The Real Story of Why Kerry Won Iowa

[DrFunkenstein]

Conspiracy theories are no stranger to DU, especially when it comes time to explain the seemingly-inexplicable. Dean's loss in Iowa despite very strong polling encourage these tendencies.

Slightly closer to reality are the surface stories of Dean's gaffes and a Dean-Gephardt double suicide.

Neither get it right. This story - from the normally moronic US News - is the most credible story I've seen so far. It mostly involves political organization locally and nationally, the disciplined grunt work of running a Presidential campaign - hardly the most romantic of internet subjects, but one that cannot be ignored.

In my opinion, this is one of the most insightful articles written in a long time about the campaign process, and believe me, I've read my share.

My only reservation with the article is that it fails to mention Kerry's exhaustive work answering the questions of the native folk, night after night, crowd after crowd, and how that played upon local values better than, say, the Perfect Storm did. While this is not the "real" key to Kerry's success there, it is an important piece of the political puzzle.

Read it for yourselves before submitting comments/judgements:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040719/usnews/19point.1.htm

[JohnKleeb]

1. I read that article while on my lunch break a few days back

It was quite a read.

[DjTj]

2. It was by far the best article about the primaries I've read.

Their explanation of the Dean collapse makes perfect sense. I was always waiting for Dean to turn the corner and push his balanced budget and strong health care agenda, but day after day the Dean campaign pounded on Iraq and "You have the power." DU and the rest of the internet community ate it up, but I think the U.S. News article is very right in that what sells on the internet does not necessarily sell into the mainstream public.

Just think back to the strain that occurred on DU when Dean got the Gore endorsement and the AFSCME and SEIU endorsements. As soon as Dean started becoming more establishment, people started looking elsewhere, opening up a great window for Clark ... it really was a Catch 22 - Dean couldn't simultaneously be the internet/reactionary candidate and the Democratic nominee for President.

The vast majority of American voters do not hate Bush and do not have a strong desire to take back their government. Most people just want to be safe and secure in their homes and want to be able to pursue their livelihoods on an even playing field. They want to be proud of their country and proud of their leaders. Those are the votes that Kerry and Edwards won in Iowa, and they are the votes that will win the election in November.

[DrFunkenstein]

5. Dean Already Had The Internet/Reactionary Vote

Clark had pulled out of Iowa already, because he knew you couldn't win there without a tight organization in place. Dean already had the up-in-arms crowd, and needed to expand his base by using the strong polls to look "safer" and more Presidential to Iowans. Fortunately for Kerry fans, Dean and Trippi were at odds over what the agenda ultimately was.

Not to mention that Trippi gave Iowa up for lost very early (and refused to leave his east coast turf to fix it), while Kerry made two major changes in his campaign line up.

Dean was reluctant to deal with bad news, his staff was reluctant to give it to him, and by the time he understood the true nature of his standing in Iowa, it was probably too late.

Kerry, much to his credit, was totally willing to hear what was really going on, no matter how bleak it sounded. That's a big part of leadership - and a quality that enamored me to Kerry very early on. For all the talk of his problems with "nuance," he truly tries to get the big picture, deliberate on it, and then act decisively. What made him a successful candidate in Iowa will make him an amazing President.

[JohnKleeb]

7. I remember reading that the Dean campaign was giving

important jobs to unqualified people, its mentioned in the article I believe about a 20 year old college student's memoirs. That's right Clark withdrew from Iowa, and when he entered the race people from all camps went to his. I wasn't a Kerry supporter but I always had him as number 2, and I hadn't given up for dead even though at X-mas time it sure seemed that way, people were already celebrating his "demise" I remember, then I remember in early January Kerry started pulling closer and closer, then he as I said lost his voice and I worried, the day he won Iowa, I sorta switched candiates, the night Kerry won Iowa I think he won it all as it turned out, people in other camps were expecting to still beat Kerry after Iowa and New Hampshire but I thought it was unlikely. Kerry like Edwards has ability to relate to people through his stories of Vietnam and etc, I think another problem the Dean camp and Dean himself has admitted this, that he didn't relate personally to people, I remember the supporters lauding him being a doctor which is a nice thing and saying people will like that but never once did he mention it, personally I thought that was bad stragety and his aides it seems agreed because Grossman suggested it to him which he rejected but has since agreed would have been a good idea.

[emulatorloo]

3. Agreed on Kerry's exhaustive work talking to people

It was certainly a big factor to me. . .I observed him do this at every event and rally I attended. He was working really hard, he wanted to hear what people had to say and he wanted to show people he was going to work his butt off to get elected.

