Dean exits

I like much of what Dana says. He's clear-headed and hugely passionate at the same time. And a heck of a writer. (FWIW, he's angrier at Kerry than I am.)

I also like Joan Walsh's piece in Salon. Joan has impressed me as an open-minded, sharp-edged critic and reporter. Two snippets:

The fact is, Dean was electable -- he just didn't get elected.

It was fun for a while, but in fact, taking back the country from hardened political brawlers like Karl Rove won't involve a lot of fun. And if it feels like fun, you're probably not taking back the country.

The first deserves more ink and thought, of course. The second strikes me as not quite right: If it's only fun, then you're probably not taking back the country. But I'd argue that a distinctive element of a successful Internet campaign will have to be that it's fun. Realistic, nitty-gritty, organized down to the alley-and-doorbell level, integrated with traditional organizing techniques...and damn fun.

Then, sigh, there's Sarah Schweitzer and Glen Johnson's by-the-numbers "recap" of the Dean campaign, in The Globe. I've twice (1 2)before criticized Schweitzer's reportage (without remembering that it was the same person) as exemplars of The Master Narrative (in Jay Rosen's words) at work. She's still practicing her "craft." The story she recounts of Dean's rise and fall is in fact the story of the media's shaping of stories around the Dean campaign. I'm sure she thinks she's just telling the objective truth, and that's what's most disturbing.