From "Kent" in a recent off-topic comment posting:  "This just in:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/18/elec04.prez.main/index.html
Now don't you feel foolish Jason. I tried and tried to get you to see the writing on the wall and you just kept those blinders on. "

No, I don't feel foolish.  Anyone can find the courage to fight for the easy win; the real test is when you're willing to put your beliefs out there to fight the battles that need fighting even if likely to lose or against popular opinion.

The conservative-controlled media has long-since anointed their chosen candidate, and I fear too many Democrats don't consider the fact that they have put forward the candidate most likely to have a hard time fighting Bush as he parallels Bush in many ways rather than showing a clear alternative.  Too many Dems fear the term liberal, wanting a candidate that is "more conservative" because they think to do otherwise would alienate the right.  Yet the right doesn't worry about alienating the left - they just push their agenda forward.  I've yet to hear a Republican say that Bush is "too conservative"... they don't fear the moniker, so why would that be a problem?  Yet too many liberals have bought into the Rush Limbaugh notion of liberal = bad and that it's something to be somewhat ashamed of.  That to be liberal is to have the public think you're a tree-hugging spend-crazy alternative welfare hippy, despite the fact that it's really more of a gray area than that.  I know Repubs who are environmentalists.  I know Dems who are pro-welfare-reform.  I know wealthy Dems who know how to manage money, and the only President to balance the budget in the past 34 years was President Clinton, a Democrat, while the past few Republican Presidents have put forward deficit after deficit.

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

<sarcasm>Wow!  That's a pretty bad thing to be!</sarcasm>

It lists conservative as:

1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

Which also has its merits.  It's by the balance of the two, the fact that we have a two party system with people on both sides of the spectrum, that our country neither spins out of control with reckless abandon nor stagnates in a clutch to the past.

Would I do it again - would I have supported Dean knowing the outcome -  if I could go back in time?  Hell yes.  The only differences would be I would fight even harder and would start doing so earlier.  Hindsight being 20/20, I would not assume that the caucuses would be balanced to accomodate all candidate representative's points of view, but instead would be more vocal about making sure that anyone who wants to make a point can be heard.  I would go in using broader marketing tactics to get more listeners before making my points, and I would play a more active role in the campaign directly.