My selection of points from the piece.

The organizational stuff suggests Dean is on the right track - the infamous Voter File has already had successes (such as mayors of Mobile and Tulsa, apparently). And Ickes (in the nicest possible way) is welcome to his.

Dean's reference to

this 30-year process of the day after the presidential election the DNC goes into hibernation -- unless we win -- and then we emerge three and a half years later.

may or may not explain a lot!

And his

Now we have a great relationship with the state parties for the first time in about 30 years...

may also cause the non-initiated Dem loyalist to scratch his head.

The problem with the DNC database, by the way, was that

the platform was too small and the folks at the state level weren't trained to use it. And there were some kinks, there was actually too much data. There were about 900 data points per voter, so it became essentially unusable.

Dean shows his prowess with slogan-making. He runs

Homeland Security Begins With Hometown Security

up the flagpole - how many saluted is not recorded.

On Iraq, there is murk: his line seems to be that the Dems have a single policy, only expressed differently by different people. Paging Monsieur Derrida...

(I note he refers to Pelosi as the speaker-to-be - which is, of course, highly presumptuous as well as factually inaccurate. We don't need no stinkin' speakership elections! Very democratic...)

He takes the tack of redefining values - he singles out the minimum wage and balanced budget to be badged as values issues:

I know economists think, well, maybe you don't really have to balance the budget, and they're probably right, but a balanced budget is a values statement.

Yeeeeaaaaarghhhh!

He's apparently under the impression that

we have such an enormous ability to capitalize on the lack of honesty that pervades the Republican Party from top to bottom.

Honesty is a weasel word that unfortunately weasels both ways.

No pol is honest, in the sense of never saying anything calculated to mislead. Hopefully, they don't put their hand in the till. In between, there's a grey area - and the polling suggests that the voters kind of get that.

He talks about the GOP

misleading the public about...Medicare Part D

and being

a morally bankrupt party

while strangely overlooking the key role Dem MCs played in seeing both the Medicare and bankruptcy bills safely to Bush's desk.

Funny thing, with all this honesty talk, he can't bring himself to refer to anything Bush said as a lie. He uses this tricksy, slimy but milquetoasty say-one-thing-and-do-another expression - which, on its terms, is more apt to describe hypocrisy than lying.

Why should the Dems make a point about GOP dishonesty using this incredibly parse-heavy phrase?

The closest he gets to the L-word that I can see are

a government which oftentimes has appeared to have deliberately misled the American people

and then, specifically on the mobile BW labsmalarkey

He's either incompetent or dishonest, take your pick.

On the Feingold censure, there's a cold douche, starting

First of all, I'm a really big fan of Russ Feingold's.

He clearly blames Feingold for the thing coming out of the blue - and, fundamentally, thinks it's a waste of time that should be devoted to

arguing about whether the President's defending America properly or whether the President's doing anything about jobs or health care.

He also pours cold water on the prospect of impeachment if the Dems win control of the House in November.

An insight into Dean's way of thinking when asked what Dem party policy was on the continuing detentions at Guantanamo:

I actually don't think we have a Democratic Party position. I've actually never had a discussion about that with Senator Reid or Leader Pelosi.

So, by Dean, Democratic Party policy-making is like a permanent floating Yalta: the Big Three decide!

Not unnaturally, the hacks wonder why there is no Dem position:

There are enormous numbers of issues. I'm not trying to apologize for not being concerned about human rights; we obviously are concerned about human rights. But when you start talking about the things that worry Americans every day, it's health care, it's security, it's whether your government is corrupt or not, it's your job, it's your education. And the truth is, in our core message, at six we may already have too many issues.

And then he goes on a lot about Darfur.

He says,

Some issues are basically made for campaigns, and some issues are made for what you're going to deal with after the campaign is over...

So he's avoiding the Dems taking a position on Guantanamo because it's not sellable enough or because it might get in the way of the sale of other issues?

On health care, he defines the Dems as calling for

a health-care system that works for everybody, like 36 other countries in the world have

Is that as good as it gets? He doesn't dare use the words universal health care for fear of summoning the ghosts of Harry and Louise, so he serves up a piece of Jell-o like that?!

(Like, for starters, which 36 countries are we talking about? And how good is a system that works?)

And, asked whether he'd made any mistakes as DNC chairman, he says

No sense in my listing them. I'm sure you will.

I seem to remember lefty bloggers going ballistic when Bush did the same sort of thing...