Howard Dean is anything but irrelevant. If he was, the idiots in the White House

[cali]

wouldn't be attacking him full force with the slimy shit they're throwing at him. Why isn't he irrelevant? Because Howard Dean has credibility and a serious following. That's why. Howard Dean has been treated about as shabbily by Obama as imaginable. And he stood by both candidate Obama and President Obama as long as he could do in good conscious.

Obama slavers over fucking Lieberman, thanking him and politely bending over for him and kicks Howard Dean in the teeth.

That says a lot about Obama and it ain't good.

[NJmaverick]

1. and yet Dean is the one with the flaws in his arguments

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7241794

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NJmaverick]

5. and how do you explain away strong public option proponent Rockefeller's criticisms of Dean?

[Larkspur]

8. Rockefeller is being neutered by Rahm

Obama prefers to whip progressives and kisses the asses of conservadems and corporatists like Lieberman.

[NJmaverick]

36. and what about that thousands that will die with out this bill?

[Larkspur]

54. they will continue to die because they won't be able to afford the premiums

[truedelphi]

46. The WH and Big Industry has carefully set up the dynamics of colusion

Such that you can pretend to not notice the collusion until you see it in the reflection of Obama's haunted eyes.

And the WH and Big Industry set up the manufactured chaos.

And somehow Industry wins out every single time.

[cali]

9. That's easy. Rockefeller is also desperate for something- anything-

to pass, and he's a party loyalist above all. He's demonstrated that in the past. Being loyal to the party isn't necessarily bad, but there are times when more important loyalties should take precedence.

[NJmaverick]

13. I'm having a hard time with the everyone is wrong but Dean argument.

[cali]

14. um, he's hardly the only one. n/t

[NJmaverick]

35. and what about that thousands that will die with out this bill?

[cali]

37. I don't buy that; I suspect that the same people will die with this

legislation that enable the insurance companies you seem to think are so fine, to charge up to 300% more for pre-existing conditions. I believe this legislation will bankrupt hundreds of thousands.

[NJmaverick]

39. subsidies, competition and the end of pre-existing conditions will enable millions

to be able to purchase insurance they couldn't afford before.

[cali]

41. nope. I don't buy it for the reasons I gave and you didn't answer one

of my questions.

[NJmaverick]

43. Honestly saving lives is sort of a trump issue for me

everything else is secondary.

[cali]

48. How many different ways do I need to say it? I DO NOT BELIEVE

THIS CRAP LEGISLATION WILL SAVE LIVES. In fact, I think it will cause more to be lost.

[NJmaverick]

49. I just don't see that and even Howard Dean is walking back his comments

after he took time to reflect

[truedelphi]

17. His initial, quickly made appointments were like a knife in my heart.

Rahm, Geithner, Summers, Kissinger as an adviser, Holbrooke (responsible with Armitage for the conditions leading to our NATO attack on Serbia,) Gates (A War criminal who was able to remain a free man because Bill Clinton was so irresponsible in overlooking his war crimes,) et cetera.

To have a democracy a nation requires a free media. And that is not the case here.

[cali]

4. I disagree.

I think the Senate legislation will only bankrupt people and will not save lives. And just how will they prevent Insurance companies from gouging and cherry picking through the loopholes? What are the punishments for doing so? Fines? Big deal. With their hugely increased profits, they'll simply pay the fines and/or tie things up in court.

[janx]

6. Quantity vs. quality.

That's not a flaw, necessarily.

[janx]

3. I don't know how much of this is coming from Obama himself,

but the strategy of going after Dean is a very bad one not just because of all of the good that Dean has done, but because ultimately, political karma will prevail. The media love this and therefore ask Gibbs, etc. questions about Dean. But Gibbs and the unidentified sources will regret this, I think.

[Cant trust em]

12. It all comes back to the person in charge. nt

[depakid]

32. As to Gibbs- we ought to recall that after being fired (err resigning) fron the Kerry Camapign

in late 2003- he joined an anti-Dean 527 group that launched a series of attack ads.

So not only is he a bumbling speaker- but he's got a history of animosity to Howard Dean.

[janx]

51. Aarghh!

More gossip that I wonder about but don't necessarily believe:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/16/AR2009121601906.html

[polichick]

7. The good news is Howard could have another chance at the WH if he wants one...

I've always believed it was establishment Dems who took him down after replaying the tape that was purposely distorted over and over.

I'd gladly work on another Dean campaign - the first one provided both the online model and the populist message ("You have the power" becoming "Yes we can") for the Obama campaign.

