The fact is, the journalists have been following the candidates and see them at the worst and their best. Laying aside the worst and just portraying what the candidates want everyone to see is not taking the adversarial role journalists love to claim is part of their ethos. Howard Dean has less self-control than most. Even less than most so-called Democrats. And it's obvious to anyone who sees him, including TV viewers.The media vs. Howard DeanWhen the Washington Post introduced readers to Howard Dean in a long Page 1 feature July 6, part of a series of "meet the Democrats" candidate profiles, the paper went for the jugular, literally, with a cartoonish, unflattering description to open the article: "Howard Dean was angry. Ropy veins popped out of his neck, blood rushed to his cheeks, and his eyes, normally blue-gray, flashed black, all dilated pupils."
by Eric Boehlert
Jan. 13, 2004
Six months later, an extended version of that campaign narrative, polished by Republican talking-points memos and echoed day after day by the mainstream media, remains a constant of the campaign trail: Dean is a sarcastic smart aleck with foot-in-the mouth disease, a political ticking time bomb. The former Vermont governor remains the front-runner among Democratic voters, but he's gotten increasingly caustic treatment from the media, which has dwelled on three big themes -- that Dean's angry, gaffe-prone and probably not electable -- while giving comparatively far less ink to the doctor's policy and political prescriptions that have catapulted him ahead of the Democratic field. Newsweek's critical Jan. 12 cover story, "All the Rage: Dean's Shoot-From-the-Hip Style and Shifting Views Might Doom Him in November," achieved a nifty trifecta that covered anger, gaffes and electability, all three of the main media raps against Dean.
1. How do you think Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, Poland and America’s other allies in the Iraq war and the War on Terror would react if they knew that in your campaign rhetoric you have completely ignored their contributions to these efforts and repeatedly insisted on characterizing President Bush’s foreign policy as entirely “unilateral,” as if no other nation joined America in defeating the Taliban and Saddam Hussein?
CLARK: I made it clear that the world was acting together in defeating the Taliban and supporting America’s efforts in Afghanistan. I praised the international community’s initial response to 9/11. I would point out that, as I’ve discussed, many of the governments you mention share my concerns that President Bush has shown little regard for international opinion. I have praised Prime Minister Blair before, during, and after 9/11. In fact, I worked closely with him in defeating Slobodan Milosevic and saving 1.5 million Albanians from ethnic cleansing.
As NATO Supreme Allied Commander, I also worked closely with the leaders of many of the countries you mentioned and would do so in the future. I have not ignored their contribution; rather, I regretted that after months of diplomacy, the Bush Administration was unable to generate more support for the operation in Iraq. In other words, stating that President Bush’s failed diplomacy has weakened America’s standing in the world is not to deny the role of a few key allies.
2. Four years from now Baby Boomers will begin to retire. Not long after that retirees in America will greatly outnumber those who pay Social Security taxes. Specifically, how will you keep Social Security from running out of money?
CLARK: Saving Social Security is going to take strong and responsible leadership—the kind that I will bring to the White House. My economic plan will save $2.35 trillion over ten years. It will reduce the deficit and free up money to invest in priorities like education and health care. Under my plan, the deficit will be reduced every year — providing a down payment on the twin goals of a balanced budget and full readiness for the retirement of the baby boomers. Of course, further tough steps will be needed. But as a first step, we must stop the explosion of the deficit that has occurred under the Bush Administration. As president, I will restore responsibility to the budget process: all tax and spending proposals will be paid for without increasing the deficit; government will be streamlined and more efficient; and corporate welfare and loopholes will be closed.
3. Would you ever use military force without United Nations approval, and if so, under what circumstances?
CLARK: I have said repeatedly that I would not hesitate to use military force — with or without UN approval — if necessary to defend America’s interests. However, as a General who has commanded forces during a time of war, I believe that military force should only be used as a last resort, and that it is better to act with others than to act alone. The US should work with its allies and friends if possible and alone if necessary to defend American interests.
I realize that using force often requires the ultimate sacrifice from America’s soldiers and their families. When we use the power of international law, diplomacy, and international engagement, we can achieve decisive results, even without decisive force. I believe that if we work with our allies and friends, we can engage in diplomacy, developmental assistance, and legal action to deal with crises before they erupt into war, and to ameliorate the conditions which might lead to those crises in the first place.