Same for Teresa.

[JohnKleeb]

4. I remember he had lost his voice by the day of Iowa caucus

I thought oh no his hard work won't be able to pay off, then he won by a landslide with Edwards in 2nd which was sort of a mini preview of the super bowl with Kerry representing the patriots and Edwards representing the Panthers. It was also a prelude to the actual ticket which is a good one.

[Capn Sunshine]

6. I was there

Well, actually , my people were, I was on hourly bulletin status.
I read the US News report and it pretty much nails what happened. The Kerry folks controlled the process , they had the party-line people in positions of authority, and further, they knew HOW the process worked.
This was not true of the Dean people on ground there.
Condidering the stakes, Trippi's casual attitude ( "leave it to the State org") mystified us.

The conspiracy part of the equation enters into the edited broadcast of the "scream" , edited and delivered to every moring show in the country by the next day and re broadcast of same over 700 times in the days between the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. This doesn't happen without complicity of the Democratic Party mechanism.

Not to mention the savaging of Dean by the democratic party operatives over the "we're no safer by capturing Saddam" comment.

Unless you still want to tell me that was incorrect.

[emulatorloo]

17. News Orgs were covering Dean's Iowa Speech

The networks were broadcasting it live and taping it.

why would Dem Party Mechanism have to be complicit with a conspiracy? That doesn't follow.

I saw it live when we came home from caucusing. . .and my immediate reaction was "Uh-Oh" for the Dean campaign. (Dean was my second choice) I knew it was not going to be good news for Dean. . .the overplaying of the clip was disgusting, but I knew that the speech was going to be counterproductive.

[salonghorn70]

46. My Immediate Reaction

emulatorloo, Your reaction was just "uh oh?" My immediate reaction (considering about 35 years in politics) was that this guy was frightening me in a way that I had never seen before.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

30. It Was a Fascinating Read, Wasn't It?

God, that article was amazing. Lots of interesting stuff I hadn't known before, and I am a political junkie.

Regarding the scream, the very same night it happened, Drudge put up approximately 15 seconds of it (the key part) on his website in readily downloadable format. That's exactly the snippet that KROQ played, and I wouldn't be surprised if lots of other news organs got the snippet from Drudge.

Have I told you lately how much I hate that rat bastard Drudge?

DTH

[fujiyama]

52. I think Saddam

was captured in November, and immediately after I remember Lieberman going after Dean a lot. Of course, during the debates as well Lieberman was being the most abrasive and an all around ass with Dean.

However, I don't remember as much from Kerry during that time. I think the media at that point had basically written his campaign off as dead. It wasn't until maybe two or three weeks before IA where tracking polls began showing Gep really slipping and Kerry gaining. Granted, I saw Kerry getting second (or a strong third) at best.

Anyways, regarding a conspiracy, I'm not sure how clear it was. Was it necessarily the entire establishment that went after Dean? I know the DLC was after him for a while, but even as they were attacking him, Dean was doing fine. He was picking up endorsements and his numbers in the polls were fine.

Also I'm not sure how it means the democratic party was complicit after the Dean scream. Sure, the media exagerrated it and made it seem a lot worse than it really was. However, as someone sypathetic to him, I still knew right away that it was a bad speech...and I honestly worried that he would have a heart attack or something at the time. This was an honest reaction. Also, it's not as though the media has been generous to Kerry during his campaign. Immediately omnce it was known he was the nominee, the media began mouthing off Rovian talking points.

This is not to excuse the media's scouring of Dean between IA and NH. It was completely undeserved, and it was never revealed to most people that the speech didn't seem as awkward in the hall he was giving it.

Ultimately, while I think the establishment's attacks on Dean had some effect in planting doubts in some people's minds, I really think the strategic misteps on Dean's part and Kerry's own choices in the last few weeks, had a much greater impact.

[madfloridian]

8. Bottom line is that one small state chose our nominee.

I have said this before, that no matter how you argue it...no matter how many of the Dean campaign folks make money off him telling tales and trying to vindicate themselves......the bottom line is that one small state chose the nominee. No one was really paying attention then. In CA Dean was leading, in Florida Dean and Clark were tied. Kerry was hardly noticed here at the time of Iowa.

We have got to change the system. Most of America never really got to vote in a primary where the candidates were still viable. Something is wrong with that picture.

