Okay, I'm going to say it. If Rahm Emanuel can't set aside his ego to have Howard Dean

[Cleita]

as H&HS Secretary, then we need John Edwards. I don't care about his personal life. He's the only person besides Howard that has a workable plan and who knows the subject up and down. Now if Rahm is jealous of Edwards what can I say.

[jsamuel]

1. Alex Bennett said the same thing on his radio show.

[JVS]

2. Survey says:

X

[babylonsister]

3. Good luck with that. And I'm

pretty sure if Obama wanted Dean, he'd have no problem overruling Rahm. I think there must be other reasons Dean isn't wanted besides his disagreements with Emanuel.

[Cleita]

8. Dean and Obama aren't on the same page about corporate health care.

His other choices are, which is why he needs Dean or Edwards to shake up his preconceived, shaped by the insurance industry, notions about a workable NHC program.

[babylonsister]

9. Why would he need Dean if they don't agree? And Edwards made

his own bed, so to speak. I don't know how anyone could trust him sadly. Plus, I don't think Obama needs the grief should Edwards' name even be whispered.

[Cleita]

18. Obama says he wants people around him that will challenge him, which is

why he invited all those Repukes and DLCers aboard. Now maybe it's time for some of us on the left to get heard. Also, why is it that Edward's name can't be whispered? That whole Congress full of neo-cons that have had mistresses and illegal children all along and no one gets on them about it? And how about Senator Kennedy? He has had a few unsavory episodes in his past involving women. He has been forgiven and allowed to serve his country becoming a statesman. A good mind is a terrible thing to waste and Edwards has a good mind that I believe should be used for our country.

[babylonsister]

23. What can I tell you? Maybe he'll surprise everyone and ask Dean

if he's available, and maybe he won't. I won't lose any sleep over whomever he selects. And I don't think he'd listen to me, or you, anyway. You could try change.gov

[Cleita]

51. I write that website every week about my concerns.

I'm not holding my breath when it comes to my health care concerns. They seem to have fallen on deaf ears.

[karynnj]

46. There was also the fact that what Edwards said had little resemblence

to what he did in office. The bankruptcy bill alone tells you that - and it was an area he knew well - it was Elizabeth's specialty when she practiced law.

Kennedy was lucky that he was in office and not up for election immediately - but even before 1969, he had a record of accomplishment in public office that beats Edwards'. In addition, he was consistent and principled in his PUBLIC Senate roll. Edwards needs to quietly work on the issues he says were his passion. I hope he does this - and I think that doing so will be the only way he will gain trust again.

Obama can not take him - he can not pass a vetting. One huge area that could be opened up is whether campaign funds were misappropriated for his mistress or whether he has acknowledged the child and provided child support - or - if he has proved the kid is not his.

[robinlynne]

22. We need Dean.

[babylonsister]

28. I don't. I 'need' whoever Obama deems is the best qualified. nt

[robinlynne]

33. Does that include the sec of commerce and the #2 in the pentagon?

[babylonsister]

35. Where do you think complaining will get you? I don't need the angst.

I'll complain when they actually do something I disagree with, I promise!

[Donnachaidh]

58. WE need a voice for universal healthcare -- NOT universal insurance

It sure is beginning to look like this huge issue during the campaign is going to be flat out IGNORED by Obama. Not a really smart thing for him to do, either.

[babylonsister]

66. Yes, three weeks in office and you're set up for disappointment.

I'm sorry to hear that. I'm giving him a chance to do what he's said he will do. He's been a bit busy lately, but I trust he'll get around to it. Plus, there supposedly are a lot of health-related items in the stimulus pkg. I guess we'll see.

[Cleita]

68. I thought all those health related band aids got taken off the stimulus

package in favor of tax cuts for the middle class who still have jobs so they could get three Republicans on board? We actually need a workable universal health plan and that would be HR676 or an improved Medicare for everyone. I trust Howard Dean or Edwards would know how to get this done. I don't think Obama's H&HR choices up until now would want to do this because they are beholden to the insurance companies.

[babylonsister]

71. Well, if the r/w whackos are to be believed...

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/stimulus_health_care/2009/02/10/180153.html

Stimulus Hides Socialized Healthcare Plan

And here's the AP:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j81g2abYnnR730DbzIZpkDsGPAJwD968TN1O0

HEALTH CARE:

_Senate — $20 billion to subsidize health care insurance for the unemployed under the COBRA program; $87 billion to help states with Medicaid; $22 billion to modernize health information technology systems; $10 billion for health research and construction of National Institutes of Health facilities.

