Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

Skimming the forums on Dean's Web site, the consensus seems to be that Dean took the wrong tone in that speech. So if Dean thought he needed to shout like that in order to keep his base motivated, now he knows better.

Anyway, looking at the ARG tracking polls, it's clear that Dean had a big slide in early January (from 35% on January 8-10 to 28% on January 13-15), and another dip following the Iowa caucus. YOu can blame media distortion for this, but if Kerry walks away with the nomination, it won't be much comfort to say "we would have won if it weren't for those pesky reporters". (And if Kerry wins the nomination, and the pesky reporters point the slime machines at him, he's toast.)

So, where do we go from here?

Where do go from here? To New Hampshire.

I continue to believe that both Kerry and Clark are weaker candidates than Gore, and Gore "lost." (Edwards is a wild card.) Of course, I continue my unbroken record of wrong political predictions.

Well, yeah, but aside from being conspicuously not-angry and going positive in his advertising, is there anything Dean should do in NH to prevent Iowa from repeating itself?

My most optimistic reading of the situation is: Dean was so busy fighting the last war--trumpeting enough mainstream Democratic endorsements to deflect "Dean is way out of the party mainstream"--that he forgot about the current war--deflecting "Dean is too angry". If so, then Dean should be able to pull out of his hole with his current strategy. But ... what if....

John Ziegler is the new late-night host on KFI in Los Angeles. He had an "interesting" take on The Dean Scream last night. David, you guys in the campaign really ought to track it down and listen to it, as offensive as I know you'll find it. This is the kind of take that ends up as water-cooler political conversation. Anyway, the take starts off something like "if you have any very good looking women friends, ask them how they can tell that a man thinks he is out of their league". It gets worse for Dean from there.

While Dean (rightly) was savaged by the deep thinkers for saying that America is no safer with Saddam in captivity, the public gave him a pass on that. This scream thing is Saturday Night Live for a season material. Not because it shows him to be angry, because it suggests that he has inadequate self-control.

David, don't spin it, don't scream press bias. When you and others in the Dean campaign do that, you look like run of the mill political hacks rather than a candidacy of the Internet.

-Brad

David,
I'm pretty sure your final link ("blogged") should be here:

http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/002217.html

It's currently pointing at this entry, as opposed to the other entry you blogged on the previous article.

Does "spinning" mean stating explicitly how I took the event? If so, I'll continue to spin: It seemed to me not to be angry, despite the Boston Globe report. (Note: I'm not claiming to do journalism, and I'm not hiding behind selective quotes from people-on-the-street.)

Was it Dean "out of control"? I don't see it that way. It was cheerleading. Early in the year, Dean was supposed to be McGovern. Then Angry Man. Now Out of Control man? How about if try Passionate Populist Guy for a while?

Seth, I don't know how or if Dean can pull out of his hole.

Jeremy - Fixed it. Thanks. And: D'oh!

David,
I think the media needs to be pursuaded, not chided. Bad cliche, but you catch more flies with honey.
What about compiling the list of things Journalists are using as proof that Dean is "angry" and "unelectable", and providing some feedback on those items from Dean's point of view?
Make it in the form of an Op-ed, or see if a major columnist would be willing to pick it up.
I don't think you've got enough time to convince big-J that they're hypocritical and uninformative, and have them announce "oh, we were all wrong about this Dean guy".
But you might be able to feed them something informative that they'll run.

-Jeremy

David,

Did Dean look Presidential on Monday night?

Did his behavior make viewers more comfortable with him?

Did his behavior demonstrate an awareness of the world watching and an ability to think strategically on his feet?

Did Dean bet on the wrong network in IA and is he making the same mistake in NH?

I think we can reasonably predict Dean will come in 3rd or 4th in NH.

One more bit--
You may have already read this, since it's a 2nd order link from one of Doc's, but I thought it was worth pointing out.

http://www.iraqwarreader.com/archives/000115.html

There -have- been mistakes made, and I think it'd be fantastic, and quite unexpected, to openly say, "Yep, that was bad. I made a mistake. I'm sorry about that."

It's a hard thing, going for an unconventional moral stand-- you're going to have some mis-steps.

But if Dean stays true to the core message-- that he's the people's representative, and that he's trying to do the right thing, even though that's hard to figure out sometimes-- then I think this loss can become a win.

