The headline grabs the eye: one wants to learn what Dean means by his remark, and one assumes Hall accurately reports the main tenets of Dean's talk. But context needs to be established at the outset. What group hosted this meeting? What was the stated objective? Who else spoke, and did any other speakers make reference to Dean’s points? (A few more such facts are forthcoming, but not till the end of the story.) Dean seems to want to make a case for historical cycles in American politics and society. Fair enough. But was he delivering a prepared discourse or, as the garrulous wandering evidence suggests, winging it? Asking the RNC chairman for his opinion is SOP, and one gets the predictable reaction. But I would have welcomed one more voice on each side---or, even better, a more non-partisan response. One does not envy the reporter who had to sit through, then summarize, such an evening, against deadline. And though the “bigger picture” we seek is barely hinted it, the piece performs a useful service, by filling in one's knowledge of the DNC chairman, leaving the reader to register glee or dismay.