Ralph Nader: "A key Democratic election failure was not to keep on Howard Dean, as DNC Chairman"

[Better Believe It]

Democrats Squander the Swing Vote
by Ralph Nader
November 6, 2010

A key Democratic failure was not to keep on Howard Dean, as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Between 2005 and 2009, Dr. Dean, with his 50 state strategy, energized both the DNC and state Democratic Committees. He knew what it took to go on the offensive against Republicans. He produced victories in 2006 and 2008 before his bête noire, Obama's Rahm Emmanuel, pushed him out.

Dr. Dean would have challenged the Tea Party and slowed its momentum. When the Democrats saw this self-styled conservative/libertarian rebellion receive the first of its vast mass media coverage (especially by Fox News and Fox Cable) in August, 2009 when Tea Partiers loudly showed up at town meetings of incumbent Congresspersons, there should have been a Democratic response. A "Coffee Party" of progressives and deprived workers rebelling against the corporate control that 75 percent of Americans believe is excessive might have caught on.

Instead, the Tea Partiers, in all their disparate strands and wealthy right-wingers trying to take them over, became the daily feature and news of the 2010 campaign year.

Obama came out of his 2008 victory with 13 million names of donors and supporters, along with great enthusiasm from young voters. The Democrats squandered this support. This astonishing blunder happened, in no small part, because Obama turned his back on his supporters and denied their leaders White House access that he so often afforded corporate CEOs-eg. from the health insurance giants, drug companies, and banking behemoths. That's one reason so many of his 2008 supporters stayed home in 2010 and did not vote. They felt betrayed.

Read the full article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/11/06

[fascisthunter]

1. so, so, so very true!

I didn't vote for you, but I see why many have.

[tularetom]

2. We are truly living in bizzarro world

When I agree with anything nader writes.

[jillan]

55. Exactly!

[somone]

3. Exactly

[jacksonian]

4. Oh so right

Just stop and think here. A man who was the head of the party through some of it's most successful elections in it's 250 year history was essentially persona non grata immediately after.

Why? As far as I can remember, this was completely unprecedented in political history.

[nashville_brook]

5. they kept all the corrupt US Attorneys, but dismisses the man responsible for Dem wins...

fail.

[tavalon]

6. Our whipping boy is right

He's been right about a lot of things.

[dynasaw]

7. Cronyism Among Dems

Part of this involves the negative history between the Clintons and Dr. Dean.

Obama throwing his lot in with the Clintons signaled the marginalization of Dean.

Don't always agree with Nader, but he is dead right on this one.

The Dems are their own worse enemy where it comes to the inability to differentiate between friends and inner enemies. Of the latter, I can't think of anyone who damaged the Obama presidency more than Rahm and the team of Wall Street gangsters who infiltrated the Oval Office.

[Better Believe It]

8. "Wall Street gangsters who infiltrated the Oval Office" They didn't infiltrate. They were invited

and welcomed to the White House.

[TheKentuckian]

11. With trumpets, rose petals, and a phatass red carpet

[PurityOfEssence]

39. Gently here: Obama has not been suckered, he IS part of the problem

Once again, here is a post premised upon something absurd: that Obama is a liberal champion of the people. He's not. He's corporatist to the bone. To give him the benefit of the doubt, I'll presume that he's merely incredibly misguided and thinks that corporate hegemony is the only way our society and economy can operate, but regardless of the true belief, the result is the same.

It's not just bad choice of subordinates or misplaced trust or naivety. There may be plenty of the latter, but the rest is VERY deliberate.

His entire voting record as a legislator--and it's rather long--is one of corporate enabling and self-concerned charting of an innocuous non-offending middle ground. Where anyone came up with any other assumptions is astonishing.

[mikekohr]

88. boooooooooooooo, hisssssssss

[MedicalAdmin]

99. Excellent analysis.'

This doesn't obviate any of the presidents accomplishments , but honestly, did anyone on DU think that the wall street boys ( Timmeh et.al.) or Rahm ( it up our asses) would ever be in a PROGRESSIVE admin?