Also read on to the next section on Mr. Whouley. He got what he wanted because his client could mortgate his home to get the millions needed.

I have firm opinions that Trippi was supposed to be an expert on Iowa, and he failed to do his job properly.

Iowa has too much control over our election process. Even our 16 year old granddaughter thinks so, and she lives in Iowa.

[JohnKleeb]

9. Iowa actually doesnt always determine everything

Harkin won Iowa in '92 and didnt go all the way same with Gephardt in 88. Same with Bob Dole in 88. New Hampshire likewise isnt always a determining factor, take John McCain in 2000 and Paul Tsongas in '92. If you win both like Kerry did, you're on a nice cushion and he won because he had momentum. If people don't like the results, change the primary and caucus system. So I disagree with you that Iowa means everything, Iowa and New Hampshire give you big momentum granted but historically it doesnt mean everything. Just my opinion.

[madfloridian]

19. The primaries were not front-loaded then.

I will find Nichols great article on this.

[sangh0]

10. Completely untrue

No one state has enough delegates to determine the nominee, and in most presidential races, it took primaries and caucuses in several states before the nominee was obvious.

Also, there's was a great deal of attention paid by Iowans. In fact, the people of Iowa have, for a long time, had a reputation for getting into the issues, unlike many voters in many other states.

[madfloridian]

12. No, it is true.

Many voters in other states pay a lot of attention to the issues, so that is a straw man argument. Iowa does not always get it right, but this time, with the newly energized folks entering the fray.....they sure did speak with a loud voice. Two, no actually 3, if you count NY, states were pretty much in the Dean camp before Iowa, with larger populations, much larger.

I think letting one state have that much power is wrong, especially when you change the rules and frontload the primaries. I think that happened in 02, or maybe just after 00. A McAuliffe thing.

[sangh0]

24. Now you are contradicting yourself

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=582722#582772

At the link above, you claimed that "no one was paying attention then". Now you're saying "many voters" were paying a "lot of attention"

Make up your mind

[emulatorloo]

13. Yes, we are pretty damned tough on candidates

Nobody gets an easy ride in Iowa.


and in many ways it makes sense to start in a midwestern, heartland, battleground state.

[madfloridian]

15. See my other post to you.

I made no insult. I just said it is too small a state to have so much national power.

[emulatorloo]

11. You have good points, but I will tell you nobody is more engaged

than Iowans during caucus season. People are paying close attention, people are out there seeing the candidates, pushing them, prodding them, and seeing what they are made of.

You cannot imagine the access to the candidates unless you have seen it. And you can't imagine how seriously people here take it.

Kerry was hardly noticed here either --- but he came out swinging after Veterans Day. And people responded to his message and his resilience. As a hypothetical that prolly would have happened in many a state.


I'd like to see caucus season shaken up a little too - but don't think that Iowans are naive, weren't paying attention, etc.

[madfloridian]

14. I never said Iowa was uninvolved. I did not put them down.

I said one state should NOT have so much power. One small state can also be manipulated if they are getting push polls suggesting that the Deans performed abortion, that he is not mentally stable, and that he is unelectable.

Want to know how I know? Our daughter's family got them. She really believed Dean had performed abortions, and even though they were Dean supporters....they got a negative view at once.

You know, like McCain's baby in the SC mess in 2000.

[sangh0]

23. YOU DID SAY THAT people were uninvolved

You said "No one was really paying attention then"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=582722#582772

[madfloridian]

27. I have answered you.

I answered you.

[sangh0]

34. Now try making some sense

Your nswers have been so all over the map, they could answer any question, both ways

[madfloridian]

16. I meant not paying attention on a national level yet.

I did not mean Iowa wasn't. By the time the majority of Americans began to get ready to vote in the primary....it was just about over because they were all jammed together.

I never got to vote really...just check Dean's name. It did not really count.

[emulatorloo]

18. Understood About National Level, and that is what upset

me about "the Scream"

Dean was my number 2.

When I saw Dean's Iowa speech live, I thought, "Uh Oh" .

My heart sank - this is his first chance for National Attention, the first chance to really put himself in front of the nation. I knew it would not be good for the Dean campaign. (and his New Hampshire speech was so beautiful)

[sangh0]

25. Your arguments are all over the place

At first, while speaking about how Iowa voted, you said "no one was really paying attention then". Now it's been changed to "Iowa was paying attention but the rest of the nation wasn't"

So why did those Iowans vote for Kerry? After all, that is the subject of this thread.

