Don't get your hearts set on Dean being nominated for HHS Secretary

[book_worm]

It is unlikely. Dean would be a great choice, but he's not what Obama is looking for. Many Republicans fervently hate Dean. That will be enough to disqualify him, imo for Obama. I just hope that Obama won't pick anymore Democratic officeholders who will be replaced by inferior replacements who will have a tough time of winning the next election. And also that he won't select anymore Republican Senators if it means that the Dem governor can't select a democratic replacement.

[w4rma]

1. Only because he's extremely effective at everything he does. They don't want to go up against him.nt

[MADem]

2. I think he'll pick another DC insider. Someone who knows how to schmooze the Hill.

If Bill Richardson weren't so fat and the opposite of health....

Maybe another former officeholder will get the nod.

[yurbud]

3. DLCers don't represent Democrats

[MADem]

5. Well, take a good look at the President's cabinet. They represent HIM. NT

[yurbud]

6. sad but probably true--that doesn't mean we can't pressure him to represent us

[MADem]

12. Unfortunately, he can resist pressure from the left and far left with not too much trouble.

After all, where are they going to go? To a third party, and irrelevancy? Far better to deal with compromise, and have a seat at the table. Obama is positioning himself to grow the party from a centrist position.

[yurbud]

27. nice sounding jargon, but the reality is far uglier

the so-called center is really the ''business first'' crowd that got us into this mess.

Sometimes, to be pragmatic, you have to admit that someone has nothing useful to add to the solution since they created the problem.

You don't ask rapists to help you set up a rape crisis hotline, and you don't send out Jeffrey Dahmer to catch serial killers.

Oddly, the ''center'' and right seem to get this when it comes to the crimes of the poor and middle class, but when the wealthy are the criminals, they are all sympathy and understanding (because they hope to work for the criminals when they leave office).

[MADem]

28. It's not jargon. The reality is that the Obama administration is slightly to the

right of the center of the Democratic Party, and probably pretty much in the middle of the nation's perspective across party lines.

It's not an "ugly" reality, it's the reality that most Americans decided was the team they wanted to run the country for the next four years. I am going to give the man a chance, even though he wasn't my first choice.

I don't think he or his team are metaphorical rapists or serial killers--I think they are moderates who want what is best for our nation and want to try to triangulate a solution or three. I remember things being pretty good the last time a Democrat tried that. It can't hurt to try it again.

I don't hate "business" either. "Business" employs people and gives them paychecks. "Business" is where you go when you need a refrigerator, or band aids, or new shoes, or groceries, or a bicycle tire. "Business" is not inherently evil. Most businesses are run by middle class people who treat their employees decently and try not to gouge their customers...it's just the rich ones who fuck up and get all the attention.

Politicians aren't altruists. They certainly aren't gods, and they don't have all the answers, either. It would be nice if they were, but they're not. They get reelected by doing a few good things, though, and some of them care about their reputations, but the best we can hope for is that they earn their pay and represent us fairly.

[yurbud]

30. I agree about small and medium businesses--it's the corporate structure that encourages

sociopathic behavior.

I didn't say Obama or his team are rapists or serial killers, but it is naive to think that most republicans are just misguided ideologues who may have some good ideas. They are in it to enrich their patrons. Everything else is PR bullshit. To try to draw them into the process is not going to improve the product unless Obama's real goal is to look magnanimous to the rubes that voted for the GOP con men.

I don't think any politician is a god, and I'm never surprised when someone is found to be corrupt or has hookers change their diapers. A lot of Democrats are in office looking to line their pockets and throw business to family and friends. For those people, I have to weight the good against the bad, back their primary challengers, or more often, wait for them to get tired of being in office.

I think it is fair to look at who pursues my interests and is responsive to concerns like mine.

An argument in favor of the DLC approach is that if you cross big business and banking interests too much, they will kill you, politically or literally. The problem with the DLC is that for those who look at their track record from NAFTA to deregulation, when it comes to a conflict between the interests of average Americans and corporations, they choose corporations.

This health care crisis is a classic example. DLCers are trying to think of a way to provide affordable good health care for all, but the can't have ''affordable,'' ''good,'' and ''for all'' if the insurance companies are involved. Any private sector solution would involve strict regulation, price caps, or even making health insurance companies revert to non-profits. Given the way they fought the Clinton healthcare reform in the early 90s which was market-based, we might as well go for single payer since they will fight a half-assed reform just as violently as a real one.
'

[misanthrope]

34. I've seen plenty of small and medium business owners who...

...consistently make decisions that run against the public welfare. They exploit employees, lie and cheat as quickly as any large corporation if they believe they can get away with it. The bottom line for all of them is personal gain and nothing else. Some even claim to be Democrats.

