Normally they would have said "good riddance" to a tyrant, a dictator who oppressed his people. But Chavez empowered the people and raised their standard of living and educational opportunities. Denouncing Chavez as an oppressor of bankers and real estate agents doesn't get much mileage these days.
They know that he was democratically elected three times in elections that were subject to international monitoring. It's also known that the "democratic" opposition who couldn't win a free election met with members of Bush's State Department in Miami, went home and tried to organize a military coup, which fell apart in 24 hours after the population turned out en mass for Chavez and soldiers went against the coup directed by rightist military officers and politicians (and egged on by major radio and TV stations--to those who complain about free speech being trampled by Chavez's post-coup measures: wouldn't any nation consider what the opposition media did as treason? And still, not all of the offending media outlets were banned from the air.)
It's also known that Citgo, part of Venezuela's state oil industry, donated home heating oil to poor and elderly people in the USA, while Washington was cutting support for home heating aid. A real problem... how can the media carry out its assigned task of demonizing Chavez and the revolutionary process? Poor guys...reality is actually impinging on their ability to do what they do best--lie.
Note -- when there are news clips of the rallies for Chavez and then the rallies of the opposition, what's the biggest thing that strikes you (well, me, anyway)? The Chavezistas are mestizo, brown and black, dressed in work a day clothes. The opposition's rallies are composed almost entirely of European,white looking, stylishly dressed people.