Dean: I need a decision 'now'

[GoldieAZ49]

(CNN)— An increasingly firm Howard Dean told CNN again Thursday that he needs superdelegates to say who they’re for – and “I need them to say who they’re for starting now.”

“We cannot give up two or three months of active campaigning and healing time,” the Democratic National Committee Chairman told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “We’ve got to know who our nominee is.”

After facing criticism for a mostly hands-off leadership style during much of the primary season, Dean has been steadily raising the rhetorical pressure on superdelegates. He said Thursday that roughly 65 percent of them have made their preference plain, but that more than 300 have yet to make up their minds.

The national party chair, who has remained neutral throughout the primary process, said again it’s his job to make sure both candidates feel they are treated fairly – but not to tell either of them when to end their run.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/17/dean-i-need-a-decision-now/

LOL, he cannot handle the voters finishing the primary.

So what is the point of a convention?

As far as the 'unity' I don't think so, his call for SD to decide now months before they have to, so he can force one candidate out of the race is not going to create unity.

It doesn't matter who you support, image it is your candidate, whichever one it is, that is told 'you have to go'.

When by party rules neither has to until the votes are cast and counted.

So the Democratic party wants to put an end to democracy? I don't think that is a good idea.

[KellyW]

1. Howard Dean is a super

When is he going to tell us who he is for ?

[AZ Criminal JD]

23. He has never ben a neutral. He has been for Obama from the beginning.

That is why Clinton doesn't care what he thinks and she is right.

[ProSense]

2. Good, the voters will still get to vote. Hillary will get her wish

this will be over (by Feb. 5), albeit several weeks later than she anticipated.

[OmahaBlueDog]

3. The problem is that very few voters under 70 really understand the convention

Most have only seen "coronation" conventions. They do not have any clue what happens if neither Hillary nor Obama have an insufficient number of delegates for a first ballot nomination. Dean, OTOH, has a pretty good idea, and realizes that a convention floor fight could lead to a substantial chunk of the party screaming "stolen election."

[democrattotheend]

12. I'm 24, and I've never seen a real convention

And I have to admit, part of me would find it exciting, but I am worried about a prolongued fight, especially if it continues to be as contenscious as it has been.

[GoldieAZ49]

16. It is exciting and you don't have to be 70 to remember them

but it has been awhile, the 80's

there is an advantage to the long primary and short GE instead of the other way around.

The differences are very drastic between the two parties, the debates are about issues.

[OmahaBlueDog]

19. Everyone in the 80s was nominated on the 1st ballot

They did open voting in '84.

The last convention without a first ballot nominee was (someone will correct me) either '52 or '56.

[Two Americas]

28. historically

Some very strong and successful campaigns have come out of brokered conventions. There is no evidence to support the idea that the sooner the nominee is selected, the better. I strongly believe that it hurt the party last time that we had a nominee so soon. The debate is good for the party, the prolonged race keeps the party in the headlines, it keeps more people involved longer, and it builds and strengthens local organizations.

If we can't knock McCain on his ass in a month, we can't do it at all. The longer general campaign just gives Republicans a longer time to play games.

The contentiousness is a problem, I agree. But one of the biggest bones of contention now is how long the race should go on - one side wants it to end, supposedly because their candidate is a lock, but if he were a lock then what is the worry?

Clinton supporters have every right to get as many delegates into the convention as they possibly can. Last time around Kucinich ran to the bitter end - did he have a "chance? - to keep the debate going, to give his supporters a voice, to let everyone vote, and to influence the convention. That is the way it works.

[cali]

36. Bullshit. the opposite is true in terms of modern politics.

Adlai Stevenson emerged from a brokered convention in 1952. He lost. The last candidate who emerged from a brokered convention was FDR in 1932. That's over 75 years ago. Choosing a candidate at the convention was common in the era before primaries.