[yurbud]

44. there is one difference: a small business at least has the option of behaving well

based on moral inclinations of owners.

Corporations are designed to filter out those impulses and put profits before all. If an exec can't make a case for an altruistic action helping the bottom line--and helping it in the very near term--he will be fired.

A small or medium business person might give up some portion of their profit margin for the sake of their conscience.

[misanthrope]

51. Good point**nm

**

[MADem]

48. Human nature is sometimes inhumane.

Some people are assholes. But not all are.

Some are like this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Feuerstein

My glass is always half full. Life's too short for it to be otherwise.

[misanthrope]

52. My glass has water in it...

..."How much" is dependant on whether you're thirsty or quenched and whether your goal is to empty it or be prepared.

[MADem]

53. You're a misanthrope. I'm an optimist who likes people. We just won't agree. NT

[misanthrope]

55. You're the one who said human nature is inhumane...

...I think people have the capability to be far better than they often are.

"Scratch a cynic and you'll find a disappointed idealist." -George Carlin

[marions ghost]

56. SO true....that is the contradiction

...the ''center'' and right seem to get this when it comes to the crimes of the poor and middle class, but when the wealthy are the criminals, they are all sympathy and understanding (because they hope to work for the criminals when they leave office).

[tsuki]

31. In other words, the man who would be Everyone's President will

end up being No One's President.

[MADem]

32. I am not going to give up on him this early. He could pull it off.

Bill Clinton did. Things were pretty friken grim in spots when he took over, too.

I think it's way too premature to be raking the guy over the coals before his administration is up, running and firing on all cylinders. If he doesn't have his shit together by June, I'll start worrying. But the first three months are bound to be fraught with bullshit. It's his shakedown cruise, after all.

[tsuki]

43. I don't think that it is too premature to point out the pratfall. The

first 4 years will be fraught with bullshit. The press overwhelming favor the GOP world view, tax-cuts for the rich as a stimulus. And they will fight hard to keep their multi million dollar salaries.

As for Bill Clinton, many of the concessions granted the GOP: COP3, NAFTA, media consolidation, deregulation, and the abandonment of health care and DOMA did not keep the GOP and the Jackals of Journalism from trying to tear him apart.

For the GOP and the JOJ, it is - My way or the highway.

The GOP "base" think that the GOP won a great victory over Obama by negotiating with him and then stabbing him in the back.

[MADem]

47. Every rollout has a pratfall or ten. So does every administration. It goes with the territory.

Kimber Woods, anyone? Zoe Baird? John Tower? Charles Pickering and thirty some odd others?

If the GOP "base" wants to feel cool for five minutes, LET THEM. They'll come around eventually. They're slow adapters.

They sure did with Clinton. After all, you don't have approval ratings that high from simply pandering to your "base."

Some people don't seem to realize that Obama meant what he said--he intends to be a post-partisan President. These people are in for a long, complaining four to eight years.

[Le Taz Hot]

36. You just answered your question.

Yes. Third Party. And it won't be so irrelevant if Obama has to fight for his political life in 2012.

[MADem]

46. Third parties are irrelevant. And they'll be even LESS relevant when

for every whiner who leaves the table griping that they aren't getting everything that THEY demand, after Obama has been in office less than a month, twenty or thirty Independents and Republicans come over to his way of thinking and crowd around the table, patiently waiting their turn.

I say don't let the door hit them. They can join the other three guys cheering on Ralph Nader, and let us know how that helps them in 2012.

[Missy Vixen]

9. God knows there's never been anyone who's fat and actually healthy

Let's see here: Discrimination against the fat is actually a good thing, mmmkay?

Does it occur to any of the brain trust around here that Bill Richardson might encourage the average American to make the best food choices they can, get a little exercise, and consequently improve their health?

[book_worm]

10. Richardson would do a good job, but he also has the ethics problem he's dealing with

so he won't be nominated for anything.

[MADem]

17. Oh please. Fat people are less healthy than people who are NOT overweight or obese.

That's just the truth, and it isn't "discrimination" to say so. Someone who is in a health related job should walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

Everyone's up Obama's ass for smoking....is that "discrimination" too? After all, Somerset Maugham lived to what, a hundred, and smoked like a chimney--gee, he was healthy enough, so why assume that smoking is bad? That's your logic, basically. Just because it didn't seem to affect his longevity doesn't make it "OK" or desireable.