Seems pretty much right to me, Jeremy. I don't know if the Dean campaign has shaken off enough of the old form, though. Admitting you were wrong about something fundamental...now that's asking a lot from a politician.

Is this an illustration of the perception differences between radio and television transmissions of an event, a la the Kennedy-Nixon debates?
I have only heard Dean's "howl" over the radio. My first reaction was an admiring "He's not going to take that defeat lying down," and every time I've heard it since, I find the same elements of passion and commitment, as well as planning implied by his extemporaneous listing of the states remaining.
All of these would seem to be the qualities we need in a president -- and I've been a Clark supporter.

Up here in Canada, the Democratic primary is back page news if it makes the news at all. So, when my wife and I tuned in to CNN Monday night to see what was going on in Iowa we were about as close as it gets to "being on Mars" for the last few months. What I mean by that is whatever spin you're detecting in the Boston Globe, Fox News (not availabe on any cable system whatesoever in Canada, I proudly point out), the NY Times or whatever, most Canadians, my wife and I included, have been largely oblivious to it.
But when Dean yelped my wife said, "That guy's out of control. He doesn't know what he's doing."
That's what a Canadian thought who'd never seen any of the candidates until the Iowa race. I suspect a lot of U.S. voters were seeing these Democratic candidates for the first time and seeing Dean yelp like a madman can't help either his run to lead the Dems or, should he prevail, his chance to beat Bush. You and Doc can whine about Big Media (and there's certainly legitimate things to whine about), but if you want your man to win use your energy and smarts to get him to change and worry about changing the media later. Dean's the problem right now, not the Boston Globe. Even more worrisome: Where were the voters Dean's Internet campaign was supposed to deliver? Iowa was won by old-fashioned political machines, by unions who could deliver voters by the busload. Why don't young people -- young people who are becoming politically active for the first time because of Dean's campaign -- vote? That's not just a big problem for Dean. That's a big problem for American democracy.

Everytime I listen to a group of young Republicans debate (parrot back the canned responses to) the issues, and how many of them there are (never mind the fact that 18% of the Democrats voted for Bush), I once again take comfort in the fact that all this is futile, futile, futile, gentlemen, futile.

I watched Dean on CNN that night and although I felt right away that he was getting carried away, I definitely agree that he's being roasted alive by the media. I suspect that this treatment would continue throughout his entire campaign. I would guess that someone told him to "be upbeat" and he went with it. I have to admit that it doesn't look presidential though.

I still am waiting to see if the Clark campaign can gain any traction in the days after New Hampshire. Failing that I think Kerry would have a fighting chance. I am trying to get tickets to the debate scheduled to happen at my place of employment next month. If I get a chance, David, I will ask Clark a very pointed question about his campaigns financial prospects.

[For the record, I am not blaming all of Dean's woes on the media. Note that I registered essentially the same complaint when Dean was way ahead in the polls.]

Jeremy: "But if Dean stays true to the core message-- that he's the people's representative, and that he's trying to do the right thing, even though that's hard to figure out sometimes-- then I think this loss can become a win."

David: "Seems pretty much right to me, Jeremy."

I've quoted out of context, but the relevant posts are readily available a few posts above this one, so whatever the correct context is should be easily rectified.

His core message is "he's trying to do the right thing?" Even though that's "hard to figure out sometimes?"

That "seems pretty much right?"

I'd say that pretty much sums up what's wrong with Dean's campaign right there. Forget about the primal scream therapy, that campaign has bigger problems. Much bigger problems.

Whoops, didn't mean to do that anonymously. That was me, Dave Rogers. The "evil" Dave Rogers, not the "Connect and Empower" Dave Rogers.

David R:
I said that was his core message, and that's what I hear when I hear him talking.

My suggestion was that Dean acknowledge his mistakes and try to learn from Journalism's (and popular) feedback even if they are not objective.

I think that's what David W was agreeing to.

But I'm curious why you think that core message I supposed is so horribly flawed?

You would prefer a President that has a firm and unchanging view of the world and the direction America should go? One that would rather impose that view than listen to the electorate?

I don't expect other humans to have all the answers. I do expect them to try to do the right thing.

What are your expectations?

