Dean - antiwar candidate

We are on the eve of war on Iraq. Collectively, we deaniacs have been trying to make the case that Dean's apeal transcends his position on war, and have been striving to explain how his position is more complex than simple "no war" but hinges on recognition from the UN, without sacrificing America's sovereign right to act in defense.

However, as Bush goes to the nation tonight and delivers his ultimatum, it is important to switch gears and explain to anti-war Americans why Dean does truly reflect their views, despite the qualifications above.

Few Americans believe that all war is wrong and that war must never be waged for any reason - especially after 9-11 it is hard to find anyone but the most extreme left who advocate dismantling our armed forces or other such pacifist measures. Most Americans who are against war feel this way simply because they feel that the case for war has not yet been made.

President Bush no doubt believes that there is a strong case for war. However, he has not really made this case to the public. Implicit in Dean's position is the recognition that there must not only be a reason but that the people must be given that information. Dean would not view dissent as harmful - his administration would not seek to prevent rallies in New York City against war or threaten grave consequences when the Parliament of other sovereign nations such as Turkey vote in accordance with their people's wishes instead of his.

If we were to make a case for Dean to an American who is against war, how could we communicate these ideas effectively? Regardless of how the war goes (and it likely will go very well), how can Dean preserve the support of Americans who are anti-war but who may be dswayed by Bush's success? How can Dean remond people of the political environment today, 6 months from now?