_House — $40 billion for more generous COBRA subsidies and to provide health care through Medicaid; $87 billion to help states with Medicaid; $20 billion to modernize health information technology systems; $4 billion for preventative care; $1.5 billion for community health centers; $420 million to combat avian flu; $335 million for programs that combat AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases and tuberculosis.

[eridani]

103. Bad idea. The chances that he will actually do something about health CARE

--increase a whole lot when large numbers of people are screaming about it all the time without letup.

[cascadiance]

14. And so is Obama "on the same page" with the Republican Secretary of Commerce MORE than Howard Dean?

That is DAMN scary if that is why he's being kept out!

No, that is a DAMN EXCUSE!

If Obama truly wants a debate in his cabinet that brings all different perspectives to give him advice than he STILL needs someone like Howard Dean, whether Howard Dean is qualified for this position or not (and he's damn well more qualified, politics aside than most others that would be considered).

There simply is NO good reason to keep him from this position.

Getting along with Rahm Emmanuel is no excuse, and if he "gets along" with Howard Dean less than Republicans in his cabinet, then that doesn't say a lot positive about Obama's character to me.

[robinlynne]

26. unfortunately, I am asking that question daily.

[truedelphi]

72. That makes total sense. I was disappointed in having

The Pro-Nafta, probably Pro-Israel Rahm placed in such a trusted positon. But no one forced Obama to make that choice.

We do not need our Universal Single Payer Health Insurance to be modelled on the Massachuysetts, very expensive type of program. yet that is the direction that Obama seems inclined to implement.

I really hope that we can shake him up.

[vssmith]

97. PROBABLY Pro-Israel--no probably about it

[DrDan]

20. bingo - I agree with that

Dean is not wanted. Period.

[Donnachaidh]

57. so we can reach across the aisle for bipartisanship

but we CANNOT work within the party for the GOOD of the PEOPLE? WTF is up with that anyway?

[babylonsister]

63. Does anyone, anyone! on this website know what is happening

within the party behind the scenes? No, no one.

[tritsofme]

4. lol, oh geez thanks, I really needed that laugh.

Are you sure he isn't too busy back at the ol' hedge fund learning all he can about poverty?

[liberalhistorian]

12. LOL,

good one, phony, hypocritical opportunist that he is.

[Myrina]

5. I don't want Edwards but I do agree about Rahm's ego.

'Country first' ? (gulp) We need DR. DEAN!!!

[SIMPLYB1980]

6. I still have yet to see Dean make any moves showing he wants in.

Maybe he wants a break, I'm sure running the DNC was stressful.

[DFW]

73. He won't "make any moves"

Howard is of the opinion that Obama is the man who has to make the
decision, and Howard will not campaign for it. He does not want a
break, and is ready to get right back into the thick of things, "raising
some hell about things I care about" were his words. I'd believe him.
He'll be a team cabinet member if Obama picks him, but he'll do his job
with passion and energy, too. We all win if Obama finally comes around
to picking Howard for HHS, but as that would probably give Rahm a
blood pressure of 280 over 210, I don't think he'd stand for it.

[EFerrari]

7. I wonder if Rahm knows how much ill will he is racking up right now.

I don't trust Edwawrds any more.

[tritsofme]

11. Ill will with whom?

People who scapegoat Rahm whenever they disagree with the adminstration?

Those people need a boogeyman anyways.

[EFerrari]

25. With me, for one. And thanks for your gratuitous slurs. n/t

[robinlynne]

27. I'm with you sf!

[EFerrari]

41. Hi, there, robinlynne!

Sanders, Harkin, and Leahy are on board. I wish others would come out. :hi:

[cascadiance]

34. Well, if not Rahm, then who's responsible?... If Obama, then its worse...

... and it starts having us lose confidence in him as well... If Obama wants our support in getting reelected and not us working possibly in a third party with the growing disaffection with "center RIGHT" policies that are dominating our two political parties now, we either need decent ownership, explanations, and actions that confirm that he's on our side.

I'm quite frankly making Rahm Emanuel the scapegoat, since he's given us plenty of reasons in the past to have us know that he's not Dean's friend, nor progressives' friend. Unless I see evidence of a change, it's quite easy to make him a "scapegoat".

