Based on the way Howard Dean was speaking tonight, you'd think he had won! Iowa is just the beginning. There are still 49 states left to go. I want an inspiring person like that to lead my country. Dean for America!

I think I agree with the commentators on CNBC last night when they pointed out that Dean's Fiery "Straight Talk" gets a lot of people excited, but when people actually start thinking about someone they want as a president, they shy away from the fiery loud mouth and more towards calmer people.

I find myself the same way. During the last campaign I was interested in what McCain had to say, but I didn't like how he was saying it. It made me uneasy because I wanted a calmer person running my country. That's what swung me towards Bush. What I've learned about McCain since the election makes me wish I'd voted for him, but at the time that's all I had to judge him on.

Also, Dean made several mistakes in the last two weeks. First of all, he is running as a "Washington Outsider" but everyone saw pictures of him being supported by Tom Harkin and everyone knows he tried to get ex-President Carter's endorsement. I'm from Iowa. Tom Harkin has been senator from there ever since I can remember and he is as "Washington Insider" as you can possibly be. Many Iowans would agree with me that he can be as nasty as a politian can be and he is as smooth and double-talking as they come. While many Iowans like him and many Iowans despise him, most would agree that he brings home the goods. His record on getting Iowa the farm subsidies and Ethanol goodies is excellent, so he keeps getting re-elected by wide margins, even though he is much more liberal than you would expect from a midwestern state.

When I saw the pictures of Dean with Harkin that did a lot of damage to my vision of Dean as an outsider. I know, you're going to say that just because he got the endorsement doesn't mean he is one of them, but that's what a lot of people feel.

Also, there is the issue of electibility. While I know that you and bouncing think that Dean can beat Bush, he's got to convince the general electorate of that. And this failure to defeat members of his own party after healthily leading in the poles and having by far the most money does not help that.

Also, please don't resort to calling Iowans stupid. They are a rational people. There was many things that happened in Iowa that didn't make it into the general press that swayed votes. For example, there was a widely publicized incident when Dean reacted to a heckler in a way that many Iowans viewed as extremely rude. You may not, but in the less confrontational heartland, it made him look like a jerk. And there was also the HUGE number of political ads and none of us saw those. The right wording by some and the wrong wording by others could have made all the difference.

Yanthor, thanks for the interesting and informative comments. I hadn't really even heard of Tom Harkin until he endorsed Dean.

Honestly, Dean had been announcing so many endorsements from all sorts of random politicians that I stopped paying attention to them. They didn't matter to me, except as a possible way to improve his standing with other voters who (presumably) trusted and respected those people. I can see how an endorsement from a widely reviled politician could work the other way. :)

Sorry if I offended with my comments about Iowans. It wasn't meant as a personal attack, although I guess it came out that way. Analyzing the cause, I think it was because of frustration due to 2 reasons.

One is because the way the whole primary/caucus system seems inherently screwy. Why should 1 or 2 little states get to have such an overwhelming amount of power in selecting candidates who are supposed to represent the entire country? People in every state should be allowed an equal voice in choosing a candidate for an office as important as the presidency. It's crazy that people's right to have a say in the national election is dependent on whether or not one lives in a particular geographic region.

Every presidential election since I have been old enough to vote has amounted to a choice between the lesser of evils. (Or voting for a 3rd party candidate who has no real chance of winning.) Clinton, Dole, Gore, Bush. None of them inspired me. None of them made me proud to say I was an American. None of them seemed to care about anything I cared about. Yet every election, I have showed up to vote, if for no other reason than to cast a protest vote against both of them.

This brings me to the second frustration. Why oh why, out of all the candidates, would they pick John Kerry for 1st place? Excepting Joe Lieberman, he's probably the least appealing of the bunch. A significant portion of his campaign was spent backpedaling about whether he supported the Iraq war. He voted for the war resolution. He was silent in March when Bush sent the troops in. Only after he saw the support that Howard Dean was getting did he decide to start criticizing Bush, except he had the little problem that he was on record as having voted with Bush. Wishy washy.

On a more positive note, I do like Iowa's 2nd place choice. John Edwards does seem to fit the "calm" designation, and I have liked what I have heard from him. (Though I haven't done the research to look at his voting record. Maybe I should do so.)