4. Should the United States always wait until attacked before using military force against an enemy?
CLARK: No. Every president must and has had the option of acting preemptively if necessary to defend and protect America’s interests. But I would not turn an option that every president has into the defining characteristic of American foreign policy, as President Bush has. Contrary to the claims of the Bush Administration, the threat from Iraq did not pose the kind of danger to the US to merit the preemptive use of force. In fact, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, even though the Bush Administration cited these as their justification for the preemptive war in Iraq.
5. As President, what, if any, business regulations would you attempt to repeal?
CLARK: I don’t support onerous regulation, but as the corporate scandals of the last three years have shown us, some regulation and oversight of business is necessary to protect consumers and investors. But, I think it should be as efficient and effective as possible. I think we can consolidate some regulators. For example, I would eliminate the Office of Thrift Supervision. Instead of having a separate system to regulate savings and loans, I would shift the regulation of S&Ls to one of the other federal bank regulators.
6. Do recent medical advances allowing unborn children to survive outside the womb sooner than ever before require any re-examination of abortion policies?
CLARK: I am pro-choice. The government has no business coming between a woman, her family, and her doctor in making such a personal, private decision. I support the recent ruling by a United States District Court requiring New Hampshire’s parental notification law include an exception for the health of the mother.
7. Will you pledge never to appoint a pro-life federal judge? What other litmus tests would you apply to the judiciary?
CLARK: I am committed to only appointing judges with the highest qualifications who are committed to upholding the law and enforcing fundamental constitutional guarantees — including the rights of privacy and equality. We, as a nation, have embraced several simple important constitutional values, including one person one vote and the right to privacy. These are both settled law. I don’t consider appointing judges that will uphold our settled law a litmus test. They are existing rights that I, and hundreds of thousands of men and women, have fought to protect. I believe judges should be just as committed to protecting them.
8. Should sales over the Internet remain tax-free?
CLARK: Taxing sales on the Internet wouldn’t be an issue if state and local governments weren’t facing the worst fiscal crisis in decades. I think we need to provide immediate aid to state and local governments for homeland security, infrastructure, and schools. That’s why I am proposing a state and local tax rebate of $40 billion dollars over two years to lessen the need for states and local governments to raise taxes (including property taxes), raise state college tuition rates, raise other fees, and/or cut critical expenditures (e.g., in health care).
9. If the rich should pay a larger portion of their income in taxes because they can afford to, shouldn’t they also receive fewer Medicare, Social Security and other benefits from the federal government?
CLARK: Social Security and Medicare are fundamental parts of the social contract that all Americans share. They are a form of social insurance that bonds Americans together – everyone pays in, everyone gets back their fair share. When Americans pay their payroll taxes, they expect to get benefits in return. But overall, I believe that both Social Security and Medicare should maintain their progressive structure.
10. Does every qualified American have the right to attend college, with government subsidies if necessary?
CLARK: No one should be denied the opportunity to attend college just because of the cost of higher education. That’s why I am proposing to help make a college education more affordable by consolidating the Pell and Hope grants into one universal grant that will expand the current maximum to $6,000 for the first two years of college. In addition, I am proposing a state and local tax rebate to help states keep the tuition costs of public universities down.
11. Are pharmaceutical companies good corporate citizens?
CLARK: I think there are many pharmaceutical companies that are good corporate citizens. They support important research and development of new medical treatments. However, we certainly need to address the high price of prescription drugs in this country. We can start by providing America’s seniors with a comprehensive, meaningful, and affordable prescription drug benefit through Medicare. The prescription drug bill passed by Congress fails to provide this benefit because it forces seniors into HMOs, increasing prescription drug costs for many seniors, and prohibiting seniors from purchasing low-cost prescription drugs from Canada. We should allow Americans to import less expensive medications from Canada, with the appropriate safety precautions. We should also cut the corporate tax shelters and red tape that keep inexpensive generics from entering the market. And we should also allow Medicare to use the same purchasing tools that are available to the private sector, including the power to negotiate directly with drug companies for bulk discounts on popular drugs.
