems to love John Kerry.

For all those reasons, the media pundits and the party strategists dismissed Howard Dean's chances months ago. When he began to surge in the past few weeks, Dean came under closer scrutiny than ever.

Turns out he's not the perfect populist candidate many thought he might be. He has warts and blemishes just like everyone else. He has not always been consistent, and he's not always prepared for his media appearances.

The pundits jumped all over Dean's performance on "Meet The Press" when he couldn't answer Tim Russert's question about the number of active troops in the U.S. military. I was more stunned by the sloppy advance team that enabled a huge Green Party sign to block out the smaller Howard Dean signs as the backdrop when he announced his candidacy.

No, Dean is not a perfect candidate. But neither was Bill Clinton. Who would have expected a draft-dodging, pot-smoking, confessed adulterer to win the party's nomination in 1992 and then win the presidency, twice? There's a lesson to be learned here.

Clinton spent so much time defending himself from early charges of scandal in the 1992 primary campaign that he developed essential survival skills that eluded the other candidates. Dean may very well develop the same skills as he comes under attack from party officials anxious to block a liberal candidate from bearing the standard in 2004.

The party regulars are scared because they know Dean has potential. Although labeled a dark horse candidate, Dean raised more money in the second quarter than any other Democratic contender. And fundraising is considered the "first primary" in the campaign.

Ron Klain, an adviser to former vice president Al Gore, is not as impressed by Dean's fundraising. Klain reminded the Washington Post recently that Bill Bradley had outraised Gore in the second quarter of 1999, only to lose every primary and caucus in 2000. As Klain told the Post, "The issue is, is he peaking too soon and are his supporters the kind of folks who vote in Democratic primaries?"

It seems to me, Klain has it wrong. Howard Dean is not Bill Bradley. Bradley's campaign was a pipe dream from the beginning. Much like Ted Kennedy's unsuccessful 1980 campaign against Jimmy Carter, Bradley's insurgent campaign tried to unseat the presumptive nominee from inside the party.

This year is different. With Gore out of the race and no incumbent in the White House, the field is wide open to all candidates. And Dean, unlike Ralph Nader, for example, is a credible candidate with a record of elective office.

But there's another angle that the Democrats in power just don't seem to understand. Howard Dean taps into legitimate left-wing dissatisfaction with President Bush. He stood up to the president on the war with Iraq and he is standing up to the president on the economy.

What's the point of having an opposition party if they're afraid to lead the opposition? While some Democrats seem afraid to challenge Bush, Howard Dean seems to do so defiantly. For Democrats to show up at the polls, they need to feel excited about the candidates. Howard Dean offers that excitement. He's a fresh new face. He's an outsider. And he's got the credibility of government experience.

No matter how the mainstream candidates repackage themselves, Democrats won't be as excited about warmed over politicians playing it too safe to inspire them. President Bush led the country into a deceitful war with Iraq, ran up trillions of dollars in new debt, gave away billions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthy, and cut services for the middle-class and poor. If the Democrats can't find a candidate to capitalize on that record, they don't deserve to win.

Maybe Howard Dean can do it. I'm not 100 percent sure, but I do know this. After blowing up so quickly, Dean will not fizzle out slowly. Instead, one of two outcomes is likely. Either his campaign will self-destruct dramatically or he will win dramatically. Right now, I'm betting he'll win.

Help support this site and make a contribution today!

Comments (6) reveal