[tritsofme]

92. The buck stops in the Oval Office.

Rahm is not Obama's brain or anything like that. We now have a President who thinks for himself.

I think its a ridiculous assertion to say that Rahm has any sort of veto power, let alone over Cabinet selections.

Make him your scapegoat if you wish, but he serves at the behest, and at the pleasure of the President.

[cascadiance]

101. Well if its not Rahm that's twisting his arm, then Obama needs to explain why HE dosn't want Dean...

It is such an obvious choice that's talked about in many corners for this position where a progressive truly fits the bill. With other positions, where you have a bunch of other variables that can make a decision not as obvious, we can step back and say well Obama does want to emphasis "bipartisanship" over here, and everything else being OK, then that's fine. But when:

a) there is a real dearth of good progressives in his cabinet.
b) Howard Dean has done so much for Obama personally, as well as the party and the country with his work at the DNC.
c) there's not many other high profile individuals that might be qualified politically AND as a health professional as he is.

And Obama's team is talking about less qualified people to fill this slot, it then begs explanation. And when an obvious choice is ignored in this case, one really does wonder if Obama is consciously trying to keep either Dean personally or other more progressive individuals out of his administration. I know that there's a lot of pressure for him to do that from the corporate media and other corners of the U.S. universe, so there are probably many explanations that might help us to understand, but silence and this continued pattern of behavior, either generates speculation that someone like Emanuel (who we KNOW has personal issues with Dean) is given more power to call these shots, or Obama himself has something against Dean or progressives having higher profile positions in our government.

He might have some good explanations why, but if he doesn't provide them, then one has to wonder if they exist or not, or if it is an explanation that the general public won't accept.

[tritsofme]

102. The general public couldn't care less who his HHS Secretary is.

Howard Dean showed leadership skills as a governor and party chairman, but that does not necessarily translate into an ability to move vital legislation through Washington.

As a matter of fact, when he came to Washington to run the DNC he often clashed with establishment figures in the party, he is also something of a controversial figure to many. Probably not the best guy to get vital legislation through Congress. That's why Tom Daschle would have been great if he didn't have his tax problems. He had friends in Washington, and knew how the system worked.

I don't think Obama owes you explanation for who he doesn't pick.

But controversial cabinet picks, usually more so than this one, always remind me of this paragraph from Federalist No. 66:

It will be the office of the President to NOMINATE, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to APPOINT. There will, of course, be no exertion of CHOICE on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves CHOOSE, they can only ratify or reject the choice of the President. They might even entertain a preference to some other person, at the very moment they were assenting to the one proposed, because there might be no positive ground of opposition to him; and they could not be sure, if they withheld their assent, that the subsequent nomination would fall upon their own favorite, or upon any other person in their estimation more meritorious than the one rejected. Thus it could hardly happen, that the majority of the Senate would feel any other complacency towards the object of an appointment than such as the appearances of merit might inspire, and the proofs of the want of it destroy.

We have been having these arguments for more than 200 years, not an issue that's likely to go away any time soon.

[cascadiance]

104. I think many "establishment" figures in congress now are controversial figures to the people now!

They shouldn't forget that the congress has had a lower favorability rating than even Bush had. So, I think it's just as fair to say that congress needs to adapt to do things the way others have done outside of Washington as much as it is fair to say that cabinet figures should know how to work things through Washington.

Part of the problem we have is that because we've had basically corporatists in both parties having the lion's share of "experience" in Congress in Washington, this argument is an easy way to try and exclude NEW voices coming in to an administration to help CHANGE things and how things are done. Obama has promised change for us, and in so doing, we shouldn't be pushing people away ONLY because they aren't experienced senators or congress people. That's what will lock us into failed status quo methodologies. It's an excuse to keep the old boy's club in power, and not a recipe for making real and big changes that are needed. Now, i think it's fine to have a few voices on the cabinet to keep people in check on what's worked in the past and what hasn't, so that the new people on board don't make the same mistakes. But you don't need to have EVERYONE have those qualifications.

Obama does owe US an explanation on how he's going to tackle problems like health care, as we are his bosses... And as a part of that, he should be able to explain to us how he's going to solve those problems with the people and resources he's lining up to fix those problems. If many feel that Howard Dean would be the best qualified, as many do, then we should be looking at him. We've already had senators like Harkin recommend him as well. He's not someone that's totally rejected by the Senate.

