Two articles from conservative writers come to two different conclusions about Howard Dean's prospects for the presidency. William Kristol appeals to my head because he is saying things I don't want to hear. He believes Dean could win. Ramesh Ponnuru appeals to my heart because he is reassuring that Dean will not win. Neither mentions that Gore now backs Dean.

Gore's backing will give Dean real steam for the disaffected Left of the Democrat Party. Gore is the source of their humiliation or, rather, he is the guy who was humiliated by the King the Supreme Court appointed. Gore will be the mascot behind the mascot of resentment and spite that characterize the Democrat Party these days. Does that mean a Dean-win next November? Kristol believes it could:

But surely the fact that Bush is now a proven president running for reelection changes everything? Sort of. Bush is also likely to be the first president since Herbert Hoover under whom there will have been no net job creation, and the first since Lyndon Johnson whose core justification for sending U.S. soldiers to war could be widely (if unfairly) judged to have been misleading.

And President Bush will be running for reelection after a two-year period in which his party has controlled both houses of Congress. The last two times the American people confronted a president and a Congress controlled by the same party were in 1980 and 1994. The voters decided in both cases to restore what they have consistently preferred for the last two generations: divided government. Since continued GOP control of at least the House of Representatives seems ensured, the easiest way for voters to re-divide government would be to replace President Bush in 2004. And with a plurality of voters believing the country is on the wrong track, why shouldn't they boot out the incumbent president?

An historical trend like 1980 and 1994 has to be taken into account, and, anyway, Mr. Kristol is not crystal-balling. Yet 9/11 is very much counter to any historical trend in American history—a direct foreign attack on our soil in which so many civilians have been killed (don't bother me with the British invasion of 1812). 9/11 has created a revolution in American foreign policy, which most Americans support under Bush's leadership. The war will be the dominant issue next November, whether for or against.

If it can be shown, as I believe it can, that Dean is not serious about fighting the war on terrorism, and if it is the case that those Americans who support Bush have not forgotten how Bush responded to 9/11, and if they have not forgotten what he has done to fight the war against our enemies since then, we can expect to see a reversal of the trend Kristol points to.

Indeed, the American people should want balance. That is my hope. Balance between Congress and the White House can best be preserved, in any case, by keeping someone so unbalanced out of the latter. Remember, Dean recently speculated on NPR that Bush may have known about 9/11 beforehand. If the Democrats nominate an extremist like Dean, however moderate he may be on some issues compared to other candidates, the American people will most likely vote for a balance in government and keep Congress and the White House red. My colleague at netWMD illustrates just how out-there Dean can be.

Yet, Kristol addresses the popularity of Bush after 9/11 and how it may not stand up to Dean:

But while Bush is committed to victory in that war, his secretary of State seems committed to diplomatic compromise, and his secretary of Defense to an odd kind of muscle-flexing-disengagement. And when Bush's chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., said on Sunday with regard to Iraq, "We're going to get out of there as quickly as we can, but not before we finish the mission at hand," one wonders: Wouldn't Howard Dean agree with that formulation? Indeed, doesn't the first half of that sentence suggest that even the most senior of Bush's subordinates haven't really internalized the president's view of the fundamental character of this war? If they haven't, will the American people grasp the need for Bush's continued leadership on November 2? If not, prepare for President Dean.

Surely Kristol can see that Card is playing diplomat. You can't have hawkish language being heard every time a Bush cabinet member speaks. Bush is probably pushing Card for nuance. Who knows? We've already heard Powell in times past say things that were not thought to resonate with the president's views or what were believed to be his views. The State Department is softer on the Saudis than Bush. Or is it? This is a notoriously secretive administartion. In any case, when Bush starts running in earnest come election time it will be his voice that will be heard, not Card's.

Whatever disconnect now apparently exists between Bush and some in his administration, he can quickly get a handle on it, if he ultimately sets the tone and tenor of his administration's course and action. Remember, it was thought he had gone wobbly on Iraq after Bremer's emergency visit to D.C., only to have him land, with risk to his own life, in Baghdad on Turkey Day.

In contrast to Kristol, Ramesh Ponnuru remains skeptical of what he calls a "revisionism" concerning Dean's prospects among conservative pundits, though he does not mention Kristol's article (also published today). Ponnuru is old school when it comes to Dean, which means he's confident that the man of the Northeast elite will not win:

But Dean's alleged moderation on the war may not turn out to matter all that much in the fall (assuming he gets the nomination, which I do not yet assume). In the mind of the public, I suspect, one of the candidates will be considered in favor of the war and one of them against it. The nuances will be lost, and I expect that the public will continue to side with what looks like the tougher posture. The campaign debate will in any case concern what to do in Iraq now as much as it does what should have been done before. Dean and Bush will both have to decide between stay-the-course and cut-and-run options. The most likely scenario has Dean inclining toward the latter and Bush the former, and, again, I think that the public will be on that side too.

It also depends how well Operation Iron Hammer succeeds in putting down the insurrection in the Sunni Triangle. And then what to do with Iran. What to do with Syria. What to do with Saudi Arabia. What to do with North Korea. One thing at a time, of course. Until November, Iraq will take up the lion's share of foreign policy debate but the other nations just mentioned will come up too. What should either candidate do about them? What is their strategy for the war on terror, assuming of course if the candidate believes we should even be fighting one?

Two things: Bush will clam shut about what he is going to do about the other terrorist-enabling nations. This is, after all, a war—for those of us who believe there is a war. He's not going to say "Bomb Bekka Valley," which we all know would be the most sensible thing to do. We also know Bush's record of no-nonsense (despite his pathetic "Road Map"). That is, what he leaves unsaid is enough for hawks to trust he will continue to prosecute the war beyond Iraq.

Dean? Where does he stand? Well, whatever he says in favor of the $86 billion package for Iraq, he remains an anti-Iraq invasion candidate. So what can we expect he'll do with the Saudis, Bashar Assad, and the Iranian mullahs? Whatever Bush might do will be preferable by far for many American voters than what Dean will most probably not do at all.

Here's hoping Ponnuru is right. Only, conventional wisdom has its limits. I'm not going to relax about Dean, or any Democrat, until late in the night of November 2nd.