Core message as I understand it: We can take our country back.

"We" = you, me, and your neighbors. This is our campaign, not just Dean's.

"can" = Hope (not anger)

"our country" = This land is your land, this land is my land; the powerful and selfish should not have more influence than you (see above)

"back" = Return to traditional ideals of democracy

Sounds like a pretty good core message to me.

"But I'm curious why you think that core message I supposed is so horribly flawed?"

Because as a "message" it is devoid of information.

Information is "the difference that makes a difference."

In other words, the message you state seems to imply that no other candidate tries to "do the right thing," and that's not credible. Presumably each of them is trying to do the "right thing," even President Bush. If that's the sum total of Dean's "message," then there is no information there to make a distinction between him and any of the other candidates.

My impression is that Dean's support is incredibly soft for just this reason. Many people were drawn into the campaign for reasons other than the candidate's message, and therefore it is a weak form of support.

At first, my impression of Dean's message was "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!" He was angry at the incumbent president, and at his own party for failing to check or even to stand up against the president's party. Not much of a message, but it had the virtue of being the only other message out there, and it tapped into a lot of others' anger and fear.

The internet piece of this phenomenon drew a lot more people who were (are) enamored with the web as an organizing medium. They developed the perception that somehow Dean was the candidate who "got" the 'net, was more "clueful" and so on. This attracted high-attention earning 'bloggers, perhaps not all members of the so-called A-list, but enough to actually generate some action from self-identified "netizens" like Britt Blazer and others.

Yet in all the verbiage that was penned by clueful 'bloggers, in contrast to the much disdained mainstream media, I found very little that actually laid out a case for why Dean was the best candidate. They were much more informed and enthusiastic about the _form_ of the campaign, not the candidate. It seemed to beg the question why Dean was the best candidate.

The success at raising money through the internet drew the attention of the media and the usual positive feedback loop generated more money and attention until Dean was a "virtual" (pun intended) front-runner, with very little careful scrutiny of the candidate, until the front-runner status focused everyone's attention on him.

If indeed Dean was the best candidate, and for sound reasons, then I would have expected either you to articulate something other than a generic "mom and apple pie"-type "message," or for Dr. Weinberger to have corrected you by stating what his message really was. But my impression is that both of you are emotionally invested in the _campaign_ and it's internet dimension, and really have little emotional or cognitive investment in the _candidate_.

I think that's why Dean's support in New Hampshire has collapsed faster than a bad souffle, and why he did so poorly in Iowa.

What he has going for him right now is money and attention. He has to craft a credible message about why he is the best candidate, and it appears as though he's trying to do that by focusing now on his record as governor of Vermont. What he doesn't have is time, even enough "internet time." Whether or not he can turn this thing around remains to be seen, but I'm not optimistic.

Dr. Weinberger, we seemed to have been replying at the same time, but I think your response further proves my point.

"We can take our country back" is a statement about the campaign, not about the candidate. Even as a statement about the campaign, it's not very compelling to someone who isn't already onboard, and it is likely going to alienate undecided and swing voters who may have voted for Bush the first time around.

You're right that the campaign is more about the campaign than the candidate (at least compared to other campaigns). That's part of what it means to be a populist. Those of us who believe in the power of self-organization, grassroots, emergence - you know, the usual buzz words - should take the how of the Dean campaign quite seriously.

I thought your original criticism was that the campaign's "core message" is mushy. Now it's that it's alienating. Hard to be both.

Is it compelling to those not on board? That's what we have elections to figure out. But I believe the core message - fighting special interests and focusing on the real needs of Americans (security, sound economy, health care, education) - is one it's reasonable to support.

"I thought your original criticism was that the campaign's "core message" is mushy. Now it's that it's alienating. Hard to be both."

That's a little unfair, I think. You and Jeremy have presented me with two "core messages." One was vacuous, the other uncompelling and "likely" alienating to those who previously supported Bush, but might otherwise consider reversing their decision.

Now you've presented me with what may be the third "core message."

My point is, if you are, as it seems to me, a hard core Dean supporter and you can't articulate in a few sentences the unique characteristics that make your candidate superior to the others, then your candidate has a serious problem.

