Did anyone besides me catch him this morning on This Week with George Stephanopolous? He started out congenially alright. It was all “two extraordinary candidates” and “unity ponies for everyone”. Then George started to ask him about the popular vote and MI and FL and it became clear pretty quickly that he was one phoneme short of a scream.
What I learned from Howard is that Hillary’s claim to legitimacy through the popular vote pisses him off and that he still plans to sabotage the election this fall by seating FL and MI in a way that will make their delegates not count. And the main beneficiary of the stifling of MI and FL is Barack Obama because as Howard insists, the only legitimate nominee is the one with the most delegates. So, everyone else who voted for Clinton should STfU because the superdelegates will find out in June who the delegate leader will be and it will be over. And Hillary can complain all the way to the convention because that is her right but it won’t make a damn bit of difference because the RULZ were violated, so THERE!
But, by Golly, we sure do have two swell candidates this year don’t we? And we’re all going to kiss and have make up sex when this is all over and all the ladies in the auxilliary and the stupid Archie Bunker working peoplee will fetch coffee and make phone calls for Senator Obama in the fall.
Howard, you ain’t seen anger yet.
Fortunately for us, Ed Rendell on MTP gets it. This won’t be over and we are NOT making phone calls unless all fifty states get a voice and have impact. Deal with it, Howard.
Filed under: Democratic Party, Denver Convention | Tagged: Ed Rendell, Howard Dean, Meet the Press., This Week With George Stephanopolous |
The Confluence 
Sorry HoHo, no make-up nookie from us. You are gonna have to call the Emperors Club. It’s gonna cost you – big time. Since those DNC coffers of yours are nearly empty, good luck figuring out how you will pay for it.
What is amazing is that the punishment required Florida and Michigan to come up with ALTERNATE dates for their primaries. That is, it REQUIRED them to schedule NEW primaries.
So, the hypocrisy in the thing boggles the mind. Florida and Michigan shouldn’t need the signoff of the candidates. They could just schedule re-votes and tell Obama campaign to stuff it.
What don’t they do it?
Howard Dean is a disgrace.
Riverdaughter,
You nailed it right on the nose and doesn’t it feel good to see Howard all worked up. He’s not comfortable, just the way we want him. I guess all those angry emails, phone calls, and no donations to the DNC are paying off. The small movement we saw this week w/ the FL/MI DNC members is in the right direction. I’m hopeful.
But I must ask the $50M question …(dramatic pause)…why do they want Obama is the GE soooo bad?!!! I don’t get it and I don’t buy the Hope and Change story, it’s not convincing and, although I’m starting to wonder, the american voter is not that stupid to buy it. I have yet to read a convincing answer to this question.
Judging from his Face the Nation and This Week interviews, Dean is hoping the last 10 primaries will produce a winner regardless of the Florida or Michigan results. But their exclusion is already inflating Obama’s lead and fueling the Hillary drop out drumbeat by the media and Obama supporters once revote plans fell through. In a possible revote (which I think is the best answer to the problem), Michigan might be close although I would argue its a state similar to Ohio and probably have close to the same results as Ohio. Florida, though, is a major Clinton state and taking the state out is like taking Georgia out of Obama’s column.
Still, I think Hillary still could come out on top in the remaining primaries through the popular vote. Another scenario could be that Hillary is just a bit behind and she needs FL vote margins(especially) and MI to come out the winner in the popular vote. What happens then?
“why do they want Obama is the GE soooo bad?”
Could it be an anti-Clinton thing?
Bill Maher nailed it on Real Time:
And finally, new rule: If voting can destroy the Democratic Party, then the party isn’t very democratic.
He also had this to say:
And that is what is so great about the internet. It enables pompous blowhards to connect with other pompous blowhards in a vast circle jerk of pomposity.
I guess he’s been to the site that shall not be named.
I cannot believe the Democratic “leadership” would conspire to cripple the candidate most in tune with their core constituencies and most viable in must-win states for Democrats.
