Dean Campaign: Not a Pretty Picture

There's an interesting piece in the Washington Post today which paints an unflattering portrait of a Dean campaign roiled by civil war and a candidate with cold feet.

< Divide and Bicker

The Dean Campaign's Hip, High-Tech Image Hid a Nasty Civil War

By Howard Kurtz

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, February 29, 2004; Page D01

The feuding and backbiting that plagued the Howard Dean campaign had turned utterly poisonous. Behind the facade of a successful political operation, senior officials plotted against each other, complained about the candidate and developed one searing doubt.

Dean, they concluded, did not really want to be president.

In different conversations and in different ways, according to several people who worked with him, Dean said at the peak of his popularity late last year that he never expected to rise so high, that he didn't like the intense scrutiny, that he had just wanted to make a difference. "I don't care about being president," he said. Months earlier, as his candidacy was taking off, he told a colleague: "The problem is, I'm now afraid I might win."

As Dean was swallowed by the bubble that envelops every major candidate, he allowed his campaign to sink into a nasty civil war that crippled decision-making and devastated morale. In the end, say some of those who uprooted their lives for him, these tensions hastened the implosion that brought Dean down. >

Here's the link for the rest of the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15741-2004Feb28.html

It's so amusing how the media continues to be fascinated with picking apart the Dean campaign, while having absolutely no interest in the goings-on of Kerry, et al. Apparently the story of how Kerry fired his campaign manager, followed by others in his staff walking out in protest, just won't sell papers. Nor will, I guess, the story of Toricelli being one of Kerry's big fundraisers.

Last week, there was an AP story in every paper about Dean's $400,000 debt and how he wants to retire the debt quickly. The story goes on for about 12 paragraphs, driving home the point of this "horrible" $400,000 debt, and then tosses this in at the very end, as an after thought: "Wesley Clark reported about $3.4 million in campaign bills to pay as February began, with only about $400,000 in the bank." There is also no mention of Kerry's $6+ million loan on his home, which carries a $200,000 a year debt.

This is the same thing that happened with the copious pieces on an itemization of how Dean spent his money, adding things like pizza expenses for a HUGE number of people over a long time to make it look excessive - while other campaigns were totally spared.

The media still needs Howard Dean to keep this campaign season interesting. Or perhaps they're afraid of what the next phase of Dean For America will bring? (nah, couldn't be that!) :7

Howard Kurtz is a well-respected reporter, and he's hardly part of some dark media conspiracy. He's simply doing his job - reporting on a phenomenon not seen in recent memory - a candidate who rises from obscurity to dominate the field and then implodes. That happens to be news.

As for the stories about Dean's debt, that's also news for two very simple reasons: first, Dean was widely known to be obsessed with NOT going into debt, and second, he both raised more money than any other candidate and did so in a non-conventional way, but he blew through it with no victories to show for it. The fact that other candidates have debt is decidedly not news.

For the record, with respect to my posts here about this campaign, I am simply talking about what I observe based on years of involvement in politics (not that anyone should give a fuck). I started with no particular dog in the hunt.

:+

Well I give a fuck! And I see nothing dark and conspiritorial about either your comments or the reporting, especially as far as the article which you cited (which I read in the WP today).

>Howard Kurtz is a well-respected reporter, and he's hardly

>part of some dark media conspiracy. He's simply doing his job

That's B.S. Kurtz conveniently quotes anonymous sources and once again, as the media always does when "reporting" about the Dean campaign, completely leaves out any mention of the HUGE role the media played in it all. The press does have an agenda - they'd like nothing better than to write a history in which all of the campaign's failings were internal and in which the media played no part. That's a lie, and here's Howard Dean's statement:

"The quotes attributed to me by others in Howard Kurtz's gossipy rendition of the divisions in the Dean for America campaign are entirely false, as is the description of my reaction after losing the Iowa caucuses, before the famous speech.

"The danger of using unattributed sources as Kurtz and so many others do, is that the veracity of the informants can not be evaluated. In this case Kurtz included a significant amount of material which was not true, and produced a story which was greatly exaggerated."

< That's B.S. Kurtz conveniently quotes anonymous sources and once again, as the media always does when "reporting" about the Dean campaign, completely leaves out any mention of the HUGE role the media played in it all. The press does have an agenda - they'd like nothing better than to write a history in which all of the campaign's failings were internal and in which the media played no part. That's a lie, and here's Howard Dean's statement >

Say what? Joe Trippi and Kate O'Connor are hardly "anonymous sources."

As for the "huge role the media played" in Dean's demise, it's time for him to grow up, if he really believes that, IMHO. Adult politicians take personal responsibility and don't blame others. He knew (or should have known) what he was getting into. If he didn't, that proves he wasn't ready for prime time, which is exactly what Kurtz reported.

Sometimes the truth hurts. If he continues to be so disingenuous, his "movement for America" is doomed, which would be a total shame. He clearly is a force for change, but he's a loose cannon. Loose cannons are good when they're charged up and focused, but they don't engender much trust in the long run. :7

>>Howard Kurtz is a well-respected reporter, and he's hardly

>>part of some dark media conspiracy. He's simply doing his

>job

>

>That's B.S. Kurtz conveniently quotes anonymous sources and

>once again, as the media always does when "reporting" about

>the Dean campaign, completely leaves out any mention of the

>HUGE role the media played in it all.

