I've been trying, in vain, since the Iowa caucuses to disabuse DailyKos Deaniacs of their "DNC" conspiracy theories. The truth of the matter is this: Dean's debacle is ultimately the fault of no one but Dean himself, and his campaign. I'll break down, piece-by-piece, the Deaniacs' prevailing arguments as to why Dean collapsed.
1. THE MEDIA; Far and away the prevailing belief among Deaniacs is that he was done in by the corporate-owned media.
While there is accuracy in this accusation, the sobering truth is that the media has every right to scrutinize candidates running for public office. In fact, I'd rather they engage in investigative reporting than in rubber-stamp laziness.
One particularly bad decision made by Joe Trippi was to convince Dean to denounce the media. Now, in America, no one is supposed to be above anyone or anything else. However, the media has such an effect of the voting population that it is not wise to go to war with them. I'm not implying that Dean should have smiled when the media ridiculed him, but he certainly shouldn't have scorned them. He should have cultivated, as best he could, their goodwill. Early on in the campaign, when Dean was rising and surging toward the nomination, the media was for the most part favorable to his anti-establishment run, writing positive articles on his record as governor of Vermont, on his grassroots organization, on his monstrous ability to raise money. Back then, the media wasn't a problem for Deaniacs because they were intrigued by him. The favorable coverage continued and reached its crest, I think, during Bush's post-war fall in the polls.
Shortly thereafter, however, Dean incurred the knocks A-N-Y apparent frontrunner for the nomination would have faced. This was, admittedly, exaggerated by Hussein's capture in December, but, by and large Dean was maintaining himself in the polls. The media hadn't taken him down.
Then, as the Iowa caucuses approached, Dean faced an intense media riled up for the start of the 2004 presidential race, and he burst under the pressure. While the pressure was rising, Dean's campaign evidently settled on a strategy of accusing the media of unfair coverage. This, of course, provoked more unfair coverage.
The bottom line is this: The media didn't like Dean, and Dean didn't like them. A shrewd campaign would have realized they needed the media, and would have treated them accordingly. I know many will say Dean shouldn't have to pander to the media, and I agree with you, but the reality is that they are an important part of our nominating process, and general election campaign.
2. IOWA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE; Deaniacs also gripe over IA and NH having such a huge influence over who we will pick as our nominee. Still, they forget that MOST of our recent presidents lost one or both of these primaries. In other words, Kerry's momentum from these two states is more than just momentum. Voters elsewhere like him, for whatever reasons.
Indeed, Deaniacs don't like to admit it, but Dean himself was aiming for this very verdict from IA and NH so that he could be where Kerry is now.
3. THE DNC; Perhaps the most appalling of all the accusations. Nevermind Dean attained the most superdelegates leading up to Iowa, or that he had entrenched national leaders of our party endorse him. It's still the establishments machinations that led to Dean's downfall.
I don't dispute that Dean wasn't popular among DNC and DLC figureheads, but these men don't control anything. They don't own a sector of the Democratic voting population. Heck, they don't even have the money to advertise their positions (or anything else, for that matter). Criticism of Dean from these "giants" barely made the papers. Dean's insurgency campaign depended on there being a Democratic establishment in Washington, even tho there wasn't one. So, what did the Deaniacs do?? They took a broke organization and made it the enemy. It worked effectively for raising money and gaining dissatisfied supporters, but it carried little definitive truth.
Deaniacs also assume that the DNC & DLC candidate (Kerry)is winning because they want him to win. WRONG. In fact, neither organization organized on behalf of ANY candidate, and their opinions were drowned out early on by Dean's furious rise.
4. ELECTABILITY; Many Deaniacs cite this as reason for why Dean is doing so poorly.
IMHO, this word is media-contrived. Sure, some voters may have concluded, based on Dean's persistent gaffes and other shortcomings, that he wasn't the best candidate to nominate. But most Deaniacs (and the conservative skunk Michael Kinsley) say this in order to imply that Kerry isn't inspiring or isn't the real choice of the voters. That isn't fair. It's not that Dean did everything wrong and Kerry nothing at all for him to rise. No, Kerry did SOMETHING right. If Kerry isn't doing something right, then why did Iowa voters give him a strong plurality of their votes in the first nominating contest. Why not Gephardt of Edwards? Surely these two were also perceived as more "electable" than Dean. Deaniacs, rather than acknowleding Kerry's strength as a campaigner and a candidate, have convinced themselves that this is a marriage-of-convenience. NOT FAIR AT ALL.
Remember Deaniacs: Idealism does not belong to you. The rest of us who support other candidates want change no less than you do. We just don't think Dean is the right vehicle for it.
BTW, this wasn't meant to be condescending or critical of Dean's supporters at all. I have no beef with any of you. I admire your dedication to your candidate and hope you will accompany us to a November victory.