[liberalhistorian]

10. No, no, no, no. Edwards would be a horrible

choice. And YOU may not care about his "personal life" but a man who can't restrain himself and screws around while his wife is battling breast cancer, instead of focusing on taking care of her, then lies about it and crumbles under the first sign of questioning, etc., is NOT the kind of person the country needs for this position. He's a phony, hypocritical opportunist.

[ogneopasno]

16. Well said. I can't decide which makes me angrier -- the fact that he cheated on Elizabeth Edwards,

who by all accounts is an amazing woman, or the fact that he did it, lied about it, and thought he could freaking get away with it and still become the Democratic candidate for president, putting the party and the whole freaking nation at risk. His judgment is nonexistent. He is done. And I say that as a huge Edwards supporter. I thought he would have been brilliant -- and before this all came out, I would have LOVED to have had him for Labor or HHS. But not anymore. He is DONE.

[Warpy]

17. I wouldn't marry him, either

but I would hire him to guide this country into caring about its people by passing a decent health care package.

[Warpy]

13. Edwards had the only plan with a chance of passing

and which would have allowed us to bypass the insurance giants and sign up for Medicare.

It's just a shame he's got feet of clay like so many other influential men.

It's also a shame that we think a man's sexual indiscretions have any bearing at all on his professional life unless he's embezzling company funds to pay for them.

I'm sick of all the tabloid stuff. It's deprived us of too many good people.

[liberalhistorian]

24. Edwards is not a "good person."

He is a one-note Nel, a hypocritical, opportunistic, phony scumbag. And I say that as a former supporter who's been more than enlightened as to his true nature.

[ChiciB1]

87. Guess I'll Be The One To Rain On This "I Hate Edwards Parade" But

even if times have changed, I do recall another person named Bobby Kennedy who decided to run for President and many knew about Marilyn Monroe at that time.

What really astounds me is this. While Edwards really screwed up and hurt Elizabeth and his family, I wonder why he's the one who will never be forgiven. If one were to just sit back and think a while, there are many names that might come up who did exactly the same thing and still lost no real respect.

Even Eisenhower had a mistress and I think there were comments about a child involved. FDR, JFK, MLK, are just a few high profile names that come to mind, not to mention Clinton too! Then there are ALL those Repukes too.

As a person who knows how it feels to be in Elizabeth's shoes, I can say that these things are extremely difficult to accept, but redemption and forgiveness is possible. And yes, his situation was much more high profile than mine, but John Edwards isn't the ONLY politician to have screwed up. As it seems he will NEVER be forgiven by most people.

I will add another to the list, one that I'd rather not because of his condition... but Teddy really made some very bad decisions when he was younger! Some of my Repuke friends from high school still talk about it!

I still think Edwards has a lot to offer, but I don't think most will ever give him another chance for some strange reason. Many men have done MUCH worse... The Idiot comes to mind... many people are DEAD because of him and his cohorts.

JMHO!!

[Cleita]

29. Thanks Warpy. Your point is my point.

btw Edwards admitted his indiscretion to Elizabeth and is staying with her through it all. Newt Gingrich went to the hospital bed of his wife who had cancer and informed her that he was divorcing her. He then married his mistress after the divorce, yet no one has turned Newtie into a pariah and he's still around in public life.

[Donnachaidh]

59. Tabloid stuff? How about asking those *good people* to ACT like good people

And for criminey's sake keep it in their pants? I was an Edwards supporter, and still very firmly believe in the program they were going for. But we also need to ask our representatives to GROW UP.

[Warpy]

62. Men are not built like angels

and it is useless to expect them to act like angels.

A man can be a rat of a husband and still an effective leader. Look at JFK, FDR and others in our history to realize why.

This tabloid stuff is pure shit. Stop focusing on it. Our country can't afford it.

[Donnachaidh]

93. No one is asking them to act like Angels

Self-control is a good thing. And people will stop with the tabloid stuff when these men realize that poking their dicks in any available port isn't exactly the SMART thing to do. They need to grow up - as do their apologists.

Like Obama said - it's time to put childish things away. And focusing on pleasuring one's self at the drop of a hat is childish and immature - and destructive to the *values* they *claim* they have. Don't agree with me -- ask Elizabeth Edwards what SHE thinks on the subject.