2 points:

(1) It's a ridiculous joke to say that Howard Kurtz "is a well-respected reporter." He's the most consummate inside-the-Beltway, conventional wisdom-drenched, DC political whore that exists, and he's been skewered in almost every corner for his oozing conflicts of interest, including the fact that he's paid by the Wash. Post to critique the political media but at the same time is paid by CNN and other media outlets that he coveres.

If Howard Kurtz says it, the only thing you can be sure of is that it's standard, Washington-ish conventional wisdom. If you think that has value, you should read his column. He is the ULTIMATE media insider, and exactly the type of person whose "power" and position were threatend by the Dean campaign. What he says regarding Dean should be taken with a particular grain of salt.

(2) Despite all of that, this column struck me as basically accurate, at least insofar as what is purported to cover. It did NOT purport to be a comprehensive explanation of all of the reasons the Dean campaign failed, and certianly the media's absurdly biased coverage of that campaign is a major reason for that failure.

The article merely purported to detail the internal feuds which plagued the campaign, and the vast majority of quotes he includes were NOT anonymous or unattributed, but rather, were quotes from the 2 main players: Joe Trippi and Kate O'Connor.

It was a standard conflict that also marred the Clark campaign: long-time trusted local aide v. Washington professional campaign managers.

It seemed extra intense and hateful here, because of how much was at stake and how quickly and unexpectedly the success came.

To me, the part that was most interesting was the suggestion that Dean, deep down, did not really want to be President at all, but instead, entered the race with no expectation of winning but just wanting to change the tenor of the Democrats' articulation of their position (and that, he certainly did). I think it takes a severe egotism bordering on self-delusion, as well as some profound narcissistic self-regard, to really want to be the President. I think Dean has too much integrity, balance, and normality to have really thought and wanted that, and I don't believe that he's unhappy that he is where he is now.

< It's a ridiculous joke to say that Howard Kurtz "is a well-respected reporter." He's the most consummate inside-the-Beltway, conventional wisdom-drenched, DC political whore that exists, and he's been skewered in almost every corner for his oozing conflicts of interest, including the fact that he's paid by the Wash. Post to critique the political media but at the same time is paid by CNN and other media outlets that he coveres >

That's your opinion, but one which I respect. The piece is also touted on the Drudge Report, hardly a "Washington Insider" source, especially since the Post and Drudge are currently in a war over the validity of their respective reporting. }(

If you want a conspiracy to justify what happened to Dean, try this: Karl Rove sits in the war room, watching Dean move to the front of the Dem race, salivating over the possibility. When he's convinced that Dean's going to be the nominee, he unloads in Iowa.

Unlikely? Guess again. Rove's smart but he's not perfect. He might have just torpedoed Dean a few weeks too soon, and now he has a race on his hands. }(

>As for the "huge role the media played" in Dean's demise, it's

>time for him to grow up,

You're quoting me but attributing it to Howard Dean. I know you're obsessed with Dean (from your posts here as well as from the emails you've sent me) but try to keep your quotes straight. Howard Dean has never blamed the media (or anyone else for that matter) for what happened in his campaign. He always has & continues to take full responsibility for everything that happens in his organization (he really is George W. Bush's complete opposite).

>the vast majority of quotes he

>includes were NOT anonymous or unattributed, but rather, were

>quotes from the 2 main players: Joe Trippi and Kate

>O'Connor.

What Howard Dean said was that "the quotes attributed to (Dean) by others...are entirely false."

< I know you're obsessed with Dean (from your posts here as well as from the emails you've sent me) >

Hardly.

I am, however, obsessed with beating W who I think is the most cynical President in modern memory (with the possible exception of LBJ). If that goal happens to coincide with a popular crusade ala an internet political explosion, that's AWESOME! But when all is said and done, there are two outcomes - winning and losing. Even after two hundred years in this democracy, we're rarely afforded the luxury of having perfect choices.

Finally, Rick, I said it here in my very first post during this campaign season - I applaud and salute your involvement. I've said that also in email to you. I say it again here now. I'm not being patronizing, but I am calling 'em as I see 'em. I really wish you'd take all that in the spirit in which it's meant. }(

>I am, however, obsessed with beating W

So, instead of continually posting about someone who isn't even a contender anymore, why don't you post about your candidate of choice (Kerry) and give potentially undecided voters a reason to vote for him? Wouldn't that be a more productive way of obtaining your goal than constantly trashing Howard Dean? Or is there really just nothing good to say about Kerry?

< why don't you post about your candidate of choice (Kerry) >

Show me where I've said that anywhere here. On second thought, don't bother. I haven't. ;-)

The fact that I make an observation about a candidate, eg., Kerry seems to be winning, does not make me a Kerry supporter, any more than when I observe that Dean imploded that I'm picking on him. There's a difference between an observation and a personal preference. Once you have some experience in politics, you'll hopefully be able to recognize that. :*

In fact, I think Edwards has absolutely the best stump speech, and I worry that Kerry still appears too aloof and cold. x(

Next time, check your facts. That's important if you want to be in politics, Rick.

>Show me where I've said that anywhere here.

You emailed it to me.

>Next time, check your facts. That's important if you want to

>be in politics, Rick.

I have never said I want to "be in politics." If voting and taking an interest in what is going on in your country are considered "being in politics," then I guess we'll all be in politics this November.

< You emailed it to me. >

When? Prove it. :7