« Grades. | Main | The Day Before NH »
If Chewbacca Lives on Endor...
Although a few days ago many were mourning the demise of the Dean campaign, that campaign is far from over. For several days last week the media—intentionally or not—almost assassinate Dean's campaign with a variation on the Chewbacca Defense, which was more like a Chewbacca Indictment and went something like this:
Voters of this supposed America, Howard Dean's supporters would certainly want you to believe that he is a great candidate for president with the best vision for America's future and the best ability to realize that vision, and they make a good case. Hell, I almost supported him myself. But Voters of this supposed America, I have one final thing I want you to consider.
[Roll tape of Dean's post-caucus Iowa speech.] Voters, this is Howard Dean screaming at the top of his hoarse voice. Howard Dean is not a plastic person who has compromised with special interests for decades and missed a majority of his Senate voites. And Howard Dean is not a cipher who's not sure from day to day where his loyalties lie. Now think about it. That does not make sense. Why would Howard Dean, a former governor of Vermont, yell at the top of his hoarse voice to be heard over a cheering, raucous crowd? That does not make sense.
But more important, you have to ask yourself what does this have to do with whether Dean would make a great candidate, and whether he could defeat Bush. Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with your decision about who to vote for. It does not make sense. Look at me. I'm the media working for a major communications conglomerate that benefits from the most sensational news we can find or create, and I'm talkin' about someone screaming to be heard at a raucous rally. Does that make sense? Ladies and Gentlemen I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.
And so you have to remember when you're in that voting box deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No. Voters of this supposed America, it does not make sense. If Howard Dean screamed in Iowa, you must not support Howard Dean.
I know he seems like a terrific candidate, a fresh face with courage and conviction and great ideas and the most inspirational and populist campaign in modern history. But Voters, this is him screaming. Now think about that for one minute. That does not make sense. Why am I talking about screaming when the future of the United States is on the line? Why? I'll tell you why. I don't know. It doesn't make sense. If screaming does not make sense you must indict. Here look at the monkey , look at the silly monkey.
The media never rests.
But hey, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me—we've seen this tactic before, and most of us aren't falling for it this time. Thanks largely to Thursday's New Hampshire debate, followed by the homerun Dean and his wife hit in their interview with Diane Sawyer, Dean's back in the hunt.
Already beginning yesterday morning, Dean's Monday night, post-caucus speech began being referred to by some as only a "memorably loud speech," rather than a "screech" or a "yowl" or whatever. See the speech for yourself, in context, in this video shot from down in the crowd. Also check out Dave Winer's explanation of the speech:
So yeah, Dean gave a rousing speech, but I simply don't understand why it was remarkable in any way except to show that Dean and his supporters were undaunted by the results of the Iowa caucus. Look at the definition of campaign—"An operation or series of operations energetically pursued to accomplish a purpose"—and then explain how and why people made such a big deal over this.
But as we put this behind this behind us, it's worth taking a look at the bright sides, and there are many. First, among the many, many audio remixes of the so-called "I have a scream" speech, a few are actually pretty good.
Another bright side: Now that Dean supporters have seen such a vivid example of how the media can twist and blow up any single image and soundbite to destroy a candidate, those who stuck with Dean, and even those who wavered and returned, as well as those who come to support him in the future—all of us have been handed a great lesson in what it will take to win the nomination and the White House. We need not excuse every foible or mistake, but we can't rely on the media to tell us what to think of what happens on the campaign either. Like Winer said, perhaps it's time to have a campaign without the media.
Final bright side: The inspiration of those who didn't let all the spin get to them, but spun right back to turn the speech into a great thing for the campaign. On the official Dean Campaign blog, one person who was at the post-caucus party in Iowa where Dean made his infamous speech describes what it was like to be there (the comment is about a dozen from the top):
And then Howard took the stage, and I started to get more pumped. I remembered why I'd come to Iowa. And I don't care what the pundits say about that yawp. Man, that was what Walt Whitman talked about. "I sound my barbaric yawp from the rooftops of the world." We needed to hear that yawp.
I can't think of anything Howard could've said that would've pleased the crowd, the pundits, and the people watching on tv. I'm glad he spoke to us. He'll be speaking with the rest of the country all this week. That night, he was looking out for the people who'd given their time and energy for him.
And that's why I'm a Dean supporter. On to California!
Posted by [removed] at January 22, 2004 01:35 AM
(The commenter seems to be affiliated with Cyclists for Dean, which is planning a coast-to-coast Ride to Take Back America! Now that is my kind of campaigning. Do I really need legal experience this summer? Can't I just ride my bike across the country with a bunch of Dean supporters? ;-))
From another comment, a little further down in the thread, comes a well-written version of the best take on the speech:
At the risk of sounding "intemperate" myself: If you're not angry about what Bush has done to the environment, education, foreign relations, U.S. workers, our judiciary, and on and on; if you're filled with passion to send this administration packing and get the U.S. back on a sustainable and sane path, you're just not paying attention.
Posted January 24, 2004 09:43 AM | election 2004
See, it's things like that last sentence which explain why Dean can get the nomination, but won't win the general election. He generates his own negatives.
After all, anyone who is paying attention but merely thinks that maybe they should vote Democrat is going to be a bit peeved. It might be that, rather than being inattentive they (shock, gasp, horror) disagree.
The reason that speech has gotten disproportionate airplay is simply that at one level, it does encapsulate Dean: it energizes his supporters (like yourself) and alienates those who might even otherwise be his allies.
Posted by: A. Rickey at January 24, 2004 10:03 AM
That last sentence should read:
If you're not angry about what Bush has done to the environment, education, foreign relations, U.S. workers, our judiciary, and on and on; if you're NOT filled with passion to send this administration packing and get the U.S. back on a sustainable and sane path, you're just not paying attention.
