Why It Won't Be Howard Dean; Why That's Too Bad

[babylonsister]

Why It Won't Be Howard Dean; Why That's Too Bad


Howard Dean is probably not going to be the next Secretary of Health and Human Services.*

As best as I can tell, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is not about to let Dean in the same zip code, let alone the same branch of government. That is the political reality.

Still, writers should do more than reflect the political reality. They should try to change it--or, at least, explain why it's flawed. With that in mind, here are two very key assets that Dean would bring to the job--the job, I know, he'll never have.

The first is management ability. Ever since Tom Daschle withdrew his name from consideration for HHS Secretary, most of the discussion hs focused on what it meant for the president's health reform agenda. Daschle was a gifted communicator and deft political operator. Everybody wants to find a replacement who has those skills. Dean doesn't have them.

But it's not essential that the HHS secretary be one of the key players, privately or publicly, on health reform. Other advisers and officials can take up that role, as can the president himself.

On the other hand, it is essential that the HHS secretary take charge of an agency with wide-ranging responsibilities, a vast bureaucracy, and a recent history of neglect. Head Start is part of HHS. So are the Centers for Disease Control along with the Food and Drug Administration, two agencies that represent our first line of defense against disease. For the last eight years, they've struggled under an administration that, at best, ignored them and, at worst, used them to advance a socially conservative agenda.

more...

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_treatment/archive/2009/02/06/why-it-won-t-be-dean-why-that-s-too-bad.aspx

[depakid]

1. Who voted for Rahm Emanuel?

Not me.

[Cleita]

3. Agreed! n/t

[elocs]

7. OK, so who voted for Howard Dean? (Your question begs that question.) n/t

[BlooInBloo]

9. Invites the question.

[Missy Vixen]

20. I sure did

Howard Dean still screams for me.

[elocs]

23. There were people in Illinois who also voted for Emanuel.

So people voted for both Dean and Emanuel. Nobody gets to vote for Secretary of HHS though. Actually the only vote is that of President Obama.

[babylonsister]

8. The only one elected President. So Rahm stays and, according to

this article, it's not just Rahm's opinion.
I've also read that this admin might be peeved about the mess in FL during the primaries. I don't know how valid that is, but it is history, so I don't much care.

[depakid]

25. Not bucking for Howard Dead

Just stating the obvious.

Mark the words if you will- anyone who's graduated High school knows Rahm Emmanual is trouble.

[Pastiche423]

33. Damn!

When I 1st read your post, I thought it said...Rahm Emmanual is in trouble.

He is THE WORST APPOINTMENT EVER!

[BlooInBloo]

10. That might be the stupidest response possible.

[depakid]

29. Hardly

Give it a couple of months- Rahm will do you one exponentially better.

Guys like that always do....

[Stinky The Clown]

13. Actually, if you voted for Obama, you voted for all these people

[ashling]

22. What happened to the "team of rivals" crap

Rahm (and Obama) apparently find it easier to work with - or cater to (read: cowtow) the Rebublicon crowd that deal with the health of the American people.

[tritsofme]

36. President Obama did.

And its his decision that counts.

[nightrain]

2. If not Dean, then McDermott, Congressman from WA State!

[quiller4]

16. McDermott couldn't pass a vetting process

I love his voting record but he has had more than his share of trouble that voters in his district forgive. There is the illegal release of taped telephone conversation, tax trouble and staff trouble and other problems I've too lazy to look up now.

[customerserviceguy]

4. Not sure what it should be

but Dr. Dean needs to be a part of this Administration. I'm pleased to be able to share a birthday with him!

[Mike 03]

5. Sad. I love Dean and would love to see him heading HHS. NT

[FLAprogressive]

6. I wish Rahm would take a hike. I don't care that he "gets things done"

I'm sure there are a bunch of other people who could get things done and not be assholes....

[MercutioATC]

11. Nope. Rahm is Obama's enforcer. He does that job well.

Rahm doesn't make the decisions, Obama does. If you want to blame somebody for the HHS post, blame Obama.


