In January, it was pretty clear that Howard Dean was the front runner. He had the singular position of being able to say that he never supported the war in Iraq particularly (IIRC) due to lack of UN endorsement. He got some big endorsements and I concluded that he was going to get the nomination.
Then around mid January the story that Dean had actually urged Bill Clinton by letter to take military action in Bosnia, in the summer of 95 without waiting for the UN backing broke. He even used the word unilateral.
Now at the very moment this story broke, I was convinced that Dean was finished. clearly either the basis of his opposition to Iraq was political expediency, or he did not value Iraqis as much as Europeans. I could see no other excuse for the incongruity.
Well as we all know, he lost in Iowa and then New Hampshire and so on.
But when I read and watch all the post-mortem analyses on Dean, this fact never comes up. Its like the Iowa speech started the downfall , ignoring the fact that it came on the heels of declining polls and the Iowa loss. And IIRC the declining polls started soon after the story of the letter broke.
He spent oodles of time and money in Iowa. The voters of that state got a really good look at the product, much closer than most of us will get.
They saw and chose. Dean lost in a big way.
He lost because he was way too angry, too disrespectful of the average voter, and simply wrong on too many issues. All good reasons.
Good riddance. I’m not a Democrat, but the Democratic party needs responsible politicians in it, not bombthrowers. I have faith that, despite my differences with the candidates that are left, our country will survive them.
I do, or at least think you’re closer to the truth than the media. I noticed the decline, and wondered why everything was being blamed on the yelling. Difficult to say whether the decline would have continued, since I do see the yelling as a part of his demise. I also wondered how much of it being played up in the media, as opposed to the yelling itself, had to do with it. In an interview later (Frontline?), Dean said the audience seemed to be with him, rather than shocked.
I felt the yelling issue came to be a media buzz, more of an issue for the media than potential voters. A lot like Bush and his enormous war chest. It’s like the Bush bid cannot be discussed without mentioning the war chest. Often, I find this to be the only thing mentioned as a reason why he might win. I don’t like him, but even I can understand there might be more reasons for him to be reelected. I’m guessing it’s the same with Dean.
I don’t think Bosnia was a factor, as I don’t think it got a lot of press.
Also, before the primaries began, I think it’s inaccurate to say Howard Dean was the front-runner – after all, all of the nominees had zero delegates at the time. Dean was getting a lot of attention at the time, partially for his opposition to the Iraq war and partially for his internet-grass-roots-fund-raising techniques, but that was not an accurate reflection on how much appeal he had with the voters.
Once the primaries got underway and Kerry was drawing the delegates, the media’s attention got shifted, and Dean got relegated to the side as a result.
I agree - I never heard any of this, and I would have remembered.
Dean based his campaign on opposition to the war with Iraq. Now the Dems are going with someone who voted for it, or a trial lawyer. How this will resonate with their focus on foreign policy and health care remains to be seen.
I wonder if Dean will now be considered a liability, and thus be out of the running for VP.
Dean’s not going to be a VP nominee. He’s said himself he wouldn’t make a good partner for Kerry since they’re from the same part of the country, and I don’t think he brings anything to Edwards either.
I didn’t hear anything about the Bosnia story either. There were problems before the Scream: his poll number had been falling in Iowa in the days prior to the voting. So it seems to me the Iowa voters just didn’t like what they saw.
I’ll agree that it didn’t get a lot of press, but I’m fairly certain that enough Iowans changed their opinion of Dean as a result, starting the slippery slope towards Kerry.
Poll after poll had put Dean on top prior to January 14/2004. can anyone cite otherwise?
But many or some of us did read about the Bosnian connection just prior to the Iowa caucuses. It floored me and I’m sure many Democrats who paid attention to the news every single day. Can you suggest any other factor that suddenly disillutioned Iowans?
I know that the press quickly dropped the story and hence many people were unaware of the Dean endorsement of unilateral military action in Bosnia, but my point is that a number of Iowans did pay attention, were aware, and were instrumental despite media and Dean opposition failure, to begin the process of escorting a candidate out of the running towards the highest office in the world.
I agree with rjung and Marley on the Bosnia issue. I think I’m as much of a news junkie as those two are, and I never heard about it either. 3 news junkies never even heard of this, and yet it was the defining moment in Dean’s downfall. I don’t think so.
It was all about electablility. When people started to look at who could best beat Bush, they didn’t think Dean could do it.
No, it wouldn’t. Bosnia and Iraq were two very different situations, and very different arguments could be made pro and con for each. Being for or against one does not necessitate being for or against the other.
I have a different question for greinspace. I really don’t want this to look like a pile-on, however, because you have at least a rational thesis. But if this was a factor, it would have been mentioned by Iowa (and later NH) voters in exit interviews. I don’t remember a single voter mentioning anything like that in news reports of exit polling, nor does a Google News search bring up anything. Neither of these pieces of evidence are definitive, but they are suggestive. Do you know any Iowans or Granite Staters that thought the Bosnia issue was decisive?
No, but it was decisive for me and I am having difficulty in believing that the publication of this information had no impact on Iowans like it did for me.
Well, I don’t think I can help you with that. But in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I guess that you are just different from the average NH/IA primary/caucus voter.
The important thing about Howard Dean was not that he ran, but how he ran. It showed that a grassroots populist movement was possible once again in this country, that it was possible to have a contender that was not entirely a part of the machine.
Scared the hell out of people. Clark was the Clinton Machine defense, he was ‘supposed’ to be the dark horse candidate, and Dean blew through him. I never expected Dean to win… but maybe next time.
