Dean Sparks Debate On His Potential To Remold Party

Howard Dean's success raising money and mobilizing voters has provoked a growing debate among Democratic and Republican strategists over whether the former Vermont governor has the potential to become a "transformative" political figure, altering, for better or worse, the financial and constituent base of the Democratic Party.

Although assessments of the Dean campaign run the gamut, they generally fall into two camps.

The first, and most favorable, contends that the former Vermont governor has found a way to compete with Republicans for money under the new rules of the McCain-Feingold law; that he has far outpaced rivals in both parties in the use of Internet technology, the newest tool to rally supporters and raise cash; and that he has broken new ground for voters to participate in campaigns. It also maintains that he has built both voter and fundraising momentum without depending on the special interest groups that have played major roles in picking nominees in the past.

The second, more jaundiced view is that although Dean has found a way to mobilize a liberal, activist base, capitalizing especially on the ease of credit-card contributions through the Internet, Dean's nomination could lead to a repetition of the crushing general election defeats the Democratic Party suffered under George McGovern, Walter F. Mondale and Michael S. Dukakis.

One of the most outspoken proponents of the view that the Dean campaign will change the Democratic Party is Simon B. Rosenberg, president and founder of the centrist New Democrat Network.

"Dean raising close to $15 million is like a baseball player hitting 75 home runs," Rosenberg said. By using the Internet and such Internet vehicles as MoveOn.org and Meetup.com to collect a record-breaking amount of cash and to build a base of more than 470,000 online supporters, Dean has pushed politics into "a post-broadcast era" in which television may no longer dominate campaigns, Rosenberg said.

At the same time, Rosenberg argued, Dean has found a means to directly deal with one of the Democratic Party's major liabilities, the perception that it and its candidates are beholden to a collection of liberal "interest groups." In every losing Democratic presidential campaign since 1980, Republicans have portrayed the Democratic nominee as a captive of such interest groups as organized labor, feminists and Hollywood liberals, an image that was reinforced by the large "soft money" contributions that labor and wealthy liberals used to make to the Democratic National Committee before enactment of McCain-Feingold.

Dean is showing how the Democratic Party can become "a party that can transcend our interest groups, and that a candidate can get elected without owing anyone anything," Rosenberg said.

The nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute last week provided some evidence supporting Rosenberg's view. "What is also different about 2003 is the emergence of a well-financed candidate -- Howard Dean -- who depends on large donors ($1,000 or more) for only 22 percent of individual contributions and gets 54 percent from small donors (less than $200)," the institute found.

In contrast, President Bush, who has raised $83.9 million, collected 85 percent of it in contributions of $1,000 or more and 10 percent in gifts of less than $200. For other major Democratic candidates, the percentages of large and small contributions were: retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark, 45 percent to 35 percent; Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), 88 to 1; Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), 78 to 8; Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), 77 to 11; and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), 78 to 6.

"Dean has figured out how to get people who feel intensely to give him money. The issue is: How expandable is that? That's what we are going to find out over the next several months."


EL - And time. Dean has built his organization through the internet.