If it’s seemed that the last week has been a turning point in the Howard Dean campaign, the change in media coverage is now official: even the hawkish New Republic has a piece by Daniel Drezner defending Dean’s foreign policy positions as no more lightweight than any of the other candidates…
Dean substantively distinguishes himself from the first-tier candidates in what are really only two ways. Obviously the first is his persistent, vociferous opposition to the war in Iraq….
The second distinction is that Dean sounds more protectionist than most of his rivals on international economic issuesThese two foreign policy differences clearly push Dean to the left of his mainstream rivals. And, taken in toto, Dean’s worldview does give off a powerful whiff of populism. But it’d be a mistake to see it as naﶥ. If Dean’s rivals want to attack his foreign policy views, they’re going to have to do it by challenging their substance rather than the credibility of the candidate expressing them.
Of course, I’m not holding my breath for the magazine to take a general editorial position in favor of Dean or to stop sniping at him in its candidate report card section. But now I’m curious as to why this contrarian stance hasn’t occured to anyone else.
No comments have been added to this post yet.