WTF?

Saddam interfering with a presidential nomination campaign — even while captured?!?

No WONDER the people of Iraq were in his thrall. This guy has major magical powers.

MG

/remove tongue from cheek/

Posted by: MG at January 19, 2004 10:28 PM

Anger is not a political platform.

Dean just discovered that Iowans know that.

Posted by: BradDad at January 19, 2004 10:39 PM

Imagine a US candidate whose success depends on the success of our enemies….Oh wait, that’s most of the Democratic candidates.

Posted by: Alan at January 19, 2004 10:39 PM

Don’t forget that Dean was ahead in the polls 2 weeks ago. The democrats in Iowa just looked into the abyss - and blinked.

Posted by: JK at January 19, 2004 10:41 PM

Well spoken, BradDad.

The red-meat Republican side of me wanted Dean to win, as he would be one of the weakest candidates that the Dems could field against Bush. But overall I think the Dems are going to go with the more moderate voice. It’s still early, but if I were a betting man, my money would be on John Edwards.

Posted by: Curt at January 19, 2004 10:43 PM

I don’t think it had anything to do with his Saddam comment. I think it was two incidents that the media is to dim to get, but voters do.

#1- I think people are responding to the Gore endorsement which I think voters preceived to be simple rude by Gore, to Lieberman, of course. And frankly it was. Gore being a bitter opprtunist who would rather stick it to the Clintons than to refrain from any endorsement until his running mate drops out. Of course Dean can’t be blamed for accepting the endorsement, to think that some of Gore’s bad taste didn’t rub off on him is silly and…

#2- to further solidify this cocky arrogant manner, Dean rudely lambasted an Iowan resident for challanging him to campaign in a civil manner. “You sit down, you had your say…” Iowans probably thought a few things about that. A) it was rude and arrogant 2) it wasn’t very Presidential and 3) there is not one Democrat that could honestly say they would let that kind of outburst and behavior slip by if George W. had uttered it.

My humble view, but it is what I think

Posted by: Amy at January 19, 2004 10:47 PM

Wow. Dean may have just destroyed himself with that speech. Particularly coming after a fairly strong Edwards speech, Dean looked unhinged.

Posted by: cg at January 19, 2004 10:56 PM

I know I already posted a comment, but this occurred to me later …

I didn’t know the Dems were having a Baghdad caucus …..

Posted by: BradDad at January 19, 2004 11:02 PM

Great pre-caucus commentary by a former Iowa resident that turned out to be right on (from NRO’s The Corner):

I now live in Minnesota but spent most of my life in Iowa and much of my family is still in the Hawkeye state. I was once a county delegate in the caucus system (Dole in ‘96) so I have a pretty good sense of how the system works.

Edwards has really pushed a nice guy image in recent weeks choosing to avoid the vicious infighting between frontrunners Dean, Gephardt, and Kerry. Edwards actually touts his positive campaign more so than any issue that he supports. While being a nice guy doesn’t inspire an enthusiastic base, it could help make Edwards the #2 choice of several caucus voters. Several of the 9 candidates certainly will not hit “viable candidate” status on the first round (Lieberman, Clark, Kucinich). Edwards could therefore be the big winner among caucus goers forced to make a second choice. In contrast, Dean’s abrasiveness may have pushed a lot of voters to have a love or hate opinion of him – his base loves him, supporters of other candidates are turned off by him. With the race between the 4 frontrunners being so close, the re-caucusing rounds will be critical.

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_01_18_corner-archive.asp#023093

Posted by: Doug at January 19, 2004 11:14 PM