I don't really have the time to do this, so this may be a substandard diary, and I'm sorry for that. If someone else wants to take these jokers point-by-point, please do.
Over at WaPo, Kornblut and Bacon have written an article that makes my blood boil, and I have to defend my main man, Howard Dean. I know, I know... I should let it go. It was years ago... it's over... they wouldn't listen about their misperceptions then and they won't now. But I have to try again to set the record straight.
This article is about whether or not Obama can avoid Dean's pitflalls. It makes this erroneous point more than once, but here is the first instance:
the challenge for the senator from Illinois has become clear: He must turn the intense devotion of his backers into a force that can win primaries, expanding his base of support beyond the narrow band of Democratic elites who backed Dean.
Well, that was annoying, but I read on. And on the next page, I find this gem:
Like Dean and Bradley, Obama is strongest among elites, whom other Democrats derisively call "latte liberals" -- a group that voices strong opinions but is not big enough to win him the nomination.
PLEASE stop rewriting the history of the 2004 election and of Dean.
Myth #1: Dean's supporters were elite, "latte liberals".
Truth: The "latte liberals" were with Kerry from the start because the erroneously believe that the American people evaluate resumes rather than people.
Myth #2: Dean supporters are anti-war, and that is why they chose him.
Truth: Dean supporters are anti-Bush, and Dean was the man who was willing to punch him in the face, on the war and every other issue. We LOVED him for that. We generally support wars that are necessary and aren't based on lies.
I am sure there are other myths about the Dean campaign that should be challenged, and I know there is other stuff in this article that should be challenged, but I had to comment on these. I am so, so tired of hearing these.