Is it, perhaps, a good thing that Dean lost?

And yes, I still consider myself a Deaniac and no I will not change my avatar because I think straight. My question is based on the Washington Post article from yesterday that was no doubt discussed:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15741-2004Feb28.html

<snip>
The internal struggle produced sharp disagreements about dealing with the legions of reporters who were investigating or traveling with Dean. The candidate and some of his advisers came to feel under siege by the media, while some correspondents were irritated by a campaign they viewed as not ready for prime time.

Dean's often testy relations with journalists were exacerbated, several officials said, by what one who spent time on the trail called O'Connor's "contemptuous attitude toward the press."
<snip>

Now, I realize that Dean himself has denied some of these alegations on the blog but the fact remains. We have to get Bush out this November. It's imperetive. I think that Howard Dean is the best man to run the country and policy to policy, record to record, I think he's the best man to take on Bush. But, if he didn't have the machinery to do it, maybe it's a good thing for the country, and the world, that he lost with enough time for someone who DOES have the infrastructure to take on the RNC to get in the ring.

Maybe, as sad as it was for me and others to watch Howard Dean's campaign come to it's slow, painful end, the country will be better served by the movement that Dean is currently working on. Let's hope that he and his have learned from their mistakes and build something better than the ill fated campaign.

But, if he didn't have the machinery to do it, maybe it's a good thing for the country...

What his disappearence from the scene tells us is that it's K Street NW's country, and the rest of us just get to live in it.

He would have lost in the general election. His microcosmic "Deaniac" support failed to translate even to the larger Democratic electorate. If he couldn't attract Democratic voters, he certainly could not have attracted the swing voters essential for any candidate to win a national election. With the electorate equally polarized, swing voters are necessary. We would have lost in November.

filled with quotes cherry picked to fit Howie's agenda. Remember his wife Sherri Annis was an operative for "Ahnold's Campaign."

no, for progressives.

the quotes attributed to him by 'unnamed sources'. This story is crap. (But at least Trippi comes out looking clean).

Has politics really gone so bad that people cannot be loyal to eachother? Do candidates have to 'sell out' in order to be elected (or at least electable).

Don't think Dean/O'Connor should take the brunt of this - and that's all the article does - send them back to Vermont and let the 'real' political operatives get back to work.

:puke:

His attitude towards the press, and the fact he didn't really want to be President, shows that Dean is very well qualified for the job.

It MIGHT be a good thing if Dems lose, otherwise we'll be blamed for the mass round of layoffs coming after the election...