I forgot the second "not."
A. Rickey: What is it that these potential Dean supporters disagree with? Do they support the way Bush took us to war? A large majority of Democrats don't. Do they think we shouldn't provide health care for everyone? A large majority of Democrats think we should. Do they think the best approach to beating Bush is to be "moderate" and polite about saying what an awful president he's been? Maybe. Did that work in the 2002 midterm elections? Nope.
My thinking is you may be right: Dean generates his own negatives, but they're not negatives per se, they're negatives once they're run through the pundits and too many potential voters simply don't take the time to figure out for themselves what the merits of the candidates might be. That leads to a situation where a candidate basically has to fool voters into thinking he's safe and completely unobjectionable (or at least less objectionable than the opposition), which means the best chameleons get elected, which means voters will always be disappointed. Maybe Dean won't win (I certainly think that question remains open), but I do think we know what we're getting with him, and there's a lot to be said for that.
Posted by: ambimb at January 24, 2004 10:38 AM
AI, I think you missed my point:
Dean generates his own negatives because of what he attracts as support. Reread the last sentence of your post. If I'm a moderate Democrat (i.e. I might disagree with Bush on any/all of those issues, but I'm not angry about it), then you've just insulted me by calling me, at the most flattering, insufficiently attentive.
This is a curious way to win friends and influence people.
Posted by: A. Rickey at January 24, 2004 02:07 PM
You're right, I think I did miss your point, and it's a good one. Thanks for the clarification. I certainly have a little trouble understanding how someone could remain well-informed about the consequences of the Bush presidency, and yet *not* be angry or impassioned; however, I'll admit it's possible. Perhaps we're talking semantics. Some people find the idea of becoming "angry" insulting or otherwise repugnant; instead, they might choose to describe what I might call "anger" as "alarm" or "discomfort" or "a preference for an alternative."
Dean has a habit of speaking bluntly and in strong terms, so perhaps you're right that he attracts support from people who appreciate such bluntness. Those people might then express their support bluntly and in strong terms, and that might come off as abrasive or otherwise unwelcome by some potential Dean supporters. I'm not sure what to say to those people, except that there are lots of candidates in every election who speak in half measures and niceties, so if that's what you're looking for, you've got plenty to choose from.
See, I did it again, didn't I? ;-)
Still, I do think there's plenty of room in the Dean Democratic tent for those of us who are "angry," as well as those who would simply prefer a change in direction. However, those more "moderate" supporters (or potential supporters) might do well to read the Dean for America site or the blog, rather than posts from people like me.
Posted by: ambimb at January 24, 2004 06:07 PM
Ambimb, let me agree with Tony, sort of, and chip in with a story from Iowa. I added this as an update to my post about my experience in the caucuses. Someone else at the university said that the Dean supporters in his precinct were such arrogant jerks that they pissed off all the other people, and when it came time for the supporters of nonviable candidates and undecideds to realign, they pretty much went to other candidates -- not Dean.
Now, this wasn't the case in my precinct, although even there, Dean did poorly in terms of attracting nonviables/undecideds.
The problem with the scream -- and I agree with you that in a rational world, it shouldn't be a big deal -- is that the very concern people have about Dean (as opposed to his policies) is that he's an angry, out of control guy. You add in stories like the one about the precinct that my friend went to . . . and then the scream, and a picture gets painted. It may be unfair, it may be media-created -- but that's true of many of these images. Bush 1 as clueless guy who didn't even know about supermarket price scanners? Same kind of story.
I'm not saying that we want some kind of Dick Morris-driven robo-candidate who preens for the camera. But the ability to perceive how you'll be spun and to spin back is valuable. Clinton had it, Bush 2 seems to have it, and I think Edwards has it, though the jury is still out (so to speak).
Posted by: Tung Yin at January 24, 2004 07:33 PM
Prof Yin: I hear you. I completely understand how Iowans might have felt a bit overwhelmed and even resentful about the Dean campaign's massive presence, energy, momentum, and yes, arrogance. Until the Iowa results came in, I didn't really realize how confident (and perhaps arrogant) I'd become about Dean myself, and that's probably true of a lot of his supporters. To be fair, I don't think it was all the Dean campaign's fault; the other campaigns were hammering hard against him, and he chose to fight back. That may have been a mistake, but it certainly ratcheted up the volume and intensity of the commercials, the phone calls, the door-knocking, etc. If I'd been in Iowa, I could certainly see myself feeling a little anti-Dean (and anti-Gephardt, I'm guessing, since it sounds like his presence was also a little overwhelming).
I hope the Dean campaign and his supporters (myself included) have learned from the last week that we have to be a lot more humble and not take any votes for granted. I think (and hope), given a little more time, people are going to look back at this week as one of the defining moments of the Dean campaign -- the week it learned to be humble and the week it learned which rules it can break and which ones it's going to have to follow if it wants to win. Obviously, the campaign has to be aware of how it will be spun, and perhaps it was part of its arrogance to think that its supporters would ignore the spin. I doubt the campaign will make that mistake again.
From what you're saying, it sounds like there's a chance these lessons have come too late for some people -- those who have somehow been convinced they need to worry that Dean's angry or out of control. Maybe. Or maybe people will see a real human being, one who makes mistakes and learns from them. Unlike Kerry or Edwards who are both so polished and professional I can't trust or believe a thing they say, Dean's a "what-you-see-is-what-you-get" kind of guy. I don't know about you, but I'm very tired of politicians who say one thing and do another, and I'm simply convinced that Dean's not going to do that. I remain hopeful that other people will see things the same way...
Posted by: ambimb at January 25, 2004 06:28 AM