Anyway, I'm going to end this so I can focus my attention on Bush's State of the Union. Peace.

This kind of reminds me of Michael Moore's recent endorsement of Clark. He's thinking probably some of the same things people who are voting for Kerry are.

One interesting point is that most of the American people went along with the war, but are now having second thoughts. Although Dean had the realism to critisize the war from the beginning, people showing poorer judgement (Kerry, Clark) may not be flip flopping, but coming to the realization that the war was a sham.

To save face, they can take some shelter in the countless lies and deception the Bush administration used and continues to use. (Did you watch the State of the Union?) I think for the average American, an explanation of being for the war of "Bush said Iraq was with the terrorists and would give them nuclear weapons" is more than understandable. And perhaps the other candidates -- who did change sides -- can relate better to the general electorate.

Indeed, the only reason we know the truth is that we get our news and information from outside the mass broadcast media, which capitalized upon the possibility for war, and therefor did not relay any information contrary to the official line. Now the mass media has realized that money is to be made in scandal too, and that's why there is some open questioning of Bush.

So yes, I am sad too. I still hope Dean wins. But if he doesn't, I think Kerry's an eloquent and masterful speaker, probably does have good leadership skills, and might have some good ideas. It's on the fringe issues -- like "intellectual property" -- that Kerry will most certainly side with the business lobby. And perhaps that's why he may win the nomination.

As Kiesa pointed out, Iowa has a history picking different winners than the actual nominee. (In 1992, Clinton came in 4th in Iowa.)

About Dean's speech Monday night, this is what Joe Trippi wrote (I'm pasting it here because the Dean blog seems to have problems with page widening comments, which make it very hard to read there):

Here’s the real story on Monday night – the one the press still hasn’t told.

I’ve been around campaigns for a long time. On most campaigns, if you come in third in Iowa with 18% and you go to the after party, you’re lucky to find 4 people there. Most every one by the time it’s over has left to find another party and another campaign.

But on Monday night Howard Dean walked in to the ballroom in Des Moines and there were 3500 people there. And the energy was higher than most victory parties I’ve been to.

The Governor looked out at the room and saw 3500 people who had come from all across the country because they believed in changing their country and he wanted them to know how proud he was of them and their efforts. And he wanted them to know that we’re going on no matter what.

He wasn’t thinking about the cameras. It was the people right in front of him who had done so much because they believe in a better America that he was speaking to.

That the press would report on his speech for one day is understandable. But what’s remarkable is that they could run it over and over for 48 hours and still call it journalism. The State of the union took place. The next day we find out that Bush plans to ask for $40 billion more for his war in Iraq. But what do they run over and over again?

We’re going to fight back in New Hampshire. We’re getting our message out. I’ve been reading your comments on the blog and the forum and your emails and the dedication you’re showing now is what is going to win this.

Howard Dean has the courage, integrity and record of leadership to win the nomination and defeat George W. Bush in November. Contribute what you can to help us win New Hampshire. Come here to volunteer. Together we are going to take our country back.

Others who were there have commented that the volume of the crowd in the room was so loud that you could barely hear what anybody, including Dean, was saying. Dean was not cracking up any more than anyboy who goes to a concert and gets a little wild in the midst of all the energy. (Though I can imagine that now, after all the media punishment, he might secretly wish he had thought a little bit more about the tv cameras that were there. Such is the burden of being a presidential candidate.)

But just so I'm clear: In November, I will vote for whatever democratic nominee the party picks (unless something crazy happens and it's Joe Lieberman). But none of them (except maybe Kucinich) inspire me to the degree that Howard Dean does, and frankly, I don't much trust them either. I just want to get Bush out.

Your points about Kerry are well stated. Maybe people who were for the war and later changed their minds would be more apt to identify with him. To me, he seems more like a follower than a leader. If he is the one a majority of the people really want though, so be it.

A lot of people seem to be prematurely writing Dean off because of what happened on Monday. I had the same initial reaction until I heard Dean's much-lampooned speech. If the media manages to convince enough people that Dean doesn't have a chance, even if they want to support him, it could become a self-fulfilling prophesy. If enough potential supporters think he's out, stop campaigning, and vote for a "more credible" second choice in the primary, then the big bad media gets its wish.

