To begin with, I am a Dean supporter. I have been since I first began to take a look at the field oh so many months ago. His early opposition to Iraq was what originally drew me in, and his policy stands that very much mirrored my own thinking (e.g., repeal of the tax cuts, renewable energy investment) didn't hurt either. Still, it wasn't those things that made me think that Dean was worth supporting.
What did make me support Dean was simple:
Of all the candidates who had a shot at winning (and, apologies to Kucinich, CMB, Sharpton, and Lieberman backers, they had no shot at all), Dean was the one that, in my opinion, presented the clearest and boldest contrast to Bush.
And that, really, is what this election is going to be about. Dissatisfaction with Bush continues to grow, and doubts about his ability to handle the issues that the nation faces are taking hold.
But if the Democrats can't field a candidate whom the voters feel has any palpable differences with the Resident, can the Dems pull it off? Such (yes, I know the media is largely to blame for the impression; still, it stuck) was our problem in 2000.
I have no doubt that Dean is such a candidate, and I'm sure that Clark could pull it off; the question is, can Kerry or Edwards do so? And how best do we present this contrast between our candidate and Bush? Policy prescriptions, unless very bold, would do little; it has almost everything to do with presentation of the candidate.
I'm not saying that I know how to do so (although, check my previous diary entry for such a "bold policy prescription"), just that it needs to be done.