[janx]

10. I can't imagine that he'd want to go through that again.

It's indisputable that he changed politics for the better in engaging democracy at an unprecedented level, but I can't see putting him through that again.

[polichick]

11. I don't know if he would like to or not, but he would have a lot of support. nt

[karynnj]

18. You ignore that before the speech that became known as "the scream",

Dean, the frontrunner for about a half a year lost badly in Iowa. My guess is the media completely overrated Dean's support as they mocked Kerry's chances in late 2003.

Dean sepent a fortune,a thanks to Trippi in Iowa, and lost badly BEFORE the scream. Dean was already losing steam in NH BEFORE the scream - mostly with voters switching to Clark and undecided. Immediately before Iowa, Clark started to implode with many going to undecided and to Kerry. Let's consider a world where there was no Dean scream because it didn't happen.

Kerry pulled off a very big upset victory and John Edwards did far better than expected. Dean, the frontrunner and presumptive winner got just 18% of the vote - less than half of Kerry's 38%. That is simply historical fact. http://www.rhodescook.com/primary.analysis.html

Now, to conjecture. What would the TV coverage be? My best guess is hours explaining what Kerry did right and what Dean did wrong. I would imagine this would include many replays of Kerry's speech, surrounded by veterans and fire fighters, accepting victory. In addition, there would be replays of the incredible TV footage of Kerry meeting the man he saved in Vietnam for the first time since the 1960s. There would then be a montage of all the low moments of Dean's campaign - that would be painful to see. (Dean, red faced telling a 70 something heckler to sit down and the whining comment that he didn't want to be a pin cushion from one debate.) Any extra time would go to John Edwards. The message - Gephart and Dean are over, the new contest is Kerry and Edwards.

The next state was NH. Looking at the polls before Iowa and after - it is not so much that Dean lost people, though he did lose some - but that Kerry, well known to NH, got most of the undecided and a chunk of Clark's. He had been only 10 points behind. (Obama was MUCH further behind in NH pre Iowa) Now the polls never include Markov matrices where you can see who moved from where, but it would seem that many of the people who flowed to Kerry had already moved from Dean pre-Iowa. I can't thing of any reason to expect people, who previously left Dean to move to him rather than to Kerry. Like any candidate winning, Kerry was jubilant and charged in his victory speech - Dean was dealing with a major blow to his ego and campaign. That is why momentum exists and is so powerful for the one that has it. Almost everyone looks better winning than losing.

After losing NH, 38% to 26%, Dean announced that he was not competing in the upcoming 7 state day, but would concentrate on later states. My guess is that his hope was that Kerry would do poorly in the mostly Southern, Southwestern and rural states, with Edwards and Clark splitting the states. This would then leave no clear front runner and Dean could than triumph in the next few races and become the frontrunner again. What doomed any hopes was that Kerry,a MA Senator, won 5 of the states (DE,NM,AZ,MO,ND) and Edwards (SC) and Clark (OK) each won only one each. In OK, a super red state - Clark and Edwards each got 30% and Kerry 27%. This is likely the real moment when Kerry became unstoppable barring a major problem - which didn't occur. He had 7 wins - 5 in states that a NE liberal was not favored in. Dean then did not do well in the next group of states - and it was over.

I think the people hurt by the hours spent on the scream were really Kerry and Edwards, who lost some of the positive coverage they otherwise would have had. (Not to mention, it left people like you less willing to see his loss as fair.

[polichick]

20. Well, if he ran a populist campaign that went after the Fed and the fake wars...

...as well as covered things like healthcare and global warming, I think he'd have a good chance.

(An anti-establishment, anti-corporate campaign.)

[karynnj]

42. Dean actually has not said much on global warming

It was nowhere as big an issue for him as for Kerry in 2004. His most recent comment on Afghanistan, which was a couple of months ago was supporting a strong effort there.

The fact is that he did end up with a populist, anti-establishment, anti-corporate campaign in 2004, even though it did not match his more moderate stances as Governor of VT. I actually blamed Trippi for some of the over the top rhetoric - as it was identical to some of the anti-corporate rhetoric of Edwards in 2008. Neither of those campaigns won many delegates in 2004 or 2008, when there was no sitting President.

I don't think that there will be a populist campaign in 2012. If there were one, Feingold might be better positioned on the issues to run than Dean.

[polichick]

50. There will be a populist campaign in 2012 - because of the teabaggers if nothing else...

We would be smart to have the best populist candidate we can find!