Our country cannot AFFORD to put into office Men who have so little self-control.

[waiting for hope]

69. Thanks Warpy -

If I could rec a comment, it would be yours.

[ChiciB1]

89. Hey There... I'm With You & Warpy! We May Be In the Minority, But I'm

one who still feels Edwards has a lot to offer. I'm really surprised at how venomous people have become about Edwards and not so much about many others who have done the same or EVEN WORSE!!

[waiting for hope]

94. Hey Chici!

Good to see you!

[ChiciB1]

95. Same Here... Still Crazy After All This Time...'EH??? Never Have Let Myself

get over John & Elizabeth and what could have been!!!!

[waiting for hope]

98. No - not crazy but practical ...

They still have a lot to bring to the table. :hug:

[ChiciB1]

106. I Know, But There Are Times I Still Feel Like I'm Holding My Breath &

waiting for shoes to drop! There's sooooooooooo much to fix and I know concessions have to be made, I'm just not sure I feel many Democrats are working together as much as they could be. And, Obama made history and I see that as progress for us and it IS early. There's much I can't forget, some I'm willing to forgive, but others things I will always defend! I still sit & :think:

:loveya:

[Gman]

15. Maybe Dean doesn't want it

just sayin'...

[robinlynne]

19. I love Edwards!!!!!!!!! i love Dean!!!!!!! I am disgusted at the republicans being appointed to

cabinet positions. And if Rahm Emmanuel is the reason, get the hell rid of him. We did not walk the streets, register voters, wacth the vote counts for this!

[ChiciB1]

90. Count Me In With You Too!!!! n/t

[cascadiance]

21. Quite frankly if Rahm Emanuel can't put aside his ego, then Rahm should be fired!

He's not the boss! And Obama should remind him that he serves the people and that Obama is the boss, and will be the one to decide who's on his cabinet.

If Rahm Emanuel is calling the shots, then it completely confirms progressives' concerns about him being on Obama's staff.

Now many of us were willing to give Obama a pass to see if he would be the one to tell Emanuel what to do and not the other way around... Obama either needs to dump him, or take ownership for his decisions and explain to progressives why we progressives should accept the decisions he's making that quite frankly seem to be going against what we voted for.

[babylonsister]

31. Quite frankly, why on earth do you think Rahm is making these decisions?

That's kind of silly imo. Obama is perfectly capable of making up his own mind.

[cascadiance]

39. Well if he's not, then I think we need better explanations from Obama himself...

on why Obama's not had Dean work with him at all, despite Howard Dean's significant help in not only getting him elected, but getting him nominated as well as chair of the DNC...

I'm only proposing that IF it is Emanuel that is the one who's inflexible and saying to Obama "No Dean or else..." (whatever that else is), then he should be fired. If he isn't the one that's behind these decisions, then Obama himself needs to offer us a better explanation. In a way, by neither saying anything, it is an indictment on Emanuel, since Emanuel is known for his antipathy towards Dean, whereas Obama is not.

[babylonsister]

47. Excuse me, but that's ridiculous. So you think we deserve an

explanation for every person Obama did NOT pick for his cabinet? Why? Most of us who voted for Obama had faith he'd gather the best cabinet possible and that includes Emanuel. Also, what goes on between the two of them we aren't and shouldn't be privy to; I don't know why you think otherwise.

I think the only ones complaining must be diehard Deaniacs. I wasn't one, so this doesn't even cause a ripple with me.

But to assume you are 'owed' an explanation is pretty ludicrous.

[cascadiance]

54. Well, I think many of us have been patient so far and let many other choices we disagree with pass..

... including HHS with his original pick. But when over and over again, progressive's have been kept out of positions of power, and one where an obvious choice points to one like Howard Dean, then yes, if Obama wants our continued support, I think we're owed an explanation. Now maybe the way politics work, he doesn't feel it NECESSARY to explain all of his actions, but in cases where he's going to lose support from certain groups of people, I think he needs to either follow through on doing something that will make them happy, or have a good explanation on what he's doing and why it serves them.

And it isn't that many of us don't want him to succeed that we're asking these questions. I think 90% and likely greater of us DO want him to succeed and DO support him for many things, but unless we speak up at times where we think things are important, we're going to get taken for granted. And quite frankly many of us are tired of not being heard for so many years...