Moreover, I had to read Steven Stark to be reminded that there has never been such a concerted effort to kick one candidate out of the race before the other clinches the nomination.
All these people warn us about the upcoming destruction of the Democratic Party, its burning down and probably its end should Caligula Clinton take it all the convention.
The horror, the mayhem, the bloodshed awaiting in Denver, because for the 1st time in history… Oh wait:
The piece reaches the wrong conclusion as to why this is happening, but it’s worth a read.
MABlue: in tune with their core constituencies
It’s been a long time since the Dems have carried the banner for their core constituencies.
This is starting to get really ridiculous. I agree with elixer. I don’t understand why these people are so anxious to have Obama as the nominee. I simply don’t think he can win. I could be wrong, I guess, but I don’t see how it can happen. There are several big states that will go for McCain if Obama runs. I don’t see Ohio going for him and I think it’s possible MA could go for McCain. He won’t carry FL and MI now. Which big states will Obama carry? NY and CA, I guess. Which other ones?
I, too, would like to know why they are doing it when it is pretty obvious to anyone with any sense that Obama cannot win the general election. Even without the Rev. Wright meltdown, if you just looked at the states won by Clinton vs. Obama, it would be pretty obvious that he would have a struggle in the general. But with Wright, Ayres, Dohrn, et al, he doesn’t have a prayer. I’m sorry, but most Americans are NOT going to vote for someone who hangs with people they perceive to be anti-American. The GOP know this. Their 527’s will be running 24/7. They must be salivating, because it will be so easy. So I really would like to know why. Dean, Pelosi, Brazile, Kerry, et al are driving the party over a cliff. How can they not see it? Are they really that blind? Or do they have another agenda? That’s the part that scares me.
KatieBird,
I agree, it’s an anti-Clinton thing but don’t they see the horror of an Obama candidacy? It’s mindboggling how obtuse his supporters are. I guess I get worried when people who oftentimes seemed reasonable are backing Barry – Patrick Leahy for example.
I figure Dean + DNC want Obama because of the moolah he’s bringin’ in.
Lots of elections BO can help fund. Money, money, money.
elixer:
Look at Obama’s top supporters. Kennedy, Kerry, Daschle, Dean, Brazile, Hart and Richardson.
Only one managed to win the Democratic nomination, and none of them won the White House.
When Bill Clinton was running and in office, most of them kept telling him he was doing it wrong.
Why would anyone take their advice?
I just sent an email to Howard Dean letting him know (in no uncertain terms) that as a woman, I will NEVER forget the sexist, misogynist environment he has helped create in this election, and that I will NEVER vote for Barack Obama, no matter what.
I also had a few words to say about his destruction of the democratic process, democratic ideals, and the Democratic Party, and suggested that when John McCain takes the oath of office in January 2009, Howie needs to take a look in the mirror to fully comprehend on whom to place the blame.
As to why they want Obama as the nominee? Simple. They believe that all Dems will meekly lay down their swords and obey the Dem Party and support Obama, ensuring someone in the White House they believe they can control. The good ole boys club is STILL afraid of an intelligent, competent, powerful woman they cannot control.
Attention: TalkLeft just posted c-span video of deliberations of penalty for Florida and Michigan by RBC.
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=200652-1&showVid=true
Right now, Jon Ausman is talking. He is great. He is talking against caucuses. Fast forward to about 20:00, and just before than Karen T. of Florida spoke about the steps Florida took to stop the legislation.
Just a couple of thoughts here:
Is Howie realizing what a cluster-f@ck MI/FL has become thanks to Donna Brazile? I do believe you’re right; there won’t be any makeup sex here. I think they really don’t give a rat’s ass about this segment of the party any longer. And remember the last time around when they thought this “youth” vote was gonna be the great thang? Turned out to pretty much be a dud as I recall.