That said, Rahm is going to spend more time beating up hostile Dems than Repubs...which is as it should be. Obama will have more problems with the Dems who expect him to be a cookie-cutter no-spine Reid clone than he will with Repubs...it'll just take a while (say, 9-12 months).

[BlooInBloo]

12. Until Dems come back to the Democratic wing of the Democratic party...

that SHOULD be Rahm's job.

[MercutioATC]

15. I agree.

...but it may not be the "Democratic wing" that most here want. Obama is going to be different "Dem" than what a lot of people are used to. This "stimulus" bill is disappointing, but I think we're going to see some real change in the next 9-12 months...and it isn't going to be all hard-left change, it's going to be common-sense change.

A lot of DUers are going to hate it.

[karynnj]

28. That assumes that Rahm will be "beating up on" the blue dogs

That may not be the case - as there will be some Democrats who disagree - as they are to the left.

The fact is that this "beating up" terminology stinks to high heavens. The Congress is a co-equal branch of government. Obama needs their good will as much as they need his. As one Senator said he works with, not for Obama.

As to Rahm beating them up - in the vast majority of cases, he can't - they are representing their states and the ONLY ones they are beholden to are the voters in that state.

[chill_wind]

19. Oh he's "good." Too god-damn bad he's not working for our side.

Instead of beating up hostile Dems and giving female Republicans orgasms.

In the words of a DUer in another thread, anybody can negotiate by giving away the farm.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8177833&mesg_id=8177833

Is there an address (somewhere besides the temporary Georgetown basement he's rumoredly living in )where I can send a crate of dead stinking fish?

[MercutioATC]

24. No, he's not "working for our side".

He's working for everybody's "side".

I've said it many times...Obama is not a "DU Dem". He's not a "Hill Dem". Hell, he's the least partisan Dem President that I can recall.

You left-wingers are gonna be pissed.

However, I do believe he will bring about real, positive, substantive, progressive changes for this country...and I think his approach is not only the most constructive approach, I think that it will result in the first real change we've seen in decades.

[babylonsister]

26. Wow. He's working for our president, who picked him. But it's so

nice to know of someone who can advise President Obama-you! Or not.

[chill_wind]

30. And they both work for US.

That latest meme making the DU rounds is going to work on me. I reserve the right to be critical of policies and critical legislative decisions that appear to weight themselves in favor the desires and hostile interests of nihilistic Republicans-- who could absolutely care less who is out of a job or whose kids are going hungry or sleeping in a car.

With so many states already in serious budget trouble and already cutting/reducing services, the first item alone in the backroom hatchet job by Rahm and the "moderates"- of reducing aid to States by $40 billion will hurt A LOT. That's not just my opinion, but by anyone who is seriously worried about what just went down. You're free to keep the blind faith.

It really is possible to admire President Obama and not admire some of the men he has around him for now.

[EFerrari]

37. LOL!

:hi:

[chill_wind]

38. lf what he did behind the scenes to Pelosi on the House Bill is true

on top of Friday's giddy slashfest with the gang of 4, I can think of worse names than shady little prick.

:hi:

Jane Hamsher's story about Rahm's doings:

http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/05/rahm-throws-pelosi-under-the-bus-to-save-stimulus-bill/

[EFerrari]

39. Doesn't surprise me. I don't trust Rahm and he just made it harder

to do the next step which is a bigger one than this is.

Another thing. I don't remember the Daschle being a good communicator or political adept when the Republicans were using him as a dust mop. Maybe that's just me.

[Cha]

42. Yeah, that description did surprise me

about Daschle. And, I think Dean is a great communicator..he went to all 50 states and got us an amazing Democratic Foundation.

If Rahm is the only thing holding Dean back from a job in Obama's admin then he better watch out 'cause the Universe has a way of working in mysterious ways that one man has no control over.

[EFerrari]

43. To find experienced people, Obama had to rehire a lot of Clinton folks

who were actively trying to tank Dean's insurgent run. Inertia favors the establishment, I guess.