If what Rahm Emanuel says with Obama should be confidential, and how he feels about Howard Dean should be kept quiet, then he should have been quiet in the past when what folks like he and Carville have said make it pretty clear that he wasn't in Dean's corner when he was chair of the DNC. If he wants a different view of himself out there, then he needs to correct this view. If not, then many of us will assume that the pattern of avoiding involving folks like Howard Dean, RFK Junior, Dennis Kucinich, and others like them in his cabinet reflect on these earlier "made public" sentiments of Emanuel.

I do want to rally behind Obama! But I need more reasons to be excited. So far I've not felt it yet.

[EFerrari]

65. Well, you'd be wrong because I was no more a Deaniac than this time

an Obamaniac.

The way Howard Dean has been treated is disgusting. It's stupid to treat such a big contributor to the party's and to Obama's success in this manner.

[FLAprogressive]

32. +1....Mr. Napoleon Complex needs to go

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. Do you really beleive that the President is allowing Emanuel to veto his cabinet picks?

:shrug:

[Cleita]

37. I'm not the person saying this. It's all over the internet if you've been

not around lately. So it appears that Emanuel does have something to say about it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

53. There are rumors all over the internet that Obama is a Muslim, but that doesn't make it true

[Cleita]

56. If you have something intelligent to challenge me on do so, but please

don't get silly about it.

[EFerrari]

38. I'd rather be pissed at Emanuel than at Obama.

Those are the choices right now. :shrug:

[karynnj]

36. Edwards actually has very little experience on health care and

he does not have good contacts with the Congress like Daschle. It is true that the team he had produced a good healthcare plan that he ran on - but he would be creating a plan based on OBAMA's plan.

[Cleita]

44. Wrong, Edwards, actually Elizabeth spent a lot of time on DU researching this.

I myself and other health care wonks participated in many, many threads on the subject. Their health care plan was hatched on suggestions made on DU. I've read Daschle's book and he knows his subject and then throws all that away presenting a corporate plan based on the Federal Reserve Board except for health care. He admits single payer is the best system but for other countries not ours because people want to keep their insurance. Excuse me but it's the insurance who want to keep the people, so we know who he is beholden to. Since Edwards was a Senator at the same time Daschle was, it seems that he too would have contacts. Just MHO.

[karynnj]

50. Edwards was a Senator at the same time as Daschle?????

There are 6 years of overlap - 2 of which Edwards was running for President. Daschle is well respected by his peers - while Feingold likely said what other Democrats thought about Edwards.

No matter how much "research" Elizabeth Edwards did on DU, that does make Edwards a super expert on health care policy. Dean as governor worked with the VT legislature on healthcare legislation - as did the other governors mentioned. If you want someone more liberal - try BILL BRADLEY. He worked on healthcare legislation, was a respected Senator with good contacts and he can play basketball better than Edwards.

[Cleita]

55. Excuse me let me rephrase that. Edwards didn't just do research on DU. There

was a whole lot done at other more informed websites like the PNHP, not to mention scads of it on the government's own websites like the ones on Medicare, US census bureau and Department of Labor statistics. We on DU swapped information and source material. Certainly, you have enough sense to know that any one with a good health plan did a lot of research. Daschle did too. He has all the facts and figures that we do but he drew up the wrong plan, one favorable to the insurance industry. Sorry, but you can do research on that yourself. Read his book. Dean of course is my first choice but if he and Rahm can't make nice, Edwards is a good choice or even Bradley. I just don't see them on the short list, that no doubt is drawn up by the insurance industry.

[karynnj]

80. Certainly I have enough sense to know the Edwards did not

design the plan - their policy experts did. They did have input to it.

but there is still the fact that he likely would fail the vetting. Was the child his? If so, why not pay child support? What campaign funds were used? The whole hedge fund no show job? It would be a three ring circus.

Even Bradley?? Bradley had a long career as a progressive, liberal Senator. Things he said when he first ran for Senate were consistent with things he said when he was the liberal alternative to Gore. He is still speaking of the same issues - and he is still good. Those are things you can't say over Edwards' flash in the pan career.

[Cleita]

81. I'm not against Bradley at all, I just think Howard Dean first and John Edwards

second would be better. He probably would fail vetting but we never will know unless he's vetted.

[ecstatic]

109. LOL! I love DU, but I prefer real world experience and

research conducted directly or through reading the original articles from accredited journals.

