This following feature from Knight Ridder (in
The Mercury News) discusses the decline of Howard Dean's support in Iowa which is attributed to his negativity.
Dean losing edge in Iowa over attacks
In a surprisingly volatile contest just three days before voting, Iowa Democrats signaled Friday that they were fed up with negative ads and candidate attacks and that they were rethinking their support for former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.
With Dean's campaign pulling down negative attack ads yesterday after they've apparently concluded they were hurting Dean, it seems that in fact many Iowans have been turned off by them.
Quoting from the article:
``He's just anti-Bush. You have to have a plan,'' said Zach Gilson, a lawyer from Urbandale.
``A lot of people I work with were for Dean and now they're not,'' said Jill Tidman, a teacher from Urbandale.
Betty Taylor of Iowa Falls said Dean was ``wearing himself out. He doesn't have the personality, the charisma.''
Several Iowans said they were reassessing whether Dean could beat the president, their top priority.
``He's blunt, which I find refreshing,'' said Lois Rose, an English teacher at Creston High School in Creston. But she said she feared that Dean's opposition to the war in Iraq and his secularism would hurt him with pro-military, religious voters. ``I'm worried about the Southern vote.''
Personally, I would say that Dean's negativity plays a big part of why I don't support his candidacy more (though his less-progressive tax policy and his less-comprehensive health care plans are the main reason). While I do not have any problem with the way Dean attacks Bush (well maybe he's too mild) I have a big issue with the way he attacks Democrats. I don't agree that you build up the Democratic Party by tearing it down, and that's where I very much disagree with Dean and his followers.
Anyhow, I think this also raises some serious questions for the Dean campaign going into New Hampshire, especially if you guys lose in Iowa. Dean's obvious reflex when he's in trouble is to go negative, like he did this week against Clark by branding him a Republican (it cannot get any meaner than that). But, if Dean gets a setback in Iowa and then comes under serious pressure in New Hampshire, how does he right the ship if he can't go into his usual negative attack mode?
Here's some more from the article:
``I wish Wesley Clark was here in Iowa,'' said Blair, referring to the retired general who is not campaigning in Iowa. ``He doesn't bad-mouth the other candidates much.''
Dennis Bienemann, a retired farmer and longtime Gephardt supporter, said many people he knew were turned off by Gephardt's campaign.
``They say he's talking too much against the other candidates, running the other person down too much,'' said Bienemann, 82. `` `Why don't he run on his own merits?' they say. They say they don't like that.''
So, it seems that Dean has cornered himself between a rock and a hard place (if he doesn't win Iowa). If Dean wins Iowa, he should be fairly OK in New Hampshire because then he can probably slide on momentum and 'inevitability' as he defends his lead in New Hampshire. But if Dean loses Iowa, he could take a big hit in New Hampshire as the obits of his Iowa effort get played around in the media. If that happens and the campaign has decided they cannot rely on negative attacks, then where do they turn?
Should be an exciting week! Let me also add that I am not a firm supporter of anyone, though I probably lean mainly to Clark, Edwards, and Gephardt. I have long favored the proposals of Edwards and Gephardt, and now Clark's appeal is rising with me the more I get to know of his platform. I'll vote for anyone running against Bush though, even for a Republican like Lieberman.