I agree completely with working together. In fact I'm an independent, a centrist, and consider myself an ally to liberals. I wanted Bush gone as much as any of you.
I also do not understand the hate directed within the party. Republicans coalesce around their own, which is why they are so successful.
As for BRock, I didn't think he was bashing at all. Just has a different of opinion. If Dean was the nominee in 2004 or 2008 would he have voted for him anyway? I bet he would.
Dean is the Harry Truman of our time, at least stylistically. One might also compare him to Teddy Roosevelt, again on style points.
The only difference: Truman and TR didn't have a ravenous broadcast media licking its chops every time he picked up a microphone (or a uni-directional mic at a post-caucus rally ;-).
So, one might argue that perhaps Dean is a throwback --- a presidential candidate who would have "translated" better in a bygone era.
Or, as I'd like to hope, perhaps Dean is just ahead of his time. After all, the pendulum of history may swing back in Dean's direction, especially if he is given credit for the resurgence of the Democratic Party in 2006 and then 2008.
I really hope people do not misinterpret my concerns for Dean's viability as an effective spokesperson as 'bashing Dean'. I like the guy. I just don't think he should be the face/voice of the party. I hope my expressed opinions have been thoughtful and somewhat fleshed out. But, I'll be especially careful to refrain from 'Dean bashing'. The 'Hillary bashing' however is a bit much in these parts.
