Upper Left - Where the hits just keep coming...

Some days I wake up with the urge to write a bitter polemic about the former Governor of a state with a population about equal to the male residents of San Diego, CA, but I look around and find that my work's been done for me.

Today, I don't have to bash Howard Dean because...

Mickey Kaus does it for me in Slate...

"Was Dean unaware of Bush's steps toward war, and Clinton's criticism? Or did he become the most vocal foe of the Administration's Iraq initiative for tactical reasons--out of an accurate calculation that it would bond him to the party's grass roots and set him apart from the field?"

And the New Republic does it, too...

"Dean doesn't have to be in favor of the Iraq war or in favor of the post-Iraq war, but, if Dean can't see that rebuilding Iraq and keeping American troops there to secure peace is needed "to protect America," then maybe he shouldn't be commander-in-chief."

Harold Myerson pitches in at the Washington Post...

"The decision of the Service Employees International Union to endorse Dean, for instance, was in large part due to the prodding of the union's New York and California locals. The Midwestern locals were, with one exception, distinctly less gung-ho.

Dean has changed his position on trade to one that privileges labor as much as capital, but having signed Vermont's civil union law, he's a sitting duck for what is sure to be Karl Rove's campaign of calumnies."

And the Gephardt camp just beats the Governor like a drum, whether it's campaign manager Steve Murphy...

"Once again, we see Howard Dean's motivation is a political calculation on what is best to win this campaign, and not a leadership decision on what is the right thing to do,'' Murphy said."

or Representative Gephardt himself...

"My job is to keep the people of this country safe, and that's what I've tried to do. I don't mind (Gov. Dean) disagreeing with that, although I am having a little trouble understanding what he disagrees with or what he even believes in."

Let's see - he's inconsistent, hypocritical, wrong where he takes strong positions and has weak positions where he seems right. And there's some softness to the underbelly of his support, raising the perpetual electability question.

Yep, that about covers it. Thanks to all of the above for the help.