All the media agree that Howard Dean really lost it when he did all that shrieking right after the New Hampshire primary.

But weeks before that primary, National Review had a cover that showed Dean red-faced and shrieking in exactly the same way in an earlier speech. That was when Dean led in the polls.

The Dean who lost was the same man who was so far ahead previously.

So what really happened?

To most of us, all liberals tend to look alike. But to liberals who are fighting for power, the differences are crucial.

Bill Clinton took over the Democratic Party from the moderate side. His Democratic Study Committee wanted a less fanatical leftism, a bigger appeal to the South and West than to the Northeast liberals.

Howard Dean wanted the Democrats to become complete leftists again. I don't want to bore you to death with internal Democratic politics, but the fact is that Dean was taking the Party away from the Clintons.

The Clintons want the Democratic Party to lose in 2004 so Hillary can get the nomination in 2008. But at the same time they do not want someone nominated in 2004 who will take the Party away from them.

Howard Dean had a lot of weaknesses, but nobody seemed to notice them as he forged ahead as the leftist candidate. Then suddenly they were noticed and Dean was out.

William Jefferson Clinton is a political genius. If I had his access to the press, I could have destroyed Dean and left no traces of it. And I am nowhere near Clinton's genius in practical politics.

What the Democrats now have is exactly what the Clintons would want. They are once again nominating a Massachusetts liberal for president. The Democrats have not won with anybody but a Southerner since 1960.

What luck! The Clintons have exactly what they want!

And if you believe that was just luck, I have about a dozen bridges I want to sell you.