Boston Globe: Dean Campaign Drawing to an End

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/presid...igns_of_ending/

 

What can I say? I wasn't the first guy in the world to support Howard Dean for President, but on this board, it's fairly obvious that I've been one of the most vocal supporters of the good Governor. He has put all of his stock into the Wisconsin primary after the fantastic blunder that was Iowa, and as of right now, John Kerry is leading by ~30% with two days to go. Do I think it's still possible for Howard to come back in Wisconsin and perhaps give Kerry a close second? Yeah, I do. If Drudge isn't a complete liar (which I do, of course, have my doubts about), the TIME magazine scandal piece about John Kerry would come out Monday, and the Kerry voter bloc is practically the same as the Dean bloc. If Kerry drops, it would give the Dean campaign new life and give him a real shot at winning this nomination.

 

But I doubt it'll happen, and I don't really know if Howard wants to continue this campaign or not. He's shown obvious signs of wearing down--understandable, considering he's been campaigning nonstop for roughly the last two years--and it sounds like (from this piece anyway) he just wants to go home. I don't think anything less than a win in Wisconsin will keep him in the race.

 

Say what you will about the guy, but you absolutely cannot deny that he turned the Democratic party from a weak, pissant institution in 2002 into a real force for the 2004 elections. He framed the course of this debate for 2004, and he brought quite a few new voters into the scene to fight against George W. Bush this year. He created a grassroots movement--and fundraising machine--which will be duplicated for years to come. Love him or hate him, the man and his organization have opened up the way for volunteers and other previous non-participants to take part in the inner workings of a campaign.

 

The man is an articulate, kind-hearted individual who really, truly cares about changing the country. The movement is an organization of dedicated, motivated individuals who are willing to sacrifice their paychecks and their time to help change the country. I hope the majority of them have the common sense, when it's all over, to gravitate towards a mainstream candidate who has a chance of winning. If not, the Dean campaign and its mass of supporters might damage the party in the short term, but certainly not in the long term.

 

As for me, I'm still rooting for a miracle comeback--a ninth inning rally--in Wisconsin. If it doesn't happen, I don't really know; I'd prefer Edwards over Kerry, but that's not even looking so hot anymore. I'll support Kerry in the general election over G.W., but I can't guarantee that I'd give him the same dedication and support that I gave Howard Dean. I wouldn't, for example, give him a donation or canvass for him the way I have for Dean. But I'll give him my vote, I suppose.

 

So, the moment that Jobber has been long awaiting seems to be upon us. Gloat away.

Edited February 15, 2004 by Tyler McClelland

[MrRant 0]

I told you Jimmy Dean would have been a better candidate.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Jimmy hasn't won any primaries either, though.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So, the moment that Jobber has been long awaiting seems to be upon us. Gloat away.

I just saw it coming, I wasn't happily awaiting it or anything.

 

Trippi has built a pretty amazing camapign that was wrecked by a candidate who couldn't keep all his thoughts from spilling out of his mouth and on the 10 o'clock news.

 

It's not as though his policy is a great deal worse than anyone else's. It's that Dean vs Bush would equal 4 more years of Bush. Especially when you consider the media at the last set of debates acted shocked that Bush was able to say anything intelligent at all and declared him winner because they weren't sure he was going to be able to piece together a set of words or not, and he exceeded their expectations.

 

But if you're going to go down on a note, there's no better note than "YAAAARGH!"

[snuffbox 0]

Jimmy hasn't won any primaries either, though.

He makes some good microwaveable sausages though

[EricMM 0]

Maybe, just maybe, people don't appreciate "anti-campaigns."

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I just lost a huge fucking post to my back button. I'm pissed.

 

Maybe, just maybe, people don't appreciate "anti-campaigns."

 

Except calling it an anti-campaign shows how little you actually paid attention.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I'm going to just do a little summary of my reply to Jobber, since I lost my previous post.

 

Howard's success as a candidate has always been his ability to frame the debate, and that's why I don't get why you call him "unelectable" and whatnot. There's nothing about him that would be tough to defend against Bush that Edwards or Kerry excel at. Dean's general election strategy has always been to frame the debate as a cultural divide (sounds familiar, doesn't it? Your candidate is doing the same thing) and show the people that he's looking out for their interests. He stands as much of a chance as any other candidate out there, he simply took months and months of strict media scrutiny and inevitably, the voters followed suit. Up until this point, Kerry and Edwards have gotten a relatively free pass. We'll see how "electable" you think they are when the process of media homicide is through, and I'll say the exact same thing.

