Dean's Position: The capture of Saddam has not made America safer.

In the very first question, which was about the capture of Saddam, Edwards responded:

Well, the truth is that Saddam's capture and the trial of Saddam Hussein, which the entire world will be able to see when it takes place, is going to reveal the atrocities that he's been engaged in and some of the incredible conduct that's occurred in Iraq during the time of his reign.

The reality of protecting the American people is, there's a still great deal of work to be done. I mean, the president claims that he's keeping people safe in this country.

He then went on to outline the ways in which the country is vulnerable because the "homeland" (Sieg, Heil!) is not really being protected. The unspoken meaning of his response was: we are not safer at home simply because Saddam has been capture. Edwards didn't say it as bluntly as Howard Dean, but that was the gist of his answer to the question.

The question in a slightly reworded form was then put to Carol Moseley-Braun, who didn't mince words, but said about Saddam's capture "I've always maintained it had nothing to do with -- or little to do with keeping the American people safe." She then went on to outline all the things we should have been doing instead (mostly pursuing Al Quaeda). Moseley-Braun was presenting Dean's argument for why America is not really safer.

Kerry was next asked a different question, but he took the time to point out that Saddam was "way down the list, with respect to the targets, even on the Pentagon's own list of targets." This is not an endorsement of Dean's assessment of the safety of America, but it goes along with Dean's main point, that it was the wrong war. And this from someone who voted for it.

First, let me say that the capture of -- overthrow and then capture of Saddam Hussein has made America safer and made the world safer. It has not ended all of our problems or all the threats to our security, but a president has to deal with more than one threat at a time.

Is it just me, or is that an incredibly weak argument? Like Kerry's remarks above, it still takes Dean's basic premise, that Saddam's capture is minor in the bigger picture, while disavowing the blunt admission that it's is so minor as to not really change anything in regard to the safety of the US itself. All the candidates agree that Saddam's capture is not all that important in the larger scheme of things -- the only question is whether it is insignificant or has no significance whatsoever.

Later, Dean is given the opportunity to close the circle and bring home the bacon, and he does it, when asked about his position that Saddam could have been captured 6 months earlier than he was:

I believe that, had Saddam been captured earlier, we might have been able to spend more time looking for Osama bin Laden, which is the real problem.

Note Senator Lieberman said that we were safer now that Saddam has been caught; I beg to differ. Since Saddam Hussein has been caught -- who's a dreadful person. I'm delighted to see him behind bars, and I hope he gets what he deserves.

But the fact is, since Saddam Hussein has been caught, we've lost 23 additional troops; we now have, for the first time, American fighter jets escorting commercial airliners through American airspace.

What we should have done is spent some of the $160 billion that we have in Iraq and all the effort when we went to go after Saddam, who was never an imminent threat to the United States, what we should have done is followed up and tried to get Osama bin Laden and spent that money and all those lives trying to protect America from terrorism, which is the true enemy of the United States.

It gets better and better -- the followup question was "What about something that Senator Lieberman also said, and that was that, if we had followed your ideas toward Saddam Hussein, he'd still be in power?" to which Dean answered:

I actually don't believe that, because I think, given the time that's elapsed, we could have done the proper thing, which George Bush's father did, and put together a coalition to go after somebody who was a regional threat but not a threat to the United States.

Our resources belong in fighting al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has got us in a position where we're now worried because we're at level orange. We need a concentrated attack on al Qaeda and on Osama bin Laden. Saddam Hussein has been a distraction.

Lieberman is offered a rebuttal and produces the biggest howler of the debate, a horrendously mistaken analogy to Hitler and Stalin (too bad Godwin's Law can't be invoked to eject candidates from debates):

I want to respond to Howard Dean's criticism of my statement that we're safer with Saddam Hussein gone. You know what? We had good faith differences on the war against Saddam. But I don't know how anybody could say that we're not safer with a homicidal maniac, a brutal dictator, an enemy of the United States, a supporter of terrorism, a murderer of hundreds of thousands of his own people in prison instead of in power.

And to change the subject as Howard does and to say that we haven't obliterated all terrorism with Saddam in prison is a little bit like saying somehow that we weren't safer after the Second World War after we defeated Nazism and Hitler because Stalin and the communists were still in power.

Now if that isn't awful, I don't know what is.

The key point here is that all of the candidates dance around the central point of Dean's position, that the Iraqi war was a distraction from the real task of going after Al Quaeda, the the Bush administration's priorities were simply wrong, and have not done anything significant to address the real, crucial problem facing the US in regard to safety from attack at home.

On the subject of NAFTA, Dean also had the middle ground, the position that nearly all of his opponents (except Gephardt, Kucinich and Sharpton, so we're talking about the candidates who remain viable after Iowa). Dean's position was that free trade as a principle is a good thing, but that free trade without a truly level playing field for all the nations involved is going to put the US at a disadvantage. Dean wants free trade agreements altered to bring up labor standards in the poorer nations to those of the richer nations. Why? No, it's not to make us more competitive -- it's in order to improve the working environment for the people in the other countries, because that will bring the greatest good to the greatest number.