From a health-related perspective, it is NOT "OK" to be obese, which Richardson is nowadays.

So let's get real..."mmmmkay??" And not let bullshit political correctness overtake basic logic.

Bill Richardson loses the weight of two toddlers every time he stands for election, and then he regains it again. Over the years, he's probably lost and regained his current body weight several times over. He LIKES to EAT. So do lots of people, and that's fine so long as they appreciate the health consequences of their choices....but it's not fine if you're in a health-centric public policy position. And it sure as hell doesn't take a "Brain Trust" to come to that obvious conclusion.

Unless Bill Richardson suddenly turns into Mike Huckabee, and loses a hundred pounds, jumps on the bully pulpit, and excercises faithfully forevermore, he's not the guy for that job. And that's not "discrimination." That's setting an appropriate example.

[Missy Vixen]

19. Considering that there is a large part of the population fighting obesity

it might be a good example to show that our government isn't afraid of a few extra pounds. Studies have shown that it's healthier to make better food choices and exercise than yo-yo dieting. Also, I'd like to state for the record that Mike Huckabee's gastric bypass surgery carries a mortality rate of 1 in 200.

Will you support the firing of the new HHS secretary if they contract a terminal disease? After all, they're not "healthy", are they?

[MADem]

20. No. Putting a BAD example up there just gives people permission to follow a bad example.

"A few extra pounds" are a big deal when you're setting an example. Richardson's problem is a few DOZEN extra pounds. AND yo-yo dieting...so even in your "mitigating" example, he's a bad choice.

The President's Council on Physical Fitness was never headed up by Al Hirt or Mama Cass, either--the idea is to be a role model, not a bad example.

A terminal disease, brought on by genetic predisposition or environmental factors, is not the same as a condition that is brought about as a result of an individual's CHOICE. A person doesn't choose their genetic code, nor can they usually avoid environmental triggers that cause disease if their DNA predisposes them to be susceptible to a condition.

They do, however, choose what they put in thier mouth. They do choose to sit on their asses and watch TV, or get out and exercise.

How you can stretch an example so absurdly to try to make a point is interesting.

The bottom line is, if a person ingests food or drink to excess, doesn't exercise, and doesn't conduct him/herself in a healthy way, this is NOT the person to occupy a leadership position in the government vis a vis health.

We don't need "cautionary tales" running cabinet agencies.

[Missy Vixen]

23. There's been information in the past TWO WEEKS

linking obesity to a virus in the human body. This research has been going on now for quite some time; it'll be interesting to see if there is information in the next 5-10 years that it's not just food that makes people fat.

>A terminal disease, brought on by genetic predisposition or environmental factors, is not the same as a condition that is brought about as a result of an individual's CHOICE. A person doesn't choose their genetic code, nor can they usually avoid environmental triggers that cause disease if their DNA predisposes them to be susceptible to a condition.<

Interesting you'd mention this. See above.

In the meantime, it's okay if people smoke and get cancer, or have other unhealthy habits. After all, they're thin. The fat? All their fault, despite the fact it's been repeatedly proven that obesity is caused by a number of factors, one of which is genetic. Another? Metabolism, and metabolic disorders. I'm lucky enough to have one of those.

>They do, however, choose what they put in thier mouth. They do choose to sit on their asses and watch TV, or get out and exercise.

Of course. Or they're like most of the women in our neighborhood, who stay thin through a variety of methods -- smoking, bulimia, or the "Diet Coke and iceberg salad" diet.

>How you can stretch an example so absurdly to try to make a point is interesting.

Not as interesting as anyone who advocates discrimination because oh, my GOD, there might be someone running HHS that isn't svelte. Get over yourself. I'd rather have someone who could encourage Americans with their own experience than someone who's never fought the battle of the bulge in their lives, and therefore had absolutely no compassion for anyone else who might.

Here's a question for you: Do you consider Arnold Schwarzenegger "healthy"? Wasn't he formerly the head of the President's fitness committee? He's normal weight, isn't he? What about his personal habits?

[MADem]

26. Yeah, and there's also evidence that links obesity to tacos, cerveza, ring dings,

Doritos, French Onion dip, ice cream, and cookies, too.

I doubt that Bill Richardson is snacking on lettuce and celery, and gaining weight nonetheless. Ask Bill Clinton what they ate when they watched the Superbowl last year...

Bill Richardson manages to get over his "virus" every time he goes on a diet and does some exercising--isn't THAT special! Heck, he can turn it on and off with a magic application of .... will power!

