Burnt Orange Report

January 22, 2004

Howard Dean: Now More Than Ever

By Jim Dallas

There has been, on this blog and elsewhere, some hesitancy to get behind Howard Dean after the (admittedly) stunningly awful performance the good doctor gave in Iowa on Monday. Although plenty of candidates have lost and Iowa and gone on to win the presidency (to name a few, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Bill Clinton), rarely has the loss been so stunning; and in the past the time-table has been a little more generous; there's little less than a week to fix the Dean Machine before the New Hampshire primaries next Tuesday.

It's my strongest conviction that now is not the time to flee. Indeed, it's time to support Howard Dean -- now more than ever.

It's easy to rattle off a list of the mistakes that the Dean campaign made in the closing days of the Iowa campaign. For example, the campaign's ads were terrible and uninspired. The message got muddled by a barrage of bad press and a candidate who was blissfully unaware of the fact that his position "on the ground" was slowly going to hell (trust me on this one; if you counted the number of supposed Dean supporters on my walk list who had Edwards or Kerry signs in their front yards - signs apparently put out in the closing weeks of the campaign -- you could see that things were going badly for Dean). Moreover, the ground organization was not capable of putting the thousands of volunteers that showed up for Dean to good use. Even veteran blockwalkers, such as myself, spent about half of the time trying to figure out where in the Lord's name we were (instead of knocking on doors). Better maps -- or even better, a local liaison, would have greatly improved the ground game.

But that's all spilled milk now, and it's time to move on. That was the tone of Dean's victory/concession speech on Monday night, and nobody at the Val Air ballroom there in Des Moines thought it was a joke.

In order to understand what really happened in Iowa, you have to look beyond the mistakes Dean made and recognize that Sens. Kerry and Edwards essentially had to "reinvent" themselves to make themselves palatable to Iowa voters.

Edwards pushed himself as the White Knight candidate who was above the fray. Moreover, Edwards seems to have drawn away much of Gephardt's support after Gephardt's "suicide bomber" strategy blew up in his face. Edwards simply managed to appeal to the Genteel Wing of the Democratic Party. And yet, Edwards' criticisms of the Bush administration seems to have ramped up considerably throughout the course of the campaign.

Kerry, in so many ways, attempted to co-opt Dean's message of reform while undermining Dean personally by pushing the story that Dean was a walking-time bomb. Kerry's ads called him a "fighter". Now where have we heard that before?

(Additionally, Kerry seems to have drawn the lions' share of the vote which might have otherwise gone to Wesley Clark. Should Kerry and Dean push Clark into third place - or worse - next week in New Hampshire, Clark's decision not to compete in Iowa should probably be considered to be one of the worst political blunders in modern history).

In short, Kerry out-Deaned Dean, in a sort of contrived, establishmentarian way. And the result was that the Good Doctor lost, in the eyes of so many voters, that edge of distinctiveness that had so marked his past success.

I support Howard Dean because I still recognize the difference between Dean and the rest of the pack; to wit, that the Good Doctor is a leader. While the Dean Machine was caught flat-footed by the repositioning of the Democratic field in the closing weeks of the Iowa campaign, let's not forget the fundamental relevance of that fact.

Luckily, it appears that Dean's ad folks have clued into this, with their newest ad.

I have to agree with Byron that the fallout from Iowa could be just what the doctor ordered for Howard Dean's campaign. In many ways, I think the campaign will benefit from a week of lowered expectations (and we can hope, lessened media scrutiny).

At any rate, for those doubters out there -- why is it that Dean is so bad, when all the other candidates are trying to be Howard Dean?

Posted by Jim Dallas at January 22, 2004 03:10 AM | TrackBack

Comments

Well, I disagree about the ad. It's better than the last Iowa ad attacking "Washington Democrats", but it still has it's flaws... see my post below..

Posted by: ByronUT at January 22, 2004 04:05 AM

"Now More Than Ever"? Hey, maybe Dean can work that phrase into his reinvention - it worked well for Nixon!

Does this mean Byron will be putting his tattered Dean bumper sticker back on his car again?

Seriously, for Deanites, this Hugh Hewitt post should be encouraging.

Posted by: Mark Harden at January 22, 2004 07:15 AM

If Dean is the nominee I certainly will... I happen to disagree with Jim here, but we'll see.

Posted by: ByronUT at January 22, 2004 09:32 AM

Funny, I thought Howard Dean was trying to just be Jerry Brown all over again. That didn't appeal to me in 1992, and hence, it doesn't appeal to me now. Let me know when the doctor delivers a better idea for the economy, defense, health care, and education than his seemingly bigger priority of campaign finance reform. Trippi strikes again (now more than ever).

Posted by: Greg Wythe at January 22, 2004 09:48 AM

I found it interesting that Michael Moore (a Clark supporter), today encourages Dean supporters to not give up! I couldn't agree more. Even if Howard Dean doesn't win the nomination battle, he's already won the war by giving many Democrats a swift kick in the butt and by getting younger people involved in the whole political process.

Posted by: Alan W at January 22, 2004 12:01 PM

There was a great post on dKos (from a Clark supporter, of all people) encouraging Dean supporters to quit belly-aching and get back to work. Loose paraphrase: "Quit acting like you're going to switch to Clark... you're Deaniacs, for God's sake! You supported him for a reason, remember that reason and stand by your guy!"