[JamesA1102]

9. So Ralph "I took GOP money and threw the 2000 election to Bush" Nader must think

that Michael Steele is a genius.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

13. No. It takes some fairly low-functioning thinking to come to that conclusion

Do you have any rationale whatsoever for saying this, or were you just pleased that you were able to recall the name of Dean/Kaine's current GOP counterpart?

[JamesA1102]

28. The logic seems to be that the Dems won big because of Dean

and not because of Bush's unpopularity (that's the real low functioning thinking); so therefore since the GOP won big this time, it must be because of Steele.

[PurityOfEssence]

40. Ridiculous

Dean fought a 50 state strategy and didn't shy away from confrontation.

[JamesA1102]

68. Plus Bush and the Republicans were really unpopular at the time

thanks to Katrina. Or are you going to make the claim that Dean arranged Katrina? And please highlight what Dean confronted the GOP on between 2005 & 2008. Provide links.

[Le Taz Hot]

73. If it was Bush's unpopularity,

why did Kerry (the hand-picked of the Democratic Elitists) lose his ass to the worst president in the history of the U.S? And they shoved Dean out (thanks, Gibbs) to achieve that. Yes, there was election fraud but if it hadn't been so close, they wouldn't have gotten away with it (anticipating the next Das Party Loyale auto-response).

Edited for clarity

[JamesA1102]

76. Kerry ran in 2004, not 2006

Over a year before Katrina happend. But nice try at intellectual dishonesty.

Edited for honesty.

[Le Taz Hot]

79. Uh, yes, I'm aware of that.

The poster claimed that Bush was unpopular. If he was so unpopular he would have lost to Kerry in 2004. That would be my point.

Edited for reading comprehension.

[JamesA1102]

85. But we were discussing the 2006 election, not 2004

and in between Katrina happened. See there is a thing called linear time. Events happen in a certain order and after they happen there is an effect. For example:

2004 - Bush popular, wins election.
2005 - Katrina happens, Bush loses popularity.
2006 - Bush unpopular, Dems win election.

Understand now?

Edited for honesty.

[TheEuclideanOne]

97. Sorry, but I can't even argue your point. It makes my head hurt.

That is just an absurd line of reasoning. I can't even agree or disagree because I am still stuck at how stupid your premise is. Hard to move past that to even get to the point of providing a logical argument.

[JamesA1102]

104. Yes the truth hurts sometimes nt

[TheEuclideanOne]

106. I was wondering what idiotic one liner you would use.

Now I owe somebody $5 because my money was on "I know you are but what am I?"

[JamesA1102]

107. Sorry I didn't provide one for you nt.

[BlueMTexpat]

75. James One-Note uses that same line in almost every post.

Don't waste your time!

[JamesA1102]

77. Only need one note when it is the truth nt

[BlueMTexpat]

80. Q.E.D.

And I wasn't even replying to him.

And will not.

[JamesA1102]

84. Yeah it is hard to rebutt the truth

Better just to snipe from the sidelines.

[Dr.Phool]

51. No, about 89,000 purged voters in Floriduh,

And some screwed up ballot designs, and a halted recount, and a corrupt Supreme Court threw the elections.

Put that meme to bed already. Pat Buchanan took more votes from Bush, than Nader did from Gore.

[Lorien]

63. Not to mention the organized police intimidation of black voters

I witnessed it with my own eyes here in 2000 while I was working at a polling station in a minority section of town. The only reporter who would listen to me was Greg Palast of the BBC.

[JamesA1102]

69. Not in New Hampshire

Plus Gore had to make visits and spend money in Washington and Oregon to counter the money Nader was spending there, money donated by the GOP. Time and money that Gore could have better spent in state like Florida and Ohio.

[avaistheone1]

54. FALSE!! Media Consortium statewide count of "Undervotes" and "Overvotes" proves Gore won under

ANY Standard

http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181


Before you start pointing fingers about geniuses you might want to this article.

[JamesA1102]

70. Yes Gore did win

and Nader helped Bush steal it from him.

