According to the immensely readable Steve Perry, he did. I don't how many here read the "Bush Wars" blog, but now that Steve is finally back from a long hiaitus on that blog, I recommend it highly. His take on what went down in Iowa is by far the best I've read. Anyway, here's the relevant quote:
Clark elected to stay out of the Iowa race, but he was nonetheless an important player there. A disproportionate amount of the dirt dished in the caucus race originated with the Clark campaign's dirt-digger, the "opposition researcher" Chris Lehane. In particular, one New York Times profile of Lehane revealed that Dean's people hold him responsible for the single most damaging bit of anti-Dean agitprop, an old appearance on Canadian television in which Dean derided Iowa's caucus system.
Here's the rest of the article:
http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/sperry/
Please check out the rest of the article. It does a much better job than I ever could of articulating the discomfort that many of us feel with Clark. And it's also funny as hell.
Btw, I've been one of the very few Kerry defenders on this site, and so it's strange to admit this and I'm sure it points to a perverse streak in my own psyche, but I personally am much more favorably disposed to Dean now that he lost big in Iowa. I actually found his Wrestlemania-esque non-concession speech to be rather charming. But then again, I like several of the candidates (I even cried while watching Gephardt's tearful withdrawal from the race). And that is, I am sure, what killed Dean's chances the most in Iowa, Clark's agitprop notwithstanding. What Iowans (and I) couldn't stand was the aura of inevitibility that Dean's campaign, with all its money and endorsements, seemed to boast. What voters really can't stand is to feel that the jig is up before they have had a chance to cast their ballots. I'm just hoping for a tight race that excites and eventually unifies the Democrats around a solid candidate (and that the candidate isn't Clark or Lieberman).