If Dean were smart and not a megalomaniac (to negative conditions, right off the bat), he would have come out today and said that he was wrong about Iraq all along, that the capture of Saddam proves the wisdom of the Bush policy of intervention, and that he is a big enough man to admit it when facts prove him incorrect.
He can then leap-frog all of the other Democratic contenders right into the center, and start duking it out with Bush on the details of the occupation. He could placate his anti-war supporters by continuing to carp on the US war effort. Any subsequent Dem who tried to move even an iota to the center would be accused, and rightly so, of me-tooing Howard Dean yet again.
Sure, it would cost Dean a little bit of his hard-core anti-war support. But most of these people would realize it is a facade (especially with a few winks from Dean in their direction), and would stick with the man most capable of beating the hated George W. Bush. The rest of the Dem field would be stupified, and the media would gush over Deans masterful handling of a difficult situation.
Think of it as Sista Soulja writ large.
If Howard Dean was smart and not a megalomaniac, this is what he would have done today...
"Early reports indicate Dean was speaking while stupid.......
Stick to the guitar, Bonnie. Your politics died with Jimmah Cartah.
You've proven that the average Freeper (not to call you "average") is smarter than all of the Democrat strategists put together. You're right. The best way for the DimRATS to neutralize Bush's advantage on the War on Terror is to agree with his policies (and there is good historical precedence for this -- claiming once again that our political bickering stops "at the water's edge," particularly at a time of war), and thereby being able to focus what they can on disagreements over domestic policy. Thank God, they are not this smart.