Dr. Dean already has made an incredible contribution to the general election. Do you think that we'd have such an open and frank discussion of the mess in Iraq, Bush lies and the general corruption of America if Dean hadn't been in the running.

The Democrat that gets elected in November is going to owe a huge thank-you to Howard Dean.

Frankly, yes, we would have had the same discussion. No Democratic candidate in his right mind would have missed the issues you list.

Dean is to be thanked, though, for bringing energy and new faces to the Democratic Party, and effectively precluding any further damage by Nader and the Greens.

If he hangs around much longer, though, he just sucks votes away from Edwards, who IMHO really would make a better candidate against Bush than Kerry would.

I once said that Dr. Dean was running a smart campaign; I retract that statement. Capitulation to beltway neo-con republicrats and the media industry have dashed all hopes for people power.

I still want to hear Howard Dean at the convention. But we might as well elect (or acquiesce to hanging chads) King George. We can watch America turn into a real big Israel. Fear will be used to steer the heard and we will play a big joke on the Mexican-Americans by moving all of the factories back to their country of origin.

I really need to get to the coast for some R&R.

Jack-
Of course no democratic candidate would have missed the big issues, but the level at which they've been discussed would have been far less energizing.

Dean fueled the anyone but Bush movement, and thanks to his remarkable rise during 2003 he got the media to pay attention. Kerry/Edwards would not have been able to start this attack nearly as effectively, as they voted for the war, NCLB, etc....

I don't think we'd hear John Kerry say "Bring Him On!" if Dean hadn't laid the groundwork.

Agreed. If I've counted right, nine states have voted or caucused. The candidates who have not won at least one state should now drop out, leaving only Kerry, Clark, and Edwards in the race.

Don't expect Dean to bail until either early or mid March. If only because that's what he's been saying for days now -- despite some nimrod on NBC this morning claiming that last night was the first time Dean had set this timeframe, this demonstrating that they still can't cover his campaign factually.

The rationale behind this timeframe is that once the campaign gets through early to mid March, then and only then will it be clear that someone has a lock on the delegates required, or is inevitably going to have such. And Dean has already said that when that point is reached, and if it isn't him, he is not going to go all the way to the convention just to cause trouble.

I am now fully prepared to admit I didn't have a clue about how this election would unfold. Not being prescient (like you) doesn't mean I'm a poor historian, however. To dismiss Dean's influence in this campaign is to miss why Kerry emerged after all.

With record turnout and Bush's plummeting numbers, it's clear now that there's a lot of anger in America--not just among the liberal base. Without an insurgent like Dean to tap into and craft that message in 2003, we wouldn't be hearing the plucky Kerry of 2004. In fact, your guy Edwards might have emerged as the candidate had Dean not been there getting all the press. Edwards was also very critical of Bush, but his message was drowned out in the media by their chosen darling, Dean.

Kerry's emergence is a continuation of the themes Dean began offering, controversially, a year ago.

(He's clearly a polarizing figure, which your disdain demonstrates. That, more than any other reason, is perhaps why Dean might have been a weak candidate. Unfortunately, I believe it's grossly misplaced. We'll test that hypothesis when Dean pulls out. If he does emerge as a team player--which I expect--I might request a re-evaluation.)

I hope Dean enjoys his place in history with Hart and Muskie

As much as I don't like Dean or agree with his message, I believe that he means what he says. By contrast, Kerry will say whatever is politically expedient at the moment.

really? like how Dean means it when he says he is a "Washington Outsider" then as soon as he realizes that his campaign was never going to work, goes and hires the ultimate Washington insider?

wow, his integrity is just amazing. This guy ran his whole campaign on a gimmick (the first Internet President!?!) and the war issue. when he left New England and discovered the heartland hated him, he was doomed. he's the ultimate joke.

I remember wondering (this is in oh, 1996) why it was that Clinton aroused such unreasoning hatred in some people. I'm a lefty, and even Reagan didn't make me _hate_. But GWBush as president makes me _hate_. This is why Dean would not be a good choice for president. Something about him makes people--not just Republicans, but otherwise rational Dems--hate. Edwards doesn't. Kerry mostly doesn't.

But don't be hatin', folks.

Steve -- Good points, and I am sure that Mrs. Dean, the non-prop, would agree with you as well.

Matt is right on target - Dean is like Bush in many ways, his personality is very polarizing. Perhaps some Dems like the idea of giving back to the right what Bush has done. But that approach won't win an election.

Having said that, I am totally up in the air about who has a better chance of beating Bush between Kerry and Dean. Massachusetts was in the headlines again today with the courts rejecting "civil unions" for full-fledged "marriage". Whatever one thinks on this issue, it is a big time loser in the 2004 presidential election. Kerry, being from Massachusetts, is going to get hammered, further reducing his ability to compete in border states and Florida.

Did anyone see Susan Estrich's comments about Kerry on Tuesday evening? I didn't, but on another blog, they indicated that she was very unenthusiastic about Kerry as the candidate. I'm becoming more convinced everyday that only Edwards has a reasonable chance of beating Bush in November.