Heh. Every few hours over at Kos (it seems) there's a big thread about the horrors that a Dean general election campaign would bring down on the Dems. Woe, woe; much wailing; much dissing of Dean supporters; yadda yadda. I really enjoyed this comment in this thread, though:

Oh, for Christ sakes – we’ve got a rightwing, bloodthirsty, greedy nutcase who doesn’t read and can’t speak in more than three word phrases controlling this country, and you are all worried that Dean is too angry and not moderate enough? If the Iraq war based on a packet of lie, huge deficits and assaults on our civil liberties are not enough to make us angry, what is?

I’m a 58 year old professional woman who is sick and tired of wafflers like (didn’t inhale) Clinton and whiners like Daschle. Most of all I’m tired of voting for nice but not very forceful men and watching the GOP thugs walk all over them. Clinton only won because Bush wasn’t well liked and Perot convinced enough people that the deficit and national debt were problems.

For the first time since maybe LBJ in 1964, the Democrats have the opportunity to nominate someone who isn’t afraid to speak plainly and ruffle a few feathers. An actual Democrat – it’s been so long since anyone has seen one that everybody seems confused by him. Democrats were always fiscally responsible. Who is willing to take a principled stand on issues even when it is not popular. He’s smart and experienced. The guy is clean and mean, and the GOP has no idea how to run against that.

The only other candidate I’ve ever seen who had the same “magic” as Dean was Reagan when he first ran for public office in 1966. But why nominate someone with “magic” when you can select a perfectly nice and competent man who will have as much chance of winning as Mondale did.
Claire