[eilen]

81. Good Lord --Do we have to reargue this over and over

ad nauseum every time Nader's opinion is published and posted here? It hinders actual real discussion of his points and is tantamount to shutting him and the OP down. I think this board was created for the actual free discussion of ideas, not blacklisting of those that come from people you may not like.

[JamesA1102]

82. It's a matter of the man's credibility

Can someone who took money from the GOP and then used it to smear a Dem ever be trusted again.

[Chef Eric]

92. How about Gore, who named a Republican-wannabe as his running mate?

There's plenty of blame to go around. Focusing the blame on Nader is ridiculous.

[JamesA1102]

95. Not focusing the blame

but not letting off the hook either.

[Sherman A1]

64. Was that the same election that Gore could not carry his own state?

Nader did not cause the Dems to lose in 2000. He may have been a tiny factor in their loss, but not the root cause.

[JamesA1102]

72. Yes because Gore had to divert resources to the West Coast

because Nader was spending heavily with money donated by the GOP.

[fasttense]

90. It wasn't Ralph who threw the election to the bushes

It was the Supreme Court dancing for their corporate masters. Those 5 judges who elected our president for us, and ignored the Constitution, should be impeached.

[JamesA1102]

96. The Supreme Court would never had the power to do that

if not for Nader.

[blondeatlast]

10. Dammit, props this time, dammit! He'll piss me off fairly soon again, I'm certain.

But on this he's absolutely correct.

[PassingFair]

12. They had to get rid of him. He was demanding REAL health care reform.

Couldn't have him out there confronting
the Teapartiers, when they were doing the
work of a pharmaceutical and health care
industry that was in cahoots with OUR
corpo-dems!

[treestar]

14. always about people, not substance

The job remains the same. Claiming some Messiah could have done the job "better" and resulted in more votes is silly. Speculative and a waste of time.

why is Dean the big hero? Solely because he has no position at this time. If he had and had to be involved, he too would be on the hit list.

[blondeatlast]

17. Respectfully disagree. As one who lives in a hard red district in a hard red state,

the 50 state strategy made incredible inroads here.

The fact that even Rep. Grijalva had a nailbiter is evidence of how we need that effort again. We also should have had a MUCH closer race for governor; in fact, with Goddard's reputation and Brewer's embarrassing public failures, we should have had a win. The party was no help, I'm afraid.

[PBass]

62. Besides the 50 state strategy, Dean demanded a unified message

while this year's election was a muddled mess, with some Dems running away from the president, and other Dems embracing him. The Dems looked weak and disorganized, and like they had no clear agenda.

[blondeatlast]

103. Very true as well. I didnt support Dean in the primary, but he was a great choice for DNC chair. nt

[Better Believe It]

21. Read his entire article. Nader correctly describes other major problems that caused this.

[LoZoccolo]

15. Ralph Nader: automatic unrecommend n/t

[Dr.Phool]

50. LoZoccolo

Automatic :puke:

Did it ever occur to you to actually read something?

What did Nader say that was wrong?

[Snotcicles]

102. +1. nt

[WinkyDink]

16. Ralph isn't always wrong. :-)

[superduperfarleft]

20. Ralph is usually right.

I do wish he'd quit wasting time with quixotic campaigns for president, but im glad he continues to write and otherwise agitate.

[Better Believe It]

27. And I think Nader was also right when he wrote in the article:

"How then did the Democrats lose against the most craven Republican party in modern history-a Party that opposes again and again the fair rights of workers, consumers, investors, savers and patients.

Regarding patients, Boehner's oft-repeated view of the modest, non-single-payer health insurance changes by Congress and Obama-"it will kill jobs, destroy the best health care system in the world and bankrupt our country." Reporters listen to Mr. Boehner say this repeatedly and do not ask him to explain his wild rhetoric.

So, in listing some of the ways the Democrats failed to defend the country against such Republicans, put near the top not rebutting the crisp lies and abstract assertions that Republican candidates uttered while campaigning or "debating" their Democratic opponents. Listening to debate after debate on C-Span radio, I was amazed at how infrequently the Democrats demanded examples from their Republican opponents each time the words "cut spending," "cut taxes," "reduce the deficit," "deregulate" and "create jobs," were uttered.

