I think the above commentary makes two errors. First, the candidacy of Howard Dean had a lot more widespread appeal than most people knew. He said all the things John Edwards said--years before Edwards said them in the current race. Dean's was a populist campaign, which, after briefly enamoring the corporate media and its corporate sponsors, ultimately frightened them that their gravy train was about to end. Dean's was also a candidacy of courage, just as is Barack Obama's. There were some brilliant moves by the Dean campaign (the Tom Paine Common Sense Parody was great), but there were some colossal blunders too (spending too much money on "visibility."
But the so-called MSM only carried so much of what really mattered, just enough to build a momentum for him (as opposed to Kerry) and then swoop in for the "kill," wherein they took him apart limb-by-limb. Dean was a real straight talker, as opposed to the pretend one wearing that PR mantle as we speak. Even Republican Diane Sawyer (she worked in the Nixon White House), said an injustice had been done by the media in the wake of the manipulative, sound-engineered "scream."
Today, with more people than ever getting their news from non-commercial TV, it's a bit harder to get away with the same thing now. But it still could happen. For all the so-called "debates," and all-talk-all-the-time cable "news," the idiocy of people like Chris Matthews (Tweety)illustrates how precariously our political information system is perched.
Second, I think Obama has been careful to learn the lessons of not peaking too early, and using every second to drill into the discussion corrections to false claims against his record. He has the stump speech style of a lifetime. And his wife, Michelle, nicknamed "The Closer" because she is that good, has given the most outstanding speech about the politics of fear anyone, except perhaps, Al Gore (in his Constitutional series) has given. Obama singularly has the blend of grace, style, tenaciousness, and toughness under pressure that does indeed hearken to the day long ago when we had a most gracious president in 1960. But Obama doesn't take a trip backward for nostalgia's sake. He doesn't think the best solutions are behind us.
Again, it's misleading to say that what happened in 2004 was just that Dean failed, though he ultimately did. We all, the whole party, failed to have the courage to select a candidate who, from the beginning, stood strongly against an immoral war. Like lemmings, the party went for the convenient, the supposedly safer path. Instead of standing strongly with conviction against the administration, Misters Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, Lieberman, and to a less extent, others, pummeled Dean for both perversions of some of his positions and also for his statements that were, in hindsight, exactly right. There was unbelievable character assassination too, much of it too unfair, untrue, and ugly to trot it out again. The Senatorial presidential Dems back then, at least a couple of them, engaged in the filthiest campaign tactics, such as equating Dean to OBL in ads, much the Republican Saxby Chambliss did to Mac Cleland. None of the Hillary naysayers (of which I am one) has done that. Nor would we. But Hillary's people probably would (use these tactics against a Dem).
Meanwhile, Hillary's support may be less deep than people think. This time, millions of women voted for Hillary primarily because she's a woman. As a feminist, I cringe at this. We are citizens with the right, indeed, the duty, to vote for the best candidate, not a re-tread of times past, not the merely familiar, but rather the one who most closely stands for the values we hold dear. Not some shadow of our values, some glimmer of incrementalism, or some cautious learning from "old mistakes," but rather someone who is on the right path from the beginning. On policy matters, we don't need someone always playing defense. And we need one who gets that we need to inspire new generations to take up the banner.
The media are, as we speak, manipulating the messages of the candidates for public consumption. They've lied about Barack Obama by telling Democrats he runs to the right of Hillary to scare off progressive Democratic voters. They lie with the use of select voter clips, so they can deflect blame. It was just the person-on-the-street talking. Just wait till we see how the media will change their tune in the general. They'll then lie that he's "too liberal to win." Most of all, they are engineering as we speak the campaign of the so-called maverick, the so-called straight-talker (who isn't). And if we are not ready, neither our candidate (Barack), or Hillary will be standing the day after the General Election.
We must begin TODAY, disabusing fellow citizens of the myth of John McCain. When the learn the real McC., they won't believe how they have been had. The question is, will it be too late? It is up to us. And this time the disaffection will be based on facts. They took Howard Dean out because he opposed a war in Iraq. They took Howard Dean down with a rigged scream, but these same folks will cover for John McCain's real temper, his (Joseph) McCarthy-ite statements, his willingness to occupy Iraq for even a million years (that's right), and his coining a preemptive war strategy (without imminent threat) three years before Bush. The man is plain dangerous. Some of you here jumped all over MoveOn.org when they took issue with Gen. Petraeus. But it is telling how McCain reacted. He said Moveon.org would be kicked out of the country. And now he pretends to respect the fact that there are differences in this country. Talk is cheap. He's already proven he does not tolerate dissent. That is unacceptable and unConsitutional of him. John McC simply must not win in Nov.
Hillary thinks because she fought the "vast right wing conspiracy" that she'll hold up under the new onslaught of the second coming of Bush (surrogate). That's not a foregone conclusion. Of course, there is also the most important fact, that, on the issues, Barack Obama isn't offering a warmed-over DLC platform, but rather a fresh one.
Be the change. Let's give this the very best fact-checking effort we've got in us. Lowell is fact-checker par excellence. But we need everyone here at RK (and the rest of the progressive blogosphere) getting the word out, not just on the blogs, but outside the blogosphere. Instead of ho-humming, we have to assertively rebut every single false claim airing against our candidate. And starting right now, we must take on the not-straight-talking jalopy. Actually, he's more like a train-wreck. We can't afford a term of Bush policies and surrogates. Enough is enough!
[PS: Articles fact-checking McCain to follow!]
At any rate, your writing is great.
Maureen Dowd has a VERY interesting perspective on how Obama needs to move forward. What do folks think about the need to "slay the Clinton attack machine"? Overstated or about right?