Also, why are the DNC coffers so bare? Why aren’t B.O.’s supporters donating to the DNC? They represent the chosen one, i.e. chosen by the DNC. Where is their support of the DNC.
Off topic: Have CNN on in the background and they were showing B.O. talking in MT. He was mentioning the importance of “those little states” out West and he said he thought ALL the states were important. Funny how his actions don’t back his words.
IOW, the DNC and Dem elties would rather win a majority in the Senate and House and let McCain get stuck with the mess Bush made, i.e., Iraq. Hang Iraq around the necks of the Republicans permanently…give them no wiggle room.
With a Dem prez, the GOP could attempt to blame the Dems with failure in Iraq — as they did with Vietnam — and come roaring back in 2012. I think the Dems are scared of getting stabbed in the back over a withdrawal from Iraq. They would rather win a solid majority in Congress. Just a thought and I could be wrong about it but it’s the only political strategy that makes any sense as craven as it is. Obama can’t win with a 48-state strategy. Of course, one can should never underestimate arrogance.
myiq2xu, the Maher quotes are nice. I heard him say some things earlier in the season that made me decide to tune him out. I should have known he wouldn’t have totally one-dimensional opinions.
CognitiveDissonance, Since the revelations of the Wright Issue (and I was TOTALLY ignorant of it until the week it blew up), I wonder about the impact of those other issues. And a couple of others.
It’s not considered appropriate on polite blogs to discuss some of those issues — just as it wasn’t considered the thing to discuss the Wright Issue until that week it exploded.
Is it a mistake to avoid those issues? If they are destined to be issues in the general election, wouldn’t it be better if they blew up now? Wouldn’t it have been even better if they blew up 2 months ago? Or are they just dirty-little-rumors that have little or no significance?
Who exactly are we protecting?
I don’t know that I have the stomach to talk about these things. I don’t know if I would. But, is that a mistake?
katiebird–
Yes, it’s a mistake not to talk about issues that could hurt a candidate. It’s foolish beyond belief. That is one of the many reason I began to turn away from Obama and toward Clinton. Hillary openly talks about the negative attacks she knows she will face. Barack tries to weasel out of dealing with anything until he is forced to. On DK, I tried to bring up the Rezko and Wright stuff months ago and ask how we would deal with the attack in the general. All the Obamadroids either called me names or said none of that stuff would be an issue. It was unbelievable.
Becki Jayne,
I’m wondering the same thing you are. Do some of the leading Dems just hope they lose the election so that the Republicans have to deal with the mess? That might be easier for them, but not for most Americans. I’m sick of their elitist attitudes. We have to take back the party as well as the country or else start our own party. If the Democrats lose another election–especially this year when they should win easily, I think the party will be effectively dead.
Becki Jayne is right: money. DNC wants the small donations BO is getting for the Congressional & governors’ races. They won’t be able to do much to help BO and they know it… But by the time his donors/supporters figure it out, it’ll be too late.
I think the sort of stuff lurking in BO’s background are things many of us are VERY reluctant to touch. Plus, the level of research involved in verifying the information is daunting.
If BO becomes the nominee, his enemies might not live under the same restrictions.
MABlue — Let’s not forget 1992, when Bob Casey Sr took his Dump Clinton all the way to convention, even though WJC had the nomination sewn up.
I did phone calling for the Hillary here in Indiana yesterday. I got A LOT of “Yes I’m going to vote for her”, “that’s my gal”, and “I can’t believe what the media have said about her”. And this is in Indiana. In my phone calls people said they were afraid of the economy, for their jobs, the wars, social security, etc. You know the issues! As much as Howard wants it over, it is far from over. After yesterday I firmly believe that Hillary is going to do really okay. We have hold the line. We really do. She isn’t giving up and neither should we. Howie can take a jump. One thing that comes out of this is a clear understanding of how the DNC and the Dem “elites” aren’t for us.