In elections, one side is on the offensive and the other is on the defensive. The offense creates momentum unless it is countered and driven back. Since the Democrats are furiously dialing for the same corporate campaign dollars, it is difficult for them to stand for the people. That is why the Democrats are wishy-washy, reticent and reluctant to put major subjects of abusive power on the table."

[superduperfarleft]

34. I certainly haven't seen a better explanation. n/t

[old mark]

18. This time I agree with Ralph - I wish there were someone in the Administration

with the common sense to see this...there will be other elections ahead, and it might be good for us to win some of them.


mark

[PufPuf23]

30. IMO the Administration clearly sees this and the

damage to the Democratic Party and common people of the USA was deliberate, planned, and marketed.

One sees it even everytime one logs into DU when one cannot read a thread without insulting apologists.

Since then we have been stabbed in the back and lied to by the Administration. Rahm stuck around just long enough to enable. Obama is no fool either.

Sorry to say this Mark but we are were fucked and the fucking will continue to get worse for at least the rest of my life.

[zonkers]

19. Easy to be a Monday morning QB.

[Better Believe It]

22. Many progressives warned about this far in advance of the elections.

And clearly stated the various factors that would cause this outcome.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

25. bull-fucking-shit

Don't fucking dare come here and try to whimper that "no one could have known", condi-rice style. We knew Kaine was fucking worthless, and said so on numerous occasions. We knew Howard Dean was highly effective at his job, and that Rahm E keeping him out was destructive. You're the worst sort of simpering centerist. Shut your fucking mouth with the monday morning quarterback bullshit. I hope you see this before it's deleted, you worthless fuck.

[Greyhound]

26. It was easy to predict just what these actions would bring and so many of us did

that it is just as laughable for you to pretend that "nobody could've predicted" this than it was for that mass-murdering parasite, Rumsfeld to make the same excuse after Iraq went sideways.

Not only could we have predicted this, we did. Repeatedly.

[RiverStone]

23. Ralph makes me sick - but I do agree with him on Howard. n/t

[xchrom]

24. recommend

[RZM]

29. Part of me is VERY wary of any advice on Dem internal affairs coming from Nader

Now, I certainly don't hate Ralph Nader. I don't appreciate his run in 2000, nor some of the comments he's made since ('Uncle Tom' on election night was way over the top), but he does his thing and has every right to. Nor am I much of a conspiracy-minded person, but this . . . Think about it. What's the biggest problem for organized political groups who are to the left of the Dem left and hate both parties? IMO, it's a lack of bodies. There just aren't enough people who are willing to go all in and ditch the Dems permanently for the Greens or whomever else. Outside party candidates rarely get past the single digits in elections, even in more progressive places. However, as DU shows, there are plenty of people who vote Dem but are more or less Naderites in their take on the issues. He and people like him need those people, but they can never seem to get them. So here comes Nader, wading into internal Dem strategy and telling the hard Dem left 'you guys were right -- if only your party would listen to you, you'd be cleaning up.' What comes next is of course 'you'll never get your way as long as the center controls the party, so your only alternative is to come to me.' I'm not saying he doesn't have a point, I'm just asking people to look more closely at what might be driving his approach here.

[Better Believe It]

32. You may not like his "advice" but what did you think of his points on why the Democrats did so badly

By the way, he did offer a lot of sensible advice along with other progressives to John Kerry in 2004 which was totally ignored.

In 2008 Nader didn't offer much advice to Obama and Obama did not spend any money or other resources attacking Ralph Nader's character and campaign.

So Obama won and Nader gave socialists and other radicals, who out of principal won't vote for any major pro-capitalist party candidate, the opportunity to cast a anti-Wall Street protest vote.

