Throughout the past few months a recurring theme has evolved among Kossack Deaniacs, one that puts forth the seemingly unquestionable idea that Gov. Dean (who, for disclosure's sake, is my #2 choice) is the embodiment of an anti-establishment Democratic fervor needed to shake the Party out of its centrist malaise and into a new era of Rethug-trouncing Progressivism.
Its proponents have gone to such lengths as comparing Dean to McCain, and proclaiming that he is, indeed, the "soul of the party".
There are also corrollaries to this argument that run along the lines of:
Kerry = Kennedy old-line Dem establishment = ruin because it's the "old" formula that led us to electoral disaster in the past.
Clark = Clinton/DLC "new" Dem formula that led us to electoral disaster in the recent past.
Dean = Washington outsider, no connections, will be Pres like Homer Stokes, friend of the little man (that's an O Brother, Where Art Thou? reference), and will re-energize the base with his "outsider" ways.
This is, of course, now all revealed as utter bullshit, if I may say so myself, with the developments in the Dean campaign since December -- viz:
(1) Gore endorsement (wasn't he a big part of the DLC and as VP, an ultimate "insider"?).
(2) Harkin endorsement (after that many years in DC, I don't care what you say, you are an insider).
(3) Gross mismanagement by Trippi, collapse of campaign coffers, replacement of Trippi with Gore right-hand man Roy Neel (do I even need to comment?).
I think the "but Dean is Different!! Anyone else is just as "corporate" as the Rethuglicans and will lead us to ruin in the long run" meme is stupid and should be allowed to die.
I also think that is the real cause for Dean's slide: starting in December, people started to see Dean for the insider he truly was becoming. As B.B. King likes to sing: The thrill is gone.
Unfortunately, instead of stemming this tide, I believe that Gov. Dean has only exacerbated it with his recent moves, which will confirm what people before only suspected -- that he is now part of the Gore wing of the party, which isn't anti-establishment, but is rather a nascent Democratic establishment of its own. And considering that Gore lost (I know he won, but allowing it to get close enough so the Repugs could steal it was his fault) because (a) he distanced himself from the very popular WJC; (b) he brought along Joe Loserman for the ride; and (c) he couldn't outfox the stupid aw-shucks fake folksiness of GWB, I don't think that's the man I want being the power behind the throne.
Let's start to look at these candidates on their own merits, and stop trying to divide the Party into the Kennedy wing, the Clinton wing, and the Gore wing. It's stupid, and in truth, that is what will lead us to electoral, and policy, ruin.