There you go with the "discrimination" bullshit again. Look, if someone lacks the qualifications for a job (and being a role model IS a qualification, even if you don't like it) it's not discrimination. We don't hire people in wheelchairs to load trucks or lay bricks, now, do we? We don't hire mentally retarded people to work on the Space Shuttle. We don't hire people who are too fat to fit through the escape hatch as pilots or flight attendants. We don't put them in the military, either. Is that "discriminatory" because we don't? Why NO--they are NPQ--Not Physically Qualified.

Arnold isn't healthy. Have you seen him lately? He's FAT. He's FLABBY. He SMOKES. And all those steroids, which he denied using back when he was doing the PCPF gig, screwed up his heart valve requiring a replacement. Nice try, though.



And, FWIW, it's not "OK" if someone is "thin" and smokes. Smokers are often thin--they use nicotine as an appetite supressant. Doesn't make THAT good for you either. So a smoker at HHS isn't a good idea either--nor is a drunk, or a drug addict, just in case you thought of going in that direction, too.

One more time, it's not "discrimination" if the applicant is UNQUALIFIED. Particularly when the applicant has, every three or four years, demonstrated the ability to lose fifty or sixty pounds, but can't seem to push away from the dinner table after he gets where he wanted to go.

HHS needs to be someone who is interested in, and who sets the example for, the "healthy lifestyle" aspect, as well as affordable medical care for all, otherwise we might as well just hire some fat, lazy, bigass cigar chomping pig from Big Pharma/Big Insurance and be done with it.

[Le Taz Hot]

37. You have to understand the zeitgeist at DU.

It's perfectly OK to throw out pejoratives against anyone over 40, anyone who is overweight and anyone who is not model-perfect in the looks department. You see it all the time and it goes unchecked.

[MADem]

49. Particularly if you meet those criteria yourself.

The points I made about that job were valid. And no, I'm not Sears Catalogue perfect either, I carry a few extra pounds, I eat junk food at times, I do not exercise as I should, and I am WAY the fuck over forty.

I wouldn't qualify for that HHS job, either. And "zietgeist" has jackshit to do with it--the fact that I would be a very poor "healthy living" role model is the issue, and I'm in much better shape than "Have another donut" Bill.

[yurbud]

4. fuck who republicans like--do republicans ever think about who democrats like?

[book_worm]

7. I agree with you, but so far this isn't the Obama plan. How many progressives has he nominated

for anything? And I'm a strong Obama supporter. I think the time has come where he says "screw the republicans."

[yurbud]

8. Getting republican approval and even repub cabinet members it like setting up a rape crisis center

staffed by gang rapists.

The rapists might feel better but the victims not so much.

[Cleita]

11. I know that, but if he were true to his word, that he wanted voices in his

administration who challenge his ideas, this would be the way to go. Instead in picking Daschle for HHS secretary or someone like him, he's picking those in lock step with him. Our politicos are scared of the insurance and PhRMA industries and it shows. Actually, single payer universal health care is very middle of the road. Everything like doctors, hospitals, clinics and other health care services remain in the private sector. The government only acts as a clearing house to collect the money needed to run the program and pay out claims. If it were truly socialist medicine, everything would be run by the government, on government property and the health care professionals would be civil service employees. But putting Daschle or anyone like him in that position is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house as far as I'm concerned.

[book_worm]

13. But the thing is that Dean and Obama are very close on issues. both are moderate democrats

the difference is that Dean is very partisan and says what he thinks while Obama is Mr. Cool, who tries to bring about a concensus. It's a personality clash not so much a clash of ideas between Obama and Dean.

[Cleita]

14. Well, since Dean won't be the press secretary, I see no problem in him

saying what he thinks about health care.

[mmonk]

15. More the reason to appoint him. It would send a message

to the Republicans besides I love you.

[book_worm]

16. yes, which is why it won't happen.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

18. I'd rather not have Dean anyways.

Dean's bungling and lack of oversight in the Florida primary situation soured his reputation to me anyways.

[DFW]

21. Howard's opinion of the Florida party isn't exactly sterling, either

He has nothing but the highest praise for those Democrats who did work in Florida to carry
the state for Obama, but the Florida Party apparently was less--far less--than helpful in
cooperating with anyone. There is no love lost there, although Howard considers the people
on the ground in Florida to be nothing short of patriotic miracle workers.

[DFW]

22. Howard isn't difficult to get along with if you have half a brain

I imagine if any Republicans out there hate him, it is because he was so good at his job.