[RZM]

35. I'm not sure

Still processing what happened. I think there's a lot of stuff that went on that played into the loss -- and much of it depends on where you are. Nader's main argument in the article seems to be his standard stuff -- the Dems are corporate controlled, so their message and ability to draw clear contrasts with Republicans is muted. That's certainly part of it -- but nothing really new. The Dems have been that way for a while now (they were just as corporate in 2006 I think). My take is this:

First and foremost it's the economy. Most people don't know a whole lot about why the economy goes up and down. They just know how their own finances are doing. When it goes down, the party in power gets the blame. When it goes up, they get the credit and both changes happen no matter what the real reasons are. That's just how it goes. It hurt Carter in 1980, helped Reagan in 1984, hurt H-Dub in 1992 and so on . . . Here in Ohio Kasich ran entirely on jobs. As far as I can tell, he never even bothered to talk about anything else because he didn't have to. Strickland tried to counter by stressing that Kasich had worked for Lehman Brothers and that Wall Street's the real problem. But it didn't work. A lot of people just don't think that way. Strickland's in charge, so he gets the blame, fair or not.

Another thing was that perhaps the 2006 gains were an ephemeral thing. A lot of Dems who won then were from Red-leaning districts and pretty conservative at heart. Again, here in Ohio, Zack Space was a good example. He won a red district in 2006 on the Dem wave and also because he was immediately following the disgraced Bob Ney. Don't know what the margin was in 2008 for him, but I assume the Obama victory in Ohio helped then as well. But in 2010, Ney is forgotten and Obama wasn't on the ticket, so it's bye-bye to the Blue Dog.

I also think that race perhaps mattered this time around as well. I'm not talking necessarily about Obama's race per se (he was the same color in 2008, when he won big) but a shift of the much-discussed (and probably largely white) 'independents' towards the Repubs. Probably Obama's opposition to SB1070, which has pretty good support in national polls, and frankly, his wading into the Gates/Crowley flap too didn't help him among whites. Again, I don't have the figures in front of me, but without Obama on the ticket, I don't think minority turnout was as good as it could have been either. Same thing for young voters of all backgrounds, another key Obama group.

I'm a skeptic regarding Nader's argument about the Tea Party too. He claims that the Dems could have blunted it. I'm not so sure. I don't think many people who identify as Tea Partiers would vote Dem if the Tea Party never existed. What Nader seems to be saying is that Dean could have organized a counter group -- maybe that could have increased Dem turnout (particularly among the young) but I don't think you could poach many Tea Partiers with it. I wonder if taking on the Tea Party head-on like that might have made them feel even more 'persecuted' and gotten them a few more votes.

I'm no expert on all of this . . . just somebody who likes to talk :)

[Duke Newcombe]

31. Damnit, Ralph...stop making sense!

Broken clocks, twice a day, correct, etc.

[SidDithers]

33. Fuck Ralph Nader...nt

Sid

[BzaDem]

36. A key Democratic election failure was not adding runoff elections, so people like Ralph Nader

(and his supporters) simply are not permitted to do any more damage than they already have.

[Better Believe It]

38. You wrote: "The real problem is that our system LETS people vote for 3rd party candidates"

You think the current political system is way too democratic because it permits people to cast votes for socialist and other 3rd party candidates!

Can't have that!

And you went on in that recent post to describe your hostility to multi-candidate elections and defended your proposal that only Republican and Democratic parties should be permitted to have their candidates on general election ballots:

"So in the general election, you have two choices. Do you, BBI, want to vote for a third party candidate? Well TOO FUCKING BAD. You physically can't, because there are only two options on the ballot. You can cry and moan about it, but crying and moaning won't make more than 2 options magically appear on the ballot.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9369133&mesg_id=9371845

When I wrote "The only votes that Bush, Gore or Nader were entitled to were those votes that were actually cast for them." you responded by calling that view "pure unadulterated bullshit"!!!!

Talk about b.s.!!! What votes do you think George W. Bush was entitled to in 2000 that he didn't get? Or Nader. Or Gore.

Everyone should have the right to vote for third party or independent candidates in general elections and you prefer banning them. That's your concept of democracy.

You also wrote: "If Nader didn't run, Gore would have won. That's all there is to it."

