Of course, Dean was a successful, "moderate" governor, but . . .
No one would currently be talking about Howard Dean is he hadn't taken several unabashedly anti-Bush stands early in the electoral cycle. DFA wasn't built on Dean's "pragmatic, results-oriented record" as governor of Vermont. Dean took a political gamble, came out against the war strongly and forcefully at a time when others were afraid to, and reaped the political capital. However, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. Dean defined himself as the "liberal" during this election cycle, and that is what matters most. Voters care about 1) the here and now, 2) the future, and 3) the past.
Yes, I know there were a lot of people supporting Dean before he took his position vis-a-vis the Iraq War, NCLB, and the Bush tax cuts. Indeed, Dean's candidacy intrigured me in the fall of 2002. But there were also a lot of people who supported Bob Graham - even 1-2% adds up to something.
On his governorship of Vermont - I don't dispute he was successful. But Vermont is what it is - a small state with virtually no minorities, no major corporations, and a Republican Party very different from the national GOP. (not to different from Bush's vaunted Texas "bipartisanship" in this regard) With conditions like these, one SHOULD be able to get things done. If he had been able to handle a diverse array of competing interests in the process of doing what he did, I would be much more impressed. Doing what he did as governor of states like California, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, or even states like Indiana or Arizona would impress me a lot more. Remember - America is a large, diverse, and fragmented country, while Vermont, frankly, is not. That Dean ran into the amount of political controversy he did does not bode well for his ability to perform in a much larger, much more difficult forum.