I got an interesting email from the Dean campaign this morning with a decidedly different message and tone from the ones sent out the weeks leading up to the Iowa caucuses. I noticed two changes, one positive and the other misguided.
First, Dean’s email dropped a lot of the divisive rhetoric that has marked his campaign for months. Instead, Dean emphasized his record in government, noting, “[A]s governor of Vermont, I balanced budgets; provided health care for nearly every child in our state; expanded prescription coverage for seniors; created 20% more jobs; and raised the minimum wage.”
This strikes me as a good idea. Running as a revolutionary outsider who hates everyone who dares to question his wisdom wasn’t working. Emphasizing his record as a successful governor might.
But there was a different message that made a lot less sense to me.
“Now the other candidates have adopted our message — they have adopted our position on Iraq, our criticism of No Child Left Behind, and our opposition to Bush’s tax cuts,” Dean said. “I’m glad they’ve joined me. It’s good for our party and good for our country. Our message has changed the nature of this race, and our campaign has changed American politics. And finally our party – formerly in retreat – is standing up and offering a real alternative to George W. Bush.”
I suspect that Dean wants to tone down his overall message and will use this as an explanation as to why he’s become more restrained. As soon as someone says, “Aha, Dean is trying to reinvent himself,” Dean will say that isn’t the case. He was fired up when he needed to get his party back on track, he’ll argue, and now that it is, he’s calmed down.
It’s not a bad spin to explain a dramatic shift in tone and strategy, but there’s an underlying flaw: it takes away the core of Dean’s appeal to his fans and practically encourages them to look elsewhere.
Reading over this paragraph, it sounds like something Dean would say if he was quitting the race, not preparing for a rebound. He takes credit for changing the campaign’s message and direction, and congratulates his party for “standing up” to Bush. The only thing he didn’t add was “my job here is done.”
It reminded me a bit of Ross Perot in the summer of ’92 when he withdrew from the race (albeit temporarily) around the time of the Democratic National Convention. At the time, Perot said he ran to change the discussion in America, in the hopes of bringing attention to the deficit, which he believed was being neglected. I don’t remember the exact words, but Perot said he was leaving the race because the deficit had become a key issue in the campaign, which in turn, was good for everyone. There was no need to stay in the race if his raison d’etre had been taken away.
Which leads me back to Dean’s curious email message. It seemed to be congratulating his supporters for having “changed the nature of this race.” Dean credits his email for giving the party backbone. He sounds satisfied now that all the Dem candidates are on the same page, saying this is “good for our party and good for our country.”
It’s all very retrospective and past tense. Dean didn’t sound like he was looking ahead, optimistic about the future of the campaign; he sounded like he was reminiscing about all the positive things he and his followers did in 2003.
I’m not a Dean supporter, as regular readers know, but if I were, I might read this and feel even worse about the campaign’s future prospects. This isn’t a candidate who’s dusting himself off after falling from his horse; it’s a candidate looking back and commenting on how much he enjoyed the ride before he fell.