Carville and Begala, far from being the political geniuses they believe they are, just happened to come into the public's view strictly because their candidate, Bill Clinton, was and remains one of the single greatest politicians of the 20th century.

THAT'S why he won, won again, turned back conviction in the Senate after impeachment, and is still considered the best speaker and politician in America today.

I know that it just kills bush that Clinton is more popular than Dubya ever will be again. AND more respected.

Carville/Begala simply had the foresight to hook their wagon to a rising star and rode that wagon to independent fame that they did not deserve, IMO.

And for the record - I've always liked Howard Dean, regardless of what others might say about him. He's the man who got the ball rolling for many people in this country, spiking their interest or revival in politics.

I also like Bill's thot here:

Every one-trick pony feels irrelevant when it is clear no one "appreciates" them any longer.

The ongoing marginalization of Howard Dean by his own peers is one of the biggest problems facing the Democratic party. The schism I have long noted is maturing. By the time of the convention of 2008, the party may again be split into moderates, who will continue the corporate/war machine, versus the progressives, who recognize that imperialism and personal greed are a threat to our very existence.

Progressive voters, the Independents, Greens and Libertarians (I consider their bold appproach to be progressive) should get behind Dean. I am interested in hearing cogent opinions opposing Dean on particular issues. I know he is not perfect, but some stupid scream during a rally means nothing to me in politics, OK? Emmanuel, though I respect his work during the campaigns, and Obama represent the continuation of our established way of doing business. We need to sieze the moment and develop a new majority around the principles espoused by the progressive voters in this country. A large portion of the electorate have demonstrated that

A. They are sick of the status quo (corruption/failed wars)
B. They are willing to take bold steps to change things.  

Mr. Dean, on the other hand, argued that rebuilding the Democratic Party by spreading money through all 50 states, including those that had not voted for Democratic candidates for many years, would have the greatest effect. While he cannot claim credit for any specific victories, his efforts may have broadly helped Democrats pick up seats in some Republican strongholds.

Here in Idaho, the Democrats had some of the closest races ever. The Republican candidate (a former state senator) squeaked out a win over the Democrat (a political newcomer) for the senate; it was the same in the governor's race in which the spread was a bit wider. As for Mike Simpson, the Republican incumbent, he had to actually campaign in order to keep his seat; his margin was considerably greater. The surrounding states of Utah, Montana, Nevada, Wyoming - traditionally fairly Republican, look at what went on there.

Pundits have no special skills and no knowledge of anything outside the beltway. Screw 'em.

Anyone who listens to and takes seriously anything people who have been proven wrong over and over say are called 'republicans.'