Atrios posts the followign thouggts on Dean vs. "Establishment" Democrats. A's not a Deaniac, as far as I can tell. But this is a pretty reasonable discussion:
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2003_12_28_atrios_archive.html#107297283477916514Outsider
One of the strangest lines of attack against Dean has been to go criticize him for daring to run as an outsider. Suddenly, the Democratic leadership which I and everyone else I know have been criticizing for the past couple of years for their rather ineffectual response to the Bush juggernaut have become sensitive sacred cows. Everyone's all a-twitter because Dean dares to criticize "Washington Democrats!" He gets chastised by our media for daring to criticize Bill Clinton (which he didn't really do anyway)! What a bizarro world we've entered.
Look, governors and other local politicians who first enter the national scene always run as "outsiders." They always rail against "Washington politicians." It is true that one difference is that Dean is aiming his attacks more specifically at his own party than at "politicians-in-general."
In any case, I think Blumenthal has a pretty good article in the Guardian explaining what Dean is doing. As he writes:
Since 1968, when Eugene McCarthy shocked President Johnson in the New Hampshire primary, the establishment candidate has been vulnerable to an insurgent. The case for strategic voting has without exception never worked. In 1992, Bill Clinton, under attack for evading the draft during the Vietnam war, was excoriated by his rival, Senator Bob Kerrey: "I'm not questioning (Clinton's) patriotism, but I guarantee Bush will in November," Kerrey warned. "The Republicans will exploit every weakness" and Clinton "will get opened like a soft peanut."
(Read more)
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2003_12_28_atrios_archive.html#107297283477916514