2/3

I'm going to be very curious to see numbers that include surveys taken today -- after the NH primary. I mean, there's been a sea change since 1/25 -- the last day of many of these polls.

I especially would like to see the numbers in SC. I suspect Kerry's vaulted up to second there. Also, I think Clyburn's endorsement of Kerry is pretty significant, although I don't expect it to show up in the polls.

I think Kerry has a shot in SC if he devotes the resources to the state.

 

Guess you didn't click on the link in my post above?

The Kerry train is clearly leaving the station ...

 

Not a problem.

Turns out they changed the link. It used to go to the story you posted; now it goes to a slightly different version.

 

And now come the campaign shake-ups ...

I feel bad for Trippi.

Dean Shakes Up Presidential Campaign

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

BURLINGTON, Vt. - Howard Dean shook up his presidential campaign on Wednesday after absorbing back-to-back defeats, bringing in a longtime associate of former Vice President Al Gore to try and stabilize his faltering candidacy, Democratic sources said.

The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Dean told congressional supporters in a telephone conference call that he was installing Roy Neel as campaign CEO. Dean added that campaign manager Joe Trippi would remain on the payroll, the source said.

But another source said that Trippi had decided to depart the campaign rather than accept the change.

In the call with lawmakers, Dean expressed his determination to remain in the race, and said he hopes to finish at least second in the upcoming round of primaries and caucuses.

At the same time, several lawmakers bluntly told the former Vermont governor that he needed to demonstrate his ability to win in states — and that second place wouldn't suffice. "He said he understood," said one lawmaker who was involved in the call.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040128/ap_on_el_pr/dean

 

Trippi will be fine. He has a very successful media firm, so he'll just go back to being partner in that. It just sucks to lose your job publicly like that when you did so much to build the thing up.

It's not like "YEEEARRHHH" was Trippi's idea...

Plus, he's exactly right that Dean needs to focus his resources on a few winnable states right now and not try to run a national campaign. Dean will regret vetoing that idea.

So it looks like Gore's taking this thing over. Interesting that the Gore people are up against the Clinton folks on Clark's campaign (although Clark's probably not a huge factor anymore).

Here's the full story:

Howard Dean Replaces His Campaign Manager

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

BURLINGTON, Vt. - Democrat Howard Dean (news - web sites) shook up his faltering bid for the White House on Wednesday, replacing his campaign manager with a longtime associate of former Vice President Al Gore.

In a further sign of distress, the one-time front-runner implemented cost-cutting measures as he looked ahead to a series of costly primaries and caucuses, asking staff to defer their paychecks for two weeks.

"Governor Dean asked Roy Neel to join the campaign as CEO and Joe Trippi resigned as campaign manager," said Tricia Enright, a campaign spokeswoman.

One source said the former Vermont governor offered Trippi a spot on the payroll as a senior adviser — similar to the position Neel has held since Jan. 1 — but he decided to quit rather than accept the demotion.

One day after absorbing a double-digit defeat in New Hampshire at the hands of rival John Kerry, Dean publicly and privately expressed his determination to remain in the race. At the same time, in a conference call with members of Congress who have endorsed him, he was told bluntly that finishing second wasn't good enough — that he had to show he could win a primary.

"He said he understood," said one lawmaker who was involved in the call.

Dean's campaign chairman Steve Grossman also said Wednesday that the candidate must win a presidential primary in the next two weeks to keep even his most loyal donor base — those giving modest amounts over the Web — contributing enough to make him financially competitive.

The tumultuous events capped a swift slide for Dean, who was the campaign front-runner at the dawn of the election year, the man with money, momentum and a lead in the polls nationally and in most states.

But that was before he faded to third place in the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 19, and dealt himself a further setback with an appearance before supporters that even aides conceded was overly animated and less-than-presidential.

Democrats outside the campaign were surprised that Dean would make such a dramatic move in the middle of the primary race.

"It's the campaign's acknowledgment that things have gotten drastically off course," said Anita Dunn, who helped run Bill Bradley's failed 2000 campaign. "Often, when that happens you make a managerial change, no matter how well the manager was doing."

