Something that struck me last week and is already apparent this week is that the pundits (on MSNBC at least) who most instinctively stick up for Howard Dean are Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan. Last Tuesday, I was tempted to think this was Krauthammerian trolling-just hoping for the guy they think they can whup up on in the fall.
But as I think about it tonight, I think what both these guys have in common is a disdain for the Bush dynasty and the elitist wing of the R's. Both Scarborough and Buchanan are of the populist man-of-the-people branch of conservatism (see the stuff on Kevin Phillips at Salon for more about it). This is a group that's been co-opted rather than embraced by Bush II, and they're the ones that booted out I.
My point (and I do have one) is that this populist wing is where Bush is weakest in November. They aren't fundamentalists and they aren't basking in wealth. They're sinking with our economy, and even if Buchanan and Scarborough don't want to admit it consciously, Dean is best positioned (with Edwards second) to shear them off the R bandwagon. It's the level that a successful Dean campaign will operate on. (If he loses the nomination or the general, it's because he failed to do it) Sort of a gut level, "I'm one of you guys" thing. With Bush, it's phony, but Dean's the real deal. I'm avoiding hyperbole here, but it's something to keep in mind as Kerry probably wins narrowly tonight. And I think it's a helluva good answer to the "Kerry=electable" meme.