This is the position that all the non-protectionist candidates were dancing around. And it addresses the key issue of what the protectionist candidates feel is wrong with NAFTA and the WTO.

So, here we have Dean, the so-called liberal, occupying the centrist position.

On the subject of the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, Dean is again in the center. Even Moseley-Braun, who is pretty reliably liberal, agrees that we can't just irresponsibly pull out of a nation that would not have been destroyed if we hadn't unilaterally acted against it. Indeed, Dean's position is actually more responsible than that of the lawmakers who voted against the $87 billion in funding for the rebuilding of Iraq (the same lawmakers who voted for the war in the first place).

On taxes, Dean has a problem -- he calls (like Kucinich) for the rollback of the entire Bush tax cut, including the cuts for the middle class (which were actually there because of Democratic initiatives). His reasoning is not too difficult to understand: looking at the tax code without also evaluating the services the government provides does not give a true picture of the net effect of Bush administration policies on the middle class. Dean argues that when you look at the global picture, Bush's tax cuts, even the middle class part, have served to vastly increase the overall expenses of middle class taxpayers. Dean's problem here is that he doesn't explain it very well -- he gets the details but fails to close the deal.

Dean seems to be the only candidate that is looking at the tax cut issue as part of a global issue, of what government can do for the people, and which demographic groups get the most benefit from the government. He would work to restore benefits that the Bush administration has cut to finance its tax cuts for the wealthy. It's not clear the extent to which the other candidates would do this (though Edwards' riff on the transfer of the burden of government from capital to labor is basically a restatement of Dean's core position), but only Dean is talking about it as intimately tied up with the Bush tax policy.

It just seems to me that, over and over again, it's the Dean positions that animate the discussion and that everyone else's policies are reactive to his positions, which are almost always squarely in the center of the range of positions staked out. The media pundits rate the horse race and don't seem to really look at where things stand on the positions, or the degree to which one candidate has energized the entire field.

While I question the wisdom of Dean's choosing to speak in this fashion to a national audience, if you put it in that different context, the whole myth of "Dean's anger" shows up as the threadbare, braindead media trope that it truly is. The media should be ashamed -- they've killed the candidate who is responsible for changing the terms of the debate for all the candidates. If the Democratic nominee wins in November, even if it's not Dean, it will be Dean who is responsible for having turned all the mainstream candidates from fearful, afraid-of-Bush campaigns into fired-up organizations that understand they have to go after Bush on every single issue.

If Bush is turned out of office, it's because of Howard Dean.

Can anyone conclude that the media's treatment of identical situations constitutes fairness in reporting? Can anyone dispute that Dean is not getting a fair shake? Instead, the media fits every incident into the party-line story about the candidate ("Dean is angry"). Since "Clark is angry" is not their version of the Clark story, his anger goes unreported.

And lost in even my own analysis is the question of whether anger is justified or not. Anger is bad in the media shorthand, where they don't really care about substance, just about appearances.

How can we ever take back our political system when there's an operator in the middle of every transaction with an agenda who has no accountability or standards, except to promote themselves?

Or maybe Dean has just not been doing very well as a candidate in the last couple weeks, as it seems to me. Until the beginning of the year, I was strongly behind Dean, but since then he's seemed to me to be less articulate, less able to command attention with cogent, well-reasoned answers to the questions put to him.

3. Dean was Gored. Want to know how Al Gore lost the presidency in October 2000? You just saw it: a relentless focus on one candidate's record and comments. That's understandable (and I participated in it), because Dean seemed to be on his way to the nomination, just as Gore seemed to be on his way to the presidency in October 2000. You always scrutinize most carefully the person who, barring intervention, is likely to win. The catch is that you're the intervention. Some of the criticism of Dean was way over the line. (The next pundit who scolds Dean's wife for not campaigning should have to sleep on the couch for a year.)

If he'd stopped right there, it would have been the indictment that the media deserve. Unfortunately, he draws entirely the wrong moral:

But some of it was well-earned by Dean. Moral: When the camera's on you, shape up

In other words, it's not the media's fault for intervening in the political process, it's the candidate's fault for making the mistakes that give the media the opening.

I am reminded of a meeting the officers of the Oberlin College Lesbian and Gay Union had with then-new college president, S. Frederick Starr, in 1984. Among other items on our agenda, we expressed our concern at some recent anti-gay incidents in the Oberlin community (a recent off-campus gay bashing of a student, an effigy burning, complaints about the Gay Union's annual conference occuring on the same dates as a parents' weekend) and asked what Starr felt should be done in the future. His response was to say that if we didn't want public attention we shouldn't be so visible. In other words, it was our fault when we were attacked, since we made ourselves vulnerable through visibility. And he had nothing to say about the culpability of the attackers.

It was morally bankrupt in 1984, and it's just as odious 20 years later.