It cannot be overstated, how significant The Dean Movement is to the health and well-being of our nation. Think of it : "The Dean Movement". Do the other campaigns have the word "Movement" fly like magnet filings to their candidates' names? No.
Why is that? Very important question there.
Very important.)
The Dean Movement, which is bringing back a sense of community and passionate involvement in the political process, IS a MAJOR issue of the DEAN campaign, just like foreign policy, economy, healthcare. It is not just a nice side dish, as in: "Gee, thanks Howard Dean for increasing our enrollment, now please, fade away. Signed, DLC/DNC". Funny, it's the table with that side dish that has had everyone crowding around and coming back for more, while the ones with the main dishes have not been nearly as tempting or satisfying. (No wonder there has been a fallacious smear campaign by the ignored chefs, as they hint there's some Mad Cow in that 'unelectable' Dean dish.)
The Dean Movement is an antidote to the way the watered-down, kingpin-controlled Dem establishment -- both that of pols and pundits -- is killing our Democratic vitality and viability.
And make no mistake, this is part of the darkness that is rolling across our nation. I see this darkness not just in the Bush WH, but also in the consistent shading of our party, a la GOP. It's also in the papers we used to think were, if not deserving of liberal with a capital L, then at least safely 'conventional' like the Washington Post. Not so anymore, in its editorial pages. Or perhaps it is adjusting to what it considers the New 'Conventional. (Sound familiar? DLCish?) How scary is that? The New Republic is another example of our slide into darkness, and their L was supposed to be a bit bolder than that of the WP. The New York Times has invited David Brooks on board.
Remember, although roughly 30% opposed the war in Iraq, antiwar voices were given voice in the mainstream media at a whopping 2-3% (and in very short appearances) compared to pro-war voices and those from whatever it is one calls that other mushy, useless (Kerryish?) category. Why didnt high profile Democrats avail themselves of the media outlets that were theirs for the asking, in order to expose Bush's fraudulent war, his foolish, risky business, whose consequences would be borne by our nation and others? Because they simply didnt ASK and they denied requests if they were ASKED, that's why.
So we WERE rendered voiceLESS, even by those we had supported all these many years.
It is not just about kicking out The Bastard and his buddies. It's about the enabling of his bad deeds. And about enabling one's own party to break the spirit and deny the good sense of its own members and those they wish to have lead them. There appears to be a tacit hand-off that goes on between the 2 major parties, an attachment to the known, no matter how stultifying (better BUSH than DEAN???!!!) than to dare to go for what could be ... so much BETTER. They want the new votes but they fear the new aliveness and vibrancy because it is unfamiliar and less controllable. This -- the power of our people given a VOICE and a leg to stand on -- appears to frighten our own party bosses more than another 4 years of Bush. The GOP, after all, is quite familiar to them ... QUITE.
The progressive (Nader) phenom seems to be perceived by top Dems as a pesky fly they've had to deal with, but they seem to figure they'll manage to swat it away, each time, and then go back to the business of business as USUAL.
But 'Business as Usual' has gotten us where we are today, hasnt it? Isn't it the sort of business we can no longer afford?