I saw a couple of presidential candidates come through Austin in 2003, and none got the crowd excited as much as Howard did. Actually, none came close. I'm glad to see Dr. Dean finally being treated like the hero the Democratic party needed...because he is.

Things are going to change in this country now that we have Congress, and it wouldn't' have happened with anyone else as Democratic chair.

the times today, in an article by among others their smartguy adam nagourney, quoted "officials" of both parties as saying that Schumer and Emmanuel saved the Democrats from Dean's unwise focus on rebuilding the party, by instead focusing on the midterm elections. Nagourney et al, and we are to believe, these party officials find or describe Dean's approach as contrary to, or an impediment to, winning elections.

I know it makes one sound like a right winger, but can't the 'mainstream media' get ANYthing right? are they so lazy, so unwilling to dig deep, so used to finding a couple of (anonymous or not) quote-givers and that's all they need to get their byline above the fold?

I think it has been our fault for putting up with this for so long.

I have a great respect for Howard Dean. He has integrity, honesty, and he doesn't use flowery language or media-savvy presentation, but works harder than anybody else. For such a loyal democrat like Dean, I have often felt bad that he has been treated so lightly and unfairly by some of the mainstream media and some of the Democratic establishment when they should actually support his effort to strengthen the party's base. He will always have my support.

Thank you for being an accurate journalist and telling the spinfree truth. Dean get's credit because his efforts made the real difference.

The NYTs and WaPo will NEVER get a subscription from me for the lack of integrity and political whoring demonstrated by their reporters and editors.

Dean hasn't received nearly enough credit or kudos for his 50-state strategy.

No way could the Democratic Party have been prepared to take advantage of this opportunity without all of the groundwork he and his organizers have laid since 2005.

It really gripes me to see some of the party's so-called "leaders" trying to take more than their share of credit for Tuesday's election, after they basically dissed Dean for daring to think outside their narrow frame of reference.

Who was the real leader? And who is now climbing on the bandwagon?

I admire Dean so much, I have ever since he chose to oppose the war back when it was political suicide to do so (hello hillary?)

What a great column about a great man.

Wasn't he the guy who wrote that fawning piece of crap article just after September 11 that quoted "Democratic insiders" as being glad that Gore hadn't won the election, because now we could have a real man of action." Whatever the winger boys are saying in the bars, that's what Adam says, too. For the gin bottle straight to you.

I used to be mad at him for killing a medical marijuana bill in the Vermont state senate by letting it be known he would immediately veto it if it were approved.

But it was finally approved it once he was out of office, so there's no permanent harm.

He did have a good idea about campaign strategy. And he pulled it off well too. I agree, he is vindicated. Hooray for him!

But I still wouldn't trust him in the White House, because he made that medical marijuana decision on the advice of the state police. I'm not going to trust someone who consults law enforcement instead of science when making decisions about medicine. That's no different from consulting industry instead of science when making decisions about the environment.

I'm not mad at him any more, but I did learn something about how he makes decisions that I'm not going to forget during the next primary.

I am sitting here sobbing, broken-hearted at the thought of what might have been, if only the Emmanuels and the Shumers and the DLC and all their fellow travelers had not sabotaged and murdered Howard's 2004 campaign.

I made the first political contribution of my life to Howard Dean in June of 2003, inspired by his refusal to join Kerry and the other collaborators enabling the Usurper. Howard proved from the beginning he was the true successor to Paul Wellstone's real Democrat legacy. Howard connected with the people the DLC had abandoned, and the party powers couldn't stand it. They had to destroy him.

How fitting that in destroying his campaign they condemned themselves to irrelevancy. But they've done much, much, much worse.

How many of our finest young people have died in Iraq since Howard should have been inaugurated in January 2005? How many billions of dollars wasted? How many deaths and destroyed lives from Katrina? How much irreversible damage to our nation's standing in the world?

Lay the blame for all of that at the feet of Emmanuel, Shumer and the DLC. They destroyed the Democrat's best chance to beat the Usurper. They condemned the country to another four years of dictatorship. They helped murder the Constitution.

Yet they toast their "success" with champagne their voters can't afford, and dismiss Howard's grass-roots organizing as irrelevant.

Enjoy the bubbly while you've got it, boys - out here in the real world we know who our one and only friend in the party is. And next year, when he tells us to give the presidential nomination to someone you don't like, guess who's going to win?

I think nobody should judge a person by one single event and also it is important to ensure that one has all the facts in the context before to make such a judgment.

I just don't believe that Howard Dean as a physician would ignore any scientific facts or physicians opinions but only listen to the law enforcement. Anyway, the point you tried to make by using an incidence to question Howard Dean's judgement doesn't make complete sense to me.