[madfloridian]

26. I meant most Americans were not paying attention.

I clarified that. No, I am not all over the place. I do not think one small state followed by another small state should be so powerful in our election system.

I am very clear on this. Not all over the place. If you like the system, fine.

I think I made my points clear that larger states who wanted other candidates did not get to vote with the full slate of candidates. If you are fine with this, that is ok.

I am not going to argue with you.

[sangh0]

35. You still make no sense

You now claim that it was only the Iowans who were paying attention while others were not, but in another post of yours in this thread, you claim that people all over were paying attention

Furthermore, we've had front loaded primaries before and Iowa and NH were not determinative. And the people in the larger states could have voted for whomever they wished.

[madfloridian]

43. When did we have them this way before? What years?

I did not realize that. I thought they were only moved to Jan. in 2002. Were they that way before? I am willing to be educated. Why do they all keep saying that whoever won Iowa would likely be the nominee. I have heard them all say it, all the candidates.

[sangh0]

68. Look it up

I don't have the dates of every convention memorized, but you can look it up.

Why do they all keep saying that whoever won Iowa would likely be the nominee

The ones who said that were the one who had a shot at winning Iowa, so they said it in the hopes that they would win Iowa, and that their prediction would become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Just because a politician says something, it doesn't mean they actually believe it.

[union_maid]

20. Not exactly

I'm fine with changing the system, but it wasn't one small state that chose Kerry. It was the race in that small state that gave him the momentum and exposure. It's different. I was for Clark at that point, so it's not because it all turned out the way I wanted that I say this. It's just observation that I saw quite a few people who have never set foot in Iowa decide for Kerry during the lead-up. There's a segment of the population that got a good look at the contenders for the first time in the couple of weeks before Iowa. I'd call that segment the bulk of the primary voters. They care enough about the process to go out and vote in the primary, but they don't have the time or inclination to watch every CSPAN townhall or every debate among the contenders. That group started to see the candidates on morning and evening network and cable news shows. And a lot of them liked Kerry. Thought he was strong, experienced, etc.

[madfloridian]

22. Here is what I am talking about.

I know for sure what it was like here in Florida at Iowa time. Kerry was blip on the radar. He is fine as the candidate, and I believe I am making clear this is not about Dean...but the system.

See my post just now:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x582795

[mistertrickster]

36. TOTALLY AGREE! I wore an orange hat and knocked on doors in

Des Moines. Yes, the Dean organizers were disorganized. We spent 90 minutes looking for a street in Des Moines that was in WEST Des Moines. And more than once started knocking on doors that had already been knocked on by Deanies . . .

BUT the bottom line is that Iowans like "nice." Kerry is "nice." Kerry is seen as centrist, calm, presidential. Iowans like that.

Nationwide, Dean totally outpolled him and really had a chance to change the money politics and light the fire of democracy under the Democrats.

But he wasn't "nice" enough . . .

So now we've got a guy who everybody keeps asking me, "what's he stand for?" "I want to vote FOR somebody, not just vote against Bush."

I tell them he's "nice."

[emulatorloo]

58. Sorry - Edwards was the "nice" candidate

Disagree w your characterizations of Iowan and what they like.

Dean and Kerry were my top two - I eventually broke for Kerry. Had nothing to do with what you say. Based on analysis of issues, positions, experience, who I felt would be toughest against Rove et al in the long run, etc etc

As to "what does Kerry stand for" he is out everyday talking about the issues. They just don't show it on TV so much. Tell your friends to go to the Kerry website, or we have that crazy thing called a Dem convention coming up, and Kerry will be giving a big speech.

[mistertrickster]

61. Correct, and look at how good Edwards did in Iowa . . .

Don't get me wrong--I want Kerry to win and win big.

But I just don't think it's fair that New York and California get their choices whittled down by Iowa and New Hampshire.

Also, caucuses suck--even the Iraqis wouldn't go for them. I talked to dozens of people who said they would vote if they could vote, but they weren't going to stand around in groups for two hours. Not to mention the way experienced party hacks can influence the proceedings. I personally got ruled "ineligible" because I walked in the wrong door and didn't get signed in by the deadline.

It's a screwy deal, all the way around.

[emulatorloo]

67. too bad about the "ineligible"

our neighbors had the same problem cuz of a family emergency.

at any rate, I wouldn't mind seeing the schedule shaken up. . .

[Still_Loves_John]

41. You've made this argument several times and

I still don't really understand it. Is the alternative a national primary like on election day? That seems counterproductive to your goal, since a national primary would spread resources so thin that only establishment candidates with lots of money would ever win them. The primary system allows candidates who may not have very much money to become noticed by their message alone.

