i-sako.com

I’ve been following the Democratic primaries with great interest, but one thing bugs me about the media coverage of Howad Dean. Much of it focuses on how he seems angry and perhaps even “temperamentally unsuited” for the presidency (this is especially true after his “I have a scream” concession speech in Iowa, which has badly damaged his campaign). He’s just not presidential enough, they say.

So what does it mean to be presidential? Does it involve choking on pretzels? Falling off a stationary Segway? Dropping your dog in public? Having been arrested for drunkenness? Bush has done all of these things and more, but people are giving Dean a hard time because his voice broke? What is this standard by which Dean is being deemed unfit for the job Bush now holds?

And I find it hard to buy into the idea that he’s too angry. Lest we forget, Bush was also angry on the campaign trail. And that goes without even mentioning that deeper point that, if Dean gets elected, the source of his anger (the Bush administration) will cease to exist and his goal (to take back our country) will have been accomplished, so what would he have to be angry about then? Probably nothing, which is why people should be looking more at his record as governor in Vermont for indications about what kind of executive he would be.

Besides, he’s right to be angry. Bush is the worst president our country has ever had. Why shouldn’t we be angry about that?

[Disclaimer: I have sent money to Dean, of course, but am not particularly wedded to him as a candidate. I like all of the current contenders—and would be happy with anyone but Bush.]