Here's a Time magazine article on Hart's ads from the March 12, 1984 issue, right after Hart upset Mondale in the New Hampshire primary. Note the emphasis on "high-tech" ("computer," "digital") and "future" in the ad:

TIME: Playing Video Games

There is no background music, but the theme from Star Wars would be appropriate. On a white grid that rolls off into blue infinity, the name Gary Hart appears in silvery letters. With the aid of computer animation, the screen seems to become a book, flipping open page by page. Page 1: a close-up shot of a youthful-looking Hart in a coat and tie speaking directly into the camera. "The politicians of yesterday are trading our future by asking our price instead of challenging our idealism." Page 2: Hart framed from fore head to chin by the television screen. "My candidacy is for those who still dream dreams . . . who will stand together once more to build an American future." Intones an unseen narrator: "Gary Hart ... a new generation of leadership."

Below the turning pages, the letters in Hart's name, glowing like the numerals on a digital clock, never move.

The 30-second "generation" spot was one of seven high-tech ads that the Hart campaign team hurried onto New Hampshire television screens during the last three weeks of the race.

Maybe primitive, but damn effective in 1984.

I'm pretty sure that the "where's the beef" attack was directly questioning Hart on his issues:

Mondale: "You know, when I hear your ideas, I'm reminded of that ad, 'Where's the beef?' "

What was amazing about that attack was how patently false it was.  Of all the candidates, Hart probably had the most specific and dynamic policy proposals.  Indeed, he responded--after the debate--by holding up his book inside a bun for a photo op to demonstrate his "beefiness."  It would be akin to Barack Obama asking John Edwards to get more specific about health care.

It was a masterful piece of media manipulation on the part of Mondale and Bob Beckel.  Hart was a relative unknown at this point in time and lacked the resume experience of Mondale.  Declaring, in a convenient and humorous soundbite, that Hart was a lightweight would go a long way towards defining the senator from Colorado.

There was an element of "old Democrat" versus "new Democrat" in the background throughout the campaign.  The system in Washington corrupt?  No, say it's not so!   And assuredly, Mondale would question Hart's need to "update" the traditional Democratic party, and give a nodding wink, and a thumbs up sign, to Democrats prospering in the system as it was, at that time. Us, rock the boat?  

But...the "Where's the Beef" attack was not about the old versus new meme.  It was about attacking Hart for not actually proposing anything at all.  It suggested that Hart was just an empty gas bag trying to trick Democrats into voting for him.  

And yes, the attack was technically a lie.  Hart had published a book with all his proposals in considerable detail.  

Yet, Hart, on the advice of his advisers no doubt, decided not to integrate too many of those policy details into his stump speeches or interviews with the media...or if he did...they did not make it through the media filter.  

The lesson to be learned (that I am sure Edwards has learned) is that a book does not cut it when it comes to substance. You have to find a way to get your policy details out to even the low info voters.  Yipes!  

More significantly, if you actually want to eventually implement the dramatically different policies that you have described in your book (the ones that by definition rock the status quo boat), you must get a bona fide mandate from the general election voters for those policies.  Hiding them in a book gives you very little power to make them happen should you become president.  You need the explicit mandate.

If it wasn't for sex scandals Democrats wouldn't have any scandals at all...

Dukakis came off like a robot.  He spoke like one, gestured like one, and simply showed very little emotion.  The rap on him was that he reminded people of a clerk, a bureaucrat.  Americans want their president to inspire them, to be a leader and to show some emotion.  Dukakis seemed like the perfect person to do your taxes.

The "competence not ideology" quote struck me as exactly wrong.  People should have voted for Dukakis because he was correct on the issues, not because Bush I was incompetent (unlike his son).  

Dukakis's 17-point advantage dissipated because he ineffectively responded (basically he didn't respond at all) to attack ads and allowed himself to be smeared for being -- gasp -- a liberal.  Clinton's rapid response strategy in 92 was borne directly out of having seen the Dukakis debacle.

There's also the classic, disastrous answer to the first question in the second debate between him and Bush.  Asked whether he would still oppose the death penalty if his wife were raped and murdered, he gave what has to be the most ineffectual answer of all time.  He could have blown up at Bernard Shaw for asking such a tactless question or he could have said, "Of course I would want to tear the guy apart, limb from limb, but that's why we have the law," but instead he basically said, "I've always opposed the death penalty..." and then somehow wound down by talking about taxes.  Worst. Nominee. Ever.

That site is a great find.  

re: the "Democrats for Reagan" ad starring Kennedy -- do you recall whether that ad was endorsed by Kennedy?  I can't imagine that Kennedy would have supported Reagan over Carter.  I was in grade school  at the time so politics wasn't exactly on my mind in those days.

Mondale had such enormous institutional advantages, almost as much as Gore had over Bradley in 2000. If there had been a netroots in 1984, maybe they could have helped Hart along.

About five or six years ago I saw Hart at a seminar in Oxford, England. He went back to get some sort of advanced degree in philosophy, and I was a grad student there at the same time. The faculty I knew spoke very highly of Hart's intellect and writing. It is sad that he was able to be caricatured as lacking in substance.

Yes, you are right. I agree that Hart did not lose the 1984 campaign because of bad luck.  Hart and his campaign made the mistakes that did Hart in.  Still, they came so very close.

The "Who is Gary Hart?" line of attack was significant.  It underscores something about presidential candidates in general. If you can field a candidate who has a good "sellable" biography, that is a good thing.  It is not essential, but it can certainly be VERY helpful.  

The recent NYT piece describing Axelrod's efforts to "define" Obama's biography (which I do not think Axelrod should have discussed with the Times), over and above Obama's actual policies, reflects the recognition that biography is important. IMHO, Edwards needs to rededicate some of his energies to this task. After all, Edwards is the son of a millworker, grew up in a milltown, was first in his family to go to college, went to public schools his whole life, and always fought for the common man against corporate greed.  Edwards is of the people, by the people, and for the people...but do all the voters KNOW that?  Actually...no.