In an interview last Friday on CNN John Dean was asked about his comments regarding the Iowa caucuses and the terrorist group Hamas. Though I haven't been able to find the text of the interview, his response was in essence, "I don't believe in gotcha politics. My campaign is about the future not the past."
Hmm. This from a man who is campaigning on what in his opinion are the past failings of his "Washington insider" Democratic opponents and the current Bush administration.
To his credit, Dean is putting forth his ideas and a picture of what his administration would do. I personally think this country would be destroyed by socialism, but at least Dean isn't afraid to put out the message.
Still, Dean was repeatedly quizzed about his comments and he refused to respond to them. Only to insist his campaign is not about history and to castigate his opponents for bringing up the issue.
When faced with the fact that it was not his opponents who dug out his comments but a journalist, Mr. Dean quickly changed the subject to his campaign platform.
So, how come it's ok for Mr. Dean to discuss and criticize his opponents past actions and comments, but it's not OK for his opponents and others to look at and judge Mr. Dean by is past.
Just as anyone's past tells a lot about who the person is, so Mr. Dean's historic comments and actions tell volumes about his character and the kind of leader he would be.