Sorry to bog down into another poltical debate-style-thingy, but I figured this was a topic worth considering seeing as "Screamin' Howard" got his ass handed to him in each and every contest and has now decided to step out of the race (clearing the way to a "Sharpton-Kucinich" ticket, of course :D ).
Personally, I never quite bought into the hype surrounding Dean, but I think he was good for bringing the Democrats back to reality: they're the opposition party, so they have to oppose the Republicans on issues. Also, young people started to get interested in politics again (as we all know, when old people control the elections young people get screwed :sex: )and Bush got caught with his pants down on the WMD question (making the Iraq war just another "Spanish-American War for the 21st century" in terms of the legitimacy of our claims).
On the other hand, America is far too conservative to probably have picked Dean in a general election. Plus, if the economy started picking up, the Dems would be screwed no matter how angry people are over the war (which is truly sad in and of itself, but I won't go into that). So a Kerry or an Edwards could probably beat Bush given the right set of circumstances, but Dean wasn't likely to become the latest resident of 1600 Penn. Avenue.
Anyway, enough of me, what do you guys think ![]()