I definatly think that it's extreme to suggest to change the system just because Dean lost. 8 other people did too; it's not the end of the world.

[madfloridian]

44. That is one idea. Or else give larger states a chance to vote....

before the candidates start dropping out.

[Still_Loves_John]

45. Lots of states get to vote

before candidates start dropping out. It's not over after New Hampshire.

And you didn't address any of my arguments. I asked that question rhetorically. Why would it be better to have a one day primary?

[madfloridian]

49. An idea only...one day primary. Here is a chart of the primaries.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/2003-07-16-2004-political-calendar.htm

It makes the point that Florida, NY, and CA did not get to vote for Dean. I don't know the dates the others dropped out, I really don't. I do know Dean dropped out on Feb. 18.

I really do believe there is a better way. I truly do. I would like to have my vote count in the primaries. That is what I meant.

[Still_Loves_John]

69. I really can't help but strongly disagree with you there

I just don't like the idea of a one-day primary. It costs so much money to run a national campaign that only the really establishment candidates would ever have a chance of winning. It would only exacerbate any problems with the primaries.

[fujiyama]

54. I agree that IA

and NH for that matter have too much influence in who becomes the nominee. That was compounded even further by the fact that it was front loaded.

Still, this was well known by all the candidates. Dean and Trippi were very well aware that whomever won IA would most likely win the nomination. THat's why they had put so much time and effort into the state.

[bklyncowgirl]

56. Two small unrepresentative states--play count the black people--it's fun!

Personally I think it's pretty sad when the presidential nominee is chosen by two small states where one of the more amusing things you can do while watching campeign rallies in Iowa and New Hampshire on C-Span is play "count the black people". Hey look! there's one--oh wait--that's Jesse Jackson--never mind.

But of course I'm a New Jersey resident, a state which seems perversely proud of its last in the nation primary status so I never got a choice in the matter.

[displacedtexan]

21. Maybe an accurate description of the Dean campaign, but NOT how JK...

won Iowa.

Hey,Funk! PM me if you don't already know how we won Iowa.

[madfloridian]

28. Since people are still not understanding me, here is the article.

This is posted right here, just now. It explains why I am concerned.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x582795

[Dookus]

37. Do you believe that adding an extra week or two

between Iowa and NH would have given Dean the nomination?

I don't. He came in a very distant 3rd in Iowa. Would changing the schedule change things?

[JI7]

29. yes Dr. Funk, remember many of us watched what was happening

while it wasn't something that was reported in the larger media. we did get reports from kerry supporters and others in iowa of how the campaign was going and the events kerry was holding. i remember i got a good feeling even before the polls really showed kerry was gaining because i read how his crowds were getting bigger and the positive reaction he was getting from those who attended his events. cspan really helped because i could see for myself how great he was doing and how hard he worked. and how hard his supporters were working also.

one of the best things he did was let people see who he was as a person. rather than just talk about policy and his positions on the issues itself he also showed what his life was like, his background history etc. this helped people believe in what he said because he already had a history of supporting the things he is for.

[JDPriestly]

32. Don't forget the role of veterans.

Kerry is a veteran, and like a lot of veterans, has a lot of self-discipline:

What struck me about the article was how it shows Kerry's ability to follow through on a plan of action and win. I don't personally know him, but I have the impression that he listens to experts, considers a lot of possibilities, analyzes the facts of the situation, and decides. Once he has made his decision, he follows through with determination, self-discipline (which he probably did not just learn in the military) and dedication. In other words, he's steady at the helm.

Don't misunderstand, unlike Bush, Kerry seems to be flexible about changing strategy when necessary to reach his goals. But even when he has to adjust his course, he doesn't turn back from his ultimate goal, even in the face of a "perfect storm." That is character. That is the kind of character we need and deserve in our president. I can't honestly think of a president who has had that kind of character since FDR.

[JI7]

40. yes, Veterans were a HUGE thing

agree with your description of kerry also.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

59. Kerry mailed a video to EVERY veteran in the state

and then made sure that every single veteran who wanted to vote got a ride to the caucus.
Just one of the critical things he did to earn the win.

[DrFunkenstein]

63. And The Fire Fighters

I've heard from people at the campaign that they were really big in keeping Kerry's spirit up, not to mention the huge symbolism they had come to represent.

