Apologies if this has already been posted here--I haven't seen it discussed yet. In
Salon, Sidney Blumenthal summarizes what Dean represents:
"Since the trauma of the 2000 election the Democrats have endured a history of loss and defeat, not only of office and program but identity, self-confidence and self-respect. As a congressional party that lost its majority in 2002, it has seemed to be in a nightmare from which it is incapable of escaping. Republican bullying has been met almost inevitably by Democratic cowering, the ruthless will to power by timid retreat. Before this spectacle, Democratic voters have felt themselves unrepresented and voiceless. But until the
presidential candidacy of Howard Dean their burning sentiments lacked expression. Now, Al Gore's early endorsement of Dean dramatically amplifies them and partly explains them."
Read the full article (you must watch an ad to access the text) here.
Though the piece is very positive, Blumenthal doesn't say whether he's supporting Dean himself. Essentially the same conclusions about Dean's appeal can be found in non-Dean supporter Joshua Marshall's
post on December 8 about
"the general worthlessness of the congressional Democrats" who, he notes, are
"playing by an outmoded set of rules, operating on a defunct system of party discipline, and are generally getting creamed.
The outrage this spawns is the wind that is filling Dean's sails. It's one big, collective: Enough!
In a sense it goes beyond the Iraq vote which has gotten so much attention in this race. Almost all Dean's competitors in the race are compromised by that collective failure."