Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How is it that people that get things right (Howard Dean) don't get appointed and people

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 12:07 PM
Original message
How is it that people that get things right (Howard Dean) don't get appointed and people
who get things wrong (Hillary Clinton) get the plum jobs?

It just does not make sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. Your criteria are so limited as to be nonsensical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
2. Look at it this way - with Hillary as SOS
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 12:18 PM by truedelphi
She won't be able to do her input on the Health Bill.

Though I am sure that there will be many others maintaining that we need to have tte insurance corporations offer their input.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4lbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Have you seen or read about what Obama plans to do about reforming health care?
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 12:25 PM by SurferBoy
He said that EVERYONE who had a staked interest in health care would have a seat at the table.

EVERYONE.

That includes HMOs, drug companies, doctors, and health insurers, as well as patient advocacy groups, the FDA, HHS, and even the EPA to some extent.

However, what he also said is that some will have more of a voice than others and that he would open up the meetings and make them more transparent. That way, we would know who said what in the meetings.

Obama has been saying this since 2007, but I guess some didn't listen or missed it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
48. Well where are the progressive voices in the new administration?
Or are the smart people, who got in right on the major issues of our day, going to be ignored once again?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #48
64. My fingers are crossed that Michael Moore gets a seat at that table
Edited on Sun Nov-23-08 01:06 PM by truedelphi
I am going to keep insisting that he be given a chance to offer some real input on the behalf of the American people.

I cannot even count the number of times someone has said to me, "Well I dragged my crazy RW brother (father-in-law, neighbor, boss, church deacon etc) to see SICKO and they agreed with every moment of it."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
3. Just to piss you off?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
4. olives and figs
what a silly comparison. And you'd be hard pressed to find a bigger supporter of Howard Dean than I.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Why is that a silly comparison?
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 12:32 PM by dkf
Howard Dean is way more prescient than Hillary. He is still the smartest guy I know. Obama is smart, but he pretty much picked up things after Howard.

Hillary is a hard worker. She does everything through effort, but her judgment stinks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. That's your opinion.
Millions of us preferred Hillary during the primaries. Her judgment didn't "stink" in our view.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. You liked her vote on Iraq?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. At the time, it was a vote that had the support of 70% of the population.
I never demanded nor expected her to apologize for it. Obama may have spoken against it from IL, but who knows how he would have really voted if he had been in the US senate at the time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. Who cares how many supported it. It was a WRONG decision.
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 01:35 PM by dkf
The worst decision I've seen since I've been observing our politicians. She didn't understand George Bush or Iraq at all.

And it gained support because Bush scared people into it.

Still defending going into Iraq. Incredible.

Rehashing this argument is making me even more upset by Obama's decision. He is crazy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. I'm not defending going into war since I never supported it.
I just don't believe in clobbering over the head the Democrats who cast their votes for it. I blame the Bush administration and their many lies and deceptions. I never asked for an apology from our Dems., on the other hand, there are not enough apologies that Bush et al. could proffer to change what they have done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. Our Dems enabled George Bush.
They were too scared of him to do the right thing. Or they were dead wrong.

I don't know how Howard Dean, Barack Obama and I got it right and all these "experts" couldn't figure it out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. They were not scared.
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 02:17 PM by Beacool
They simply believed the president, not an unusual feat. Senators don't expect a president to intentionally give them erroneous military reports. Then again, the CIA bear plenty of the blame.

As for Obama, it was far easier for him to give a speech against the war from a very liberal area of IL. Remember his interview with Russert in 2004? He admitted that he didn't know how he would have voted if he had been in the senate at the time. Of course he retracted those comments when they were no longer convenient during the campaign, but that's just politics. Don't forget that he also voted parallel to Hillary to finance the war once he was in the senate and never tried to attach a demand for an early withdrawal of the troops. So, I'm not overly impressed about some state senator's speech given far away from Washington. What did he do in the interim 2 years before he entered the US senate to protest against the war?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Believing George Bush falls into my category of "stupid beyond belief".
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 02:18 PM by dkf
Nobody gets props for saying they believed him. That earns 100 stupidity points from me.

I did tell this to my local Rep by the way. I said "don't believe what they tell you without looking critically". I used the example of the satellite photos showing the Iraqis on the Saudi border for the first Iraq war. I told him about the centrifuges. Of course he disregarded me. That is why I stopped sending him money, signwaving and canvassing for him. He is an idiot and I was right and he was wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:06 PM
Original message
That's untrue. A majority OPPOSED it if there was no threat.
Stop trying to rewrite history.

