Why do the "Democrats" fear Howard Dean?

[BuelahWitch]

I have Democrats in quotes because I'm talking about the big boys (and girls) on the beltway, and even some of our pundits, not those of us here in the real world. The other day on Air America (Franken's show, Joe Conason subbing for Franken) there was discussion about who should be the new chair of the DNC. Of course, Dean's name came up. One guest who was obviously anti-Dean seemed to have the floor for a very long time. Markos (sp?) from The Daily Kos (who I guess is pretty pro-Dean) wasn't on nearly as long. At one point as I was listening, one of the callers was talking about how much he felt Dean had done for the party, all the money he had raised, etc. Joe Conason poo-poo'd the message, saying Kerry raised more money than anyone IN THE END (duh, Joe, yeah, when he was the only horse in the race!)

Conason, Alterman, Begala, Carville and all the rest got Kerry, the guy they wanted. The election's over, it's time to think to the future. Why are they so unwilling to get behind Dean FOR ANYTHING, yet someone like Joe Lieberman, who really does not espouse many of our true values, is considered a mainstream Democrat?

PS. I know I'm preaching to the choir here. I'm a wuss, and not really up to being "pummelled" in GD today ;)

[Eric J in MN]

1. Because he criticizes corporations.

"I want an America...

where CEO's don't make 531 times what workers earn, even as they ship their headquarters to Bermuda and their jobs to China."

-Howard Dean, Feb. 2004

[mdmc]

2. Folks think that Dean is too green

:kick:

[madfloridian]

3. Too green for what and for whom?

Please explain. The term green has two meanings.

The party does not "fear" Dean. They will just ignore him, and us.

[mdmc]

7. no they fear him....

It is the fear of a progressive party. Dean was the only candidate that caused excitement.
Sharpton, Edwards... no excitement...

[janx]

4. I think I have your answer.

The media and the politicians are of the same cloth, basically, regarding money and power. It's all politics. It wasn't as glued together when Clinton came along, although the relationship was there.

Many people think that the media exist and operate under some ideological purposes. They don't. They exist to make money. So the more they can scare and divide the public (to keep the people listening/watching), the better. This drives ratings up, which in turn drives up the costs for advertisements.

There are no liberal media. There are no conservative media. It's all in the angle and the argument--it's all to drive division and fear into people in order to keep them listening/watching so that the media can charge advertisers more.

The more tabloid, the better. The lower the common denominator, all the better still.

A guy like Howard Dean does not fit into this scheme of things. He just doesn't fit into the homogeneity of our media-driven, popular culture. Ordinary Americans, like you and me, don't fit into the theme songs/graphics and the sound bites.

BUT--if you are anything like me and my relatives and neighbors, you have things that the pop culture doesn't have: imagination, independence, and the landscape of the human soul.

Merry Christmas!

[Capn Sunshine]

5. the thin is, it's "establishment" vs outsiders

Howard Dean, being from outside the established confines, poses a threat because he is neither quantifiable nor controllable. His fansa re active and have deep pockets, so he must be reasoned with and can't be bought.

Perfect combination to fear if you value your bullshit insider cushy job where nothing ever changes and you get to have drinks and dinner with corporate lobbyists frequently.

[madfloridian]

6. Reactive and deep pockets is quite true.

Those two characteristics are quite powerful.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. I think both you and janx have it nailed

Dean broke ranks with the Party Establishment. He once was included as a second tier player (former head of the Governors association) but he was willing to speak out against the Party's status quo Washington driven leadership, AND he developed an independent power base, you folks and everyone you reached. From an insider perspective that made Dean unpredictable, a boat rocker, and of course his attacks left "go along" Democrats exposed as either weak, or accomplices to Bush's consolidation of power after 9/11.

That I think is where the fear anger and entrenched opposition to Dean comes from. Like anyone running for public office, there are always arguments that can be made as to whether Dean is the best person for Democrats to pick for one or another office. Those disagreements are of a different order though, like weighing this or that factor while choosing between Kerry or Gephardt (or in my own case Dean and Clark) based on perceived relative strengths or weaknesses. The forces that were scared of Dean however used issues as their pretext to oppose him. They fretted about him being " Anti-War" and a New England Liberal, and they voiced concerns about his personality. However many of those insiders had no problem with Kerry being a New England Liberal, and we all know that Kerry's personality was often a liability for connecting with voters. Dean's Anti-War stance was in line with America. When Kerry moved toward it, he scored better in polls on Iraq than Bush did.

[janx]

9. Hi Tom!

:hi:

[Maat]

10. Hi, fellow DFA-ers!

I just found this group. On Dec. 1st, I found and joined the local DFA group (here in Murrieta/Temecula area, just north of San Diego - and inland in So. Calif.). Most ironically, our group is growing by leaps and bounds post-election. People there are true progressives. I feel at home there.

Happy Holidays and Happy and Prosperous New Year!!!

[janx]

11. Same to you, Maat.

There's another Meetup next week, and it promises to be an interesting one, I think.

[Maat]

12. Going to be there with bells on!