Telling it as it is may not be the way to warm a Republican's heart, but their way hasn't
done too well for the country, even in Republican states and districts. I don't think they'd
block his nomination, and I think they'd breathe a sigh of relief at what he'd do for the
people in their states/districts.

[ieoeja]

24. Should have said, "many Democrats fervently hate Dean."

I'm not saying this as a knock on Dean. I am on Dean's side in that fight.

We could get real health care without a single Republican vote. But you'd never get certain Democrats to support Dean on anything.

Bill Nelson was willing to throw Florida to McCain just to undermine Dean. You think he'd support legislation that would make Dean look good?

[PassingFair]

42. Bill Nelson RARELY supports legislation that makes DEMOCRATS look good.

WTF difference does it make who the NELSONS hate?

They are the worst DINO twins in the party.

[acmavm]

25. And it's too damn bad. He would be great.

Ah well, may his next 'job' be the rip-roaring success his last one was. The dems owe it all to him.

[ColbertWatcher]

29. Aside from the GOP hating Dean, what reason is there for not seating him?

Is he not qualified?

Could he not be vetted?

Did he forget to pay his taxes? Did he hire an "illegal" nanny? Did Mrs. Dean receive money from foreign agents?

Or is it because Rahm Emanuel doesn't like him and would not be able to be professional enough to work with him?

[ColbertWatcher]

57. No one dare take a shot at my questions? n/t

[ColbertWatcher]

60. Seriously? n/t

[Two Americas]

33. I welcome their hatred

We have not come this far without a struggle and I assure you we cannot go further without a struggle.

For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent.

For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace - business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me - and I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.

The American people know from a four-year record that today there is only one entrance to the White House - by the front door. Since March 4, 1933, there has been only one pass-key to the White House. I have carried that key in my pocket. It is there tonight. So long as I am President, it will remain in my pocket.

Those who used to have pass-keys are not happy. Some of them are desperate. Only desperate men with their backs to the wall would descend so far below the level of decent citizenship as to foster the current pay-envelope campaign against America's working people. Only reckless men, heedless of consequences, would risk the disruption of the hope for a new peace between worker and employer by returning to the tactics of the labor spy.

Here is an amazing paradox! The very employers and politicians and publishers who talk most loudly of class antagonism and the destruction of the American system now undermine that system by this attempt to coerce the votes of the wage earners of this country. It is the 1936 version of the old threat to close down the factory or the office if a particular candidate does not win. It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them.

http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/text/us/fdr1936.html

[bklyncowgirl]

35. I'm afraid that there are a great many Democrats who hate his guts too.

He is not and never has been a "Member of the Club".

He took money that many Congresscritters and political consultants thought belonged to them and used it to build the party in states that Democrats had not heretofore had been competetive in. As a result of Dean's 50 State Strategy the Democrats won a majority in both House and Senate plus the White House. Democrats in Congress had to go from pissing and moaning ineffectively to actually, like, you know, doing stuff.

What's worse he proved the Washington Insiders Club wrong. Number one in that club is one Raum Emmanuel. Unless President Obama wants to expand his "Team of Rivals" concept to a steel cage death match between his highly effective Chief of Staff and his Health and Human Services secretary, I really don't think Dean will get the job.

Too bad. He'd be a great choice on the subtance side but when it came to schmoozing and stroking the tender egos of members of Congress, I just can't see it.

[JTFrog]

38. He's not having problems appointing people democrats fervently hate, so how about we even it up. n/t

[Vinca]

39. He ought to throw one lousy bone to the left.

I don't care if Dean doesn't want to play kumbaya with the right. I want someone fighting for single payer.

[DRoseDARs]

40. Many Republicans fervently hate Dean? Er, many Republicans fervently hate Hillary.

:shrug:

[PassingFair]

41. Oh, is there a Democrat that Republicans LIKE?

Introduce me.

I seem to recall Daschle being renamed
dASSHOLE by the pukes.

Next.

[BirminghamExaminer]

45. maybe this is what we need

Because so far the Democrats appear spineless in the face of the minority Republicans. They seem to be bending over backwards to accommodate the GOP and everytime they do, the GOP takes another inch or whatever. We need someone who isn't afraid to stand up to the GOP.

[liberalhistorian]

50. Repubs got their asses handed to them in

November. So we should care about what they think and want because...................?

[Individualist]

54. Highly unlikely.

The damn DLC detests progressives.

[madfloridian]

58. Do you realize what a heck of bad argument that is?

Obama wants to not provoke Republicans...but it is perfectly fine to irritate Democrats?

[readmoreoften]

59. That's not an argument. That's the publically stated MO of the man we elected.