Trippi, who has a quarter-century of experience in Democratic politics, is widely credited with helping Dean build the campaign that transformed him from asterisk in the polls to front-runner by the end of 2003.

Dean announced that Neel would take the new position during a staff meeting, but aides who were present said he did not mention Trippi's departure. Trippi then came in and tearfully told his staff that he was leaving.

"Howard Dean is the guy who is going to fight for the country for real change and (I) hope people stick with him," Trippi said as he left campaign headquarters with his wife, Kathy Lash, who also worked for Dean.

"I'm out of the campaign, but I'm not out of the fight," he said. "We need to change America."

Dean aide Kate O'Conner said Dean wanted Neel to take over office operations, but wanted Trippi to stay on as a strategist running the Internet operations, an offer he turned down.

Trippi had been part of the staff faction that had urged Dean to focus on a few states that could be won, skipping all or most of the Feb. 3 contests in favor of Michigan, Washington state and Wisconsin. Dean and Neel dug in their heels, insisting that he had to play everywhere — an argument that prevailed as Trippi left.

His departure sent shock waves through the campaign, where he is a popular boss and something of an icon to the thousands of Internet-savvy supporters across the country. It was not unusual for crowd members to look for Trippi's autograph before Dean's at campaign events.

"Trippi has been a driving force in the campaign. There's no question it's been built around his interesting personality," said Donna Brazile, who helped run Gore's campaign. "But there's more to the Dean campaign than Joe Trippi. He has been the heart of it, but he does not embody it."

Dean campaign officials said the move is a sign of Gore's growing influence in the campaign. The 2000 Democratic presidential nominee had recommended that Neel play a larger role, officials said.

Trippi's critics in the campaign had complained to Dean about the massive TV ad expenditures in Iowa and New Hampshire, a share of which went to the media firm run by Trippi and Steve McMahon.

The ad team of McMahon and Mark Squier will remain on the campaign, but they've been told to build a broader ad team that includes creative input from Hollywood and New York specialists to produce better spots, said a senior official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

He and other officials predicted that some campaign aides will follow Trippi out the door in protest, and said there is concern in the campaign that Dean's supporters on the Internet will give up on his bid.

Neel, Gore's former senatorial chief of staff, served as chief executive of the U.S. Telecom Association in Washington before working on Gore's 2000 presidential campaign. Neel was named to head Gore's transition team in anticipation of the former vice president winning the White House.

Neel pledged to join Dean's campaign after Gore endorsed the former Vermont governor on Dec. 9.

As word of the staff change circulated, the official blog on Dean's Web site lit up with mixed reaction from campaign supporters. Several praised Trippi's skills that they said brought Dean's candidacy as far as it has, while others said it was past time for a shake-up.

"Let's all give our thanks to Joe Trippi as he took this campaign from obscurity to front runner status. Now is the elections and a different kind of campaign was needed," said a post from "rwilson4dean."

"Good, Trippi needed to be replaced," wrote "NJ for Dean." "Maybe HQ will start to listen to us!!!! Get better ads!"

The decision to shake up the campaign was made in a series of discussions in Burlington, Vt. — on a day that his rivals were already out campaigning for votes in the seven states that hold primaries and caucuses on Feb. 3.

 

The only politics I could watch on TV last night was Nightline (no cable). Kerry and Dean were both on. I'm undecided again. Will's got a good article on Slate ("Death of a Salesman") that makes the case that Kerry's being sold by everyone but himself and that when it comes time for him to personally make the sale he falls flat. Now I didn't see his speech last night, but on Nightline at least he was pretty uninspired -- he spoke in broad cliches and aimed his attacks at easy targets like special and powerful interests (can't anyone on either side do this?), hitting them softly and carefully enough that, had they been darts, they would have fallen out of the board before they could be counted. The old knock on him lives: he continues to lack passion. He still has the issues on his side though and, if he's nominated, that should still be enough. That is, of course, assuming the public is much smarter than any of these candidates (on either side) apparently gives them credit for.