[asdjrocky]

15. Half the time I can't even remember the name of whoever is running the DNC now.

What the DLC and their kind have done to Dean is a disgrace.

[uponit7771]

16. COME ONE PEOPLE!! There is NO "senior official" that was a stupid M$M talking head that said that...

...not a "senior official"!!!

[ncteechur]

19. But yet, Howard Dean (whom I like) is NOT in the White House nor is he in the senate or house.

He is therefore, irrelevant at this particular time. He gets no vote.

[QC]

21. K&R

[karynnj]

22. Though not as big a Dean fan as you are, he clearly was mistreated

in being pushed out of the DNC then offered nothing. Ignoring for a moment the merits of Dean's opposition, it does show some political weakness in the Obama team. Maybe they thought that Obama had inherited all of the Dean people, so there was no risk. Dean's action yesterday actually shows me the wisdom of the Obama people in giving HRC a position to avoid them being Democratic opposition. Politically, they would have been better keeping Dean at the DNC if they didn't want him on health care.

[cali]

26. I have no problem with Dean leaving the DNC. He wanted to leave

It's really nothing more than an arm of the WH during a dem administration. I have a big problem with him not being offered HHS. He's far more qualified than Silent Sebelius. And boy, did Obama miscalculate this one.

[Geek_Girl]

23. If it wasn't for Howard Deans smarts during his DNC chairmanship

the Dems wouldn't even have a majority. They should be bowing down and kissing his feet.

[depakid]

24. As I've said all along- I'm GLAD that Howard Dean isn't part of this administration

and especially pleased that he's not part of this fiasco.

[cornermouse]

25. Apparently they called him more than irrelevant.

They called him "not rational".

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/12/white-house-says-howard-deans-arguments-against-democrats-health-care-reform-simply-werent-true-sugg.html

[Cali_Democrat]

27. Are you writing this based off of what the MSM said?

There was also some other stooge at MSNBC (Mika Brzezinski I think) saying the the same thing. I call bullshit. There is no real report of the White House attacking Howard Dean. It's all made up bullshit.

You're lapping up M$M talking points like a frickin' puppy dog.

I feel sorry for people like you where your opinions hinge on every word spouted by the whores in the media.

Pathetic.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

29. Sorry, you are wrong

Savannah Guthrie reported what she heard from real WH sources. Anonymous sourced but direct sourced.

You can say she made it all up, and perhaps she did. But you base that on nothing except what you wish to be true. Your refutation via personal incredulity is even less reliable than Ms. Guthrie's report.

[Cali_Democrat]

31. "Savanah Guthrie reported what she heard from real WH sources. Anonymous sourced but direct sourced"

:rofl:

I can't believe people fall for the MSM mediawhore BULLSHIT.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

33. As opposed to what? Being persuaded by a cartoon of a laughing dot?

[Cali_Democrat]

38. As opposed to an actual White House official on record with the quote, source and everything.

You know....real journalism and stuff like that.

[grantcart]

45. lol

that's why I never use Smilies, they are more articulate than I am!

[hileeopnyn8d]

34. Some people say...

[Better Believe It]

28. The "swiftboating" of Dean. Did they learn that tactic from the Republicans?

[karynnj]

44. Dean is not being swiftboated

What lies or inaccurate charges are even being made against Dean. The fact is that the WH and Senate leaders working on the bill likely think he was not helpful -- and they likely said so. That is OPINION and it is nothing like swiftboating.

[cali]

47. oh yes he is. the sly innuendo that he's irrational and throwing a tantrum

is clearly playing to the whole "Dean is crazy" crap. That's nothing but swiftboating.

[karynnj]

52. throwing a tantrum or irrational on a specific issue

is unpleasant and unwarranted language, but it is NOTHING like the smears that were total lies against Kerry.

They are opinion.

[hileeopnyn8d]

30. I would never

call Dean irrelevant. But I also wouldn't call the President an idiot. :eyes:

Then again, I'm not prone to over-the-top tirades and narcissism that seems to permeate this messageboard. I clearly do not belong here at DU any longer.

[karynnj]

53. You do belong here - the rest of us need people like you

[ShortnFiery]

40. Just saw the disgusting display of Tweety slobbering all over Mary Landreiu (D, LA) while

constantly interrupting Dr. Howard Dean.

Tweety was doubly obnoxious today as he served the best interests of the moneyed elite. :puke:

[freddie mertz]

55. Now they have brought the Big Dog into the mix.

Where was all the poutrage when Lieberman was obstructing?