Perhaps there is not a correlation between the beginning of my first post (the change of the fundraising goal) and the second (that a Dean nomination will mean an end to the Democratic voice in Congress), but that does not mean that my conclusion in incorrect. I appreciate all of your feedback, though, and in the future will try to be more coherent. Here is a try:
Some people might liken Dean to a Barry Goldwater in 1964 (when I say this, I mean it only in a good way). Although Goldwater was handily defeated, he did two important things that led to an eventual Republican reemergence in the nation: he initiated a new form of fundraising (direct mailers) that gave Rs an edge they maintain even today and effectively kiled the liberal wing of the party.
Similarly, many view Dean as doing the same thing. His internet fundraising will undoubtedly help the Democratic Party in the years to come by leveling off the playing field. Additionally, he might be able to rid the party of conservatives, thus reclaiming the party for the left.
However, I am nonetheless apprehensive about 4 more years of Bush, which I believe are inevitable with a Northern cadidate like Dean(remember, the Dems have only won once with a Northerner since WWII, and he was the extremely well funded Jack Kennedy running as a Moderate).
Additionally, my comments about the Congress presented in my last blog are based in fact, not opinion (check out any number of pollsters like Charlie Cook or Stu Rothenberg). The Dems will end up with small minorities (57-42-1 in the Senate, 260-174-1 in the House) if they do not run a moderate from the South or the middle of the country (people are decreasingly voting split-tickets, meaning if they don't vote for a Democrat for President, they most likely will not vote for one running for Congress or even State Legislature)
With the possibility of Tom Delay becoming the Speaker (unless stopped by David Dreier) and a filibuster-proof Republican majority (both Nelsons and other Southern Moderates most likely will be unwilling to continue filibustering), Congress will move sharply to the Right. This will also mean Chief Justice Antonin Scalia and a number of other Clarence Thomases, effectively ending all Warren-Burger era progressive decisions.
Perhaps I am overly partisan, perhaps I am overly pessimistic. Nonetheless, I am not sure I want to risk such an outcome. Feel free to comment and cut down my arguments.