So let’s start with this:<\/p>\n
Howard Dean says<\/a> “I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks…”<\/p>\n Then in the debate, he’s challenged<\/a> to apologize:<\/p>\n My question is for Governor Dean. <\/p>\n I recently read a comment that you made where you said that you wanted to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks. When I read that comment, I was extremely offended. <\/p>\n Could you explain to me how you plan on being sensitive to needs and issues regarding slavery and African-Americans, after making a comment of that nature? <\/p>\n (APPLAUSE)<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n …and doesn’t. …southerners have to quit basing their votes on “race, guns, God and gays.”<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Then, today<\/a>, he apologizes for the Dixie Flag remark:<\/p>\n One day after his Democratic presidential rivals demanded that he apologize for his remarks, which they called offensive to blacks and southern whites, Dean for the first time expressed remorse. “I regret the pain that I may have caused either to African American or southern white voters,” he said in New York. What he had hoped to do, Dean said, was provoke a “painful” dialogue about race among all voters, including those displaying Confederate flags. But, he said, “I started this discussion in a clumsy way.” <\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now, personally, as noted in a comment<\/a>, I’m no fan of the Confederate Battle Flag. As I noted, “Now personally, I detest the Stars and Bars as a symbol of the most treasonous act in our nation’s history.” (note that Clayton Cramer<\/a> has a longer post on the Stars and Bars). And here I have to split my argument and try and touch on two not completely unrelated points.<\/p>\n The first one is about the practice of electioneering, and the way that and natural human impulses seem to get smoothed out – by handlers, staff, and reporters, I’d imagine. Dean said something controversial – but arguably not untrue – was publicly pounded by his opponents, doubtless counseled by his horrified pollsters and staff – and backed away from his statement like a teenager from a sink full of dirty dishes.<\/p>\n Now what that says about him – that he’s sadly no more ‘genuine’ than the balance of the machined products of the electoral process, and that his vaunted backbone is, in fact quite flexible when key interest groups are involved – is of moderate interest in deciding who one might support in the election. <\/p>\n And what it says about our electoral process – that we boil the flavor and individuality – and backbone out of our candidates, and then wonder why they’re made of mush – is probably the most serious issue.<\/p>\n Much like movie sequels, where the energy and imagination of the creators is slowly leached out by the legions of ‘supporters,’ we get a vapid echo of the strong person the candidate once must have been.<\/p>\n
\nThen, he says that<\/a><\/p>\n