[MsUnderstood]

31. Confused! Please clarify

I am just too lazy (and only partially through the article) to look this up:

Was Iowa the first state to elect the candidate? Was New Hamp second? Where are lists of the states, the order voted, and the person elected.

[fujiyama]

55. Check out this link

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/scorecard/

Anyways you got it right. There was about one week seperating IA and NH.

IA: January 19, 2004

NH: January 27, 2004

Hope this helps. :-)

[Nicholas_J]

33. Well Doctor F.

Exits polls out of Iowa indicated that many of the things reported in the media had a very strong effect on the final decision of people to vote against Dean. A good number of people were found to have not been satisfied with his answers to the questions about ow he got out of the draft. While I hold nothing against anyone who tried to get out of the Vietnam War, many people in Iowa seemed to not feel confortable with Deans explanations, and many indicated that they would have been more confortable with Dean saying, I tohught the war was unjust adn wanted to get out of it anyway that I could, rather than hanging onto his medical deferrent as a reason, expecially when he was able to engage in some rather strenous activity afterwards. This was heavily reflected in the Iowa exit polls. Of course other isses about electability were given in the exit polls as well, including Deabns obvious lack of experience in Foreign Affairs.
I found that after Iowa, the exit polls went far more in dpeth in asking questions about why Dean lost, as this was a surprise to many, even though the polls in the last two weeks were starting to show a reversal. Another factor in the exit polls was that people were paying attention to the inforamtion that Gephardt was releasing about Deans record as governor, and comparing them to articles that verified Gephardts revelations. Gephardt may have ruined his own chances by going negative, but the things he was giving out were very effective in making people think twice about Dean, particularly his past statements about Social Security and Medicare. Iowa has a good sized percentage of people who are retired or nearing retrement age, and even a hint of more cuts to services in those programs does not go over well with people in those age groups.

[displacedtexan]

38. Jk runs an efficient top-down campaign.

If you've ever worked on a national campaign, that term makes sense to you. Dean ran a grassroots campaign... lots of enthusiasm, very weak structure.

For JK, Iowa was won precinct by precinct with demographers, veterans, union workers, and firefighters.

[Nicholas_J]

48. Of course I understand the term

WHich is why Kerry is doing so very well in the electoral college compared to Geprge Bush. He has picked the sttes he needs very efficiently and run a campaign based on using the existing democratic party machines in the areas localities within the state that he iss doing well in.

The problem with grassroots campaigns is that they do just tend to appeal largely to one portion of the electorate, while not doing very well with others. Dean got a lot of young people who's enthusiasm was a two edged sword. The fact that the Iowa media, in its recommendations to Dean during the last week before the caucus advised Dean to get his "enthusiatic supporters" to avoid annoying other voters is a key point. One persons enthusiasm is another persons annoying.

[Hippo_Tron]

50. One of the reasons I'm glad that JK won the nomination

I liked Dean, Clark, and Edwards very much in addition to Kerry, but I think that Kerry can run a better campaign than any of them. Something that we desperately need considering how poorly we've done in the last two elections

[New Dem]

60. good point n/t

[Still_Loves_John]

39. Great post, as always

I always enjoy your insights, Dr Funkenstein. I remember waaay back before Iowa, when I just came and read DU, you were pretty much the only Kerry supporter on there. You kept me sane when it looked like Kerry was going to lose horribly. Thank you.

And I'd just like to say that I'm pleasantly surprised with how, for the most part, this thread has not degenerated into a flame war.

[DrFunkenstein]

64. It Was A Little Lonely For Awhile

And, yes, I was a little nervous touching on this subject. But it was such an excellent article, and I actually think alot of us could learn about the political process from it. Hopefully, many of us will go on to help other progressive politicians, and we can learn from our mistakes.

Definite thanks go out to the people who resisted the flame.

(And personal thanks to inexhaustible folks like blm, Nick J, and PeteNYC, who kept me relatively sane in those early, early days - not to mention the more reasonable types for the other guys/gal.)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

42. Am I the only one who thinks this reads as an indictment of Trippi?

The contrast between Whouley and Trippi, the repeated mantra: 'Trippi would not go to Iowa', the comments about how dismissive he was of Dean (wouldn't take Dean's calls!)... <sarcasm>I hope for the sake of Trippi's career this piece is not widely read..</sarcasm>

Fair or not, it seems to me like Trippi gets most of the blame in these articles.

