This made a lot of us mad last week. Howard Dean wrote the paper, and Nagourney still attributes it to unnamed source.
Here is the Public Editor remark on the statement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/31/weekinreview/31bott.html?pagewanted=2&n=Top%2fOpinion%2fThe%20Public%20EditorSNIP...Unattributed Source Watch: Last Sunday, in "Scenarios: What if They Lose? Calls to Reinvent a Party" Adam Nagourney wrote that Howard Dean "is said to have told associates that he believes an antiwar candidate would have fared better against Mr. Bush." Dean wrote me to insist he has not said anything of the sort to associates; Nagourney told me he relied on "Dean associates who said they heard Dr. Dean express this feeling."
Without a name attached to it, this just isn't news...."END SNIP
Here is the original.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/weekinreview/24nago.htmlSNIP..."And there will, no doubt, be still another round of intraparty fighting over the war in Iraq, with some Democrats wondering if the party would have been better off nominating someone who opposed the war from the start - say, Howard Dean - as opposed to Mr. Kerry, whose initial vote for the war resolution has proved a constant complication for his presidential campaign.
Dr. Dean, who did not return a telephone call, is said to have told associates that he believes an antiwar candidate would have fared better against Mr. Bush....."END SNIP
Adam, you need to be a real reporter and not pretend to be one.