[DevonRex]

40. Why are DUers engaging in gossip? This is silly. nt

[cascadiance]

43. This isn't just "gossip". It's trying to understand who's responsible for decisions...

... that to use seem completely wrong and ignoring good actions to take (like getting Dean in as Sec of HHS). The same kind of concerns happen with workers who are more likely affected when their management makes poor decisions too. That's not gossip over things that don't affect them.

[DevonRex]

45. Talking about who doesn't like whom, like a bunch of high schoolers, IS gossip. nt

[cascadiance]

49. I guess using that logic, we can't talk about Bush or others that "we don't like"

or else we're doing "high school gossip".

It's one thing to have a voyeuristic interest in others and finding ways of tearing them down when they arguably don't have any effect on your life materially. It's another when you have a chain of command of people above you that are making decisions that you can arguably make the case are working against your interests. That sort of criticism and speculation on what governs those decision isn't gossip. It's trying to understand what's working against you.

With that logic, and if all Republicans followed it, we wouldn't have been able to talk them into turning away from Republicans and vote for Obama in the last election. Yes, we WILL talk about them and who we don't like based on what they've done wrong towards us in the past. And if that's gossip, then sorry, I feel its necessary!

[EFerrari]

67. It's not childish to try to figure out relational dynamics that may be

affecting us all. If it were, there would be no HR departments. What I seem to remember about high school is when people can't win an argument, they resort to silly insults.

[jsamuel]

42. I would take Elizabeth Edwards too.

[Cleita]

48. If only she were well enough. n/t

[Dinger]

52. K & R

I'll say it too.

[rvablue]

60. I would be pissed if Edwards were picked....but I guess I don't have to worry about it

BECAUSE IT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

And, I would agree with you that his personal life is none of my business, only that he was vying for the nomination when he took up with that woman and had he won, we would have been stuck with McCain and Bible Spice in the White House.

Therefore, what would have just been his "personal life" actually became a really, really huge example of his poor judgement and selfishness.

I don't want him anywhere near the Obama administration.

[Cleita]

64. I guess it doesn't count that he dropped out of the race before

super Tuesday, so that there was no chance in Hell he would have won those primaries. He dropped out before he could have won! Does that make sense?

[rvablue]

74. No, because when he was having the affair he WAS a candidate...

... and frankly, anything could have happened, life can always throw curve balls, and he COULD have been the candidate.

And when the story broke, because he felt the need to run around, you and I would be staring at four years of McCain/Palin/and tax cuts for the rich to solve our economic crisis.

If he wanted to risk his marriage, that is his business.

He risked the future of our party and this country.

Might I add, if he had the affair after he dropped out, while I would think him to be an ass and a jerk, I wouldn't feel as admantly about this as I do under these particular circumstances.

Nope. No thanks. I love Elizabeth and only wish her health/family obligations would allow her to serve, but it doesn't look that way.

JE -- forget it.

[karynnj]

83. He dropped out because he already had no chance in Hell

He was polling so low in the SuperTuesday contests that he was likely to get few if any delegates as he was likely to get less than 15% of the vote. To even make a stab of it, he would have had to go into debt - or spend his own fortune. He knew the National Enquirer knew the story BEFORE the first primary in fall 2007. He could have pulled out - say 3 months later saying it was not the time to run.

Instead, he did everything he could to win Iowa - including having Elizabeth say that Obama's plan did not cover pre-existing conditions like her cancer on the eve of the caucuses. He was in it to win and quit only when it was clear he couldn't - he did poorly in NV where he thought he had a chance and did worse than expected in SC, the only primary he won in 2004. That was where he was when he dropped out.

[SammyWinstonJack]

61. Works for me! Either will!

:thumbsup:

[Shakespeare]

70. This entire thread is bizarre.

You're ready to thrown Emanuel under the bus based on nothing more than gossip and speculation (and absolutely ZERO knowledge of what's going on behind the scenes)? Are you guys serious?

Oy.

[EFerrari]

75. Are you serious? You missed the part where Emanuel tried to get Dean fired

and the incident where he plied him with his sweet talk?

Oy, indeed.

[DevonRex]

76. Apparently that's what's going on. They have absolutely NO idea

what's going on, yet they've decided that somebody doesn't like somebody else and that somebody's ego is really, really big. :eyes:

[Cleita]

77. Read these two links from another thread by a DUer who happens to

know Howard Dean.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3731154#3731476
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3731154#3731297

As a matter of fact read the whole thread. It puts a lie to what defenders of Emanuel are saying on this thread.

