Now, Rand knows that I hate damned pinko Democrat politicians as bad as the next guy, but Howard Dean really got a bad rap on the infamous "I have a scream" speech the night of the Iowa caucuses. It seems to be presented that he was somehow out of control, having a big mad, angry rant unfit for someone who wants to be president.

This interpretation totally does not match the video that we have been subjected to over and over again. His words were nothing angry or belligerant or any other kind of bad. He was just giving a little pep rally for perhaps demoralized troops, naming off the upcoming state primaries that they're getting ready to go out there and WIN!

Most specific and critical thing wrong with the common interpretation: Dean was absolutely SMILING and LAUGHING by the time he got to the famous holler at the end. There was nothing angry about that yell at all.

I guess it figures that I'd sort of start liking the guy about the time and for just the exact gesture that seems to have turned everyone else off, but there it is. I liked Dean on an emotional level there as at no previous time.

Look, he'd just had his hat handed to him with a frankly humiliating third place showing. He'd probably REALLY REALLY like to have just had a couple of drinks and some sleep. Maybe a good cry.

Yet there he was, making the good effort to cheer up his people. He had to swallow it down, and come out and show consideration for the feelings of others around him. He worked himself up into a basic high school pep rally mode, and tried to show some school spirit.

Look, I know an angry rant when I hear one. I think I've conjured up a few pretty good rants myself. This was no angry rant.

So how is this getting so badly interpreted? Dean surely deserves some of the fault. He had pitched himself as an angry dude a lot of the time, doing his Howard Beale best. So, when a critical situation came with the shifting winds of the Iowa caucus, some people mistook the display for what they've come to think of as his norm. Apparently, Dean miscalculated the anger quotient a bit.

Some of it, however, seems like a hatchet job. I don't know how much of a conscious conspiracy would necessarily be involved, but it seems like a lot of professional Democrats were anxious to bring him down. They actually took a clue, apparently, from the giddy glee of Republicans BEGGING for Howard Dean.

Indeed, Democrats seem to be leading the pack within hours, saying that even beyond the poor showing in Iowa, the "concession" speech destroyed his campaign. Stick a fork in him.

I just don't see what Dean did wrong here- at all. Now, Wesley Clark has been saying nutsy stuff for which he should perhaps be held to account. Lately at least, Howard Dean has said nothing crazier than "Rah, rah, sis boom bah!"