What a difference a week makes!
In the last four days, several events of merit have occurred in the development of the 2004 Presidential Campaign. President Bush delivered a moving State of the Union Address that saw his approval rating climb to the highest it has been in many months. Third quarter fiscal numbers were the highest they have been in nearly twenty years. Oh, and by the way, the Iowa caucus was held, and boy was it surprising.
Although I hate to be a smartass, I have to say “I told you so.” This primary proved that although Dean has strong support amongst traditional liberals, he does not have enough appeal to the American public in general to pose a serious threat to Bush.
Dean wasn’t the only candidate whose main campaign issues centered on anti-conservatism. He was, however, the most zealous, and therefore was able to garner the most outspoken and influential left, from Al Gore to Bill Bradley. A few short weeks ago, democratic presidential candidates were clamoring to hammer President Bush like fat kids stampeding for the first spot in the lunch line. The Iowa caucus proved that Bush-bashing could eliminate many important democratic frontrunners before the race even officially begins with next week’s New Hampshire primary.
According to analysts on Fox News’ program “On the Record with Greta Van Sustren,” the surprising John Kerry win in Iowa, coupled with Howard Dean’s disappointing third place finish, shows there must be a shift in the issues. Candidates must begin to court the moderate faction of the Democratic Party if they wish to win the party’s nomination.
The high numbers for Kerry and Edwards show that the American people would rather see a moderate candidate oppose President Bush than an extreme liberal like Howard Dean, and next month’s southern primaries should only further this notion.
With Howard Dean’s incessant mud-slinging agenda already coming under fire from influential members of both parties, the American people sent the message that they were finally tired of Dean’s tirades once and for all. His poor showing in Iowa, a state where he invested considerable time and resources, may be the beginning of the end for what was once a bright and promising campaign.
If Dean fails to win in New Hampshire, it will drive the final stake into his already lifeless campaign (and make me smile like the Cheshire cat).
Thus, the trap for Dean is set — although New Hampshire Democrats are generally more liberal than the National Democratic Party as a whole. If Dean continues to campaign with a hard-line leftist agenda, it may be enough for him to carry New Hampshire, but it will probably damage his credentials irreparably in the South.
Traditionally, southerners are more likely to support a favorite son, and more importantly, a moderate (both Edwards and Wesley Clark fit the profile).
In Thursday’s New York Times, a front page article said that Dean is scurrying to court the moderate vote, but it is probably too late. Dean’s arrogance, both on the campaign trail and his personal demeanor, will prevent him from appealing to moderate groups.
Dean should have followed the lead of Clark and saved his pennies and effort for a battle he had a realistic chance of winning. As of now, it looks highly unlikely Dean will pull the democratic nomination.
Another option would be to withdraw soon and perhaps live to see another primary, maybe even as early as 2008. But with Hillary’s probable candidacy, that probably won’t happen either.
In all likelihood, Dean will fight a long, bitter battle that will end much like the Iowa caucus: with Dean exiting depressed, but wiser, from the national political scene.