Skip to main content

View Diary: 2016: Dukakis leads the way (123 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slothlax, NYFM

    Dukakis was my first ever campaign as a volunteer...met the guy twice...and he was brilliant.  Spoke three languages, knew what it was like to be born to immigrants, Eagle scout. Harvard law, policy wonk, and a great speaker. Everything you want in a President.

    His campaign staff really let him down.  Total mismanagement and infighting.  Susan Estrich was terrible and was completely out of her league.  There's a reason she works for NewsMax and Fox News now.

    The US was just not ready for him, and he didn't have a campaign staff worthy of him.  Clinton learned the lessons of Dukakis, they clearly studied the "what went wrong", to his credit.  But Dukakis was a fantastic man.  I only wish he wasn't so tarnished by the media post mortem.

    •  IIRC (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TexasDemocrat, Dr Swig Mcjigger

      The polls were looking pretty good after his convention speech.  Americans may have been more ready for him then you give credit.  But I was eight, so I all I really remember was talking about the race with my third grade Republican classmate.

      There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

      by slothlax on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:55:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slothlax, Dr Swig Mcjigger

        They were ready to tell jokes about his ethnic name...it would be years later, and a lot more immigrants transitioning to voters, for that not to be a problem.

        It was definitely a terrible staff.  I think Dukakis put too much faith in a 36 year old untested person who had never run a campaign before.  Estrich is smart, but not savvy...there is a difference.  And when things started going south, she started playing for her own future.

        Dukakis reminds me a lot of Jimmy Carter.  Very smart, great guy, but uncomfortable getting his hands dirty.  Which if we had a better media, would be important.  But we don't, so we need guys that can mix it up and go on offense.  These guys were too nice to play the mud slinging game.

        People say that's who they want...genuine and smart people persons who don't go negative.  But that's actually what created the need for a war room...Dems learning that what people say and how they vote are very different things.

      •  Polls always look good after the convention (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slothlax

        but after the GOP convention he was behind and never really threatened Bush.

        You can argue the '88 election was decided in August by two words: Willie Horton.

        The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

        by fladem on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:14:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Dukakis was NOT a great speaker. (0+ / 0-)

      Maybe in person, but not on TV. He was not a charismatic figure. I grant you that he had an impressive intellect and resume, but he had also been a waffly enough moderate and sufficiently boring that there was little excitement for him when he ended up being the last of the Seven Dwarves left standing after the primary.

      Have a flagon and discuss the news of the day at the sign of the Green Dragon, or hear me roar on Twitter @MarkGreenFuture

      by Dracowyrm on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 02:11:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  He let himself down, too (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slothlax

      I agree that Estrict and Brountas, to  name two, were horrible. But that fault ultimately lies with the candidate., who allowed them to get as far and stay as long as they did with the campaign. He also badly underestimate the efficacy of the Bush negative ad campaign against him and waited way too long to respond. This is way  many of us really liked Bill Clinton in 92, with his picking of a great team (Carville, Begala, Greenberg, Stephanopoulos et al) and his "Rapid Response team" which left no attack unanswered and too the initiative in going on the offense. Dukakis 88 is a textbook example of how NOT to run a campaign for president and Clinton 92 is a classic example of how to do it right.

      •  Clinton... (0+ / 0-)

        Clinton's team had the advantage of seeing the Dukakis campaign and learning from it.  GOP had money and had decided that no low was too low for them, even publicly, which was really a first in presidential politics at that time.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site