In his
latest commentary William Safire says, as have many others, that Howard Dean is a terrible candidate because he's the next George McGovern.
I thought this idea had died over the summer, but maybe it's just occurring to Safire. There doesn't seem to be much consensus -- Slate looked at everyone Dean was being compared to over the summer, while their primary political correspondent said Dean isn't McGovern because Dean isn't a liberal. Democratic Underground published an essay (badly proofread) comparing Dean and McGovern, finding the comparison false, and Dean to be more "electable". The Wisconsin Conservative Digest said Bush should be scared of Dean and stop pretending he's another McGovern. Ray Gonzalez said we should pay some honor to McGovern and stop trying to portray him as a nutcase.
So what do you think? (Personally, I think the comparison is silly, but it keeps cropping up, and so I wonder what the view of everyday Democrats and Independents is -- or even, for that matter, Republicans).