I get so sad watching Dean now. He is absolutely the best candidate with the best message and he's absolutely lost touch with both his passion and his message. And when I speak of Dean's passion I'm not talking about the forced enthusiasm for the campaign he displayed in Iowa, but the passion he used to reserve for the issues. Both of these guys have suffered from the careful, defensive campaigns that frontrunners inevitably run. It never fails and it never fails to disappoint. Dean's old "anger" is exactly what's lacking in Kerry, Clark, Edwards and the new and 'improved' Dean. They all talk about taking back America now (I'm sure this slogan's been around forever, but it was on every single piece of Jerry Brown's paraphenalia and I smile whenever one of these guys uses it.), but while each of them makes the intellectual case for the importance of doing that none of them seems to personally believe in that importance. Since Dean. And if these guys can't get passionate about it, I don't know how they can expect anyone else to.

This was the Gore problem. Deeply held beliefs badly married with careful campaign strategies. The public wants passion, so they all start imitating Dean (old Dean). Then Edwards strikes a chord with his "positive" campaigning (which, let's face it, was the act of a desperate campaign trying to carve out something, anything, to set itself apart from the pack) and now the public wants gentility, so they all imitate Edwards. It's not specific to Democrats -- the "reformer with results" was Bush doing McCain -- but it is specific to politics and it's grossly disappointing. This is why Dean (and McCain too) was so refreshing. He also had the benefit of being on the right side of the issues. But apparently, as close as Dean got, you can't be right and win. Not yet anyway. The public (and the establishment, which is also necessary to a successful major party bid), whatever it wants, apparently does not want someone with the strength of his convictions. They want humility bordering mediocrity. They want someone "safe." They don't want to "take back this country" and they don't even know what that means. They don't even want someone they can have a beer with. They want someone who drinks O'Doul's, never raises his voice and never breaks a sweat.

I saw Clark today. He wasn't bad. Of course, he wasn't good either. He was fine. As it is with Kerry, his biographical video upstaged his actual stump speech by miles, reminding me to my deep dismay once again how politics kills any spirit that might have once resided in a candidate. Clark had some good moments though. He doesn't come off nearly as weird in person as he does on television. This wasn't a speech I'd heard before, so I don't know if it's new or old. He started by listing five or so values he'd picked up in the military. Some of them were faith, family and inclusion. And then he devoted time to each one, explaining how he (and the party) embodied these values much better than Bush and the GOP. One good line was about how his faith teaches to take care of people less fortunate than one's self. He called that "living your faith" and said that that was one of the main reasons he was proud to be a Democrat. His best stuff was on family values. He talked about how you couldn't have a family without a job because you couldn't afford one and then said jobs were family values. He did the same for health care, education, the environment, etc. When he let himself roll it was very effective, when he didn't it reminded me why his campaign's been sagging.

It didn't help that he arrived an hour and fifteen minutes late (is he on Sharpton time?) to an unexpectedly (according to campaign aides I spoke with) large crowd. There were 300 seats, but there were probably another 150 or so standing. At least 50 of those were media.

With the TV creepiness out of the way -- in public Clark actually does blink on occasion and he doesn't feel compelled to haul out the fakey, wax figure smile that haunts his television interviews -- his main problem was that he still insists on treating his audience like learning disabled children. He's the same in debates and interviews. His painfully measured rhythms, his unnatural pauses and his slow to the point of sing-songy delivery (I swear this is not Southern -- it's specific to him) combine to make the listener both restless and agitated. There were times his speech -- and, dare I say, his passion? -- got the better of him and he seemed to forget to speak to us like "ordinary people" (read: third graders) and instead spoke to us like intellectual equals. Those were his best moments and they both (yes, there were sadly only two) elicited standing ovations.

Clark is right on the issues. And Kerry is right and Dean is right and Edwards is right and Gephardt was right and so was Gore. And I believe they believe what they're saying. But, with the very rare exception, the only one that's made me want to fight for what they (and I) believe in is Dean. And he hasn't done it in a long while. Every one of these candidates should be locked in a room for a week with nothing to do but watch Gore's Move On speeches. They have been the best speeches, and the best delivered, of the season. Gore couldn't give those speeches when he was a candidate. He had the exact same problem all these other guys have now. If someone can manage to not only "speak truth to power," but to speak it truthfully, they will win. And they will deserve to win.