We don't elect campaigns, to state the obvious, we elect candidates. To lose sight of that is to lose the election. Focusing on the campaign instead of the candidate allows your opponents to define your candidate for you, which is what has been happening since the Gore endorsement.

I have no favorite in this race, but I did have a visceral reaction to what I perceived as the mindless flocking to the Dean "insurgency." I was angry at the Gore endorsement, not because he should have supported Joe Lieberman, but because no voter had had the opportunity to take a close look at Gov. Dean, and those who did support him seemed more excited about "grass roots populism" and "smart mobs" than whether or not this guy has what it takes to go toe to toe with George W. Bush. Trying to manufacture the air of inevitability, which is transparently what that endorsement was about, was offensive to me. What we've seen since that endorsement hasn't been encouraging, from both the governor himself, and from his organization.

I do have a preference, and it is for either Wesley Clark or John Kerry. I think Edwards has many good qualities, but I think his relative lack of experience and record as a trial attorney will make him vulnerable. We haven't had the opportunity to see how he'd respond to the trial attorney attacks - perhaps he'd do well, or perhaps they wouldn't have traction with voters. But those are big unknowns, and his lack of experience in both governance and leadership really troubles me.

Every candidate will tell you he or she is focusing on the real needs of Americans. But there are significant differences in the ways the respective candidates choose to approach meeting those needs, and that's where elections, not campaigns, matter. It's not necessarily where they're won or lost, but it is where they matter. If you want to look for your candidates's message, I suggest beginning there. That's the "how" you need to take seriously. This isn't a party. It's not about have a "good experience." It's about setting an agenda for the future of this country, and how we wish to enact that agenda. It is most definitely not about whose mob was "smartest" or youngest, or best looking - which are some of the things I've seen written about the Dean campaign by the Dean campaign. If you lose, it won't be because of the press.

I think that there are important similiarities between what is happening to Dean and what happened after the Wellstone memorial service. Wellstone's service was "spirited" in the best sense of the word.... but was trashed by many in the press and traditional broadcast media. Mondale's emergency two-week campaign was similarly trashed, all for the heartfelt demonstrations of feeling of those who lost a brother and leader.

Why is the "politics of emotion" becoming such a huge factor (as defined by the right wing)? Dean hoped to mobilize his tired supporters. Why not show enthusiasm and energy? It is bitterly cold out here in the Midwest, and we need all of the spirit we can muster!

Dave, I've laid out what I take to be the "core message" -- even while maintaining that there's more to supporting a candidate than agreeing with a message -- at three levels of detail: "We can take our country back," what that parses to, and the sets of issues that it leads to. I actually think that's far more specific and concise than the other leading candidates. What's Kerry's core message? Clark's?

You're right, it's not about feeling good. You're arging against a strawperson. I *have* articulated in a few sentences what's different about Dean: His message (which you don't find compelling, but that's different than saying he doesn't have a concise message) and the way he's running his campaign (which you reduce to "feeling good").

I don't see how Clark (who runs out of money in the Spring) or Kerry can beat Bush, since I think both are weaker candidates than Gore, and Gore "lost." I'll work my tail off for whichever Democrat gets the nomination, but so far it seems to me that Dean has the best (if outside) chance of beating Bush, I'm generally happy with his policies (as with the other Dems), and his populism gives me hope that if he's elected we can see some real change in this country.

Dave, you and I are far apart on how we evaluate candidates and campaigns. Fine. In a few months I assume we'll be working for the same guy.

Right on, Jo Ann! Plus, there were 3,500 people there cheering their heads off, noise that wasn't picked up for TV because it would have drowned out Dean.

What, it would have been more "presidential" for him to do the manly thing: Stand there somberly and issue bromides?

I appreciate the discussion here
very much (I was a former lurker
until compelled to contribute). As
I return to lurking, I'd like to
add one more point: we've got to
stop playing by the "rules" as laid
out by the right wing (and the traditional
media, etc., etc.). By those rules we've
lost already. I prefer a real person in
the White House-- someone who has
helped heal sick children-- not a made-for-TV figure.

We've got to think only of the families
of the 500 soliders lost since our Iraq
"victory"... and of the kids who don't
have health insurance. And we've got to remember
Paul Wellstone (who would have jumped higher
and snarled louder than Dean ever did).

thanks from the Midwest, and hoping that the East Coast comes through next week--

Sorry all, hectic day.

