That question headlines the Slate co-cover story at the moment. There and everywhere else.

Or lord, give me strength.

Here's the opening of the Slate piece, by William Saletan, whose coverage this year has ranged from occasionally insightful, to generally annoying and idiotic:

Is Howard Dean toast?

That's what pundits are suggesting, Republicans are hoping, and Democrats are fretting in the wake of Saddam Hussein's capture. Dean surged to the front of the Democratic presidential pack by opposing the war in Iraq. As the postwar turned bloody, expensive, and stagnant, it looked like a brilliant bet. But this morning, reporters and analysts seem convinced that the latest card drawn from the deck leaves him with a losing hand.

The first problem with that argument is the premise: "Dean surged to the front of the Democratic presidential pack by opposing the war in Iraq." That's the standard pundit line, in spite of historical evidence to the contrary. It's just so easy, I guess. And the only explanation they could come up with. For some reason, "Because he really connects with people" just doesn't work for them.

The point of the Saletan piece is that Dean is not necessarily toast, but the point of my post is how retarded the freaking question is.

But since we're talking about Saletan, and the question, he makes a nice case for how Bush swept Gore's acheivements into past history, and how skillfully Dean is reframing the Saddam capture with this statement:

"Our troops are to be congratulated on carrying out this mission with the skill and dedication we have come to know of them," he said this morning. "This development provides an enormous opportunity to set a new course and take the American label off the war. We must do everything possible to bring the U.N., NATO, and other members of the international community back into this effort. Now that the dictator is captured, we must also accelerate the transition from occupation to full Iraqi sovereignty."

Notice how Dean repeats every element of the 2000 Bush approach. Somebody other than the president—in this case, our troops—gets the credit. The mission becomes history. Capturing Saddam becomes a means to a more difficult end: getting the United Nations into Iraq, and getting the United States out.

But the funniest thing about Dean, the military and the media is that Dean was never the anitwar candidate. If you listened at all to his remarks, right from the beginning, he has been a pretty hawkish guy, with a strong opposition to this war.

The mischaracterization in the press may have helped him in the primaries, and his correction of the record will get him back where he needs to be in the general. Saletan refers to this as repositioning, which I guess it is, though no mention is made about who mispositioned him in the first place. Regardless, the Slate piece ends on a positive note for Dean:

It's clear from interviews Dean gave to reporters Saturday (written up in Sunday's Washington Post and New York Times) that he's repositioning himself as a more hawkish candidate in the general election. He was planning to claim that position tomorrow in a major foreign policy speech. Now he'll have maximum attention as he does so. Bush's aides would be unwise to assume that Dean can't make their latest triumph vanish into history. They should know.

Eventually Saletan gets a clue. If only we could hope for half as much from the rest of the media.

---

You can read the full text of the Dean speech in question via the Dean blog here.

Wesley Clark didn't ask to testify at Slobodan Milosevic's war crimes trial, he was called by the prosecution. But he will be the most senior U.S. official to testify, and it did offer a nice boost for his campaign--well beyond the price of losing a few days during a crucial month.

From an AP story just posted about his first day of testimony:

"The fact that Wesley Clark is going to testify in the middle of the primaries is fairly amazing," said professor Michael Scharf, the author of several books on the tribunal.

"Clark is gambling that this will give him national and international press attention just at the time he needs it for the primaries. It will enable him to look very patriotic, very presidential," he said in a telephone interview.

But timing is everything. A week ago, it might have grabbed major press attention. The morning after Saddam's capture, a footnote.

Major bummer for him. But the story is kind of interesting, by AP standards. (It's mostly about the trial, not the campaign). You might have a look.

Mildly disturbing/annoying Salon cover story today, titled:

Clark: Howard Dean can't win

Key quote:

"I don't think the Democratic Party can win without carrying a heavy experience in national security affairs into the campaign," he told Salon in a phone interview last week. "And that experience can't be in a vice president."

I don't think that's going to help us beat Bush, but I guess he's gotta do what he's gotta do. The electability issue is about the only card Wes Clark seems to have at the moment. Not a strong card, but maybe a card.