Why have 3 "anonymous sources" done hit pieces against Howard Dean when he has already stepped down?

madfloridian

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-22-08 12:55 PM
Original message

Why have 3 "anonymous sources" done hit pieces against Howard Dean when he has already stepped down?

That's the very worst kind of thing to counter. There is no name, no way to find out who is doing it. The media using the anonymous sources are so-called reputable media. It is the kind of propaganda that must be countered, but there is no way to do it and not be accused of being partisan.

Ask yourself why they would be doing this? He has already stepped down as chair, he has only been on TV a couple of times since the election. So why are they finding it necessary? I really never thought about whether he would be in the cabinet. But why the anonymous hit pieces? Why try to discredit someone who already stepped down from their position, and is not saying much at all about anything at all?

I have a theory. These "anonymous sources" would find it easier to run things without the annoying liberals, bloggers, netroots, grassroots...butting in. So it is my theory they are putting out these anonymous hit pieces on Dean for a reason that is not just him, but us.

At least in 2003 and 2004 the sources did not bother to be anonymous. They were right out in the open calling him too liberal and calling his supporters "fringe activists."

SNIP.."But the great myth of the current cycle is the misguided notion that the hopes and dreams of activists represent the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. Real Democrats are real people, not activist elites. The mission of the Democratic Party, as Bill Clinton pledged in 1992, is to provide "real answers to the real problems of real people." Real Democrats who champion the mainstream values, national pride, and economic aspirations of middle-class and working people are the real soul of the Democratic Party, not activists and interest groups with narrow agendas.

SNIP.."What activists like Dean call the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is an aberration: the McGovern-Mondale wing, defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home. That's the wing that lost 49 states in two elections, and transformed Democrats from a strong national party into a much weaker regional one..."

We knew who they were. They were out in the open.

Now we can only suspect. Since his name has not crossed the lips of any Democratic leader since the election, one sort of suspects who is sending out the propaganda. But no way to prove it.

First came the New York Times anonymous sources.

New Talking Point: It will take a few years to see if Howard Dean gets credit for anything.

Please note how the "anonymous source" brought up the FL and MI primaries...just as I predicted they would do.

Mr. Dean sent resources into all these states. But one defining characteristic of the Obama campaign was the extent to which it insisted on keeping control over everything, often to the irritation of state Democratic leaders. Mr. Obama’s aides, while taking pains to praise Mr. Dean’s philosophical approach in trying to make the party more competitive in more states, said that the Obama campaign relied almost completely on its own staff, money and organization in making incursions into Republican states.

This is more than a simple who-should-get-the-credit post-election argument. Mr. Dean is very much thinking about his legacy after a campaign in which he was criticized for failing to mediate potentially divisive disputes among the candidates, for long-lasting fights over what to do about the disputed Florida and Michigan primaries (the party refused to recognize the votes because both states broke party rules and held their contests in January) and for his party’s difficulty in keeping pace with the Republicans in raising funds.

Should his 50-state strategy be vindicated over the next few election cycles, the problems of 2008 will certainly be forgotten. For Mr. Dean, it’s simply too soon to call the question.

Not too soon to call. He has inspired the party.

Never will it be mentioned that Howard Dean far outraised Terry McAuliffe. They are trying to rewrite his legacy as chair before it even has a chance to be written.

Dean outraised McAuliffe

The issue now is money -- not so much Dean's ability to raise it but his propensity to spend it. From Jan. 1, 2001, when Terence R. McAuliffe took over the committee, through March 31, 2004, the DNC raised approximately $127 million in funds that could be spent directly on campaign activities. Between Jan. 1, 2005, and March 2008, the DNC raised $190 million, considerably more.

Then right after Dean stepped down as chairman, there came the Politico hit piece. Only anonymous sources.

Dean out at HHS

Now either the source was inside enough to know, or they knew it would hurt Dean's chances if the words were said. Dean said as much about the article on the blogger conference call.

But the chief attributes President-elect Barack Obama is seeking in his HHS secretary will be an ability to work with members of Congress and shepherd reform legislation through the House and Senate.

That job description has turned out to be a particularly ill-suited one for Dean, given his partisan background and lack of congressional experience, sources inside and outside the transition offices say. Dean never served in Congress and spent his Washington career trying to thin the ranks of congressional Republicans that the Obama White House will need to court during the expected debate on health care reform.

Now for the Wall Street Journal hit piece yesterday. Yes, it is painful. It is made even more painful because all of the three are just as directed at the grassroots as they are Dean.

Hit piece and anonymous sources from WSJ

Mr. Dean certainly had a liberal fan club pushing for him. A medical doctor by training, he burst onto the presidential scene in 2004 on the strength of his "universal health care" plan as governor of Vermont. The militant Netroots crowd -- which he was among the first Democrats to cultivate -- has remained loyal and has been howling for his appointment. Some left-wing Democrats also felt he deserved the job as payment for the electoral victories he oversaw as head of the DNC.

Back in reality, however, Mr. Obama was having none of it. Plenty of top Democrats were fine with letting Mr. Dean run the DNC. His attack-dog style and Internet savvy were well suited to a job that was focused on winning elections. But his personal aggressiveness couldn't be more at odds with Mr. Obama's cool demeanor. And putting Mr. Dean in control of one of Mr. Obama's most cherished initiatives (health care) would've made John McCain's Sarah Palin pick look safe.

I can almost hear in that hit piece the tones of some of the centrist "Democrats" in 2003. But no proof. How cowardly to be anonymous.

The bloggers and Democratic forums are all treading lightly about being critical about anything at all.

There is not anyone speaking out against these anonymous hit pieces on the man who has been working hard for our party since he became chairman in 2005.

So I will speak out on it. They are rewriting his legacy as the bloggers remain silent and are playing nice to get along.

We should not let them rewrite his legacy without our speaking up at least online. I don't know who they are, but they have insider knowledge. They have anger toward Dean in spite of all he has done for the party.

On the blogger conference call Dean asked them not to mention his name in regard to any particular seat, and he mentioned the Politico hit piece. Maybe he really does want the blogosphere to butt out and not fight back anymore. Maybe he really does. Trouble is it is equally insulting to us...the fringe, liberal, lefty, netroots, nutroots.

And I am not going to remain silent.