(And even if you were right - which you aren't - a majority once thought slavery was okay, too.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #22
52. The whole point of a representative type of government in lieu of a pure democracy
is that those elected are to be better informed and less apt to respond to emotional reactions especially to propaganda. Maybe a large share of the population was fooled by the Bush/neocon propaganda but she was in a position to know the truth and had an obligation to do the right thing in lieu of the popular thing. She failed, she failed the country and voted to give George W. Bush the power to kill over 4,000 American troops and over a million innocent Iraqi's including over 100,000 children. IMHO she did so for political expediency. George W. Bush went on to use the power given by the Iraq resolution to seriously wound our Constitution and kill the middle class. I can not forgive her and the other Democrats that sold us out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FKA MNChimpH8R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #15
24. Iraq vote, which she never disowned. "devastate Iran" to serve the Likudniks
Two misjudgements that are such epic fails as to be unforgiveable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. Again, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
But, if Iran is foolish enough to attack Israel with nuclear weapons (in the event that they ever acquire them), then they will be attacked in return. You won't find too many foreign policy experts who would disagree on that issue.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #9
44. I think they are missing the pt. Your post is about Dean, not Hillary. She was just an example.
That's the way I read it.

Of COURSE she can be considered to have done some things "wrong," since she was Obama political rival.

What you are wondering is...what the heck is happening to Dean? I've wondered the same thing. I don't even like the guy. But it's so obvious. And all the die hard fans of his that used to post here seem to have vanished, not caring that he's been thrown away.

I thought the "yaaaaaaiiiiieeeee" video the media kept showing was way funny. But that was the sort of thing that drove the "Deaniacs" (as they were called sometimes) batty. So I'm wondering...where are all the Dean supporters now?

Be prepared to be flamed, since you used the Divine One as your example. (BTW, I think Clinton will do fine as the SOS, and I think that's why she was chosen. She has global clout, will be listened to, and in the end has shown herself to be a team player in the Senate. Plus, she is a politician, unlike most SOS's. Which makes her better at communicating in the public arena. There simply is no other person quite like her on the national stage these days. That's why she was chosen, despite the negatives.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #44
49. We're here. We're watching closely to see what Obama plans to do with him, if anything. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
5. Because to admit he was right is to admit that all the talking heads were wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
revolve Donating Member (255 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
7. As presidential candidates
Hillary did a whole lot better than Mr Dean
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Considering that she owned the establishment she underperformed.
She really should have won. Its a miracle Obama was able to pull it off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Hillary started way ahead of the pack - furthest ahead of ANY primary candidate in history
How'd she do, again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
45. That is irrelevant, in any case. The OP is wondering why Dean has been thrown out.
He's not wondering why Dean didn't get Hillary's appointment. At least that's the way I read it. Clinton is just the example used.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quickesst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
10. Hillary Fever....
"who get things wrong (Hillary Clinton)"

...taking it's toll. Hard to sympathize when it's self-inflicted though. Thanks
quickesst
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
12. What things has Hillary Clintion done "wrong"?
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 12:43 PM by LostinVA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Umm...Iraq war?
Obliterating Iran?
In debt $20 million after the campaign is over?
Bosnia war stories?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. If Iran attacks Israel, they will be attacked in return.
If you don't think that Obama would react similarly to an Irani attack on Israel, then you would be sorely disappointed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Not necessarily nuclear obliteration though.
And she later qualified it by saying if Iran attacked with a nuclear weapon, but in her original statement she said if Iran attacked period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #18
25. She was responding to a reporter's question
and I took it to mean a nuclear attack too. Israel has been our biggest ally in the region and no president is going to do anything to affect negatively that relationship.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. You know I hoped Obama would look at it with new eyes and
the Hillary thing is making me doubt it big time.

Pretty soon the demographics will be against the Israelis anyway. If they wait that long, they only doom themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. Obama is not going to jeopardize our relationship with the Israelis
anymore than any other US president would for the simple reason that they are our only buffer in the region. I take anything Obama said during the campaign with a grain of salt, one thing is campaigning and another thing is governing. The B.S. a candidate spews during a campaign is not necessarily what he/she will do once elected. Only time will tell.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SwampG8r Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #16
63. but she was willing to obligate
US to that nuclear response
the israelis will not wait for us to respond for them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sebastian Doyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Don't forget the Kyl-Lieberman amendment
First clue: Kyl
Second clue: LIEberman

Hell, that should be an automatic NO vote right there without even reading it. Which I'm sure she probably didn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. At least she bothered to show up to vote.
Besides, do you really think that the Iranian National Guard is our friend?

