Not that it'll help you.

When critiquing Howard Dean on foreign policy, see if you can keep your premises straight.

I see people simultaneously make the following two arguments, especially in opposing-campaign-blog comments:

1. Bush has done so well at foreign policy that Dean cannot hope to win the issue against him in a campaign, therefore he cannot win the election.
2. Bush has done so poorly at foreign policy that Dean may win, but Dean will do just as poor a job since he will be relying on advisors just like Bush has, therefore we don't want Dean to win the election.

Each point is highly debatable in its own right, but at least each is a coherent argument by itself.

Used simultaneously, though, they're quite silly. Please cut it out, you're making my sides hurt.