Yeah, I think the campaign needed a new infusion of guidance in the last several weeks; Trippi is worn thin at this point, at least from my perspective. Unfortunately the old Dems are too ready to cut off their noses to spite their faces to give him any real substantive help.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the papers. Dean has surely received many letters from people who either intensely hated him or loved him, on either side of the same-sex union issue; there were surely other pieces of information that might have been of a personal nature that constituents wrote to him during his administration. As a doctor he's been trained to be sensitive to the release of personal information. That could be at odds with the openness that's requested. The best answer may be for a judge to sort this out; do we really need to know about a constituent who may have AIDS, for example?

I wonder about the substance of Dean's candidacy. I like his rhetoric but would like it to be backed up by some concrete examples of how he'd live up to it if he did end up in the White House. For instance, although I'm uneasy about Clark, it was encouraging to hear him specifically express his intention to rollback Bush's restrictions on the FOIA.

I don't know if Massachusetts is going to have a primary. If it is then I hope I have a better idea by then.

See, I have the opposite problem regarding Dean and Clark.

I have no doubts how Dean would perform as President. He spent 10 years as Governor, and he's got a very extensive record.

Clark, on the other hand, has never held elective office. And unlike some people, I don't consider his former job to be adequate experience...or to give any real clue as to his priorities.

As for Dean's "volatility", I suggest you check out two things. First, there's a "citizen's guide" to Dean, written by Vermont reporters. Basically put, "calm policy and pragmatism" is Dean. Populist Dean isn't really who he is, and it's not who he was in Vermont. It's more or less what his message demanded he be.

As for angry...well, have you noticed that the physical cues people interpret as "anger" also appear in someone who is exceeding their vocal capabilities?

Dean needs a vocal coach, as he obviously isn't trained in public speaking...and doesn't know how to use his voice effectively. Breathless, voice cracking, red-faced....these are also the signs of someone who is being a lot louder than they know how to be. Watching Dean, it's obvious that virtually all of the "angry Dean" comes from that. His yell would have been a lot tamer if his voice hadn't cracked at the end...and it wouldn't have if he knew how to project properly.

Dean's speech on Monday night was a rally towards disappointed supporters. He's already -- and quite publically -- done the concession thing three times that night.

Still, I'm not surprised. I mean, think about. In 2000 we learned that Al Gore, who had a reputation as the most anal and straitlaced man in Congress, was a serial liar who couldn't tell the truth about even the simplest things.

Luckily for Al, the "liar" thing started after the primary (George Bush was busy during it) , and thus the Democrats were already behind him.

So why should it come as any surprise that Dean is rabidly angry?

I'm a partisan like you (I define partisan as any one who has decided whom they will vote for before the opponent has been selected) but on the other side. For my $0.02, here's how I see it.
Despite the crazy YEEEEARRGHHEEHHGJH, Dean doesn't worry me much. He's been a governor and he'll most likely have a Republican congress, so I don't think he'd be all that bad. Edwards seems pretty bland, too, and wouldn't upset me much. Kerry has been on the 'wrong' side in DC so long I trust him the least of the experienced pols, but still he'd be OK in office.
Clark is the only one who's scary. If y'all nominate him, I'll be going door to door, literally, campaigning for President Bush. I can't put my finger on it, but the guy just creeps me out.
Too bad Lieberman is toast, he'd be the best of the lot IMHO.

Pedro: Never happen. First off, the Democratic party prefers to run Democrats for office. Liebmerman is, oddly enough, generally a bit more liberal than he's been acting lately. I can only assume he got "left" and "right" confused when applying that old adage about running to the base during the primary, and the center in the general election.

As for Lieberman in general, his real problem is simple: He somehow manages to combine the creepier aspects of some Republicans with a message tailor made to cause yawns among the Democratic base.

That he's a conservative Democrat would cause him difficulties in a Democratic primary in any case. The fact that he's chosen to lay on the creepy religious moralizing doesn't help.

If I want creepy religious moralizing, I'll ask Tom Delay for some of his campaign literature. (Yes, I live in his district).