Dean is not McGovern
A UPI article with an overview of the Democratic field makes the Dean-McGovern comparison:
Second, McGovern's campaign was focused largely on his opposition to the war. This is understandable because Nixon, despite being a paranoid guy who surrounded himself with reptiles like Kissinger and didn't have the courage to end the war in 1969, wasn't such a bad president overall. The opening to China and the arms controls overtures to the Soviets are achievements he deserves credit for, and on the domestic front he didn't get in the way of a lot of good things, like the creation of the EPA. In contrast, on every front Bush is easily the worst president since Harding, and Dean's campaign reflects a vision which encompasses much more than just the war.
Third, part of the reason McGovern lost is that American progressives were demoralized and fragmented after the events of 1968: the asassinations of RFK and MLK, Jr., and the tumultuous Democratic Convention in Chicago. This time, we're energized, confident, and determined to end the reign of the Bush cabal and take back America. And we will.
The first medical doctor to make a serious run for the presidency, Dean is firing up grassroots liberals with red-meat speeches attacking President Bush's Iraq policy and promising universal health care. A good comparison can be made to George McGovern in 1972 who capitalized on liberal opposition to Vietnam to win the 1972 Democratic nod. Dean should do well in the early New England contests, but will have to win big states to prove his electabilty. After all, McGovern lost by the greatest popular vote margin ever.I've been thinking about why Dean is not McGovern. First, McGovern was a soft-spoken old guard Democrat, a good guy, but not one to inspire, about a 3 in charisma on the 1-to-10 scale, according to my father. I would rate Dean an 8 or 9.
Second, McGovern's campaign was focused largely on his opposition to the war. This is understandable because Nixon, despite being a paranoid guy who surrounded himself with reptiles like Kissinger and didn't have the courage to end the war in 1969, wasn't such a bad president overall. The opening to China and the arms controls overtures to the Soviets are achievements he deserves credit for, and on the domestic front he didn't get in the way of a lot of good things, like the creation of the EPA. In contrast, on every front Bush is easily the worst president since Harding, and Dean's campaign reflects a vision which encompasses much more than just the war.
Third, part of the reason McGovern lost is that American progressives were demoralized and fragmented after the events of 1968: the asassinations of RFK and MLK, Jr., and the tumultuous Democratic Convention in Chicago. This time, we're energized, confident, and determined to end the reign of the Bush cabal and take back America. And we will.
Comments