Actually, Frank, I kind of agree with you here. I don't think Kerry should be disqualified because of dreams or flashbacks. (I'm not sure they are only dreams, by the way. The Guardian used the term "flashback." But their interview was not transcribed in full, so it's hard to know what they were basing it on.)

I DO think that the argument about his "electability," which is the main reason he is getting votes, is mainly the result of ignorance. No-one knows anything about him yet. If it is true, as the media are telling us, that concerns about Dean's being "angry" (which were mainly the product of media distortion anyway) hurt him enough to derail his campaign, then this should be a serious concern for Kerry's supporters and for "anyone but Bush" voters too.

Kerry may well win the nomination, but we have to think about the General Election, too. If the media decide to jump on this story, which is already in the public record but not very widely reported, and which DOES make Kerry look like kind of a nut, I think he's doomed. This is not an "attack," in that I hope he'd survive such treatment, but I doubt it.

(It may surprise you, by the way, that Kerry has always been my second choice for the nomination; now I am rethinking this and may wish to support Edwards if Dean should quit. But I fear we know too little about HIM, too).