Howard Dean's anger over the Iraq war had less impact on voters than issues such as healthcare, prescription drugs, jobs and the environment, writes Conor O'Clery in Des Moines, Iowa
Did everyone get it wrong about Howard Dean? Yes and no. The front-runner status in the race for the Democratic nomination was conferred on the feisty ex-Vermont governor by the opinion polls, not the pundits, right up to last week.
But many assumptions about the Iowa caucus, which was won handsomely by Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, were based on conventional wisdom that turned out to be wrong.
It was always accepted that a strong organisation was a key to success in Iowa. Nevertheless, the candidates with the biggest army of volunteers, Dean and Richard Gephardt, came third and fourth. Campaign staff could convey committed Iowans to the caucuses but couldn't control the much larger number of "self-starters".
Many voters in the end looked for a candidate who could beat President George Bush, and Mr Dean did not measure up despite, or because of, his blistering rhetoric about the Iraq war. In a survey of Iowa electors, only 15 per cent said the war had determined their decision, although 75 per cent were opposed to it.
Mr Dean's constant reminders that his opponents had voted for the war counted for less as voters began to focus on healthcare, prescription drugs, jobs and the environment, all issues on which they feel President Bush is compromised by special interests. Anger over Iraq was not enough.
Of the quarter of voters who confirmed that electability was the number one priority, half chose John Kerry, a Vietnam war hero with solid establishment credentials, concrete policy positions, and a new-found empathy with voters.
Although he voted for the war, Mr Kerry has turned this round by promising to help the US "to rejoin the community of nations", which resonates just as strongly as anti-war sentiment. He hit on a good slogan: "Don't send a message, send a president."
Mr Kerry also did unexpectedly well among young Internet-savvy first-time voters, whom conventional wisdom had lined up behind Mr Dean. Among under-35s the Massachusetts senator got 35 per cent of their vote compared to Mr Dean's 25 per cent.
The problem for the former Vermont governor was summed up in the headline in yesterday's Des Moines Register: "Iowans found Dean too angry, too liberal." Iowan Democrats liked the fact that he stood up to Mr Bush but their own visceral dislike for the president worked against Mr Dean: they wanted someone who had a better chance of winning.
Mr Dean also made a number of perceived mis-steps that damaged his image going into New Hampshire. Last week for example he snapped "Sit down!" at a questioner who challenged his negative tactics, raising questions about his temperament. Even worse, at a Des Moines rally after his defeat on Monday night, he stunned everyone by hoarsely screaming a message to Mr Kerry and Mr John Edwards: "I'll see you round the corner, around the block."
That bullying outburst - accompanied by pictures of his face contorted as if in rage - probably did as much damage to his campaign in New Hampshire as the shock defeat in Iowa.
Mr Dean nevertheless goes into Tuesday's primary with an eight-point lead over retired Gen Wesley Clark, and with a much bigger war chest. Mr Kerry came from behind in Iowa by shaking up his campaign, dropping his patrician aloofness and investing $6 million of his own money. Mr Dean can also "retool" but he has precious little time and the aura of inevitability has been lost.
The Democratic establishment, especially party chairman Mr Terry McAuliffe and almost certainly the former president Mr Bill Clinton, will be taking some considerable satisfaction at the Dean implosion. They never thought he was the one to beat Mr Bush and the Iowan voters have underwritten that view.
Another piece of conventional wisdom, that big-name endorsements help win elections, was discredited in Iowa. Mr Dean had lined up an impressive list headed by Mr Al Gore and Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, who may be feeling today they got on the wrong bus.
Meanwhile, Gen Clark, who ignored Iowa, has been steadily making up ground in the independent-minded New England state whose motto is "Live free or die". Senator Joseph Lieberman likewise has been stomping around New Hampshire, although as the most conservative candidate he has yet to prove that he has any more realistic prospects than the Rev Al Sharpton, who is hanging in to promote his populist liberal agenda.
There will also be new momentum behind the always-smiling Senator John Edwards, who came second in Iowa because, as Des Moines Register's political analyst, David Yepsen, put it: "The North Carolinian earned high marks from Democrats who understand that winning the White House is also about winning electoral votes in the south." In two weeks six, mostly southern, states hold Democratic primaries that will be a real test of electoral strength.
The big loser in Iowa was Mr Gephardt and the blue-collar unions whose leaders endorsed him but whose members voted differently. The Missouri congressman has bowed out of the race, as Carol Moseley Braun did last week. At last the winnowing is under way. Two down and seven to go.
It is also conventional wisdom that Mr Bush is practically unbeatable. Maybe not.
The Democratic campaign has been so fascinating and hard fought, and so comprehensively covered by the media, that voters are getting a steady, if varied, diet of Bush criticism on the airwaves which must have some impact on America's political psyche.
And whoever emerges from the snows of the northern states may not be tanned, but will certainly be tested and ready.