Dave:
I am generally non-partisan, but I dislike many of the things Bush has done. I don't see a viable 3rd party-- and don't expect to as long as we have winner-take-all electoral votes.

And so I expect to vote Democrat this election.

But I am not a rabid Deaniac. I am, in fact, still undecided among the Democrats.

I don't speak for Dean or for David. The message I stated is meaningful to me, and it's a message I hear, but have never heard Dean say.

Truth is a tough thing to get your arms around, and all the simple answers have already been found. People fight over details, but that's not where the value is. Tim Bray has a decent page on this:

http://tbray.org/ongoing/Truth

If I can trust a candidate to be deliberate, considerate and moral-- and I'm not implying religious-- then I feel I can trust that candidate to also make sensible policy decisions.

Am I interested in specific stands on specific platform issues? Sure. But I also consider whether I can believe the supposed position and the motives for that position.

I thought the State of the Union was fluff and polish. I don't think much of Bush, and therefore don't put much stock in his promises or initiatives. He may well believe what he's doing right. But I don't.

So far, every candidate has some positions that I care about, and some that I don't. There's no one candidate that represents exactly what I'd do if I was the Boss, and I doubt there ever will be.

I therefore tend to vote not just on issues, but on what I feel about the candidate. Apple pie, you say. Leadership, I say.

You should not construe my earlier suggestions to David as unequivocal support for Dean-- I'm interested in having a good President. I respect David and his support of Dean. I know David's struggling to deal with the media's handling of Dean.

I was simply trying to have a small positive impact. Not saying "oooh, Dean's the Internet candidate, and vote for him, cuz he's bloggin'."

Sorry I wasn't clearer before.

00111000010100111010100101010010101100011101011111010010100100101

"I am generally non-partisan, but I dislike many of the things Bush has done. I don't see a viable 3rd party-- and don't expect to as long as we have winner-take-all electoral votes."

I have never voted for a winning candidate in any presidential election since 1976. Two of my most favorite candidates, Paul Tsongas and John McCain never got their party's nomination. Maybe I'm just a contrarian.

"Truth is a tough thing to get your arms around, and all the simple answers have already been found. People fight over details, but that's not where the value is. Tim Bray has a decent page on this."

I'm pretty much a pragmatic when it comes to truth. THE Truth is pretty much an ideal, and I'm not certain we can ever know THE Truth about many things. Information has reliability and utility. Information that is highly reliable and very useful I generally regard as "true." I seldom look for THE Truth in an election season. Mostly, I try to find reliable information.

"I therefore tend to vote not just on issues, but on what I feel about the candidate."

I would say you are not alone in this. In fact, I would go so far to say that virtually everyone who does vote, votes this way. We are not completely rational beings, and we lack the cognitive faculties to make purely rational decisions all of the time. Most of the time we all rely on how we "feel" about something. I'm not saying this is a "bad" thing, it's just they way I think it is. It seems to have worked for several hundred thousand years.

None of the candidates particularly inspires me. The two I most favor are ex-military men. I think I know something of their character on the basis of my own 22 years of commissioned service. My "gut" tells me Dean is not the guy. I also "feel" that much of the success of his candidacy prior to Iowa was due to something other than the candidate. I "think" it was the combination of anger toward Bush and the attention garnered by the interaction between the internet, the candidate and the media, three high attention-earning entities. People often confuse attention with authority, which is probably either the basis of the principle of "social proof" or strongly related to it.

I have no faith in mobs, and I don't believe there is any such thing as a "smart" mob. I think "emergence" is great for things like evolution and ant colonies, but it may not be so great for figuring out what the "right" thing to do is in an election.

I believe technology changes "hows," it never changes "whats." And almost all of our problems are related to our "whats."

I believe the answers to our problems won't be found in better "systems" or newer technology or "populist" candidates. I believe the only answers that matter are found in each individual. I believe Gandhi was wise beyond comprehension when he said "You must become the change you wish to see in the world." I think if we all spent more time trying to save ourselves instead of trying to save the world, the world would be a lot better off.

Failing that, I try to choose candidates that will cause the least damage. I don't know if my choices have ever been correct, but I take some comfort in the knowledge that I seldom find myself in the majority.