WSJ: (Dean is) A Surging Insurgent

[w4rma]

In the summer of 1971, insurgent Democratic hopeful George McGovern ran a distant sixth in Democratic presidential preference polls; four years later, Jimmy Carter was doing even worse, tied with such luminaries as Milton Shapp among the also-rans; in 1983, Gary Hart trailed not only the front-runners but even Alan Cranston, and four summers ago, John McCain lagged behind not just George W. Bush but Elizabeth Dole, Dan Quayle and Steve Forbes.
They were typical insurgents: back in the pack, living off the land, building grassroots support and a message, peaking six months later when the voting started. Howard Dean, however, is unique at this stage of presidential politics; an early upper-tier insurgent. In the initial Iowa and New Hampshire tests, the physician-turned-politician is running first or second in surveys and is, with Sen. John Kerry and Rep. Dick Gephardt, one of the front-runners.

For both the former Vermont governor and the Democratic party, this unusual situation -- a surging insurgent before there's an establishment favorite -- affords opportunities and pitfalls.

...

Dr. Dean, however, is demonstrably energizing more voters and expanding the Democrats' potential. Stories abound of sizeable crowds greeting him -- from Austin, Texas to Seattle, Washington -- that go well beyond political junkies on the web.

The Wall Street Journal
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000707.html

[vi5]

1. The thing about this is, that if the WSJ bashed Dean....

Or when any publication or RW pundit bashes Dean it's dismissed as being because "they are afraid of him..." or some such thing. So what does a RW rag like the WSJ writing pieces praising Dean mean? That they aren't afraid of him?

[LuminousX]

2. They are talking about him

I don't think the GOP are afraid of Dean, I think they are confused by Dean.

He doesn't fit the standard mold. So you have a contingent of the rightwing that dismiss him, a contingent that are araid of him (fear of the unknown), and a contingent that are fascinated by him and what to analyze what he is doing. That is what this WSJ piece is doing, not praising by analyzing.