Who’s afraid of Howard Dean?

A very astute blogger, David Adesnik, has noticed that Howard Dean and his supporters are now being subjected to ad hominem attacks. Carefully chosen culture war language is being used: among other things, Dean supporters are derided as “Birkenstock liberals.” Here’s more. Instapundit (my source for these links) cited a Democratic insider who “thinks that Dean is likely to win the nomination, and that he can give Bush a tough ride in the election. He may be right.”
May be. But if so, then why is a leading New York Times writer (who defends 1960s radicals like Bernardine Dohrn and Kathy Boudin) going out of her way to launch ad hominem attacks on Dean supporters?
My gut instinct tells me that this is direct evidence that Hillary Rodham Clinton is serious about running in 2004. She and her handlers see Dean as improperly corraling her potential supporters, and I believe every Birkenstock liberal for Dean makes her see red. Thus, the ad hominem attacks, not strictly against Dean, but against his supporters.
Can I prove this? Of course not; political machinations are by their nature covert. But why the New York Times? Whose turf is that, anyway?
Why do they suddenly fear Dean?
Because Dean has been earning his supporters the old-fashioned way, through hard work, one vote at a time. Dean alone threatens the agreed-upon vision the media have of the Democratic race as lackluster, deadly dull, and just waiting for an interesting candidate to appear (and just who might that be?). The more strength his campaign gathers, the less dramatic a potential Hillary entrance would be. From Hillary’s point of view, Dean has already gotten out of hand. Her entrance would be marred, and if there is one thing this very regal lady does not like, it is a marred entrance.
So, something had to be done. And in my opinion, the dutiful Jodi Wilgoren wielded the hatchet. (Has she helped out in the past?)
From a rhetorical standpoint, of course, there is nothing new or surprising about Wilgoren’s focus on items of apparel like Birkenstocks. She blamed the Columbine shootings on a $99.00 trenchcoat. [Wilgoren, Jodi. “Society of Outcasts Began With a $99 Black Coat.” New York Times 25 April 1999: A30.]
Fashionism? It’s wearing thin, Jodi.