Downie Post v. Dean

The more I read about Howard Dean, the more I like about him. Like this editorial from the Washington Post:

Pressed [by Tim Russert on Meet the Press] on how much taxpayers would have to pay if he were to succeed in his call to repeal President Bush's tax cuts, he tried to dodge by saying the numbers were provided by "the Republican Treasury Department, which I think has very little credibility in this matter." Mr. Dean rejected as "silly" a question about the number of troops on active duty, and he had a point, but his generally cavalier attitude -- "I will have the kinds of people around me who can tell me these things," he said -- isn't apt to inspire confidence in voters who, particularly after 9/11, want a president with national security expertise. Such events may matter little to most voters so far ahead of voting season. But they do offer an early sense of a candidate's ability to perform under sustained questioning.

And so, Mr. Dean: Welcome to the race -- we suppose.

If the Downie Post has this much contempt for Dean, he must be qualified for the job.

On the point of a candidate who can perform under sustained questioning, the Daily Howler has already demolished that smear. It's sad that the Post can't keep up with the 24 hour whore-debunking cycle any more.

But the editoral isn't all wrong. Since 9/11, people have wanted a president with national security expertise. Less than two years to go.