As the Iowa Caucus began, Dick Gephardt looked like a good bet, as one of the four Democrats tied for top place (along with Howard Dean, John Kerry and John Edwards).  As the man most in touch with the labor unions, he seemed certain to get a large block of votes, as well as having the organisation to get his supporters to the right places at the right time.

So why did end up in fourth place (instead of second, as I'd predicted)?  What caused his support to dwindle to about half of what it had been, while many of those those union households went with Kerry or Edwards instead?

If Iowa is supposed to be an indicator of the political pulse of middle America, then most of the people voting were "just folks" -- hard-working, everyday people, more interested in the impact of policy on their everyday lives than in high-sounding ideals that sound fine in Ivy League classrooms, but don't work in the real world, nor put food on the table.  Just folks, representative of a huge portion of this country's people in what they want in a President, among other things. Mainstream America. And Gephardt won Iowa in 1988 with 31% of the vote.

Enter Chrissy Gephardt.

There's nothing wrong with being openly gay (my personal feelings on the matter aside). There's nothing wrong with championing gay issues (free speech being for everyone). There is, however, a great deal wrong with championing gay issues while stumping for your father, in a state like Iowa, in which he must do well in order to continue his campaign.  Free speech has free consequences. 

Didn't even one of his advisors take her aside and say, "Hey, this is his campaign... not yours"?  Didn't even one person tell her, "If you want to campaign for your father, you should talk about his big issues... not yours"?