Friday, January 21, 2005

McAuliffe sucks, Dean doesn't matter
Political Wire says Dean's battling an image problem: "A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds Howard Dean is fighting 'a tarnished image in bid for Democratic chairmanship. Just 27% of party backers view the Vermont ex-governor positively, down from 48% a year ago. But he's less of a lightning rod for Republicans than during his presidential bid; 37% view him negatively, down from 58% in January 2004.'"

This brings to mind a couple of thoughts. First off, it doesn't seem that Dean has such an image issue, quite as much as nobody cares about him anymore. I think that's probably just a result of the fact that he's been out of the national limelight since shortly after the infamous scream—speaking of which, it probably doesn't help that his most recent major media coverage focused around apparent lunacy combined with total failure to win a single primary.

Second, the article seems to imply that it's odd that Republicans hate him less and Dems like him less. Don't these things seem completely in concert to anyone else? And should anyone even care about Republican sentiment for a Democratic Party position? Furthermore, is there any polling data from right before Clinton chose McAuliffe? My guess is that you'd find 90% or more of the Party didn't have a clue who he was at the time, which would imply that Dean's way ahead of any image that should be expected of a candidate for party chair.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Didn't Dean win Vermont?

Tim Wright