 

"Electable" is a bullshit indicator.

[Guest Cerebus]

Tyler, I've talked to you on AIM and on the board about Dean's campaign and why I feel it failed so I won't repeat it here.

 

I will take this opportunity to point out my sig however

[Guest Brian]

That just seemed the way the media was willing to paint it. The soundbytes, etc. I've been to the rallies here in Seattle, where you'd expect the most anti-stuff, and yet it was one of the most positive, motivating speeches I've heard in a while. His concession speech on Super Tuesday (I think that was it) was also very good. I actually might have been willing to support a democratic candidate, without the Clinton stuff.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Dean's general election strategy has always been to frame the debate as a cultural divide (sounds familiar, doesn't it? Your candidate is doing the same thing) and show the people that he's looking out for their interests.

It's how he does it. As Carville said, he doesn't "unerstand the glory of the unspoken thought." Stuff like his records was easily sidesteppable, as people couldn't understand what the big deal was in the course of one soundbyte.

 

But the confederate flag thing, the death penalty thing, the variety of comments after Saddam was caught. His visit to California during RecallMania where he supported giving the illegals licenses (polls have shown overwhelmingly that Californians didn't like the idea) and then acting like California is locked up.

 

These things were talked about for a week, if that, and then discarded, under hype and hooplah that this hadn't cost Dean any of his hardcore supporter groups, and that he was somehow connecting with a huge group of non-voters who were suddently going to vote for the first time ever and boy will Bush be in trouble then.

 

Nothing happened. In fact, much like how a bunch of supporters were bumped off the Clark bandwagon by that guy's opinion of abortion, Dean's experiences of tasting his own foot did more damage than he realized.

 

I said it before, I'll say it again. There's no campaign ads here in California. For anyone. There's not really any visits, certainly few public ones. What there is is the national media, and it was nothing but All Dean, All The Time.

 

That's why I was shocked as anyone by the Iowa results. There had been nothing but Dean in the news, and he loses?

 

Dean owes CNN, Time magazine, MSNBC, Newsweek, the NY & LA Times, even Fox News (which often was busier kicking dirt on Dean to put Kerry's success on their headlines) more for advertising than he does his TV ads in upcoming primary states.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

No doubt.

 

That's why it hurt him so much when the media started shitting on him.

[Firestarter 0]

Announcing that he's a "metrosexual" didn't help.

[snuffbox 0]

Announcing that he's a "metrosexual" didn't help.

When did this happen?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Announcing that he's a "metrosexual" didn't help.

That was never really talked about outside of political junkie circles, though.

[Guest MikeSC]

Announcing that he's a "metrosexual" didn't help.

That was never really talked about outside of political junkie circles, though.

Dean was simply the Steve Forbes of 2004. A little heat early on, but nobody was REALLY going to vote for him.

-=Mike

[Styles 0]

Well, I'm sad because he would have made this the most fun Presidential election EVER! Who knows what crazy gravy digging exclamation would fly out of his mouth at any moment!? The debate vs. Bush, you know he'd lose his cool, and Bush would just stand there calmly with a smirk on his face.

Anyway, I am relieved in a way though, that there's not even a microscopic chance that this guy will lead our country. Good.

And for the record I said it way back when before Howard starting making a public fool of himself, HE'S NUTS!

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Poor Howie...

[MrRant 0]

 

>

 

[NoCalMike 0]

I think the biggest reason Dean has fallen so fast is because almost every major media outlet has NON-STOP ad naseau questioned his "electability" which will easily affect people's opinions over time. No one seemed to care at first, for the first few months, but after those seeds were planted, eventually it got to the people.

 

Secondly, the media has reduced Howard Dean into the "yeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaarrrrrrggh" guy. I mean seriously, it wasn't a fucking big deal to begin with, nor was it worth even getting replayed due to it not being newsworthy in the least, however everyone in their mother was searching for the next way to make a joke out if it.

 

The thing that strikes me the most is the lack of attacks on Dean regarding the actual issues. Now I am not here to say I support all of his stances, but I just am not sure why people are so easily manipulated when it comes to scrutiny based on ISSUES as opposed to an emotional outburst.

