OK, somebody help me out. Both the lead story in today's New York Times daily headline newsletter and a news story on AOL news are about what a disaster Howard Dean's post-Iowa caucus speech was. I didn't see the speech that night, and I haven't seen it anywhere else (this is what happens when you spend your days and long portions of your nights working in a basement). The AOL article included a (text) portion of his comments:
Not only are we going to New Hampshire ..., we're going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we're going to California and Texas and New York," he said. "And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then we're going to Washington, D.C. To take back the White House. Yeah.
I don't really see the problem. Maybe it's just because I'm (relatively) young, and therefore still something of a zealot, but it seems to me that this race needs someone who's willing to rip off opponents' legs and beat them to death with them.
So I ask you: what am I missing? Why is this speech being cited as evidence of Dean's unsuitability to be President? What's the damn deal?