''What Dean Means''

Leave it to Matt Bai of the NY Times Magazine to pose this question. I wish they would address the same query to the situation regarding our current Rovian regime and its "leader." My new favorite site, "Where's Howard" says this about it: "I'm feeling myself spinning off into silliness here. Actually, this story by the New York Times' Matt Bai is not real bad. Not really illuminating, but at least it's not a hack job. And, it's blessedly short." The article is part of the "let's take a new look at Dean" school of journalism that the profession has been forced to create now that Dean has come back to give the lie to their previous story line about him: he's an angry, marginal fluke. Bai says the Democratic Party is a mess and the "old Dean" might be better suited to get the juices flowing than the "new Dean", which Bai claims is just a facade. Whatever. More from the "new look" school: "Dean doesn't look so bad now" in today's Chicago Sun-Times. I like this article better because it contrasts Dean's re-entry against the background of the dismal insanity that characterizes the Rovians, like I wanted the NY Times to do. The "dismal insanity" description comes from me, not the writer in the Sun-Times, who says the following: "there is a lot of competition for strangeness. Given the war in Iraq, the unusual looks mighty common these days. And, like the Democrats, the Bush administration keeps demonstrating that its bench also is not deep." The press likes to push up and then bring down the various casts of characters it covers, so as to keep the story line going, much like the soap operas my father used to help create. But that's another story. There's a newspaper in Picayune, Mississippi that sets the stage for Dean's visit there next week with "Howard Dean says Dems' message sells in Mississippi" featuring a pre-visit phone interview and more framing exercises from "The Governor." Like they say, "Just spell my name right" and we can add: repeat my messages.