according to the commonwealth of massachusetts' webpage, i have until 11 february 2004 to register a party affiliation for the state presidential primary. the question is, precisely how much do i care. this is a problem, though, because i do give a damn; but i don't know if i give enough of a damn to actually register as a democrat. i'm not exactly sure i am a democrat, is the thing. there's plenty they do that i feel is utterly stupid, it's just that there's an order of magnitude less of that on average than republicans have.
so yeah, i kinda do feel that it's important to vote, which of course is pretty obvious. but moreover, it's hard not to feel like a good part of the result in november 2004 will be decided earlier that year. some would say, however, that it's already been decided, that howard dean has already won. i really hope not, though. that's not to say i wouldn't vote for him if it came to that, but unlike the rest of the internet, i don't really see much of a reason for the rest of the country to vote for him. and it's possible that i'm missing something, too, but really, after reading about him, i'm really not sure why he's being hailed as the savior of progressive voters of all stripes. i just plain don't get it.
so, i mean, what are the differences, policy-wise. after a bit of research, it seems that the major candidates are pretty similar when it comes to health care, for one. most of them favor either repealing the bush tax cut, or better yet, reorganizing the tax cuts so as to not fuck over the middle class (this is one thing that kerry has said he'd do), and to make the rich actually, you know, pay some taxes. they're all so much better than bush on the environment as to make any of them a humongous improvement (check this link for more). so really, none of them are going to be a bad thing, compared to bush. so what is this decisive thing, this je ne sais quoi that seems to have gotten three out of four bloggers, salon, and the major news outlets to think howard dean is the greatest thing since sliced bread? i honestly don't get it. i don't see it. i don't understand it in the least. i tried, i'd hoped that the globe's excellent profile series might've explained it. there was a good article on him in newsweek or time or something a while ago, but that was just about him running. not anything of substance. so i still kinda just don't know what's the deal with him except he's pissed.
as i've read it, the decisive thing about governor dean has been his anger, his outspokenness about the suckiness of the war. great. he's pissed. i get that. and so are we. and he speaks to that, but there's got to be more. there really needs to be more than just an unswerving opposition to the war, because once he gets off the internet and out of the realm of people who spend their entire time thinking about politics, he's going to have to convince people that were once convinced that the war was good, and now are thinking of switching sides due to dubya's poor treatment of their boys overseas. just lashing out at the war isn't going to be enough, though. 'cause the thing is, for all his vaunted opposition, really, what's the big deal about it. he wasn't even governor at the time, he was just a candidate, so really he'd nothing to lose by speaking out. and he's used this consistency of opposition to compare other candidates' statements unfavorably to his own. the thing is, most of them had something to lose. if they voted against the war (and pretty much everyone didn't), they ran the risk of being painted soft on terrorism (look what happened to sen. max cleland). they had something to lose, they had to decide if giving the president of the united states the benefit of the doubt or not was worth putting every other form of service to their constituency at risk. dean had nothing to lose, so then tell me, why the hell is he sainted for being an angry voice?
now, i won't pretend i'm impartial. the reason i'm toying with registering as a democrat is because i'm firmly convinced that john kerry's the man for the job. unfortunately, he's run an absolutely terrible campaign. it's really unfortunate that this guy's resume has not received the publicity that it really deserves. his qualfications stand alone (read the 'fuck' interview in rolling stone for a good synopsis)--he's been involved in so much that he begins to sound like a fictional character. an actual war hero who was pivotal in the movement against the war (so much so that nixon wanted something done about him), he was also one of the first to go after the iran-contra thing, and also the savings and loan mess. and what's really a shame is that you don't really hear anything about him at this point besides the words 'aloof' and 'former front-runner'. he's got a distinguished record on the environment in particular, and also doesn't have an 'a' rating from the damned nra. seriously, go read his explanation for why he voted in favor of authorizing force in iraq. it doesn't make a good sound bite, and i still think it was a mistake, but it's understandable, it's defensible, and it was the same decision a lot of legislators made. of course, kerry has the distinct disadvantage of being from massachusetts. for some reason, the rest of the country doesn't like us. but vermont's no better (indeed, both states are probably known by some by being far too tolerant of gay marriage). and kerry has arguably better credentials than clark, with his military experience. so like i said, i totally think it's a crying shame that he's run such a shitty campaign. it's almost identical to what al gore did in 2000; clearly the best-qualified man for the job, he ran a listless campaign, and allowed himself to be dogged by single-word stereotypes such as 'arrogant' or 'stiff' that eclipsed truth about him. the same has happened to kerry, and it's a damned shame, it's really unfortunate. so count me off the howard dean bandwagon for now. it's great, it's truly wonderful that he's energized so many people, but the thing is, those energized people don't necessarily count for three people against bush. he's going to need to earn some votes from people who aren't on the bandwagon, and i'm not sure what's behind the hype. if there's something i'm missing, some article that sums it up concisely, someone point me to it.
phew.