God, what to say?
I have been struggling with this conflict ever since New Hampshire. I knew I was going to get into trouble blurring the lines between participant and observer on Dean.
Here's the deal. My first priority here is the truth, best I can call it at any given moment. Obviously I'm going to be wrong about a lot of things, most especially the future, but I'm at least committed to giving you my best shot.
But the Dean thing, that was a movement. It was all about excitement, momentum and energy. Proselytizing? Scary, scary word, but that's what movements are all about right?
So I got on board as a discliple, because I really believed in the cause. And God knows, those despicable media whores were eye-rolling Dean needed all the help he could get on the electability front. (I had no idea just how much damage they were doing at the time, or how badly it would cost him in the end. Fucking bastards.)
It was fun, it was exciting, and most of all it seemed like the right thing to do.
But it was always one foot in, one foot out until Christmas week, because I didn't ever want to run the risk of losing credibility. I posted much more good news than bad news--partly because it was nearly all good news in those days, except for the nauseating harping of the media. And partly because I enjoyed being a cheerleader. Why not? When anything really bothered me--like a couple early flipflops--I ripped him a new one for it, both here and on his own blog. And I definitely tried to stay objective on the poll reports, telling the good news along with the bad.
Just before Christmas, I took the full plunge, coming all the way out to "endorse" him, kind of a ridiculous term for a nobody like me, but such as it was, that's what I did.
Still, I was committed to reporting on the race objectively when called for--no way I was going to spin for him or act like a mindless mouthpiece.
It didn't present much of a dilemma for me when things were first going badly. The trouble arose as the campaign approached the fuzzy territory of "hopeless." This is the moment the Dean troops needed to keep morale up--worst thing in the world would be inside defections: supporters suddenly tossing their arms up and suggesting--explixitly or implicitly--that supporters scurry fast to find their #2.
I was kind of pissed when Kos did it, a bit prematurely in my mind, though he retracted a bit the next morning. But I understood his position. His first responsibility was to his readers--all of them--secondarily to other Dean supporters. Writer came ahead of Advocate.
I felt the same way, but I just didn't have the heart--or inclination--to through sand in the faces of all those amazing diehard supporters still out there plugging away for Dean. I wasn't about to lie about my feelings, but I didn't necessarily have to comment on it.
So I decided for awhile just to mainly keep my mouth shut.
Still haven't decided whether I regret that, but I do think it's time for it to end. There are a gazillion other places to get your dose of political news and commentary, so it's not like anyone out there needs any more of it from me . . . but still, it's what I do, it's why some people come here, so . . .
I'm sorry guys. But "hopeless" is just about the word for it. I never give up hope completely--and who knows, Kerry may self-destruct tomorrow and Dean, Clark and especially Edwards may be right back in the middle of it. You may win the lottery tonight also.
Here's the deal: It was looking really bad for Howard Dean right after New Hampshire, though he was fighting back, did have a certain amount of momentum, and a few other big things going for him, like a continuing stream of cash coming in, an unflinching band of hardcore supporters, and, in my opinion, the best record to run on, ironically the best argument for the crucial electability issue if he could just figure out how to make it. (And if he couldn't then he and/or the team he assembled obviously did not have what it would take to make the case against Bush in the fall.)
That was the moment of truth, really. He had to do two things really fast: 1) Enunciate a clear message on why he was most electable, and drive it home relentlessly. 2) Drop the 50-state strategy immediately, and replace it with a plan that could keep him in the race through the next round. It's anybody's guess what #2 should have been, but I don't see much rationalle for anything but the course Edwards and Clark took: pick a state or two, focus all your resources there and outflank Kerry competing in all seven. Win a state or two to stay alive and prove to voters in the next round that you were a viable candidate to invest their vote in.
Dean and his team failed miserably on both counts. Two days after Iowa, it was clear that this race was over, because Dean failed to step out and do #1, and on #2 he replaced the 50-state strategy with a suicidal zero-state strategy. I sat in on a couple conference calls with Dean in the days following Iowa, and I knew from the first one that it was over. His grassroots team had served him well in building the movement, but revealed their rank amateur status in the crucial heat of battle. If my heart wasn't invested so dearly, it would have been comical to watch their attempts. They had absolutely no clue. They had the completely wrong team in place, and had no idea what they were doing.
They put all their money on Michigan and Wisconsin, oblivious to the fact that primary campaigns in America don't work that way. Once a candidate looks like a loser, he is. First off, Americans just love a winner and will flock to whoever appears to be out ahead. But even more devastating is the taint of hopelessness. Once a campaign starts to lose credibility, voters in a multi-candidate race wisely conserve their votes. Why on earth would a Michigan voter in love with Dean but disgusted by Kerry spend his vote on his man if they believe his race is over for Dean but alive for Edwards or Clark?
Michigan finally holds it caucuses today and Kerry stands a staggering 50 points ahead. In a state where Dean threw most of his post-Iowa resources.
It got bad enough several days ago that Dean and Clark and Edwards all gave up, and Dean pinned his last remaining hopes on Wisconsin. What? After more humiliations in Michigan, Washington, Maine and a host of others, Wisconsin voters are suddenly going to follow the reverse logic and suddenly stand up for their man?
Hardly. The latest ARG poll this morning (courtesy Kos, thanks), shows Dean all the way back in fourth, 27 points behind. That's before he gets trounced several more times and goes from hopeless-looking to ridiculous.
The time for a last stand is not ten days from now in Wisconsin. It was four days ago in seven states his team just didn't have the basic political sense to choose from.
Am I beating it into the ground too hard now? Sorry, but it's over. It's nearly over for Clark as well, and getting very close for Edwards as well. All Kerry has to do now is avoid a major screwup and he's our next nominee. Ugh. Nine months to learn to live with that windbag. There's still a little hope he'll screw up though. Maybe Edwards can still grab the thing from him if he does. We can only hope.
Update:
I was really happy with the note I ended on there, but a few minutes later I got to posting on the Kos comments, and once I got going, I think I found what I was looking for. The conclusion of my thoughts there:
I admire the hell out of the diehards fighting on and donating for Dean, but he does not have the team in place to win this thing.
So I'm finally admitting the Dean fails on the electability factor--not unelectable as a candidate, but certainly unelectable with this team.
They did a tremendous job getting Howard Dean to the top, and deserve enormous credit for it. But they're in way over their heads, and you have to fault Dean for not bringing in enough professionals for a healthy mix of grassroots and experience. It was a highly naive team, that kept driving on faith when political acumen was called for. They're still driving that way.
In the end, I think Dean gave us a great new model--as well as a reinvigorated party--but it was only part of the model. It was a model for building a base, it was a tremendously innovative model, but in the end, it was also terribly incomplete. The results speak for themselves.
Right candidate, wrong approach.
Best we can do is learn from this for next time. I have learned a great deal from the experience. And I love the guy, love the campaign, but I'm ready to let go, and look ahead to other ways to defeat George Bush.
Dutton (Penguin) in early 2009. 