There is nothing more important to the future of this country than beating George Bush. Regardless of what the public says it wants though (and let's face it -- they don't know what they want), this important mission will be better accomplished by true believers expressing true beliefs than by over-coached tightrope walkers.

 

It's strange having the feeling that you're still waiting for the Democratic candidate to show up, that some person you haven't seen yet is going to walk up and blow you away, and you realize it's after New Hampshire and the likelihood of that is nil. I think we may feel much the same way.

I don't think we're going to get a candidate who is what we want, but I think we will get someone who will win. Reminds me of the Stones line... you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometime, you just might find, you get what you need. We need a Democrat who can get Bush out of the Whitehouse. One of the leaders will. They just may not be who we want. But it's enough.

 

rimrocker and Deckard:

That's all well and good about how it's more important to beat Bush than to beat him with the right guy or the right message. My beef is that I don't believe we will beat him without the right guy and the right message. The greatest shame of Dean's fade is that the other guys think they can co-opt the most superficial bits of his early success and leave out the rest. They are wrong.

My theater in Houston, Infernal Bridegroom, was unusually successful at addressing the complicated, relatively elusive issue of audience development. Any time I attended a conference or sat on a panel I was asked what initiatives we employed to address this issue. What they wanted was a magic bullet and an easy one at that. They wanted to believe it was a matter of PR. They wanted to hear that we offered two bucks off to anyone who wore a hat. What I told them was "do different plays." They didn't want to hear that, they didn't listen, our audiences continued to grow, theirs didn't. The problem of audience development, whether in theater or in politics, will not be solved with band-aids. It is a deep, profound problem. The average American believes that neither theater nor politics are relevant in their lives. And in almost every case they are right. Neither John Kerry nor John Edwards nor Wesley Clark (at least the one we've come to know on the trail) can add Dean-isms to their candidacies to any great effect. Dean made new people pay attention by 'doing different plays.' These other guys can imitate that, but they don't even know what it means.

Al Sharpton mentioned the other day that the SC governor's race was won by the GOP by about 5 points (I'm probably getting particulars wrong -- the point remains). He further said that more than half of registered blacks stayed home. They could have won that thing easily. They had no reason to vote. If they'd been given one, the Dems would have won in a walk. Kerry won't give them one -- he doesn't know how. Neither do the other contenders, except Dean. I deeply believe that the vast majority of this country subscribes to Democratic party ideals, whether they call them that or not. Where the Republicans have been successful in convincing even people who don't agree with them, the Democrats have failed to appeal to people who absolutely do. I blame the DLC, the DNC and every single person who failed to recognize Dean's campaign for the gift that it was. Why do you think Gore endorsed? Bradley? Harkin? Why was Carter so enamored? Because Dean was answering the number one -- the ONLY -- important question that this party should be seeking to answer: Why don't people who agree with our principles agree with us? Dean wasn't working a demographic or even ten demographics. He was giving people something to believe in. Not only that -- he was giving them the damn Democratic platform to believe in. It worked because they already believed in it and didn't know it, for the simple reason that the Democrats have done such an incredibly bad job at selling it. In fact, they've done such a bad job because while the GOP stood up for what it believed in the Dems ran away from the same. They were cowards ruled by handlers and they deserved every loss they suffered. Even in 2000, when they actually won, they deserved to lose. Ironically, it took a centrist governor from a small state to remind people who had been disenfranchised by the woefully inadequate party bosses that they actually were Democrats and that there actually was a party which addressed their concerns. And after that centrist governor gave the party the greatest gift it had been given in recent memory, the party did everything they could to destroy him. He helped. Of course he did. But they made damn sure, instead of encouraging a true movement to squash it. If they lose on account of that, they deserve it. I usually say that the electorate deserves whatever punishment is brought on them by the ones they voted for or failed to vote against. In this case, if the base stays home (and by the base I mean all those who have been meaningfully harmed by the Bush years -- well more than enough to win), it's not on them. It's on the damn party.