[Shakespeare]

78. Sorry, I'd have to know the specifics of how he "knows" Dean.

I'm not pro- or anti-Emanuel. I just think the speculation in this thread--and outright calls for him to be fired--is just a bit much.

[Cleita]

79. Just a thought. You could PM him and ask him.

Also, I personally have not called for him to be fired but to set his ego aside for any problems he had with Dean when Howard was DNC chairman. Eventually, this is where the rumors stem from. Also Emanuel and Carville carried their disdain for Dean onto cable news TV dissing Howard, publically, who never dissed back. I believe a google would turn up those incidents.

[madfloridian]

96. The poster has been friends with Dean for years.

He met with him in Switzerland last week. He also sees him when he is in the states.

You can believe that he knows him. Trust me.

[ChiciB1]

107. Not Calling For Him To Be Fired... But MOST Of Us Know From What We've Seen

happen, that Rahm is known to be effective because he has shown certain personality traits that say he's willing to "play the game" in a way some of us aren't comfortable with!

Not saying he doesn't get the job done a lot, but to me he takes credit for things that others actually made happen. Personally I've seen him to be more negative about Dean and would rather he just went away. If Rahm were so noble, he'd admit how much Dean REALLY has done to help the Democratic Party.

Just don't think he has it in him to say so, therefore Rahm has personal tendencies I see that don't make me very comfortable.

[EFerrari]

105. You're out of touch.

[madfloridian]

84. Do a search on my user name and Rahm.

Then get back to me.

[Shakespeare]

110. I'm well aware of your posts, mf.

Doesn't change my take on this whatsoever.

[Irreverend IX]

82. Edwards wouldn't take the position...

Because the reality is that he doesn't give a shit about the poverty issues he's traded on. They're just a way to get votes. He proved this when he unceremoniously shut down his poverty center and scholarship program after dropping out of the presidential race.

[Cleita]

85. And you have it on good authority that he shut those down because he

didn't give a shit?

[waiting for hope]

99. The Poverty Center is still up and running -

http://www.law.unc.edu/centers/poverty/default.aspx

and as for the scholarship program, it was designed as a three year pilot program that was privately funded.

Hampton-Garland says the program was a pilot that was meant only to last for three years.

http://www.wnct.com/nct/news/local/education/article/edwards_scholarship_ends/15516/

Google is pretty easy to use you know...:sarcasm:

[Kahuna]

86. ...

:rofl: And put down the bong. ;)

[RainDog]

88. Howard Dean has done more for the democratic party than Rahm ever did.

Rahm doesn't impress me one bit.

Dean is the reason Obama is president. Suck on it, Rahm.

[madfloridian]

91. To those who say Dean is not interested....here are his words.

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Outgoing Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Friday he would have liked to work in the Obama administration, but instead is embarking on a life in the private sector after nearly 30 years in politics.

Dean told The Associated Press in an interview that he is weighing where next to take a career that has moved rapidly from family doctor to Vermont governor to presidential candidate to national party boss. This Wednesday, he ends a term as chairman in which Democrats recaptured the White House, seized majorities in Congress and picked up governorships. Some of his supporters have been upset that after all he's done for Democrats, President-elect Barack Obama did not pick him for an administration job. When asked how he felt, Dean said he would "punt on that one."

"Obviously, it would have been great," Dean said in a telephone interview from his home in Burlington, Vt. "But it's not happening and the president has the right to name his own Cabinet, so I'm not going to work in the government it looks like."

Dean said he plans to make some money delivering speeches and share ideas about campaigns and technology with center-left political parties around the world. He said politicians in other countries are very interested in the technology that he used so successfully to raise money and organize his 2004 primary campaign and that Obama took to incredible new levels for his bid."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g0vr8a-oHbi1wAuYgxV_ditSzjrAD95OGS480

[Malikshah]

100. No-- Get rid of Rahm. Pure and simple. Mark my words--he will be more trouble than good.

It's a shame that some folks refuse to realize that.

Dean was proven right and Rahm isn't adult enough to accept that. Do we want *that* kind of character in the White House? I though we just got over 8 years of petulance....

[ecstatic]

108. No

Edwards should spend his time taking care of his new child.