LIEBERMAN VS DEAN

The John Kerry campaign has made a concerted effort to frame the upcoming primaries and caucus battles as basically a 2-horse race, between Kerry himself, and Howard Dean.

But increasingly, the bigger battle seems to be between Dean and the national poll leader (yeah, basically name ID), Joe Lieberman, the DLC's boy.

Lieberman, yesterday:

Lieberman is positioning himself as the foil to Dean, whose campaign has taken off on his criticism of Bush's tax cuts and the conflict in Iraq. Lieberman said those positions "could really be a ticket to nowhere."

"If George Bush and his bankrupt ideology are the problem, believe me, old Democratic policies like higher taxes and weakness on defense are not the solution," Lieberman said. "We need to reclaim the vital center of American politics for the Democrats."

Howard Dean, today:

"All you can do is be who you are and say what you think," Dean replied when asked if he was vulnerable to the plight of the short-term political phenomenom who fails when the party caucuses and primaries arrive. "We have an enormous number of supporters," he said.

Asked about assertions by some of his opponents that his candidacy is doomed to failure, Dean said, "Well, I'm sure those guys wish it were a ticket to nowhere. But we're the only ones who can beat George Bush."

Politics is perception, and both Lieberman and Dean are trying to take advantage of the fact that each is perceived as the alternative to the other. In relation to the budget, Dean's cred is right up there with Holy Joe, having consistently balanced the budged in a state where there is no requirement to do so.

IMO, given his record as governor, and what needs to be done to oust Bush, Dean is positioning himself perfectly. It is not as much that he has presented himself as more liberal than he really is, but that his passionate speeches were meant to tap into a broad dissatisfaction with the direction of the country, as well as an animosity towards Bush that exists in both liberal and moderate enclaves of the party.

For example, when Dean uses the Wellstone line about being "from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party", he doesn't mean "I am more liberal than my fellow candidates", but "I'm actually going to act like a member of the opposition, and not suck up to Bush and his phony war, and invite various pundits to invoke that Truman line about fake republicans"... or something like that. There was a good post to that effect over at Seeing the Forest a couple of months ago.

Dean has tapped the energy of the party's base, is attracting some outsiders, and has quite the armada of volunteers and an ever-growing cash flow for his campaign, all of which place him in the top tier of candidates, and in excellent shape to earn his party's nomination. Basically, he's generated his momentum through 1) principled opposition to the Iraq war, 2) tapping into the energy of the party base, 3) and a huge upswell of grassroots support.

When the general election campaign begins, out will come his moderate credentials, of which he has just about as many as Lieberman. The news weeklies were all over Dean this week, and from them springs what could be standard lines about the good Dr. Time, for example, seems to think that nominating Dean could spell potential trouble:

...[I]t's hard to imagine Dean's glorious season ending without disappointment. Either he will alienate the mainstream by tacking left in order to keep his troops in their combat sandals, or, more likely, they will shed a tear when they learn who he really is.

Conventional wisdom-types seem to like storylines like this one, because it's tried and true. Ross Perot was the renegade insurgent in 1992 but his support peaked because people noticed that he was, um, a shade nuts. Even McCain is just a slight half-step off of this storyline. At this point in the election cycle, however, neither of those guys had the support, numbers, contribution money and press that Dean is now receiving.

Also, Time's perception of Dean's support misses the mark, and underestimates his supporters significantly. It misreads the trends because of an attempt to equate forceful opposition to Bush with radical liberalism. When the general election comes, Dean will talk more about balancing the budget, and flash his other moderate and fiscal-responsibility cred, true enough. But he will still be doing so as a strong opponent of Bush. I also think many on the "left" have made a decision of ABB ("anyone but bush"), and appeals to moderate voters will not turn them off to Dean.

Over at the Nation's blog, they are pushing an analogy between Dean's position in the Democratic primary campaign with -- gasp -- Reagan in 1980. (link via kos) It is an interesting analogy, but in reality, there is a loooong, long way to go before Dean's campaign shows itself to resemble those of Reagan, Clinton, Carter, Goldwater or McGovern.

(hey, wasn't lieberman in this entry's headline?... yeah, but I've wasted enough space already)

UPDATE: okay, a little more on Lieberman. Hesiod reports on a press release from the RNC:

"Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) apparently understands what other Democrats don't, that those unwilling or unable to stop terrorist activity by dealing with it will be forced to deal with its aftermath:

"Some in my party are sending out a message that they don't know a just war when they see it, and, more broadly, are not prepared to use our military strength to protect our security and the cause of freedom." (Sen. Joe Lieberman, "Lieberman Takes President, Fellow Democrats To Task On Security, Foreign Policy," Press Release, 7/28/03)

A general rule of thumb is not to take advice on Democratic issues from Republicans. Looks like thumbs up to me.