[Styles 0]

but I just am not sure why people are so easily manipulated when it comes to scrutiny based on ISSUES as opposed to an emotional outburst.

Because in these uneasy times (or any time really) we don't want a president prone to outbursts, we want somone who can maintain his composure under pressure.

I and many I know were not manipulated at all but the media, as way back when this race started I was one of the first around here to post my dislike of Howard Dean, just based on the few speeches of his I'd seen on TV where he WOULD yell and growl and generally get angry to hype his crowd up. And my reaction each time was, "wow, this guy's SCARY." It just took until Iowa for the rest of the country to figure it out.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Secondly, the media has reduced Howard Dean into the "yeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaarrrrrrggh" guy.

That's what Dean's people want you to think.

 

I have to agree with the Washington Post writer who said that the breaking point for Dean was when he commanded someone sit down after asking why he (Dean) was so loud and obnoxious when it came to complaining about Bush.

 

Dean said something about how he didn't feel like being nice to Bush with everything he's doing to ruin the country and then told the guy to sit back down.

 

Right then and there, a whole bunch of Iowans decided not to vote for the guy.

[Guest Cerebus]

Everyone blames the media too much (though they make it easy to do so). I don't know what people expected, the media fawned over Dean for months before Iowa. More than a few pundits pratically declared Dean the winner of the primaries and were already wondering what he would do against Bush. If anything I would say that would be media bias TOWARDS Dean.

[Styles 0]

The media didn't screw Howard, Howard screwed Howard!

[Guest JMA]

The media didn't screw Howard, Howard screwed Howard!

I'd say it was a combination of both. Not that I have any bad feelings towards Dean.

 

And speaking of the other Dean (Jimmy Dean, that is) wasn't he in the news around the time of "The War Cry Heard Around the World"?

[NoCalMike 0]

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say Dean ran any sort of perfect campaign that was foiled by "the baddies" I am just saying I thought the media's coverage and scrutiny over the "outburst" was way overblown, and made to seem like a much bigger deal then it was. I can almost guarantee that when you ask your average joe blow about Howard Dean and what they think of him, the FIRST thing that would come to their mind is "aaaarrrrrrggggggh" before any single issue.

[Vyce 0]

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say Dean ran any sort of perfect campaign that was foiled by "the baddies" I am just saying I thought the media's coverage and scrutiny over the "outburst" was way overblown, and made to seem like a much bigger deal then it was. I can almost guarantee that when you ask your average joe blow about Howard Dean and what they think of him, the FIRST thing that would come to their mind is "aaaarrrrrrggggggh" before any single issue.

PLEASE.

 

Dean was done before the roar. There had always been questions about the man's temperament, and the very reason he lost big in Iowa was because of one issue: electability. Most Democrat voters realized the guy didn't stand a chance in hell of winning the general election, and it showed.

 

The media's response to the roar was the nail in the coffin, but be ye not deceived, his candidacy was dead well before that.

[Guest Cerebus]

I can almost guarantee that when you ask your average joe blow about Howard Dean and what they think of him, the FIRST thing that would come to their mind is "aaaarrrrrrggggggh" before any single issue.

Quayle. Potatoe.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I think the yell just confirmed most people's fears that the guy was a total nutcase. There were a lot of questions about his stability and that didn't help.

 

Also no one wins elections on anger.

[NoCalMike 0]

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say Dean ran any sort of perfect campaign that was foiled by "the baddies"  I am just saying I thought the media's coverage and scrutiny over the "outburst" was way overblown, and made to seem like a much bigger deal then it was.  I can almost guarantee that when you ask your average joe blow about Howard Dean and what they think of him, the FIRST thing that would come to their mind is "aaaarrrrrrggggggh" before any single issue.

PLEASE.

 

Dean was done before the roar. There had always been questions about the man's temperament, and the very reason he lost big in Iowa was because of one issue: electability. Most Democrat voters realized the guy didn't stand a chance in hell of winning the general election, and it showed.

 

The media's response to the roar was the nail in the coffin, but be ye not deceived, his candidacy was dead well before that.

right and on that account the media also played that opinion up too. Just about every day on Crossfire Carville questioned his electability and I am sure democrat voters were listening. Various other news networks harped on this issue too.