I'm getting confused by the Dean supporters. First, I agree with them that there has been a great over-reaction to Dean's post-Iowa yowl. The networks had a direct feed to the mike and didn't let us hear the what was apparently a raucous crowd that Dean was trying to yell over.

In sound-bite world, it was easier for commentators to focus on the yowl than to focus on the content. The Deaniacs seem to commit the same sin. They are reacting to the reaction rather than acknowledging the impact of the results. Why did the outcome tumble so dramatically? Where is the openness of community and communication, or is this another dot.bomb?

I also don't get commentaries like David Reed's. On one hand, he touts a leader as one who inspires others to "follow him just to find out what he's gonna do." On the other, he disses Kerry for not listening to his constituents with his vote in favor of the invasion authorization. Which one is it? Either one listens to one's constituents and follows them, or one makes real decisions, especially those against the constituent tide, and trust that the constituents will continue to follow?

So what that Kerry cast his vote with an eye to a Presidential run? He's a politician and it's politics. No matter what, Dean, Kerry or whomever is a damned site better than the Bush Dynasty.