Let me begin by saying I worked for George McGovern in 1972. It was a disaster, much worse than the man deserved. It was a severe setback for Liberal politics in America. I see Howard Dean falling into the same pattern now.

In 1972, Richard Nixon was the incumbent President. Our nation was involved in the Vietnam war, which had become highly unpopular by that time. The nation was polarized around the war. The Democratic party favorite seemed to be Hubert H. Humphrey, who had served as our Vice President under Lyndon Johnson. Senator Muskie also appeared as a strong candidate. But George McGovernmounted a grass roots campaign that tapped into the discontent in the country, marshalled a force of young and idealistic supporters and won the Democratic nomination.

Almost immediately, McGovern's campaign began to fall apart. Like Howard Dean, McGovern had offended much of the Democratic leadership. He offered Humphrey an opportunity to run as his Vice Presidential running mate and Humphrey turned him down. Emphatically. McGovern then offered the position to Thomas Eagleton. Rumors arose that Eagleton had received shock treatments for depression. Eagleton denied those rumors and McGovern said that he was behind Eagleton "one thousand percent." Two weeks later the rumors proved to be true and McGovern had to ask Eagleton to step aside, which he grudgingly did. Sargent Shriver, a member of the Kennedy family became the new Vice Presidential candiidate. Dean appears to suffer from much the same "foot in mouth" disease.

McGovern had campaigned through the primary as a Democratic outsider, opposed to the war. As an outsider he didn't have the resources to unite the party behind him. Gore's surprise endosement of Dean over Leiberman has surely alienated the Leiberman camp and it seems doubtful to me that even if Dean wins the nomination that Leiberman's supporters will rally around the candidate. Dean has said that if he were elected members of Congress were "going to be scurrying for shelter, just like a giant flashlight on a bunch of cockroaches." Doesn't he understand that the very people that he just called cockroaches are the same ones that he will need to get their constituents to vote for him?

McGovern was portrayed by the Republicans as a radical leftist. You can't run for President by just being against your opponents ideas. McGovern came out in favor of a guaranteed annual income for each American family. This is not all that different from today's Living Wage discussion, but was seen by many middle-class voters as a new "welfare state."

The upshot was that Richard Nixon won by the largest plurality in history. However, in the course of the election, Nixon had ordered the break in to the Democratic offices at the Watergate hotel and conspired to cover-up the event. The White House tapes showed Nixon to be paranoid in the extreme, seeing all who opposed him as "enemies." He should have been vulnerable to an opponent that was politically experienced. Now please note that I do NOT think that President Bush is anything like Nixon. I do think, however, that Howard Dean is making many of the same mistakes that George McGovern made.

To become President you must:

1- Convince the Americn people that you have a vision for America that is superior to your opponents. If Howard Dean has such a vision, he has failed to annunciate to my ears. Here is Howard Dean's own position from his website: http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=FA1F1A12-2A30-4439-85B593128A50B138
Maybe you see someting that I don't, but I don't see any specific remedies.

2- You can't run on a single issue unless it is so powerful that it galvanizes the majority of Americans. McGovern ran on his opposition to the war in Vietnam and Dean is running on his opposition to the war in Iraw. Let me quote from Dean's own site. "But it is his condemnation of the Bush policy against Iraq that has set him apart from the rest of the major Democratic contenders" Most Americans today approve of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq. (Source: Gallup Poll, 61% in favor. http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm)

3- You have to be able to unite your own party. George Bush senior ran against Ronald Reagan for the Republican nomination, was in fact quite critical of Reagan's ideas, then accepted the Vice Presidential nomination and presented a united front. Wesley Clark for example has already said that he will NOT be Dean's running mate. Even if Dean wins the nomination, I doubt that he can unite the Democrats behind him. My suggestion would be that Howard Dean begin using the phrase "my esteemed colleague" in every debate. No more name calling.

I don't think that any Democrat is going to beat George Bush, particuarly if the economy continues to improve. But I do think that a more polished campaign would get some important issues on the table, might add some seats in Congress and lays the groundwork for a successful campaign in 2008. On the other hand, a poorly run campaign will leave the Democratic party in tatters, too fractionalized to make any impact.