In a national poll of Democrats nationwide two weeks ago, Howard Dean was favored by 5% of survey respondents, while Bob Graham enjoyed the support of 4%.
Dean sees these numbers and apparently draws an important conclusion: Dean is a “top-tier” candidate and Graham isn’t.
At a business leaders luncheon in New Hampshire yesterday, Dean boasted that he is the only “major” Democratic presidential hopeful with experience appointing judges because of his background as Vermont’s governor.
A reporter pointed out that Bob Graham was a two-term governor of Florida before serving in the Senate and that Graham appointed more judges that Dean did. Asked whether he misspoke, Dean said he doesn’t consider Graham a major candidate.
“Bob Graham is a wonderful, decent human being, but at this time he’s in single digits in all the states you can’t be in single digits in,” he said. “I have enormous respect for Bob Graham, but at this point he’s not one of the top-tier candidates. I think that’s widely recognized.”
What a sport. I guess that whopping one point lead in national polls over Graham has really gone to Dean’s head.
“I’m not sure why Dr. Dean thinks it’s in his interest to pick fights with other Democratic candidates, but he underestimates the former governor of the fourth largest state at his own peril,” Graham spokesman Jamal Simmons said. “With all due respect, Bob Graham created twice as many jobs when he was governor of Florida than there are people in the state of Vermont.”
Dean later apologized, saying that he “regret[s] having made the remark.”
If you’ve been following the race, you may notice that this is a disturbing pattern for the good doctor.
You might recall, for example, that Dean spoke at a California State Democratic Convention in March and criticized John Edwards for abandoning his position on Iraq and saying one thing in DC, but something else in California. The crowd ate it up, but it wasn’t true; Edwards had told the crowd that he supported the war. Dean later apologized for criticizing a speech he hadn’t heard. Explaining the mistake, Dean said, “I didn’t know what [Edwards] had said because I hadn’t been in the hall and nobody told me. Had I known what Senator Edwards had done, I would not have said that.”
Two months ago, Dean felt the need to apologize to Dick Gephardt for calling the congressman’s health care proposal ”pie-in-the-sky” and mischaracterizing Gephardt’s opposition to Bush’s 2001 tax cut plan.
Earlier this month, Dean’s campaign apologized when Dean said he “voted” against a congressional resolution on Iraq despite the fact that Dean has never been in Congress and doesn’t have a vote.
As Glen Johnson wrote in the Boston Globe today, “Howard Dean’s fire-breathing campaign rhetoric has inspired some party activists, but the inaccuracy of some remarks, as well as his characterizations of some rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, has prompted him to issue several apologies this year.”
The Globe article quoted a University of Vermont political science professor who has watched Dean over two decades say that Dean has a tendency to “pop-off” and Dean “also has a very short fuse.”
The Dean campaign defended the frequent need to apologize for the governor’s mistakes, telling the Globe that Dean isn’t “a programmed candidate who focus-groups every comment.”
That may be true, but he also isn’t a disciplined candidate who knows when not to say stupid things. Dean has been talking for a year about being the “straight talk” candidate, but what he seems to forget is the importance of saying what he means and standing behind it. What’s the point of talking “straight” if you need to apologize afterwards?