On the surface the DNC’s position toward Obama may look anti-Clinton, but I think the “anti-Clinton” bias masks issues of power and class. Obama has been schooled at the elite schools of the powerful; his position is, as he says, not partisan, and in many aspects quite centrist. If elected, Obama will maintain the status quo of those in power (Dean, Kerry, Pelosi, Brazile, etc.). (You know, psychologists say that 99% of what you say is about yourself–I note that Obama frequently talks about bamboozling, hoodwinking and the status quo.) Hillary, also schooled with the elite, has spent a significant portion of her adult life away from the elite in Arkansas. Her proposed agenda, if elected, is wildly progressive, from healthcare to her economic plans. She will disrupt the status quo–possibly forever, if we get universal healthcare. And, Hillary will fight for this progressive agenda because she is a fighter and this is her life’s work– striving to make a difference for the better for those who have been erased with the cloak of invisibility. The pro-Obama, anti-Clinton position is about maintaining power, or not, and is about more of the same, or not, I think.
Folks, I commented that Jim Webb seemed to be favoring Hill over Barry.
When shown a clip of Nancy Pelosi asserting that the will of the people should not be overturned by superdelegates, Webb slapped the meme with his response that since party leaders set the rules so that superdelegates could use their own best judgment, he would do exactly that and vote for the person who in his judgment would make the best president.
ABC News has a post headlined, at”Superdelegates Should Use Independent Judgment, Webb Says” at http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/superdelegates.html
As to why they want Obama as the nominee in the GE? IMO it’s due partly to anti Clinton feelings (which I think can also be a form of jealousy of their political success) along with an excitment that Obama will really need advisors if he gets into the Oval Office.
If it’s Hillary, she’ll look to her own judgement and experience with Bill likely working as a top advisor- like she was for him- even if it’s an unofficial capacity. That leaves all the elite people out of the main power loop. Hey, it’s Washington and people like their power.
Obama would need them substantially more than Hillary would. Their influence would not have as much sway with Hillary as with Obama.
I think Howard Dean among others, thinks at the end of the day, when the eventual winner is named, the Dem. party will all line up and work their best and get behind that person.
I just don’t believe we can count on that as a given. Steps will have to be taken to unify the party behind one eventual candidate. That’s where party leadership is pivotal. I just don’t see that quality in Howard Dean so far.
The Clintons have been so successful in raising money for Democratic campaigns over the past years that I hope they will divert their spare time to their own charitable ventures and to catching up with friends and family if the nomination is thrown to Obama.
Let the mantle of fundraising pass to the Obama/Chicago ring of the circus. Patron Tony Rezko should be out of jail in twenty years, which is about the time it takes Obama to realize he made errors in judgment.
I did see This Week, and I was appalled. “Well, the popular vote isn’t how we choose nominees, so it doesn’t matter what the popular vote in MI and FLA were.” This from the man who based his presidential candidacy on “people power.” Ugh.
ghost2, how did you get that CSpan link to play. I went to when I saw it at TalkLeft and have not been able to get it playing.
I think the anti-Clinton, misogynyst position is clearly one based on fear. Fear of losing power. I agree with marirebel that the positions Hillary is taking demonstrates a real progressive lives there. And the DNC isn’t about to give up the power they have vis-a-vis corporations, insurance, banking, etc. If the Congress has earned over $100M from the military-industrial complex – SOME of them are Democrats. If Hillary is elected, those who have benefitted from the occupation will end up losing $$. (Now that Obama says we can expect to stay in Iraq until 2010, that $$ is at least safe for the moment. So of course, he’ll get that support.)
Before I began supporting Hillary, I was against her. Yes, I flip-flopped. First, I supported Edwards. Second, I feared the divisiveness from the WJC era would stalk her and I didn’t want to put her or this nation through anything like that again. I had no idea just how strong she is. And so that is another reason I think DNC is against her. She can’t be manipulated.
I don’t recall who said it earlier,but I, too believe Obama CAN be maneuvered (you know the “unity” and “let’s all get along” candidate).
