Although your detailed analysis of the differences between the two is undoubtedly accurate, you are making things way too complicated for the electorate (i.e., average voter). Prime rule in elections is to keep it simple and to find short phrases that really resonate with the voters. For example, Bush says: "Cut taxes", "Hold schools accountable", "Bring democracy to Iraq", etc. These goals/statements, regardless of process or success in meeting them, are things that appeal to Americans. You want Dean to be more intellectual and process-oriented and want him to communicate that to voters. That's boring. Voters respond emotionally to candidates. Just look at the Kennedy-Nixon debates and the Bush-Gore debates. Kennedy and Bush "won" in public perception because of their personality. The U.S. Presidency is a personality contest as much as it is about ideas. At least that is true for the voters "in the middle", who will make/break either Bush or Dean/other Dem nominee.

Dean's strengths have been his passion and his willingness to be independent. You don't want to mute that with lots of process-sounding messages. You're right about his ability to point to his own successes in state government. That addresses, de facto, his ability to make change and should be part of his campaign (IMHO).

Finally, Dean's first problem is to win the Democratic nomination. Your rant/message to Dean is ahead of its time. He is going to have some competition now from Gephardt and Kerry (though I'm not sure either can beat him). What messages will work to beat them and still be consistent with his persona so that he can carry that momentum forward to beating Bush?