Kurtz's (misinformed) on why Dean failed

[yesthattom]

Howard Kurtz's only-half-right analysis of why Dean failed. (He described the fighting and incompetance right, but not the conspiracy theory that he didn't actually want to win is totally wrong and freakin' bizarre.

The Daily Kos's summary is here.

It upset Howard Dean enough to post a reply to his blog.

Kos's summary ends on this note:

Howard Dean's campaign accomplished many things never previously seen in American politics.  But despite it's innovations, it was the little things--consistency, attention to details, good communications between staff and candidate, teamwork--that can't be bought with $41 million raised mostly through the internet.  Despite the wonderful enthusiasm and great ideas of the "Deaniacs," there has to be a willingness to use those ideas, and use them effectively.  In the end, what might have done in Howard Dean's presidential chances wasn't the boldness of his campaign, but its timidity and failure to embrace and engage with the ideas and tactics of those from outside his Vermont bubble.