Posted by: Brady at January 22, 2004 01:28 PM

Well, I ran throught his on my blog, but it appears the Deanies have run the cycle. On Monday and Tuesday, they were disillusioned. On Wednesday they were working through the ramifications. Today, they were back....

We lost some (not an insignificant number), and some are incredibly bitter.

But at least we frickin' hit bottom, and can now try to move back up. I expect, as long as Dean handles himself well tonight, to see Dean's poll numbers to bottom out tommorow, then start moving up.

Posted by: Morat at January 22, 2004 01:39 PM

I can't pretend to be a neutral observer, or even to wish the Democratic party well. Well, I could try, but no one would believe me :) I really find it fascinating, though, how so many Dean supporters (and former supporters) are willing to declare his candidacy all but dead, and affirm that a defeat in NH would end all hope. Out of curiousity, why? I mean, you are left wingers who support him for a reason, and presumeably you believe he has a much better stand on the issues than Kerry. Why give him up for dead after one or two states?

Again, I'll mention how conservatives in my party reacted in the 2000 primaries. McCain folded in Iowa early, and the media didn't give Bush any sort of boost for winning there. NH was the first real test, and Bush got spanked, and badly. Then came my state, the "firewall" Michigan, where McCain again trounced W. Following the logic of so many posting here, Bush should have given up at that point, and we should have nominated the "electable" but ubermoderate McCain. Of course, conservatives didn't give up, and after two losses Bush re-tooled his campaign, came back, and with his committed conservative supporters, and a hefty campaign finance advantage, whupped McModerate in S.C., and then when the major states started voting ... it was all over but the shouting. Of course, Bush went on to win in Nov., to the dismay of many at the BOR.

So why do you assume it is impossible for Dean to do the same, why is Kerry the all but inevitable nominee? I just don't get it. If you believe in Dean's positions and what he stands for, and are not simply looking for anybody/thing but Bush, why not roll up your sleaves and get down to work? If Gulliani won Iowa and NH handily in 2008, there is no way I would concede the nomination to him, but I'd get back and fight him and fight for what I believe in. And that, with the knowledge that the wicked witch of the east is waiting to take on whoever we choose, and that she would wreck the country if she won. Your feelings towards Bush go double for those on my side about Sen. Clinton. But electablility doesn't trump all considerations, you have to stand for something. Seriously, why are you so willing to give up on the guy you've eagerly supported for the past half year?

Sherk

Posted by: Sherk at January 22, 2004 02:33 PM

I stand for something and that is to beat Bush. Give up on Dean, he is now totally unelectable.

Posted by: Tek_XX at January 22, 2004 03:23 PM

Sherk, like most Republicans, wants Dean backers to fight on to the bitter end. If Karl Rove can't get his wish of Howard Dean at the top of the Democratic ticket, the next best thing for Rove would be pointless and protracted warfare within the Democraic Party.

The only thing that is really clear this year is that Democrats will give their support to any candidate who can beat Bush. This is a mature attitude which is necessary for victory in November

Posted by: Tim Z at January 22, 2004 07:19 PM

Tim Z,

Well, you are partly right. I don't really care if Dean or Kerry get the nod, I think they are both easily beatable, while I would really enjoy seeing a brokered convention. No nominee until July and pandering to the hard left delegates to win the nomination would pretty much sink your chances. But that is still unlikely, and is only part of why I am writing this.

Mostly, though, I just don't get your (Dean supports) reaction. Sure I'm not on the same team as you are, but I'd honestly like to know why so many of you are ready to quit after one caucus loss. I was trying to point out that Bush got trounced early on, and won both the nomination and the general election, and wondering why you assume Dean can't do the same. Honestly, besides my not so disinterested partisan bias, I would like to know why so many Deaniacs threw in the towel so quickly.

Regards,

Sherk

Posted by: Sherk at January 22, 2004 08:25 PM

Umm, yeah, that would be Dean Supporters in the second paragraph, not Dean supports.

Sherk

Posted by: Sherk at January 22, 2004 08:26 PM

Sherk,
Speaking for myself, I've always been a Dean skeptic.
I do give him credit for energizing folks who had never previously gotten involved in politics. And the fundraising and organizational skills of his campaign are nothing to be sneered at.
But his personality just does not inspire confidence. If he has this effect on a hardcore Illinois Democrat, how would he be viewed by the 15% of the electorate which still does not identify too closely with either party?

Posted by: Tim Z at January 22, 2004 11:38 PM

Many of them threw in the towel because it's their first big political experience and ultimately they're fair-weather fans. They are highly influenced by media coverage, lacking ingrained ideologies, and are easily disillusioned with lost battles.

Dean support has been a fad, especially among the college anti-war crowd, and many people haven't looked that hard at Dean's actual policies. As long as Dean maintained momentum he was okay, but now he's testing the support of an unstable and inexperienced constituency.

Posted by: chrisken at January 23, 2004 12:49 AM

News, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas

January 22, 2004

Howard Dean: Now More Than Ever

By Jim Dallas