[WI_DEM]

47. my opinion of Trippi has really fallen

Trippi was the guy all gung ho about Iowa because he was a seasoned vet of Iowa campaigns including Gep's in '88. However, when reports got back to Trippi about disaray in the Dean campaign in Iowa he refused to go and take charge because he was afraid while he was gone from Burlington there would be a coup!! I don't doubt the campaign made many mistakes in Iowa--not the least being all the Dean volunteers who came into the state in the last week and didn't know what they were doing and given no real direction. Also Dean erred in getting into the mud with Gep. Had Dean stayed positive and spoken out more about the budget and healthcare (everyone knew where he was on Iraq) he might have done better.

[Citizen Kang]

51. Why are we still talking about it

And why are some people still trying to get us to believe Dean wasn't taken down by party insiders? I've moved on and at the time I insisted I wouldn't ever vote for that bonesman Kerry. Now that reality has set in I have no choice but to vote for him. So why open up this old wound?

[Dookus]

53. This is a political discussion board...

we discuss politics.

[bklyncowgirl]

57. Obviously people are still interested

I know I am.

We have a front loaded primary process where the nominee was essentially chosen by two small unrepresentative states. The close scheduling meant basicly "Screw up and you're dead."

There's no doubt that Dean screwed up. Many believe that he had alot of help from party leaders and the national media.

I've always been critical of a primary process where most of the country does not get a say in who the nominees will be. This year was particularly brutal because the process was specifically designed so that the winner of Iowa and New Hampshire would be pretty much unstoppable.

If Kerry wins, you can make the argument that this process makes good political sense. If Kerry loses I think there'll be alot of pressure from Democrats to change things. I'll reserve judgement until November 3.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

62. Did You Even Read the Articles?

It's an amazing read, regardless of who you supported in the primaries, IMO.

DTH

[DrFunkenstein]

65. For Progressives To Learn About The Political Process

Some us would rather sit around hatching damned-if-we-do conspiracy theories, but others of us plan on moving the country to the left at every level.

I am further left than Kerry's campaign, and so is Kerry, but getting elected is kind of a big part of the process. You can bitch from the sidelines while maintaining your ideological purity, but in the meanwhile we are going to have the most progressive President since Kennedy, maybe even Roosevelt.

Many people here would have chosen someone else to bear the torch, but that doesn't mean that can't we keep the fire going. We choose our battles and learn from our mistakes.

The next time a rabble-rouser (in the best sense) like Dean comes along, you can bet your ass that the grassroots will be more tightly organized after reading this article. That's why I opened the old wound.

[Larkspur]

66. Because the Kerry fanatics don't just want you to vote for Kerry

they want you to support Kerry with all your mind, body, soul, and cash, so they have to rewrite history that shows that Dean, while he did make his share of mistakes, was not character assasinated in Iowa by Kerry, Gephardt, and Clark supporters, who used Rovian tactics to take down a fellow Democrat.


"Forced into an arranged marriage with Kerry, but my heart still belongs to Dean."

[Still_Loves_John]

70. Well that's partly true

I think that if you're really inspired by a candidate you have trouble reconciling the fact that anyone, especially someone within your party, doesn't like your candidate. I think that's human nature.

It's also probably true that if Dean won the nomination the roles would be reversed and I would be here bitching about how the Dean supporters want nothing but total devotion from me. I understand that you'll never really be in love with Kerry, but there's still a part of me that thinks that if everyone could just see the light they would love Kerry.

[Larkspur]

74. If Dean was the nominee, I wouldn't demand blind loyalty from

non-Dean supporters, just their vote in November, which is what I'm giving Kerry. As far as donations, that is always a personal decision and I have never liked to badger people, especially those that don't like my candidate, about money.

[Still_Loves_John]

83. I'm not saying that you would

Just like the Kerry supporters aren't, but I would probably feel like you were demanding blind loyalty from me.

[DrFunkenstein]

71. All I Want Is Your Soul - Is That Too Much To Ask?

Rovian tactics? Was "Nazi" already taken by other character assassins?

If I had wanted to rub anything in people's face, I would have a long time ago. If anything, I went far out of my way to make people from the other campaigns feel more comfortable adjusting to someone who was not the symbol of all their aspirations. That's not only an adult reaction to the situation, it's a Democrat's reaction to the situation.

Now instead of turning this into a personal thing, why don't you take what extra information you've learned from the article, put it together with your assassination theory, and help us get ready for the next progressive battle?

[Larkspur]

76. This is pure kerrycrock

If anything, I went far out of my way to make people from the other campaigns feel more comfortable adjusting to someone who was not the symbol of all their aspirations.

