Who is Howard Dean?

Who is Howard Dean exactly?

Some have compared him to George McGovern. Some have compared him to Jimmy Carter. And Bill Clinton. And John McCain. He seems unique, so everyone wants to slap a label on him. He's just not like the rest of those guys running now, so he must be like someone else who has run in the past.

First, the McGovern comparison. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a prominent, but of course anonymous, member of the Democratic Party comment that nominating Dean would lead to another 49er nominee. Here the Democrats are echoing their fear that Dean would lose every state but Vermont. Thus, he'd lose 49 states - a 49er, just like McGovern in 1972 and Mondale in 1984.

McGovern was liberal and challenged a sitting president up for re-election during an unpopular war. I suppose there's some superficial parallel to Dean there. But Dean simply ain't that liberal. Check out his record, he's a moderate. But there is one significant parallel that's worth mentioning: McGovern's campaign was successful due to his pioneering direct-mail fundraising, much as Dean's campaign has thrived on internet fundraising.

Then there are the Carter and Clinton comparisons. Dean, like both of these ex-Presidents, hails from an obscure state that no one's ever been to and few can locate on a map. Both Carter and Clinton faced heavy fire as insiders tried to paste them as outsiders with no grasp of foreign policy. Dean is facing the same fire.

From the earliest days of the Dean campaign, comparisons to McCain began emerging. Both are energetic, seem to tell it as it is, launch into tirades with their raspy voices and are bulldogs on the campaign trail. I'd contend that Dean has willingly accepted the title of "The McCain of 2004" but I'm not so sure that he deserves it.

Dean's campaign has captured the innovation of McGovern, it's working with the resume of Clinton, and sports a fiery candidate with hints of McCain. These comparisons might be all well and good, but there's another comparison that I've not read much about but that I've started piecing together that's far more compelling.

The best comparison is with George W. Bush. Yep, you read that right, our president. Dean's the Democratic George Bush.

First, their backgrounds. Bush: the grandson of a senator, son of a president, attended Andover Academy and Yale. Dean: son and grandson of ultra-wealthy New York City investment bankers, attended St. George's and, of course, Yale. Neither was exactly raised in poverty.

Both had serious drinking problems when they were younger - most don't know this about Dean, but don't take my word, check out his forthcoming book Winning Back America in which he tries to lay out his past before the press digs into it.

Both ended up in the similar roles as rather insignificant governors: Dean as governor of a state that's not as populous as some Boston suburbs and Bush as governor of Texas, a state with one of the constitutionally weakest governors in the nation. And both rode these jobs into serious presidential bids.

What's most striking though are the personality comparisons. On the campaign trail, Bush was most known for his spontaneous, often ludicrous, bumbled statements. Everyone remembers the famous Bushisms from campaign 2000-but how about these Deanisms:

Days ago, in an interview with an Iowan newspaper, Dean remarked that he wants to be the candidate "for the guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks."

Then last week at an event in Boulder, CO, he proclaimed that he's a "metrosexual" (a term coined recently to describe straight men who are "in touch with their feminine side") only moments later to backtrack and declare he's actually "a square" and doesn't even know what the term metrosexual really means.

Earlier in the summer, Dean took a lot of heat for commenting at a forum: "We've gotten rid of [Saddam Hussein], and I suppose that's a good thing." He supposes?

Last spring, he made the comment that as President he would prepare the United States for the day when "we won't always have the strongest military." Running on a platform of letting the military decline while the US loses its supremacy is a rather perplexing strategy.

Now certainly these Deanisms aren't as funny as some of Bush's misstatements. But they're similar in that neither one, it seems, can be guaranteed to open their mouths on the campaign trail without saying something they'll regret.

The last comparison concerns the arrogance and pomposity of the two. Few would deny that with Bush it's his way or the highway on every issue. But if you follow Dean closely, you'll find the same arrogance. Even when he makes a blatant mistake (a recent ad he ran in New Hampshire comes to mind in which he proclaims that he's the only candidate who has consistently opposed the war-Kucinich was not pleased) and is called on it, he refuses to back down.

Bush and Dean were both raised in opulence, attended the best private schools, abused their youth and developed destructive drinking problems, recovered in mid-life to become governors, if not both rather insignificant ones, and then ran for president. Both wreak of arrogance and a sense of entitlement, which I suppose should be expected when hailing from the de facto aristocracy. But both cover it up and come across as 'commoners,' like you and I and everyone else.

And maybe in the end, there's really something to these similarities. Both seem to be the antithesis of insider-Washington-style politics, they're the un-politicians. They had drinking problems in the 70s (hey, who didn't?), they're not canned and are prone to misspeak (it happens to all of us now and again, doesn't it?), and they both seem to fly in the face of retail politicians like Bill Clinton who calculate every word so it pleases their audience. They seem just like you and I and we love it.

Adam Schultz is a senior majoring in political science. He can be reached at Schultz@tuftsdaily.com.