Well, I thought I would go and try to find some polls from around June 2003.  I haven't found any good national polls from June 2003, but one set of polls particularly caught my attention.  It was the American Research Group's New Hampshire polls for 2003.  From January through July of 2003, John Kerry was in first place in the polls, with Howard Dean second.  Some of this may well have been because they were both from neighboring states.  During August through December, Gov. Dean passed Sen. Kerry, but when the votes were counted after the primary, Kerry won and Dean came in second.  They were the only two that got delegates out of the primary.

Some of this may have been the results of Iowa, and `fladem' has a diary up on MyDD about Iowa's impact on New Hampshire.

All of this takes me to a bigger question.  What is it that we want out of our leaders?  Some of this may have to do with looking at the polls and the results of caucuses.  We want our leaders to be `winners'.  Some of this may have to do with Obama's movement.  People want to be part of a winning team, a movement, a community, of some sort of group that they feel strong affinity to.  Yet as others have pointed out, what some people really want, is to be part of a group bringing about meaningful change, and not just a `feel-good' movement as Armstrong suggests.

This takes us to the issue of change.  On a mailing list of group psychotherapists, I posed the question, "What happens when leaders admit their own failings? What would it be like if political candidates admitted they didn't know everything?"  One person responded,

If they admitted this, as well as how they plan on compensating for it, such as an expert in the area they are not, proposed for their staff...I would feel more comfortable with my vote.  However, I believe the old saying is true for most of the population...ignorance is bliss.

David Glyn went further,

Leaders don't create the posture of infallibiity - they fall in with, or succumb to it, because of the sense that stepping outside it is tantamount to stepping out of the recognisable field of political life. To create leadership in a different mold involves, not just leaders, but substantial parts of the groups they are seeking to lead achieving a shift of culture; to suggest otherwise, paradoxically, throws all responsibility and power back onto leaders.

This takes me back to the whole idea of transformational politics.  In the 2004 Presidential Primary cycle, Gov. Dean frequently told his supporters, "You have the power."  His message of political empowerment changed many people and some would suggest the course of U.S. politics.  He didn't end up getting elected President, but he is now chairman of the Democratic Party.

In the 2008 cycle, it seems as if Sen. Edwards comes the closest to `stepping out of the recognisable field of political life'.  He has admitted that he was wrong in voting for the Iraq War Resolution and is working hard to make amends for it.  He is running a campaign that echoes Gov. Dean's message of empowerment, urging his supporters to take concrete action now to change our country and not simply waiting for some new leader to get elected in 2008.

Has he stepped too far outside, or not far enough?  Are there enough people seeking a shift in our political discourse?  Will he follow Gov. Dean's footsteps and change many people but not get elected, or will his efforts towards change, combined with Gov. Dean's efforts and perhaps other subcurrents in our culture be enough to get him elected and bring about meaningful change?

By focusing on the horserace component of the political campaigns, we miss the opportunity to explore real change, which starts with each one of us.