Well, I’m just regurgitating others’ thoughts. I’ll be quiet now.
Marirebel: I think you hit pretty close to the truth. It *is* about power. But I think it is more about personalities than powerbases. The forces behind each candidate are the same as they ever were. But with Obama, you get someone who doesn’t have the connections to resist the elites. With Clinton, you do. An Obama presidency is likely to be beholden to the people who have been chomping at the bit for a long time. Pretty soon, it will all be in their grasp. They will issue demands, Obama will comply or nothing in Congress will get done.
With Clinton, it’s a whole ‘nuther ballgame. She knows the system. She knows the mechanisms of the executive branch. She will be a much more powerful chief executive than he is. They will issue demands, she will assess them critically.
What is Obama? What does he stand for? Why are his policy advisors to the right of the party while his advocates in Congress and the DNC are to the left? And who will he respond to when he assumes office? The independents and Republicans who bought his libertarian leaning spiel or the party members who pulled strings and put their thumbs on the scale for him?
There has been a huge inversion in the way this game has been played this year. Clinton came in as the presumptive nominee, backed by mega power and running a top down campaign strategy that offered people a plan, which she hasn’t changed, by the way, but did not ask for participation. Obama came in as the small donor candidate but his campaign is designed by Madison Avenue as a little something for everyone but mostly keeping Obama as a figurehead, a soft, amorphous change agent.
Now it is Clinton who is appealing to the roots and bringing them in while Obama is trying to smother them as quickly as possible in order to keep the young, sexy elites.
Clinton has become a much better candidate in the end. Once she lost her halo of inevitability and found it necessary to fight for every vote, she matured. Her policies do not have to change but her appeal to all demographics has been achieved by breaking down what ver stood between her reserve and her desire. With Obama, no maturation is possible because that would risk defining himself in some way by reaching out beyond his base or by changing his policies. He can’t do either without losing constituents. What will we get with him? Will the real Obama come out after the election?
Is this a risk we can afford to take?
riverdaughter–
That is what they are thinking, yes. But the problem with their approach is that Obama cannot win. At least I don’t think so. I just don’t see the combination of states that will get him the electoral votes he need to win.
It was a foregone conclusion that if Obama was the nominee, race would be a factor in the election. That would be true of any candidate of color.
It’s also true that sexism would inevitably come up for the first woman candidate.
But Obama and his supporters have made two mistakes:
1. Obama has skeletons in his closet that have nothing to do with bigotry on the part of the voters. Blaming all opposition to Obama on racism will not fly in the general election.
2. By crying “wolf” and playing the race-card against Hillary, Obama has effectively immunized the GOP when the real racism shows its ugly head. When he legitimately cries racism, the media will yawn and say “He always says that.”
riverdaughter…can we print out this post from you and all send it to Howard…shit, I’ll even send it via express mail, overnight delivery…but only with your permission!
I just heard that Mark Penn as been asked to give up his position .. not confirmed . someone on another board said she heard it on cnn. ..
fwitw
elixir: maybe they’re all looking for new jobs in BO’s administration…let’s see BO already has Rezko at HUD; and Rev. Wright at Health and Human Services…so Brazile goes to State? And Dean to Surgeon General? Alexrod to Press Secretary.? And Powers to Homeland Security? And Goolesby (or however the f*ck you spell his name) to Treasury?
Who else can we suggest to the Precious one?
BB: I think you are right but Howard is an ideologue. He believes in the 50 state strategy and this is the year he is going to take it out for a test drive. He assumes we’ll all fall in line. But this year, like the lat two election years, we need to win by as many voters as we can because the Republicans are not going to give up power just when they are on the verge of killing off the new Deal for good. To risk having the party faithful sit it out because they’ve been insulted is phenomenally stupid.
Well, Sandra Day O’Connor voted for Chimpy so worse things have happened.