In any event, it will be interesting to see what happens next week in New Hampshire, and the states that follow. Maybe I've just been reading too much of the blog, but I'm still optimistic about Dean's chances.

I saw an interview with Dean on CNBC last night in which he claimed that his campaign did not conduct itself through focus groups or polls. He said they say what is right and let the people decide. That's a dangerous strategy in modern politics and his defeat could simply be that his opponents focus-grouped phrases and then used the good ones in their ads during the last two weeks.

Personally, I (and I think many other Americans) like the idea of a campaign that isn't constantly looking to see what people want to hear. However, at the same time I and everyone else are not going to vote for a candidate unless we like what they say better than the others.

Heh! I wonder if anyone in politics ever focus-grouped the phrase "My campaign doesn't use focus groups."

The worst thing that could happen to the Dean campaign (or Dean presidency, if he should be elected) would be for it to be taken over by a bunch of professional media consultants. After Iowa, I was worried that it might happen in an attempt to "correct" what went wrong there. Fortunately, at least so far, it appears that this hasn't been the case.

The success of the Dean campaign has come from largely from its spontaneity, coupled with the ability to boast credibly about the governer's strong record in Vermont.

When the Dean campaign sends its volunteers to go out and campaign, it doesn't hand them a script. There is no, "Say this, greet like this, and if they ask such-and-such question, answer with $blah." (As was the case both times I trained for customer interaction in a retail environment.) The Dean instructions amount to little more than, "Tell people whatever it is YOU like about the governer. Use your own words."

When I went to Boulder to write letters to voters in New Hapshire, the Dean pamphlet contained a few possible suggestions regarding ideas of what you might write about, but beyond that, the instructions said I could pretty much say whatever I wanted about the Dean campaign.

I contemplated whether to include a few words about civil liberties violations stemming from the Patriot Act, and Dean's plan to correct them. The popular wisdom goes (especially then) that this might turn some people off, as "national security" would be viewed as more important by most voters.

I decided to go ahead and write what I thought, so I did, while also highlighting Dean's other achievements and campaign themes.

Dean himself is the same way. He doesn't follow a specific script when he goes out to give speeches. Nothing gets run through a public relations filter, except perhaps to analyze what worked and what didn't, after the fact (a discussion to which anyone on the blog can contribute).

This is the Dean campaign's greatest strength, but as you point out, it can also turn some people off. The alternative -- to screen everything he (or people involved with his campaign) might say to the public through a media consultant or focus group -- might help him get elected, or it might not. But in doing so, it would certainly lose a big part of what makes the Dean campaign special.

I'd rather lose the election than win by turning into something else.

Bitscape, your state probably does primaries rather than caucuses. As I understand them, most states do primaries and only a few states do caucuses. In fact, it might be that Iowa is the only one. I'm not sure.

A quick googling found that the word "caucus" is used too many other ways to easily figure out which states do what.

Four years ago, Colorado had a Presidential primary. As a registered Republican home on spring break, I voted in my first election for George W. Bush. I recall reading a while ago (I wish I remembered when) that Colorado was not going to have a presidential primary this year because it cost a non-trivial amount of money to run and Colorado's vote doesn't really matter anyway, since the primary is after most other states.

A bit of Googling revealed this page, which verifies the existance of a caucus in Colorado and explains the cancelation of the primary. (I'm assuming caucuses are paid for by the respective parties, so the state itself doesn't have to pay for them.)

Yes, Colorado does indeed have a caucus. That was one of the things they talked about at the Dean meetups I went to.

As an aside, the whole system of caucuses seem a little strange and wierd to me. I like the idea of being able to choose a second place candidate if it's clear that the candidate I like best isn't going to win. (Although the way the caucus system divides it all up by precinct is, again, a bit odd.)

The blatently non-democratic part is requiring people to show up not only on a specific day, but at one specific time, with no absentee ballots accepted. What if somebody's schedule doesn't allow that? Then no vote. Stupid.

Also, some comments about the way the caucus system is run seem a little fishy. (I take that particular comment with a grain of salt, since it could have been posted by anybody.)

Instant runoff voting, even if it were only used for primaries at first, seems like a far superior alternative.