[Cha]

44. I know but my

money's on Dean to get something really good. Might not be now with the admin but they're missing an opportunity. If they can try and work with repuke sleazebags then they can work with the 50 Stater.

[PassingFair]

32. Rahm IS a "hostile dem".

His New Dem Coalition has
been on the wrong side of
the issues.

Now he's *ucking up the Jobs Bill.

[MercutioATC]

40. That's my point, he may be "hostile" to many Dems, but he's not to Obama.

Remember, Rahm doesn't act without Obama's approval.

[ananda]

14. Rahm is horrible! Dean is great!

Obama has a serious weakness when it comes
to Rahm and dealing with Reeps.

He would be MUCH better served by Dean!!!

[JaneQPublic]

17. Seems Rahm isn't on board with the "Band of Rivals" cabinet

Obama is man enough to bring in former primary opponents and even more Republicans than we'd like, yet Rahm won't stand for a fellow Dem and party leader to join the cabinet because Dean wouldn't back down and dump the 50-state strategy when Rahm threw a fit and used all his favorite curse words at him?

Sounds rather petty and small to me.

[babylonsister]

18. Seems to me we probably don't have all the facts either, or what

goes into Obama's decision-making. I'm sure if he wanted to overrule Emanuel, he would.

[librechik]

21. Fuck tnr

They are hawkish DLC shills

[babylonsister]

27. Link? I find some people there very reasonable. nt

[librechik]

31. Yes, except for endorsing Lieberman in 2004, and

Beinart which ....http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7673.html

"But it was the 2004 endorsement of Joe Lieberman that sparked controversy, since it appeared to reinforce the magazine’s most contentious stance in recent years — support for war with Iraq.

Then under the stewardship of editor Peter Beinart — one of the most well known of the liberal hawks writing before the war — the New Republic published a 1,900-word endorsement of the senator from Connecticut, despite his running near the back of the Democratic field.

The Lieberman endorsement — akin to a protest vote — also attacked then-front-runner Howard Dean for not understanding security threats against America, and insisted that the “fight against Saddam Hussein falls within a hawkish liberal tradition that stretches through the Balkan wars, the Gulf war, and, indeed, the Cold War itself.”

By summer 2004, however, buyer’s remorse set in at the New Republic, evident in an editorial offering “regret” and stating, “Our strategic rationale for war has collapsed.”


They are still on the "centrist" end of the Dem party--I don't identify with their editorial stance, although of course there are occasional articles which are useful-- but I don't trust them since they were cheerleaders for Iraq, which gave the GOP an opportunity to say "see, even liberals like tnr are in favor of the war."

oh, and "Why I Hate the New Republic" from Ezra Klein's blog in TAP is also useful--
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=08&year=2007&base_name=why_i_hate_the_new_republic
(a quote from Comments: "Krauthammer! And anyone who publishes Kaus ought to be wiped from the earth.")
which is well said, IMO.

Loveya, Sis!

:hug:

[babylonsister]

35. How about "you"?

I have the same problem: I read so much from other people, I question my own beliefs. Do you?

[librechik]

41. Yes--especially since the latest "New Scientist," wherein we learn

we are all holograms projected from the edge of the universe. Better to eschew "belief" in favor of narcissistic "knowing"--at least there's some evidence when you "know" things. There is so little that can be truly known, however.

I'm of the postmodernist persuasion: there is no truth but the whole truth, and since Heisenberg there can be no "whole" truth, only mere fragments, therefore uncertainty is the only truth. And we all have to live with that ambivalence. It's the human condition.

I find the lack of certainty and the raw open-ness to random ideas liberating. And sad.

It's not for everyone, I guess. But I find Nabokov's observation, "once you see the monkey, you can't NOT see the monkey" insurmountable. Monkeys are EVERYWHERE!!!

[EFerrari]

45. I think The Magistrate once cautioned against leaving your mind so open

that your brain falls out. I have always found that very helpful.

[librechik]

46. too late

so that was what that was for...

MONKEYS!

[Pastiche423]

34. Fuck rahm!

I lost every bit of "hope" and "change" that was promised after his appointment.

I wish I could take back my vote now.