 

When I read this, I thought for a moment that you were describing Clinton.
Hey, I'm not crazy about any of the people running, including Dean. Frankly, unlike a lot of Democrats, I wish Clinton could run for a third term. I'd vote for him. I don't know why we can't find better candidates to run for President. The people currently in charge of the Republican Party have a creature they made out of whole cloth. They will, as you know, have a couple of hundred million dollars to make him out to be whatever they like. The reason we have an excellent chance to win anyway is that Americans are figuring their act out.

My point is that whoever is left in the race who gets the nod can beat Bush, unless they, like Dean, self-destruct. I believe that Bush is that disliked that even the marginally better than boring people we have to choose from can do the job. Do we deserve better? Should we expect better? Hell yes! But we don't have the luxury of sitting this one out or voting for a 3rd party. The stakes are too high. That's what I meant by my post.

 

Deckard: I'm not voting third party or sitting out. I'm bemoaning the fact that Dean's collapse (and it wasn't entirely a self-destruct -- there was an all out effort to eliminate him by the self-same people who propped Clinton up, doing exactly what Dean asked them to do when he asked that the bosses help to staunch the attacks) with apparently no one to replace what he brought to the race will cause a great many other people to vote third party or, more likely, sit out.

I believe that Lieberman believes in what he says and I think he makes a good argument for what he believes. He just happens to be in the wrong party.

I am reminded by Kerry (and also from Clark, I'm sorry to say) of nothing so much as a debater who could take one side of the debate as easily as the other -- someone whose interest is in winning more than the reason it's important to win. And Clark's voting record and recent comments in support of Bush are evidence that even if he shares principles with me he doesn't share them deeply. I believe that, especially given their time in combat, both of them have been sculpted by the horrors of war, but I don't feel that in any real way in any of their appearances. And I've seen plenty. I desperately want to be moved by them and I'm not. And if I'm not, they don't have a great chance of moving folks who don't come to the party inclined to be moved.

At this moment in my schizophrenic dance, I'm going with Edwards. Call it a whim. He seems to remember being poor. And even while he's smiling, he still seems pissed off about it. I couldn't give two ****s about his "positive" campaign. I think that's a tactic. But with Dean gone, he's the last inspiration standing. He's also the first Democrat in a long time to talk about poor people (Clinton preferring middle class woes to those of the people living in poverty made me wonder why I was a Democrat. And his welfare reform stuff made me want to punch him in the head.) and that goes a long way with me. I'm calling his NM office tomorrow to see how I can help.

 

I've seen Edwards a couple of times when he was being interviewed by someone and been very impressed. It's the only time he's impressed me, but then I haven't seen a lot of him. I wish his accent didn't bug me so much, but I'm sure I could get used to it.

Oh, I've been inclined to give Clinton several kicks myself. He has certainly earned them. But the guy could give a hell of a speech. I wish one of these guys could do as well. Dean came the closest of the guys I've seen in the speech he gave after the New Hampshire returns came in, but he has offered himself up on a platter to Rove and company, and he's seen that way by most... fair or not. I feel that way about him, although I'm still pretty open to whoever of the remaining contenders shows they can win, and that includes Dean.

I just wish there was one or two candidates I could get really excited about. I mean really excited about.

 

Totally agree with you there, Deckard. When I woke up on 9/11 to a phone call telling me to turn on the television (one tower had been hit, but not the other), my then live-in girlfriend and I turned to each other and practically said at the same time, "I really wish Clinton was president right now." Nobody gave a speech like Bill Clinton except maybe Mario Cuomo and he never ran for president (much to my deep, deep disappointment). These guys who have the ability to change men's minds with a speech are rare, incredible creatures. I never forgave Clinton for the ways in which he chose to use that power, especially since I knew his heart was much bigger than the way he governed or the direction in which he steered the party, but he has my respect if not my affection. Speaking of all that and speaking of Edwards, did you see Carville's latest stuff on him? Said in all his years he'd never seen anyone who could work a room like Edwards. Asked what about Clinton, Carville said Edwards was better.

 

I saw that quote. Maybe that's the sort of thing I'm seeing in interviews, where Edwards comes across very well. But he has to figure out how to translate that to speaking in front of a large crowd and selling not only ideas, but himself. He needs to be able to grab an audience. I haven't seen that yet.