Sha; Markos or Josh for press secretary
rd, here’s a link to Dean on This Week
Somewhere in there he lies and says that only one candidate was on the ballot in Michigan. (making my head explode)
And at 6:58 he says that we’ve had this great primary season & EVERY state has been involved! EVERY State. Except Florida and Michigan which he had just finished wiping off the map.
(stewing)
OMG! I can just see Markos up there spinning Obama’s policies and decisions to the press. And if they ask hard questions, he can call them racists or accuse them of darkening Obama’s skin in their videos.
Kbird: I know. Doesn’t he give you the impression that he wish Hillary would just get the fuck off the stage? She’s messing with his plans, DAMN her!
It gets better. If you haven’t been TalkLeft to see the DNC hearing on Florida, get thee hence. My DSL isn’t that great so the video skips but it sounds like Florida didn’t have a chance.
I watched about 1/2 of it. It reminded me of horrible procedural stuff from 1970s Young Democrats. Where the fix was in (and I was in on the winning fixed side as often as not) — counting votes fixes votes. I’ve blocked all that out of my mind, but I get the feeling these DNC guys stayed in the game.
katiebird:
I’m guessing back in the 70’s you were young and soooo sure you were right that you were willing to “game” the system to win so that once you and your candidates took power you could fix the problems of the world.
I’m sure you had the best of intentions, right?
That’s the easy trap of moral certainty. I don’t mean that as an insult. If you weren’t guilty of it, many are, especially so many young people today.
The ends justify the means, don’t they?
No, they dont. On that path leads darkness.
I don’t know if eeryone has already seen this, but in this crooks and liars post, the reason behind the moving of the date in FL is explained so that even I can understand it.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/09/foxnews-sunday-debbie-wasserman-schultz-rejects-brit-humes-framing/
myiq2xu, “Best Intentions” — maybe. It’s weird to think that it was 35 years ago. I barely remember the actions, much less the intentions.
That path IS darkness and one of the reasons I put politics and my old friends behind me for 12 years.
I’m having a lot more fun this time around.
Yes, I agree Riverdaughter, and I agree with Taylor, in a way too. When Clinton’s cloak of inevitability disappeared, she became a better candidate. She reconnected with the public that supports her, and in so doing reconnected with her vision for a Country that well serves all of its citizens and visitors. She will be a better President because of this disappointing experience too!
As you note, Hillary is experienced and she is a fighter. She will use her experience, along with her fighting spirit, to accomplish her objectives. It is likely that she will push the usual political suspects who have obtained and maintained power to date, quite hard. Also, as Taylor observes, Hillary may shift power by breaking with the cadre of old-time advisers (who obtain and retain power through their “expertise”) because she has experience (as does her husband), and because she is pushing into new territory requiring different types of expertise. Universal healthcare, a moratorium on home foreclosures, better education and money for education, the renegotiation of trade agreements, the abolition of certain tax breaks for the rich and for companies that outsource jobs, and the end of the Iraq war (which kills people as it diverts money from necessary programs in this Country), among other things, will shift balances of power away from elites to the public, as well. To answer your question in a way—when we find out where Obama really stands, it will not matter because he does not have the experience to skillfully and mindfully engage the difficult job of renegotiating the borders of power so that everyone in this Country is well served. On top of this, he will be beholden to the status quo—the Democratic Party elite, Republicans, and the others (including hate-filled misogynists) who took him to the top, making real and significant change undesirable and/or impossible. I join others who believe Obama will lose the GE if he is the Democratic candidate. But, right now the question is—how do we reclaim our power? I think by supporting Hillary, and by making sure she continues to consider the voices of those made invisible by the current power dynamics.
I think we all need to write to the Democratic party about how we feel.
Women will be ticked off mightily if Hillary does not get her due in Florida and Michigan.
I think they have taken women for granted too long. I think they need to be reminded of this come November.
I’m writing in Hillary if she is not the nominee.