Did you see THIS about Carville (re: Dean, but still scary)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3027550&mesg_id=3028743

"Sam Smith of UNDERNEWS: And finally, one more comment on how and why the media is intent on ruining Howard Dean's candidacy. This excerpt of devastating analysis from Sam Smith, editor of Undernews for 20 January 2004, comes from The Progressive Review:

"Dean is in trouble, no doubt of it. Primary cause is the most excessive and gratuitous media assault on a presidential candidate in recent times. . . Dean failed to accept the fact that before you can get elected by the people you have to be selected by the crowd in charge. You don't just run for president in the Democratic Party...... you ask permission nicely just like Clinton did. Show the elite that you want to come to Washington to serve them, not lead others. . . . It's bad enough when a Georgia peanut farmer like Carter tries it, but Dean came out of the establishment himself so his crime was worse: betrayal rather than naiveté. And he paid the price."

"It's not political. Washington is a place where more things are done illegally or under the table than just about anywhere in the world. Where your laws are made - and broken - as Mark Russell used to say. And it's the world's most powerful private club. If you want to get ahead here the first thing you've got to do is shut your mouth, and show you respect the people who really run the place. Dean didn't do that."




For some reason, I find this helpful to understand why Kerry was treated the way he was after the botched joke.

For the record, I never liked Dean as a presidential candidate (I like him a WHOLE lot better as a DNC chairman), but his candidacy was HARDLY a "betrayal". He had every right in the world to run and take the anti-war opening. Carville sounds to me very anti-democratic (small d). People powered politics obviously scares the bejesus out of him.

off. They hyped that scream to cover up the REAL QUESTIONS about them and their many months of over-reporting support of Dean while under-reporting the strength of Kerry's ground game in Iowa that was already becoming apparent in Nov. 2003.

How is it that he isn't deferring to Kerry the way Lieberman deferred to Gore?

Also, I just heard someone on MSNBC say Edwards was flat - you know - boooriing. Mark the date. Let's see how long it takes before it becomes 'conventional wisdom'. Edwards, sunny and optimistic speaker who connects with average voters? All gone. He'll soon be a dullard who just doesn't have pizzazz.

I think Kerry should just let some of these people suffer frontrunner heat and get a taste of what it's like. Tell people he's not going to focus on 2008 until after the Iraq hearings.

Leiberman was not thought of as a national leader at all till Gore chose him. After the loss, when the CW was that Gore - who did win - should be given the nomination, Leiberman, who NO ONE was asking to run made the statement that he wouldn't run if Gore did.

He actually gained from this - and when Gore said he wasn't running Leiberman was the frontrunner for a considerable time. It was also thought in that time period (2002 - early 2003) that Bush was unbeatable - so Hillary didn't run.

Kerry was NEVER even given any respect as a voice in the party after the loss - and there has been a major attempt to ignore that he genuinely won the nomination easily.

This is a chilling article. It is scary as it says that our government is NOT what we have been told it is - and this is close to the stuff people I thought were crazy say. It also does suggest that they didn't "let" Kerry win. Those crowds had to mean something and I know that Kerry is charismatic - far more than Edwards or Clinton - who we are told are charismatic.

It's just been interesting to me that it hasn't even been an issue. I remember there being a sort of protocol when Gore ran in 2000, that Bradley was a bit on the outside for challenging him. And the bit of a dust-up back in 1980 when Teddy ran againt Carter. I'm guessing that because Edwards is running with no regard to Kerry at all, that he is getting the go-ahead from other party operatives. The same ones who have disrespectd JK all along and do have the power to manipulate the media, but manipulate it against our best interest, as far as I can see.

By that I don't mean they see him as the most likely candidate, but the most likely of the candidates who do have a chance to actually challange how things operate. (ie if Edwards won - they know they can manipulate him.)

I'm sure it concerns them that a man who really did stand against everyone in the late 80s and early 90s was able - with no real help from them- become the standard bearer. What I wonder if as people see Kerry and hear his sane, calm ideas whether he might be the person who can a second time be the grassroots candidate. It is amazing that he has withstood the hatred around him so long and remained the kind generous person he is.

You're right: after the election, Kerry was given zero to no respect. But he didn't go away and neither did his e-mail list or his supporters, so they couldn't be as obvious as they would have liked to be in their disdain (ie: fear) of Kerry.

Kerry was used while he was still helping to elect Democrats, but as soon as the party got the chance they shunned him. The joke was an excuse, but they would have done it anyhow. They were boiling mad over Alito and also over the Kerry-Feingold plan for Iraq, but they couldn't be too open in their hostility at that point.

They were willing to use his support but they sure as Hell don't want Kerry in a position of high power in Washington. That has to scare the power brokers silly. Kerry showed that he has the ability to rally support for an issue. They knew this when they received thousands of faxes and saw Congressional telephone lines jammed over Alito and other issues of interest to the left. That is a kind of power that Washington fears more than anything else: people power. And Kerry can wield it because he is a true leader.

The article is chilling because it is true. Washington is a nest of vipers. Wouldn't you like to see Kerry drive the snakes out (sort of like the legend ascribed to St. Patrick)?