Two Interesting Quotes About Dean

I want to comment very briefly on two provocative quotes from yesterday's Washington Post story, As Pre-Primary Season Closes, Questions Cling to Dean's Gains (washingtonpost.com)

First,

"Our primary voters are dialed into electability like I've never seen before, and it is the argument against Dean," said a strategist working for another candidate. "But what the other candidates lack is a piece of evidence they can lay on the table to say, this is why I get the electability card over Dean. If somebody could come up with that, that could make a big difference in this race."

This is a very important point. I suspect that Dean can't win the election, but it will be hard to prove. And as he becomes better known, his national numbers are likely to move up, while his rivals like Clark, because they are still obscure, are likely to do no better in head-to-head matchups. And yet, that doesn't show that Dean is electable, or that he's not electable. Was Dukakis electable when he had a 13-point lead over George H.W. Bush? On the other hand, there was plenty of evidence that suggested Al Gore was unlectable in 2000 -- he never beat Bush in early polls, despite being better known -- and yet, he won the popular vote by a sizable margin.

It also affirms the point that, while Clark has found some focus for his campaign by talking about electability, it is far from sufficient as the basis for a campaign.

The other fascinating quote is from a political strategist I've worked with, both in the Senate and on the Bradley campaign, and respect a great deal, Anita Dunn:

"Dean faces one significant challenge, to go to the next level of his candidacy," said Anita Dunn, a Democratic strategist who was a senior adviser in Bill Bradley's 2000 presidential campaign. "He has not yet achieved the level of admission to what I call that small circle of people in the United States that voters perceive as qualified to be president. That is an enormous hurdle. . . . He has, at every stage of his campaign, when he has faced a hurdle, found a way to move to that next level, but they get steeper."

That makes sense to me, but it's probably infuriating to the Dean camp. First, because the person making the statement is not easily dismissed as a hostile member of the Clinton establishment. But second, who decides when or how you've been admitted to that circle? Just out of curiosity, who right now might be said to be in that circle of people voters perceive as qualified to be president?

Gore, certainly. All he did was receive more votes than any candidate for President except Ronald Reagan in 1984.

Lieberman, probably, just by virtue of having been on a national ticket.

Gephardt, probably. He's run before, he's a national figure.

Kerry? Who knows. I don't need to bash the poor guy again.

Clark? Probably not yet, but I think he has a strong case for admission to the circle.

Hilary Clinton? Absolutely. You live in the White House for eight years, you're qualified. You have the same last name as a president, you're qualified. (See Bush, George W.)

It's also interesting to think about who might have lost the presidency because they never gained admission to the circle of the perceived-as-qualified. Dukakis? Probably. But Mondale was certainly perceived as qualified, and he lost just as badly.

And it's not at all clear how one gains admission to that circle, in a single cycle. How did Clinton do it? Was it his own doing, or the embrace of the Washington establishment?

Just like "electablity," I think this is a purely subjective judgment, one that may seem obvious after the fact, but is hard to prove right now. But subjective judgments are sometimes all we've got.