12. In what areas of life would you prevent the federal government from interfering?
CLARK: I strongly believe in protecting the privacy of individuals— in all aspects of our lives from medical decisions to security. However, I believe that law enforcement should have access to all necessary tools to deal with the problems of terrorism. That is why I have called for an immediate investment in homeland security. But I don’t believe that we can win a war on terror if we give up the essence of who we are as Americans. That’s why I think that Congress should fully review the so-called USA PATRIOT Act – and repeal the provisions that go too far.
13. Regardless of whether it is a federal issue, has the time come for gay marriage?
CLARK: I don’t think anyone should be discriminated against because of their race, gender, background or sexual orientation. There shouldn’t be any room in this country for discrimination. I support civil unions so that gays and lesbians have equality and full rights under the law. Families in the United States come in many shapes and sizes. It is the best interest of our country to promote stable communities and families, this includes both heterosexual and same-sax families. Accordingly, I believe that same-sex couples shouldn’t be denied rights to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, and other basic legal protections that all families and children need.
14. Will there ever be a day when affirmative action is no longer needed?
CLARK: Throughout my career, I have seen firsthand the meaning, consequence, and importance of affirmative action. I was proud to join a group of retired military officers who filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of affirmative action at the University of Michigan. I think such policies are necessary to facilitate diversity within, and the legitimacy of, the nation’s leadership. The Supreme Court agreed on the importance of diversity, relying on the successes of the military model. America cannot be a great nation without the leadership of our very best – of all races, from all parts of the country. Affirmative action ensures that future leaders who might otherwise never get a chance are brought to the forefront. As a result, Americans – all Americans – benefit.
15. Name a war that America has fought for oil.
CLARK: Maintaining access to oil supplies is one important US interest. When I served in the military during the time of the first Gulf war, we did not believe we went to war solely for oil, but in reaction to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. Still, I believe America must decrease its dependence on Middle Eastern oil. President Bush’s policies would have the US remaining dependent indefinitely on oil from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.
16. Is it appropriate for the billionaire George Soros, one of the richest men in America, to spend his money trying to discredit and oust a President?
CLARK: I think it is appropriate for everyone to participate in our political system, as long they follow the law. Participation in our democracy is based on the core principles of freedom and transparency. I strongly support our campaign finance laws that limit and require reporting of individual and special interest expenditures. In addition, I am committed to remaining within the spending caps of the public finance system.
17. To what degree did Bill Clinton’s behavior in office damage the presidency?
CLARK: I very much admire what Bill Clinton did as President of the United States. In foreign policy, he helped structure us to face a very uncertain world. We had success in the Balkans. We saved a million and a half Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And at home, we created more than 22 million jobs. And for the first time in a generation, we began to lift people out of poverty. Bill Clinton was a terrific president, and I think any other Democrat should be very proud to follow in his footsteps.
18. Why have Americans elected a Republican President and Congress?
CLARK: In this post-9/11 world, Americans and voters are concerned with national security. I believe that voters in the last election were still reeling from the shock and horror of the attacks on New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. I think it is time that Democrats took back national security as their issue and I am the candidate to do it. I have the military and leadership experience to wage an effective, multilateral war on terrorism. As voters begin to consider the Bush Administration’s record on domestic issues like jobs, education, and health care, I believe they will turn to Democrats because we have offered real solutions that help working families instead of special interests.
19. In every other nation in which health care is paid for by the national government, that care is rationed and citizens must wait months, even years, for treatment. How would you avoid this outcome in the United States?
CLARK: We must reform the health care system in the United States. My plan is the only plan that improves care while expanding coverage and makes it more affordable for American families. I will provide health insurance for 31.8 million Americans who are currently uninsured, including all 13.1 million children and college-age Americans who are uninsured. My plan also gives tax credits to reduce premiums for millions of Americans who currently have health insurance but are struggling to pay their premiums. My emphasis on improving quality and constraining cost growth would provide better medical outcomes at a lower cost for all Americans.
20. Suppose you win the nomination. If, in the general election, President Bush wins the popular vote by a few hundred thousand votes, but you win the Electoral College vote, will you concede the election to Bush, as so many Democrats said President Bush should have done for Al Gore in 2000?
CLARK: I plan to win the Electoral College and the popular vote. There won’t be any question about the winner of the 2004 election.