To be sure - history, the bank account, and endorsements provide some measure of hope and cheer to downtrodden Deaniacs today...
But there is no possible way to spin the Iowa results as any better than a big disappointment - and dangerously close to a disaster.
One man's analysis
The message was right -- MSNBC entry polling showed 75% against the war in Iraq. Both Kerry and Edwards took swipes at "special interests" and echoed, rhetorically at least, the theme of "taking back America" in recent days - and last night's speeches were filled with such references. These were Dean born themes, but whether because the message got lost (Trippi's take on MSNBC) or pitch/delivery of the message (the talking head take... and one I buy more than Trippi) was off - it begs some important questions. For instance - can Dean carry the "outsider" banner? No doubt that showing the special interests the door resonates - but per Arnie in California and Edwards/Kerry, it looks like people prefer a candidate who will politely show those interests the door, rather than threaten to toss them out on their collective asses.
The message may be good - but Dean may not be right man to carry it at this stage. That doesn't mean Dean isn't the right candidate, period... only that DFA needs to figure out if the candidate can be molded to better fit the message, or if the message needs to change - fundamentally or otherwise - to better suit the candidate. You can't convince America it should be angry - whether it should or not - if doesn't want to be.
Turnout was up. Take this for what it's worth considering the source: but it should be noted that the resurgence of Democrats and the spark of hope in beating Bush seems to have coincided with Dean's meteoric rise. Unfortunately for Dean, being the spark didn't translate into caucus support.... rather, it seemed to invigorate Kerry and Edwards who flew the "electability" standard high. I could be convinced that Dean was anecdotal to the re-birth of the Dems, not responsible for it -- but someone would need to convince me. If this sounds like frustration fueled whining... you're probably not far off the mark. I won't mince words - it feels like we put together a great party, but the girls went home with the cute guys.
Staying above the fray works For much of late fall and early winter, nursing a slight -- and early -- lead, Dean tried to project precisely this... staying out of debate battles as best as possible, despite constant attacks, foregoing negative ads. His lead solidified, or at least seemed to.
Then, as Iowa gets closer -- I think Dean, Trippi and company made the mistake of buying into the dreaded "CW", which is ironic since the campaign was built around defying it.
They bought the CW that they were in a position to wrap up the nomination early -- and tried to hit a grand slam in Iowa, even though no one was on base. Heck -- logic alone should have dictated that no one is ever on base for the lead-off hitters first plate appearance.
They fell into a head-to-head death match with Gephardt, and won that battle... but in a classic pyrrhic style.
Perhaps connected to the Gep wars, they bought the CW that organization is everything in Iowa. While Tom Schaller's excellent posts indicate otherwise -- I still maintain that it was plain and simple "standard" campaigning that won the day for Edwards and Kerry, not organizational strength. Dean largely ignored the undecideds, focusing instead on a death match with Gephardt. Whereas Gephardt's negative attacks on Dean could have provided an opening for Dean with a clever exploitation strategy, Dean instead chose to line up his troops and meet in the open field. Like I said earlier, he won the engagement... but then got outflanked by Edwards and Kerry in the process.
I'm not going so far as to say Dean "lost" Iowa, as opposed to Kerry and Edwards "winning" it - Edwards in particular has been running on the same message and employing the same strategy for months.
What happens now?
We'll see....
