During the 2000 election, one of the biggest turn-offs to voters was supposedly in the problems that each candidate faced. Bush's huge deficit was supposedly in his lack of understanding of the major issues, particularly foreign policy (these fears have been realized to such a degree that they seem like they were understated in 2000). Gore, by contrast, was seen as having a lack of stylish flair.
But Howard Dean is the complete opposite of both these men, and their weaknesses are his strengths.
Would anyone characterize Dean as not knowing anything about the issues, as Bush was?
Would anyone characterize Dean as being weak, monotonous, or boring, as Gore was?
A powerful no I say.
Now, that is not to say that there is some dispute over whether or not Dean's platform is 'electable' (whatever that means), or that he's seen as weak on national security (he's not). But relative to Bush, the bumbling candidate, and Gore, the boring candidate, Dean turns both these men's weaknesses into strengths.
Dean is knowledgable, energetic, inspiring a grassroots campaign the likes of which this country has never seen, and runs a progressive-moderate campaign (a "radical centrist" if you will).
Does anyone doubt that Dean is both the anti-Bush on issues and the anti-Gore on style?