Kerry is the classic big-government-programs-liberal-Northeast-Democrat. Dean is a maverick, unconventional thinker with unorthodox Democratic views, like returning control of firearms to the state, balancing the budget and reforming Medicare.
Could it be that Dean just wasn't liberal enough for Iowa voters?
From my non-Iowa perspective, it seems that there is one thing that Dean had a big problem doing in that state.
And that was standing up before seniors and unions, two powerful caucus consitutencies, and promising more, more, more, more, more. More Medicare. More trade protection. More social spending. More security. More, more, more, more, more.
Maybe he just had too much integrity to do it. Instead, he advocate reforms to programs that would increase their fairness without increasing the burden that they put on society at large.
I did not follow Kerry too closely, but Gephardt really pulled out the stops on promising seniors and the unions -- literally -- everything under the sun.
Dean didn't.
He lost.
I saw Tim Russert out on the street yesterday looking like a crazy man, out in front of Rockefeller Center, screaming, "DEAN IS TOO LIBERAL FOR AMERICA! TOO LIBERAL! TOO LIBERAL FOR AMERICA! I KNEW IT! HE IS TOO LIBERAL!"
(Not really).
The irony might be that Dean is not liberal enough.