Nothing could be worse for the party or dem chances in November than a contest that goes until the convention. And it's not going to happen. It's hardly just Dean that understands the perils. Clinton supporters like Barney Frank have also made it clear that this will be settled by June.

[Two Americas]

37. LOL

Glad to see you are talking to me. Thanks for the response.

Yes, you make a good point and your scenario is probably more likely than mine.

The 1980 nomination was decided at the convention, was it not? And 1968. Both losses in the general of course, which supports the view that it is a bad idea. However, we cannot know what is cause and what is effect there. An undecided party going into the convention may not cause the party to be weaker and lose, it may be a reflection of a weak party. Perhaps had Humphrey and Carter lost the nominations to the insurgent candidacies, the party would not have lost those elections.

[DJ13]

4. LOL, he cannot handle the voters finishing the primary.

“We cannot give up two or three months of active campaigning and healing time,” the Democratic National Committee Chairman told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “We’ve got to know who our nominee is.”


He's right.

Sorry, but there is no reason to continue allowing Clinton to damage our party for another 3 months (after Puerto Rico) considering she has no realistic chance to win either enough votes, nor enough delegates, to actually come in ahead of Obama.

Its over, its time to come to grips with that.

[GoldieAZ49]

8. So if the remaining primaries show a drop in support for Obama

and the SD do not want to run with Obama and his band of bitter men: Farrakhan, Wright, Ayers and Rezco

you will be fine supporting their decision voting Hillary as the nominee.

The DNC will be happy to hear it.

[Johnny__Motown]

20. Did Hillary drop out after she lost 13 in a row? Barack won't lose anything like that, so your point

makes no sense at all.


Why should the states that come last be more important than the ones that came earlier?


Puerto Rico doesn't even have any electoral votes in the GE, why do you want them to decide on our nominee? (not that they shouldn't have a say in it)


And don't start in on that "we need every state to vote" crap

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saBU6ux0hsQ

We all know who wanted the fewest states possible to vote

[GoldieAZ49]

21. Why should the states that came first be more important than the ones that came

later?

What about the FA & MI? that is why they went earlier they wanted a say.

and unless we are going to be a party of 48 states they still need to figure out a way to count them.

[Johnny__Motown]

27. I live in Michigan. please don't tell me what needs to be done with my representation

Hillary's friend tried to move up the primary to benefit her. Now I have no say because of her.

She should not be allowed to benefit from cheating. Michigan must NOT be counted in a way that represents the outcome of a vote that was known ahead of time to not count for any delegates.

as for the earlier states counting more...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saBU6ux0hsQ
Ask Hillary, this was her idea to begin with. She was trying to disenfranchise everyone voting after 2/5 just so her name recognition advantage would be enough to give a fatally flawed candidate the nomination

[GoldieAZ49]

29. You are not the only voter in Michigan

I wish you were

[Johnny__Motown]

32. Wow, talk about disenfranchisement, you want me to be the only voter in Michigan?

If I were then there would have been a 100% Uncommitted outcome in Michigan.


I guess I kinda wish that too, Hillary would not be trying to have Michigan count if that were the outcome.

[Johnny__Motown]

5. The point is Barack needs less than 43% of the remaining delegates to hit 2025. The sooner he hits

that number the better it is for the party.


If all the SD commit now he won't have enough to clinch it yet. The magic number will be hit by the assignment of a pledged delegate after a primary election.

Don't you see? That way an election will decide it.


Oh, and let us not forget who wanted all of this to end on Feb 5th so that the majority of us would never have our voices heard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saBU6ux0hsQ


Tried to end it all before the name recognition advantage wore off. Then had no plan after that didn't work.

It was the "greeted as liberators" attitude with a "no exit strategy" policy and now she is "staying the course, redefining victory and refusing to admit defeat". Sound familiar???

[bhikkhu]

6. Excellent call on Dean's part.

Note - the DNC rules are far from a simple "democracy", where all votes are cast then counted and the one with the most wins. The DNC decides the winner by state delegate counts determined by the rules of each state party, and then by the independent votes of the "super delegates". The delegate counts will continue as per the schedule and each state will have its delegates counted (with two exceptions yet to be resolved this year), and the super delegates may announce their decision at any time.

