David Broder, in a contradictory column, implicitly articulates the fear the punditocracy has of the empowered, Internet-enabled-and-informed, people of the United States of America:

Influence that was supposed to move from political insiders to the broad public has been captured by activists, pollsters, pundits and fundraisers -- not exactly the people the reformers had in mind. The new system removes the useful peer-group screening that once operated but fails in its promise to give power to the people.

"Useful peer-group screening"? Say what? And since when has "activist" become a bad word? Neither V nor I are pollsters, pundits, or fundraisers -- and neither of us have ever participated in a protest march, so are we part of the "broad public" or the much-maligned "activist" class that Broder is so worried about? (See this post for more on my frustration with the wish on the part of some for people to just stay home and be quiet. Citizen engagement is somehow now being equated with the now dirty word "activism." It's appalling.) Broder continues:

Many Democratic consultants -- including some lukewarm toward Dean -- argue that the party "cannot afford" to deny Dean the nomination because the former Vermont governor has staked such a strong claim to the prize.

Correct. Now, you might consider, Mr. Broder, exactly how Dean accomplished that. Here's the contradictory part:

When candidates are forced to do most of their campaigning for the nomination in the pre-presidential year, they quickly find that the only attentive audience members are activists, donors, pollsters and the political reporters. Those four groups -- none of them remotely representative of the grass roots -- have acquired the power to say who is "expected" to win -- and who usually does win.

Now, all of a sudden, "donors" are muddled in with "activists" and both are conflated with "pollsters" and "political reporters." Why would one do this? To me, it just shows that Broder, like so many others, completely misses the point of what Dean's campaign is trying to accomplish. We want to move past the idea that the only people who "donate" and are "active" in politics are the punditolitical elite. It's happening, but too many people don't see it and are just trapped in an old model of the world.

What Bush did four years ago with his name and family connections, his wealth of fundraising friends and early support from his fellow governors, Dean has done with his Internet prowess and his mobilization of a highly educated elite fervently opposed to Bush and the Iraq War.

Still not getting it. First, since when did we as a country start sneering at education? (I know, I know... ) And second, people have been misjudging the breadth of Dean's support since last summer. Read these bios and tell me again that all Dean's got is an Internet-crazed, hyper-educated, "elite."