Oh .... for your information Al Gore did win the 2000 election. And contrary to what you claim there is a lot more to Bush becoming president. It looks like you failed to notice this little, tiny fact .... The Supreme Court and Bush stole the election! That's something you conveniently left out of your rambling polemic against free and democratic multi-candidate elections.

From your comments we must conclude that you also believe that if people had been prevented from voting for the socialist presidential candidates in the 2000 election, Al Gore would have also "won" the election he did not lose.

Those damn radical socialist voters spoiled the election .... right?

[BzaDem]

42. People can vote for third party candidates all they want in an open, jungle primary.

Then, if they are in the top 2, they move onto the next election. If they aren't, they do not move on.

This is identical to the way California will run its elections in 2012, and how WA and LA do their elections today.

According to your logic, California is now an undemocratic state.

:rofl:

[Better Believe It]

100. I bet you must love the only one candidate on the ballot system of elections even more!

So if only allowing people to vote for one of two candidates, Republican and Democratic one of course, is so very democratic you probably think allowing people to vote for only one candidate is even more democratic, provided it's the candidate that you personally support!

Why are some people who allegedly support free and democratic elections always trying to find ways to prevent people from voting for candidates they support?

It appears to me that you don't understand the concept of free and democratic elections BzaDem.

And that's a shame. Perhaps you should drop the "Dem" part of your posting name.

[BzaDem]

105. Yeah, according to you, California's election system is not a "free and democratic election."

Considering that your electoral strategy is to do everything possible to enable Republicans to get elected, perhaps YOU should drop "progressive" from your description of your ideology.

[Dr.Phool]

52. They tend to ignore that Buchanan took more votes from Bush, than Nader did Gore.

Jeb and Katherine Harris did Gore in. With a little help from Donna Brazile.

[BzaDem]

53. How does that change the fact that if Nader hadn't run, Gore would have won?

I mean, our criminal justice system doesn't work that way. If 5 people commit a crime, one cannot use a defense that there were 4 others involved. I'm not sure why politics should work that way either.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[Better Believe It]

108. Al Gore did win the election! You still haven't figured that out?

The Supreme Court and Bush didn't steal the election.

Ralph Nader did.

Right.

Spin, spin, spin!

[sabrina 1]

109. Gore DID win! Your obsession with blaming our legal system

of elections is bizarre. Everyone has a right to run for office in this country so long as they do it legally.

Nader's participation in our electoral system WAS LEGAL.

The candidates have to work to get as many votes as they can by appealing to voters on the issues.

Gore won that part of the battle. The system was working, except for a few things. The suppression of minority votes, which had they been allowed, would have increased Gore's margin. THAT WAS ILLEGAL. But despite that crime, Gore still won.

Over 300,000 thousand Democrats voted for Bush. That was LEGAL also, but still Gore won.

The only reason Bush landed in the WH was because after all their dirty, illegal tricks failed, they had their buddies on the USSC commit an act of treason to install him. THAT WAS ILLEGAL. But it worked, finally.

You, in your desperate need to ignore all the illegalities of that travesty of justice, the beginning of the end of this democracy, point to a perfectly legal and democratic action by a candidate, rather than all of the blatant illegalities and treasonous acts that led to one of the worst crimes in our electoral history.

Do you realize how silly that is? Not to mention it was calculated to get 'lefties' angry for the wrong reasons so the Criminals who stole an election, were not the targets and Democrats could just 'move forward' from another crime, which seems to be their MO, with the help of people who allowed themselves to be distracted from the real crime.

Propagandists don't really have to do much to get people to go along. Just tap into the illogical, but common need to 'blame' someone anyone, rather than go for the more difficult, and less satisfying immediate gratification of feeling righteous, job of working towards the prosecution of criminals especially if they re in high places.

[BlueMTexpat]

78. Excellent reminder!

Even Buchanan could see the irony in that!

[derby378]

37. Nader's a little late to the dance

Some of us on DU have been saying the same damn thing for quite some time.

