Dennis Kucinich was written off by the mainstream media as an outside the mainstream candidate with insufficient support to mount a serious challenge to George W. Bush.  

Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, while concededly capable of raising large sums of money on the Internet while attracting large numbers of volunteers, was too unstable and politically unseasoned to successfully contest Bush in a presidential race.

The mainstream media was uncomplimentary to both candidates because they were raising issues that caused concern to regulators of the status quo on the one hand.  

On the other there was a pervasive fear that, with both candidates coming from unconventional circumstances outside the traditional Washington power structure and unbeholden to lobbyist influence, a Pandora's box could be unleashed in the system if essentially unregulated candidates were thrust into the presidential picture.

As the first crucial test of the 2004 Democratic presidential primary season approached with the Iowa Caucuses the mainstream media continued chipping away at Howard Dean's credibility as a candidate in two ways, through making him appear irresponsible and erratic on the one hand and unelectable on the other.

When Dean with his populist message delivered from outside the orbit of the regular Democratic establishment began to resonate the media coined a name for his grassroots followers.  They called them Deaniacs.  

With labeling such an important and closely watched element in this technological era with its emphasis on spin control, users of the term surely recognized the similarity between the label Deaniac and that of maniac.  It dovetailed with the image presented of an angry warrior eager to return to the wrestling mat he frequented years before in his school days.

Because Dean had been the frontrunner from the outset of his campaign based on an early start coupled with his ability to raise funds over the Internet while attracting large numbers of volunteers, the mainstream media adopted a coy tactic.  As Iowa campaigning activity heated up with organizational concentration intensifying on behalf of all candidates, a tactic was employed that put Dean at an unfair disadvantage.

The ploy of casting Howard Dean as an elitist drew enough skeptics to make the corporate media decide to hedge their bets.  After all, even if Dean had affluent roots his family wealth could not equal that of liberal Democratic presidents such as Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John Fitzgerald Kennedy.  

There was also enormously wealthy W. Averill Harriman, who served a term as Governor of New York while serving many Democratic presidents in a variety of roles in the foreign affairs field.  Governor G. Mennen Williams of Michigan also came from a family of enormous wealth.

All of the aforementioned were classified as liberals and received sturdy support from labor union members.  Then again, this was before Ann Coulter.  Had she been around then could she have convinced the men in the hard hats that they were elitists?

While the elitist tag would be used in instances where gullibility requirements could be met on the receiving end, as Dean's Internet revolution and fundraising knack of collecting small amounts of money from broad segments of progressives throughout the nation persisted, the real elitists who thought that the dollars should come from the corporate sector and be distributed into the Bush camp alone became concerned.

Armed with a bulging war chest, Bushies began openly crowing that the Cheney-Bush ticket would achieve a 2004 presidential victory rivaling that of Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide triumph over Walter Mondale.  The milestone result would result from a huge financial edge over all Democratic rivals.

How consistent is the Bush right's hypocrisy, and how reluctant the mainstream media has been to expose it while simultaneously looking under every rock to expose any act or statement made by Democrats, especially of the liberal stripe, for critical fodder.  

The stinging irony in this case is that the same team crowing over the prospect of winning a landslide based on a huge financial advantage and virtually unlimited entrée to advertising outlets is the same group that salutes the flag and the glories of America in insisting that it is currently engaged in the urgent process of bringing real democracy to Iraq and, hopefully through the ripple effect, the rest of the Middle East.    

Is this the kind of democracy the Founding Fathers envisioned?  In toeing the corporate line Bushies have imparted a bountiful flow of generosity on the part of the corporate elite and their lobbyists.  In a season wherein Bush had no competition whatsoever in the primaries a record total of $84 million would be raised, constituting serious pocket change.

A short time ago I arrived back home from a five hour drive to hear Governor Howard Dean.  
It was worth the drive.  There were dollars raised for the state party federal account.  There were numerous people there, and a diverse crowd.  It was a good speech, which I have a portion of on audio tape.   I got the opportunity to speak with Governor Dean for just a few moments.  It was above 40 degrees and no snow or ice on the Indiana side of the south Chicago suburbs, a good night.  Oh, and no Loyalty Oath necessary.  Governor Dean even joked about Bush's hand picked crowds

That is my interpretation of what Dean says in his email today...and I, for one, am willing to join in.

The Republicans are certainly not down for the count yet. But they are down. They are on the floor whining about how unfair the Democrats are because we are trying to hold them accountable for their failure against terrorism, the failure of their Iraq policies, the failure of their response to Katrina, and their shameful corruption. They are down on the ground hoping we will give them a chance to recover so they can counter attack.

"Even President Bush returned the $6,000 given to him by that creepy lobbyist guy Jack Abramoff. But Bush said he hadn't done anything with the money. In fact, it still had the original strings attached."

-- Jay Leno 01/06/06

Straight to work went the Republicans as the alarm bells of truth set off a GOP-collective migraine. Once again, it was Howard Dean who lit the fire and set the Abramoff record straight.

Right-wing Newsmax was of the first to assert that Dean 'fibbed':

Remember this time two years ago?  Howard Dean was running for president, Bush was defending the loss of liberties spelled out in the Patriot Act, and Iraq sucked.  Times have really changed...well, except for Bush.  And Iraq.

But two years ago, Howard Dean was taking grief over this statement:

"I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."

What did the NRO's Andrew McCarthy have to say about Dean's statement?

Howard Dean's mistletoe buss for Osama bin Laden would, in sane times, disqualify him from serious contention for a major party's presidential nomination. If what he says is what he thinks, he is unfit. Case closed.

And about Bin Laden?

Americans (other than, evidently, Dr. Dean) know and expect that his fate, should he emerge from the catacombs, is death, either in battle or by execution at the conclusion of the most summary of military tribunals -- the just dessert of unlawful combatants who commit crimes against humanity.

But this little jaunt into history doesn't stop with 2003.  Come along and see what twists await us sixty years in the past...

I have always had strong political opinions. Throughout my life I have written letters and editorials, posted on blogs, passed out materials and worked on elections. In November of 2000 I went into shock. I didn't come out of it until Dean woke me up to `take back our country'. We all know what happened next.

Perhaps we have gotten the government that we deserve. There is no doubt that "Freedom isn't free." However it's not just some anonymous member of the military that needs to pay the price. It is you. And me. No exceptions and no exemptions.

I got a letter from Howard Dean today.  You probably did, too.  Read it, then take the recommended action.

The Bush Administration has been notoriously reluctant to comply with FOIA requests from citizens, organizations, professionals, journalists, and, of course, Democrats.

Nevertheless, this time, I think many might join the effort to uncover just what has been happening in the country since Bush began domestic spying.

Here's part of Dean's appeal, and a handy-dandy link:

I have asked our General Counsel to draft a Freedom of Information Act request for the relevant legal opinions and memos written by that office. Since the program's existence is no longer a secret, these memos should be released -- Americans deserve to know exactly what authority this administration believes it has.

You can help pressure the administration to release these documents by signing on to our Freedom of Information Act request in the next 48 hours.

In his appeal, Dean uses a bi-partisan strategy:

Even Bob Barr, who was one of the most conservative members of Congress and the first member to file articles of impeachment against President Clinton, said:

"What's wrong with it is several-fold. One, it's bad policy for our government to be spying on American citizens through the National Security Agency. Secondly, it's bad to be spying on Americans without court oversight. And thirdly, it's bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without court order."

We need to know whether George Bush went beyond the limits of the law -- and whether he and his administration believe that there are any limits at all. Please join this important request.