Why Dems Should Worry About GOP Primary (Even if Obama Wins in 2012)

It was not Cindy Sheehan -- or Abu Graib -- or Hurricane Katrina -- that first exposed the once seemingly-Teflon George W. Bush's many vulnerabilities to the public, driving his popularity ratings to the basement, never again to return.

Instead, the seminal moment when came with the arrival of an obscure governor from Vermont named Howard Dean on the national scene. This is not widely appreciated or understood.

Whereas 2002 belonged to George W. Bush, 2003 clearly belonged to Dean. He dominated political news that year.

This was laregly due to the unorthodox campaign he ran. Dean, being a relatively unknown governor, could not have plausibly won by employing a traditional campaign against the likes of Lieberman, Kerry, and Edwards (Dean didn't win anyway, but he might have) -- so he employed a more risky strategy of focusing -- not on his Democratic opponents -- but on the opposing party's incumbent president.

This seemed crazy.

While his opponents were playing it safe, Dean -- representing the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" -- quickly gained the support of bloggers and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. While the other gun-shy Democrats -- who had been battered and beaten up by conservatives in the wake of 9-11 -- were avoiding direct confrontation with Bush, a perfect niche opened up. And only a candidate -- who wasn't supposed to win anyway -- could exploit it.

(Note: The Dean model leads me to wonder if it will take an outsider -- who hasn't been battered by the liberal machine -- to lead conservatives to the promised land -- or, at least, to begin the process as Dean did).

Dean's surprising success shocked his Democratic rivals into imitating his rhetoric and co-opting his message. And because he actually got away with it, without much push-back, Dean emboldened others to follow him (politicians tend to dip their toes in, and if they don't get bitten off, they go in deeper). As a result of Dean, the 2003 primary campaign transformed into a contest largely based on Democrats attempting to one-up each other in bashing George W. Bush.'

Still, this should not have mattered. Incumbent presidents usually benefit from primary battles and internecine squabbles on the other side. And it is worth noting that Bush did go on to defeat John Kerry the very next year. But the damage had been done. Once the chink in Bush's armor was exposed, others were emboldened to pile on. The Bush narrative had been changed forever, and narratives are hard to reverse. Despite winning in 2004, Bush never really recovered from 2003.

To be sure, it wasn't merely Dean's attacks, in and of themselves, that did Bush in -- Bush was his own worst enemy. It was his "above the fray" mentality that is really to blame. Just as he has recently said that Barack Obama "deserves my silence" (as Obama continues to bash his head in) -- back in '03, Bush seemed to think the Democrats "deserved his silence" while they campaigned for the Democratic nomination. Nobody bothered to ask...why?

As CNN reported,

For months, Bush tried to remain above the political fray, enjoy the benefits of being an uncontested incumbent and wait to formally declare his candidacy.

Politics, Bush said at a news conference in July 2003, will come "later on." For now, "I will continue doing my job. And my job will be to work to make America more secure."

While Bush has mentioned national security as a priority in his re-election bid, he also has acknowledged that the economy needs attention.

"The American people will decide whether or not I deserve a second term," Bush told reporters in May 2003. "In the meantime I am focusing my attention today on ... helping people find work. And that's where I'm going to be for a while."

It is unclear to me whether the disastrous political mistake of staying 'above the fray' was an honorable, yet naive, aristocratic thing -- or simply the arrogance of someone who has never had to fight for anything and thinks he cannot lose.

Regardless, by failing to respond to the attacks begun by Dean (politicians should leave no shot unanswered, so goes the famous maxim), Bush allowed the negative screed to define him.

So what can be learned from Bush's unbelievable political mistake? Republicans campaigning for the GOP nomination should follow the Dean model and focus their energies -- not on each other -- but on Barack Obama.

And Barack Obama should learn that it would be a mistake to remain quiet during the Republican Primary.

It is unlikely he would do this anyway. So far, Obama has proven that he understands the importance of knocking-down narratives before they get away from him. And his surrogates have been willing to wade into the fray and take on conservatives like Rush Limbaugh. It's also likely that a kid who had to fight and scratch to make it to the top has a keener understanding of the importance of fighting to stay there ...