Is Howard Dean trying to steal my idea?

For some time, I have believed that Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell might be able to offer himself as an alternative to Hillary Clinton -- a sort of "anti-Hillary."

Ed Rendell shows no signs of evolving into this niche, but recent developments make me think Howard Dean might be. When Al Gore's recent endorsement is coupled with Wesley Clark's desperate campaign tactic (offering Hillary the Vice Presidential spot), all the signs are there.

Howard Dean is still largely unknown to the vast hordes of middle Americans, so attempts to characterize him as "left wing" go largely unheard.

Might there be a good reason why Dean wants to cover up (for now) his largely conservative record as Governor? To remain true to the old adage of "to the left in the primaries; to the right in the general election," it makes a lot of sense for Dean to delay the truth as long as possible.

More than makes sense; it may be political brilliance.

Now, if he could just figure out how to time that Sister Souljah moment....

Of course, Hillary's stance is pro-war, while Dean's is anti-war. That could be tough, for it artificially places Hillary to the right of Dean (something she most definitely is not).

Were I Howard Dean, I would strongly attack such terminology and expose "Artillery Hillary" as a phony, unprincipled wannabe. (Whose husband's policies paved the way for this mess!) Then I would claim I'd been misunderstood, and "clarify" my downright Nixonian plan to end the war.

Hey, these ideas are old.

(It goes without saying that along the way, a number of conservatives will inevitably "discover" that electing Dean might be their only chance to stop the hated Hillary....)