Is Dean's anti-war stance based on politics?

Kos concludes his reporting on the California Democratic Convention. He finishes with an interesting conversation with a Democratic strategistic who thinks anti-war is a losing proposition for the Democrats.

Dean (and the rest of the lesser candidates) have made a different calculation -- that war will be too costly in human lives and treasure. Are they correct? No one can say. Not Dean, not your friendly neighborhood warblogger, not me. We can only analyze the military and political landscape and arrive at conclusions.

I think Kos is wrong that Dean has made a political calculation to be anti-war because it will be "to costly in human lives and treasure". My feeling from Dean is that his opposition to the war is sincere and that it is not driven by politics. He knows very well that, if the war goes very well for Bush, he will have a more difficult time of it. The few times I have seen him he appears to be trying to get across the message that this war is wrong regardless of the outcome. Now maybe I'm just being fooled by another slick politician. But, right now, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because the Democratic party desperately needs a candidate like Dean to make a difference.