An email from a <$NoAd$>friend about the Dean post below …
From: “John B. Judis”
To: “Joshua Micah Marshall”
X-Mailer: Poco3 Beta (1700) – Licensed Version
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:42:41 -0500
Subject: DeanI share your sentiments completely. The only thing I’m semi-certain about is Dean’s lack of electability in November. I think it is because I lived through the McGovern campaign, as did some of those ex-Clinton people who have tried to pump up Clark. The similarities grow with every day. Not just the insurgent voter enthusiasm, the new ways of fundraising, and the bevy of flummoxed opponents, but also the economy (artificially stimulated by Nixon through the Fed and by Bush through the dollar just in time for election year) and the war (raging, but bound to quiet some by election time, and to raise prospects of peace). The economy deprives the Democrat of the issue that would allow him to attract working class votes; the war splits the Democrats, but not the Republicans. True, there are more “Starbucks” voters now than in 1972, but on the other side Bush is far more popular than Nixon was. Nixon was actually trailing Muskie in polls, which is why he thought he needed all the dirty tricks. I fear a cataclysm in the fall if the Democrats nominate Dean. Unfortunately, the alternatives are only slightly better.
John B. Judis
Senior Editor, The New Republic
Visiting Scholar, Carnegie Endowment
We’ll see. As I said in the post below, I think this race is far from over.
