Ah ha. Now it becomes clear why Lexington at the Economist was so pissy and stupid about Dean a couple of weeks back. He (I assume it's a he; I could be wrong, but I doubt it) wants Kerry to win the nomination. [subscription required]

The man from Massachusetts, on the other hand, still brings three big advantages to the long race for the Democratic nomination. The first, paradoxically, is those establishment credentials. Mr Kerry's top-down strategy of building support by wooing the party bosses is less exciting than Mr Dean's internet-enabled insurgency. Other leading Democrats, notably Dick Gephardt, are competing for the same endorsements. But bear in mind that the top-down approach usually works. The last insurgent candidate to win the White House was Jimmy Carter. The current president, George Bush, saw off a highly charismatic insurgent, John McCain, by means of a classic top-down strategy.

The second and third 'advantages' are that Mr. Kerry is a 'centrist' and that he served in Vietnam.

There's much to poke at in this article, but whatever. I'll vote for Kerry if it's Kerry v. Bush, but he still makes me--an independent voter living in a Southern state--snooze.