[pa28]

41. We should ask him very nicely to consider coming back the DNC.

He's a motivator, he understands the base, he knows how to sell liberal policy to those who would rather die than identify as "liberal" (in all 50 states) and most of all we realized the biggest gains for Democrats in a generation under his watch.

Just ask nicely.

[Better Believe It]

43. They slammed the door on Nader and other progressives years ago.

And they layed out the red carpet for Wall Street and big business lobbyists.

If you see any indication the White House is opening the door to progressives and putting them into positions of power please let everyone know.

Of course, if President Obama does that some very big Wall Street heads will have to roll.

I'm watchin.

[pa28]

46. No, I don't see any indication.

However, I'll extend a little credit and continue to believe they are aware enough to make a fundamental change in political strategy based on the November 2nd disaster.

Continuing to treat banks and corporations as the primary constituency means one term and likely the end of the party as we know it IMO. It's hard to believe people that smart could be so deeply in denial but then again maybe I'm underestimating the power of the Washington bubble.

[bullwinkle428]

44. K&R, and I would have added "cue the 'Osama Bin Nader'

unrec brigade", but don't worry, they're already here!

[Iggo]

45. Also: Sky blue, water wet, bacon delicious. (n/t)

[BrklynLiberal]

47. Even a stopped clock is right two times a day.

[Barbara2423]

48. I Agree. Kaine should be fired.

[Ramulux]

49. Its been said a million times now

I honestly think I have heard every single liberal personality worth a damn express this idea in one form or another. Its gotten to the point that Obama and his administration would have to purposefully ignore the entire liberal media to be unaware of this belief. The more I think about it, the more pissed I get. The democrats have blown an opportunity that will only come once a generation. Excuse me, while I go cry.

[DemocraticPilgrim]

56. Exactly whatever their differences if you have the best you hold on to them, altough I don't think..

Kaine is that bad it's Dean is out of this world and mere mortals can't replace him.

[penndragon69]

57. Bring back the "DEAN" team.

And help save America!

[Dinger]

58. Goddammit Better Believe It,

I like you!:)

[Canuckistanian]

59. God bless Ralph

He sure knows how to get debates going on DU.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bobburgster]

61. Can't argue with that! n/t

[democrank]

65. The Democratic Party would benefit from

Howard Dean`s insight and courage right now. Dean consistently stands for fiscal responsibility and social and economic justice.

[That Guy 888]

66. I remember Sen. Franken mentioning on his old Air America show some comments from reporters...

concerning the "Dean Scream" something along the line of the reporters laughing about how they "got Dean".

If I remember it correctly, it took about a week of continuous airtime before "the media" admitted that the "Dean Scream" was the result of a sound feed isolating Dean's microphone from the audience that he could barely be heard over, even with a microphone. Apparently Dean had made statements against media consolidation about a week or two before and the "Dean Scream" was corporate media's response.

My guess is that the Democratic Power structure thought that Dean would be too toxic for the corporate press to give them a fair deal... a huge mistake. Our corporate masters only give a "fair deal" to politicians who give them everything they want. It's how rupert of faux news became a conservative in his native Australia, supporting the politicians who enabled his first media empire.





edited for clarity

[tsuki]

91. Dean threatened to break up the corporate media. They breitbarted him in response.

That's why, in my opinion, they don't see anything wrong with Andrew Breitbart.

[quaker bill]

67. A grain of truth burried in a mound of bs.

What Emanuel - Obama - Kaine did not get was that victory in 2008 was not the end of the project. It was only a beginning, and looked at honestly, less a product of their genius and more a product of Bush led republican incompetence.

What they seemed to believe was that taking over government and enacting improved public policy would be sufficient. This is the standard DLC/DNC model that has lost elections for 30 going on 40 years. Being better at government is not the answer. If it had been the answer, Gore would have won, Kerry would have won, Dukakis would have won, McGovern would have won, Carter would have won... This element of Dem leadership believes at depth that it is all about resumes' and white papers. Dean showed them that it isn't but they did not listen.

