|
Post-mortem on the Dean candidacy
It’s a classic American story, the meteoric rise and fall of a man without substance. First, the guy emerges out of nowhere to be seen as a phenomenon, an unstoppable force, the inevitable winner. But this inevitable winner has obvious, devastating defects which, though they are ignored for a while by the respectable mainstream, come dramatically to the fore as soon as public attention really focuses on him. His resulting fall is as swift as his rise. From his coronation by Gore in early December (the height of his fortunes) to his humiliating loss in Iowa took about a month, and from his humiliation in Iowa to the end of his candidacy—without his having won a single primary—took another month. Two months after being crowned, the guy is a has-been. Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 18, 2004 02:26 PM | Send Comments
Yes, Mr. Auster, but how much of the propellant was due to the media? Then again, how does Kerry, the seemingly unstoppable victor, compare to Dean on the major issues. Can we say that Deans loss is the loss of the people as well? Rising and falling can be interpreted many ways. Look at Jimmy Swaggart. He’s back again and the coffers keep filling. MOney and good strategy is what cost the hopes of Mr. Dean. All said, your version of his demise is worthy of note. Posted by: JOan Vail on February 18, 2004 2:47 PMI am not sure what this statement means: “Money and good strategy is what cost the hopes of Mr. Dean.” Dean had more money than anyone for a long time, he was getting more media coverage, and was leading in all the polls throughout November and December. He spent a load of money in Iowa. No one outspent him there. The problem is that when he lost in Iowa, a lot of grassroots donors had second thoughts, so continuing donations started to dry up, especially after New Hampshire. But he certainly was not defeated by money prior to Iowa and New Hampshire. Posted by: Clark Coleman on February 18, 2004 3:05 PMMr. Auster writes the perfect obituary to Mr. Dean, “the little Hitler” from Vermont who refused/refuses to release documents about his machinations while governor of that state. Now, I hear, a judge has ruled those files must be opened to the scrutiny of investigators or perhaps the public. After all, wasn’t Dean a public official, duly elected by the People, for the People? How could he have gotten away for so long with obfuscating (or otherwise “fixing the lockbox” containing) these docs? Is Vermont like Arkansas—where the former governor had such incredible power to cover his bases? Somehow, I see Vermont as a bit more “open” about things, being in the North, but then I suppose corruption is corruption, no matter “where” it rears its ugly head. Posted by: David Levin on February 18, 2004 6:34 PMDr. Dean is a nasty little man who very often used threats, put-downs, and bully-buster to govern. It is remarkable how many people in public life will roll over if confronted in a aggressive way. It is way too easy to get into psychological guess-work about Dr. Dean; but there is some interesting projection going on regarding him and his father, and how the good Doctor turned it on Bush 41 and Bush 43. Posted by: j.hagan on February 18, 2004 7:33 PM |