It figured that his Democratic Party opponents would rough up Howard Dean. After all, he opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning while they did not. Further, he represents "old" Democrats, while most of them are the "new," centrist kind. This is not just a matter of politics, but of style, too. Dean gets into trouble because he is terrible at Clinton-speak. Kerry and Lieberman, on the other hand, appreciate and ape the former President, a master at couching positions for greatest effect.
But what explains the antagonism of the press? It is treating Dean the way it did Al Gore. Maybe worse.
Russell Baker, responding to a letter about journalists’ attitudes in the December 18 "New York Review of Books", offered this:
"Today’s top-drawer Washington newspeople are part of a highly educated, upper-middle class elite; they belong to the culture for which the American political system works exceedingly well. Which is to say they are, in the pure sense of the word, extremely conservative.
"Most probably passed childhood in economically sheltered times, came to adulthood in the years of plenty, went to good colleges where they developed conventionally progressive social consciences, and have now inherited the comforting benefits that 60 years of liberal government have created for the middle class."
"This is not a background likely to produce angry reporters and aggressive editors…."
Baker goes on to suggest that these journalists lack a capacity for outrage because they are disconnected from the masses. He suggests taking away their health insurance might be instructive.
If Baker’s picture of "top-drawer Washington newspeople" is accurate, perhaps it explains their antagonism toward Dean.
Baker’s description of how they grew up reminds me that the journalists in question are boomers, mostly. I have always envied boomers for their ability to spend freely. And pitied them for their lack of education. They missed the Great Depression, you see.