It is perfectly within the realm of the role of "party leader" for Dean to request that the SD's announce sooner rather than later, where it is in the best interests of the party. The result is the likely the same and all states will still have their votes, only we will hopefully go into the GE better prepared.

[Zachstar]

24. That is a big point

Desperate Clinton Supporters like to say that we are trying to stop democracy when the fact is the primarys do not stop.

Clinton could exit and suddenly the remaining primaries give her the win.



Desperate Clinton supporters I suggest you skip to acceptance.

[MojoMojoMojo]

7. Funny if Dean wants Obama to step aside after the empty suit blew last nights debate

[Johnny__Motown]

9. Oh, Please.. didn't you say this stuff after Pastor-gate? and bitter-gate? and every other false

hope Clinton threw you?

Obama needs 381 out of the remaining 888 outstanding delegates to hit 2025, deal with it. He will have enough and Hillary won't.

[AZ Criminal JD]

25. If it is a done deal then why are you and Dean worried about it?

[Johnny__Motown]

30. Because of Hillary's scorched earth policy, the damage she is doing to the party and the free ride

McCain is enjoying right now.

Also the millions of dollars being spent fighting among Democrats that could be used to fight McCain.


If Hillary was running a positive campaign it would not be as bad, she isn't.

This is the Kitchen Sink campaign with a Tanya Harding attitude.

[democrattotheend]

10. So Obama leads on every measure, but should drop out because of one debate?

By that measure, shouldn't Clinton have dropped out after the debate where she bumbled the drivers' licenses question?

Besides, Obama was one of the original "Dean Dozen" in 2004. Dean has kept his preference a secret and tried to be fair, but I'm sure he voted for Obama on March 4.

[AZ Criminal JD]

26. He has not kept his prefernce secret and he certaintly has not been fair.

Ask the voters of Michigan and Florida about that.

[Johnny__Motown]

31. I am a Michigan voter and I say YOU ARE DEAD WRONG...

Hillary's friend Grandholm moved up our primary so Hillary's name recognition could carry her to an early victory.

Those two screwed with my right to vote and Hillary must not benefit from that.

The election in Michigan was even found to be unconstitutional in a court decision (state constitution)



Playing by the rules is fair, Obama has played by the rules, Obama has been fair


Hillary has not played by the rules and has not been fair.

[Political Heretic]

11. Were you outraged when Hillary predicted and wanted this over February 5th

or did you only start caring about "all the voters having their say" when your candidate was losing?

[GoldieAZ49]

13. Feb 5 Obama was my candidate

and yes I always want all the votes to have their say

[Political Heretic]

15. So you've been outraged at every primary process for the last half century?

[GoldieAZ49]

18. nope, disappointed that candidates drop out so soon

particularly in this primary

It would be 'hopeful' if Edwards were still in the race.

At this point...not so much

[Political Heretic]

33. Cool! I admire your consistency and honesty of opinion.

I have to admit, I've never been bothered over the primary process before. But I think it would be better of the process was shortened, all states had their vote - a primary vote - followed by a convention. I think it would be great if candidates couldn't start campaigning until January 1st election year, state primaries were February - April, Convention was in May, and by June 1st it was all about a united party and the general election.

I think the whole election process is too drawn out - mostly for media sensationalism, and I think its a detriment to the process.

[thewiseguy]

14. Good point.

[GarbagemanLB]

17. GOOD. This Obama scratching his nose shit is proof this has gone on long enough. Push her out!

[goclark]

22. I saw Dean on Wolf's show today

and he did not say that to my knowledge.

[Maddy McCall]

34. Howard Dean sucked as a candidate. And he sucks as Dem Chair.

[TheDonkey]

35. I think he is stunned how low and dirty Hillary is ready to go.