Imagining a Dean Candidacy

Was recently forwarded this article by Peter Beinhart in the New Republic about the state of the race if Dean were the candidate. As much as I like Dean, it suffers from a rather fatal flaw. Rove is notorious for going straight to the jugular of the opponent's most unassailable strong point, and certainly the months under pressure would have exacerbated Dean's positions on issues that seem beyond the pale to the swing voters. I always liked Dean because I thought the Democrats needed to put forward a strong argument against Bush, not imagining that this would prove so potent and obvious so quickly into his presidency. Would Dean have made a better candidate than Kerry? Sorry, it is just too early to judge. Kerry is known for his ability to regroup and refocus in the closing weeks, so give him the opportunity. Dean lost because of a lack of discipline on message that he was unwilling to give to Trippi, which subsequently made the entire campaign less coherent and centered. Who could forget the image of Trippi in the CNN documentary aired a few months ago, that showed him in a bar in Iowa absolutely stunned at the treatment of the prime time Scream? Even Tom Harkin (Tom Harkin... Tom Harkin...) was flabbergasted that Dean had no set remarks prepared for the scenario. After much reflection, I have come to the sad conclusion that either Dean was not ready to be President, or that his efforts would have proved woefully inadequate against the professional Republican machine. He has learned, and I would love to see him named chairman to succeed McAuliffe. But he never morphed into the candidate we wanted/needed him to be - gun issues, etc... - and so ironically we are stuck with Kerry as the real anti-Bush. And as important as oil and jobs and the rest remain, it comes down to a simple question: can the swing voters trust John Kerry to be their President?