The actual work of politics is all about the grimy and unglamorous work in the trenches, meeting your opponent and besting them at the grassroots. The finest white paper policies in existence are easily defeated by messaging and ground game, even when the message is flatly and obviously untrue. Pointing out that it is untrue, while necessary, is insufficient alone, a counter message must be created and sold like washing powder.

This in fact, has almost nothing to do with real legislation. If it had anything to do with delivering real legislation like: "cutting deficits", "creating jobs", "banning abortions", "fixing the schools", "removing bureaucracy", "restoring liberty", "keeping the country safe from terrorists", or any of the other crap republicans have promised and not delivered for 30 years, the republicans would have been no threat. They continue to be a threat because Dems refuse to get that it is precisely not about programs and policies delivered or the process involved, it is entirely image.

This is how someone like Bush can be truly abysmal at the art of governance and yet nearly unbeatable politically.

Where Nader and a huge pile of other commentators are wrong is that they still buy into the paradigm that it was all about policy and process and feel that they have a better policy / process answer. This is classic "when all you know how to use is a hammer, all problems start looking like nails" thinking. It has nothing to do with corporations or the details of legislation or the legislative process. The republicans have been selling excrement smeared on toast as fine cuisine for decades, and the people keep lining up for more.

Dean was right, it in fact is all about messaging and ground game, and in these times, that effort can never stop, it must be a full time 365 day a year effort.

[Tatiana]

101. Absolutely. Which is why Dean's model was more expensive than the DNC usually spent.

He knew you had to meet people where they were, on their turf. It wasn't through ads or flyers or mailings (though those things are important). It was at local barbecues and get-togethers and "meet-ups." Dean built up the local party apparatus and then brought in experienced staff to teach the locals how to do the outreach and convince their neighbors to vote Democrat.

His idea was not to let the culture war issues (guns, religion, etc.) prevent people from voting their economic interests. So, in very conservative areas like Alabama, you might run a Democrat who was pro-education funding, pro-jobs, pro-social security, but also pro-guns. Dean's idea was NOT to run corporate Blue-Dogs who never saw a dollar sign they didn't need to own. But he felt that on some cultural issues, given a conservative Dem and a rapid Republicant, let's run the conservative Dem and work towards making the region and its candidates more progressive.

The 50-state strategy was just the beginning of a long-term plan for Democratic viability and competitiveness in all regions of the country.

[meow mix]

71. instead we roll over like chihuahuas..

fail party.

[malaise]

83. Hard to disagree with Ralph here n/t

[SemperEadem]

86. You do know about coffeepartyusa.com, right?

it's a progressive/liberal organization.

[INdemo]

87. Could Howard Dean could win if he challenged?

Obama in 2012..I think so.President Obama obviously did not learn a damn thing from this loss..He will keep giving those great speeches and continue to cave to the Repukes issues...

[mikekohr]

89. Not likely, but everyone has a role that he plays best, Dr. Dean is the most accomplished DNC Chair

in history. Bring him back. Now. America needs him at the helm of the party that has always fixed Republican economic "F" up.

mike kohr
Bureau County Democrats
http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com

[LiberalArkie]

93. I agree with Nader this time, but with some of these comments above me

I think maybe we need more tin foil here.

[politicalmajority]

94. AND RAHM EMANUEL THE WIMPY LOSER CAME IN.

That kid was a key recipe for disaster.

[politicalmajority]

98. Larry Summers Is Also a Disaster as Bad as Rahm Emanuel Is.

When he was the president of Harvard, Larry Summers once said publicly in a lecture that there were 1 million child prostitutes in Seoul, South Korea, alone during the 70s because of Korea's poor economic situation. This lecture was videotaped by a Korean student at Harvard and posted on the Korean Internet and created a huge controversy.

Summers's claim is not only offensive but completely false with no economic data support. During the 70s, Seoul had only 5 million total residents and with the South Korean economy at that time Seoul could not then and even now sustain a 1 million child and/or adult prostitute sex industry.

Larry Summers is a terribly stupid economist who is blatant enough to say such idiotic claims. Rahm Emanuel and Larry Summers went hand in hand to destroy America.