I certainly recall you as one of the major kerry kultists on this board and your statement above is pure b.s.. You never have had problems attacking Dean supporters standing up for Dean.

[DrFunkenstein]

78. Kerry Kultists? What Website is This?

And, sorry, I don't take things to a personal level, whatever your recollection may be. I don't see the point of furthering this conversation.

[George_Bonanza]

82. Kerry kultists?

I have to come to Dr. Funk's defense here. He was the model supporter of any candidate, as he was always firm to defend his candidate with facts and graciousness.

[Citizen Kang]

72. misc responses

from all of those who replied to my first message. I did read the article. Yes it was a good read, but I have trouble swallowing the "truth" from the same media whores who worked to bring Dean down. There was nary a word written about the constant negative press Dean got starting in November 2003, or the constant attacks from that loser Gephardt, or how overplayed the "scream" was by the presstitutes. There are a lot of factors that contributed to Dean's downfall that were never mentioned in that article. Yes, Kerry ran an excellent campaign. But that is not the only reason (or in my opinion the major reason) he won Iowa and with it the nomination.

Dr Funk, I hope that Kerry is the next Roosevelt or Kennedy. But I sincerely have my doubts. I would rather he be in the White House than Bush, but I don't think a Kerry presidency is the second coming of the Progressive Golden Age.

I think that the Dean collapse/coordinated media assassination/internal take down does deserve to be examined, but I'd rather do it after I vote for Kerry, not before. It only divides us.

On edit; more thoughts added

[Larkspur]

75. Agree with your assessment Citizen

Good job.

[KFC]

80. Enough crying about the media

Dean and his campaign manager were not even on speaking terms. How the hell can you expect to run a legitimate campaign under those conditions? And, as Dean said, the scream did not matter - he had already lost at that point.

This is clearly a case of Kerry's campaign prowess and Dean's ineptitude.

[Still_Loves_John]

84. I'm so tired

of these conspiracy theories. Dean wasn't "taken down," he lost through his own fault. He ran a bad campaign. People didnt' vote for him. That's it.

[CWebster]

87. sounds like the same argument used to defend Bush v Gore. nt

[Still_Loves_John]

88. Um...no

In Bush v Gore, Gore won and supreme court stopped the recount. In Iowa, More people voted for Kerry than Dean. More people voted for Edwards than Dean. Very few people voted for Dean. Dean lost.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

86. Howard Dean Is a Great Man

I have been so impressed by Dean recently. One thing that really impressed me was his readiness and willingness to accept personal responsibility (you know, that concept bandied around by the Republicans even though many of them have no clue what it means) for his own loss.

DTH

[CWebster]

73. Does it mention Kerry's financial investments in the political

careers of Iowa politicians or the meeting with media big wigs a few weeks before the caucuses? He had insider establishment advantage and had been planning on this for a long time.

Dean may have lost but he was right and Kerry was wrong. Kerry is still wrong but he banks on the fear factor whereas Dean threw caution to the winds. In these times, that scares people. They would rather have someone hoist up the illusion for them, than be blasted with the truth that they've been played as fools.

[DrFunkenstein]

77. Are You Thinking Of Dean Fundraising For Iowa Politicians?

C'mon, man. I have a memory.

As for throwing caution to the winds, I'll let you make up your own mind.

[CWebster]

79. Lt's just say Kerry got a head start.

I don't fault him, Funkenstein. Kerry has to play the only hand he has. It is not my preference that he plays on fear--and the image of a better militaristic commander in chief, but still embraces foreign policy more similar to, than contrasting with, Bush.

[TeacherCreature]

81. does it mention the OSAMA adds

I am very tired of this shit. I may not vote for Kerry at all if this is the level of honesty we get from his supporters. They leave me feeling hopeless about the party.

[Still_Loves_John]

85. Well, if one ad is enough

to bring down a candidate, then that candidate was obviously not very strong to begin with.

I mean, do you think that Bush wouldn't be throwing negative ads at Dean if he won the nomination? One of the tests of a candidate is how he can weather negative campaigning, and if, as you say, Dean was taken down by one ad, then he definatly would not have survived the general election.

But I don't think the ad took down Dean. I think you're underestimating the people of Iowa. Iowans take their caucuses seriously and really take the time to learn about the candidates. They go to rallies, they talk to the candidates (one of Kerry's stregnths, I might ad, was how he always took the time to really talk to people after his speeches). They are not going to be influenced by one ad.