NTodd made me read an NRO article. The article's kind of weird. But some of the language in it amused me.

If Howard Dean wins the Democratic presidential nomination, everyone will say the triumph was due to his opposition to the war in Iraq. And everyone will be wrong. Dean's extended stay at the top of the polls has many reasons. Opposition to the war is just one of them. Dean also has a natural leadership ability and obvious charisma. There is another factor that I've yet to see written about, but which is a major attraction for many liberal voters. Howard Dean is the anti–Bill Clinton.

Dean is everything the Left hoped Bill Clinton would be in 1992, and nothing Clinton turned out to be. He holds the promise of being a president who is dependably liberal and uncompromising in his principles.

Dean is plain-spoken and honest. Clinton was obtuse and slimy.

To the political Left, Clinton was the tall, dashing lover who swept them off their feet only to break their hearts and leave them vowing never to go out with such a creep again. Dean is the nice guy with sensible shoes who has them believing in love again.

The establishment candidates — Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, and Edwards — have no idea that the Left is looking for someone new. Hopeless dorks that they are, they think they can score by imitating the last boyfriend. Meanwhile, the object of their desire is watching Dean stride confidently by and thinking, "Hmmm, he's short and balding, but he is a doctor, and that anger is kind of sexy.

I think the author is a bit obsessed with "liberals" (as though the word has any meaning anymore). Also, Dean isn't balding that badly! Heh. Bottom line, that the other establishment candidates don't 'get' Dean's appeal is spot on, though.