Back in March, Harold Meyerson claimed that John Kerry was the ideal candidate. Why?:

besides his positioning and his bankroll, Kerry brings one further asset to his run for president. To call it "campaigning ability" is to trivialize it, but whatever we choose to term it, Kerry's current capacity to take what Democrats -- what Americans -- are feeling, and to voice it in the clarified, dramatized and elevated form that gifted political leaders can sometimes achieve, is far beyond anything his fellow candidates (much less the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.) are capable of.

But then, despite being a "gifted political leader," Kerry began to tank and in September Meyerson began singing the praises of Wesley Clark. According to Meyerson, Clark was the only candidate with "support from all quadrants" of the Democratic party.

In November, however, Clark was in a dead heat with Dick Gephardt in the Meyerson primary. According to Meyerson, Clark and Gephardt were the two Democrats most likely to win in key battleground states like Ohio.

As things turned out, however, Ohio didn't loom as large in the general election as did the existential margins. And what candidate could sweep the electoral college votes of the "existential margins"? Howard Dean! Why did Meyerson think Dean appealed to the "existential margins"? Because Dean was like John Wayne:

Alone among the Democratic candidates, Dean understood that the law hadn't come yet to Dodge, that the party needed a tough guy who could unleash its long-suppressed animal instincts.

But unleashing the "animal instincts" of the "existential margins," got Dean only 18 percent in Iowa. And that despite the fact that John Wayne was born in Iowa. Now it turns out that, according to Meyerson, Dean was a bad candidate after all.

And who is Meyerson supporting now? He's back to singing the praises of John Kerry. Why? Because Kerry is a "powerhouse" and "real men support John Kerry."

Why does the WaPo print this guy?