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sebastian Doyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #21
38. They don't have to be our friend.
That doesn't make them TERRORISTS, which is what Kyl-LIEberman said they were. And in doing so, they left the door open for Chimpy to start another war, based on the deliberately vague language in that other piece of shit PNAC legislation that Hillary voted for
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #13
41. Didn't Biden vote for the Iraq War, too?
Where's your outrage over that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. The last six months of her campaign were a disgrace.
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 01:24 PM by dailykoff
After she lost Iowa it was all about jingoism and white pride, and please don't tell me otherwise as I watched the debates and that's basically how she tried to distinguish herself from Obama.

And since she lost Iowa on foreign policy, it's completely counterproductive to put her in charge of foreign policy, either that or deeply cynical and reckless. Nothing good can come of disrespecting the constituency that put you in office. Ask former Los Angeles mayor James Hahn about that if you think I'm kidding.

p.s. After getting elected to his first term, Hahn fired the city's black police chief and hired a white one, much to the dismay of the South Central constituency that elected him, and wound up losing his reelection bid to Antonio Villaraigosa. Yes, voters remember.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. Her campaign was about white pride????????????
News to me and the majority of Hispanics, Asians, Indians, Jews and others who voted for her over Obama during the primaries. Furthermore, Hillary won the votes of more registered Democrats than Obama.

White pride indeed!!!!!!!!!

:thumbsdown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. Yes. From January to June. Or have you forgotten Rev. Wright,
Obama's endlessly analyzed "bitter" remark, Hillary's "experience" remarks, Bill's Jesse Jackson remark and the rest of her digusting campaign?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #23
30. Let's go by parts
Rev. Wright was not brought up by Hillary's campaign, but by ABC and FOX. If Hillary had wanted to use it against Obama, she would have done so last December when it would have mattered.

The bitter remarks were asinine and he shouldn't have made them in the first place, particularly at a billionaire's home in SF while raising huge amounts of money from a bunch of fat cats. I was in PA campaigning at the time and those remarks were the gift that kept on giving. People were angry and offended by them and rightly so.

Bill was responding to a reporter's question and he was historically correct. Jesse Jackson had won SC twice in the 80s. So Obama was not the first AA to win the state in a primary.

What's so disgusting about any of it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Parts of a strategy, and the strategy stunk.
Look, I heard Hillary dog whistling in an MTP interview in early January with my own two ears. It was pretty shocking coming from a supposedly Dem candidate. So was the rest of her six-month death rattle which like or not was a disgusting exercises in Atwater-style race baiting, something the Clintons are all to ready resort to along with the rest of their "triangulating" capitulations to the right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. Well, after February Hillary was doing just fine.
She simply ran out of states as he had accumulated more pledged delegates from the caucuses. But, don't forget that Hillary won most states from March through June, and won them all by 10% of more with the exception of IN. She didn't make it, but Obama barely made it and that thanks to the super delegates. We never had a primary like this one where both candidates were so close in delegates and votes. So, I would not think that her campaign stunk, just that Obama's prevailed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. It was over in January, but the larger point is why:
Hillary started out with a huge lead in money, superdelegates, and cronies, and never once managed to get ahead in the pledged (elected) delegate count.

Why? Because of the war. No, Obama hadn't voted against the IWR, but at least he'd spoken against it, and that slim hope was enough to put him ahead of the other frontrunners who had supported it directly.

So now he wants to put Hillary in charge of foreign policy. With all due respect to the Clintons and their supporters, it's a huge F.U. to the constituency that put him in office, and that is NOT a good way to start a presidency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KakistocracyHater Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #19
55. you missed her white working class Americans
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 10:14 PM by KakistocracyHater
remark? It was WORSE than what I suspected, & I felt totally repulsed & shocked by her.


"08.05.2008
Hillary's "White Americans"

It's definitely uncomfortable to hear her say it, but if Hillary thinks white Americans won't elect a black president, is it so transgressive for her to say it out loud? Everyone in politics and media has been having this conversation for more than a year now. If anything it seems better than reliance on cutesy euphemisms like "working class" or "electability." I'm willing to be convinced I'm wrong but I think it's worth considering this before the latest "race-baiter" pile-on gets underway in earnest.

--Michael Crowley" from here http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/0...



"May 8, 2008

Hillary Clinton now has a new metric for why she should be the Democratic party nominee, hard-working, white Americans. Because white Americans are increasingly turning away from Barack Obama, superdelegates should make her the nominee.

These are the people you have to win if youre a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election, she said. Everybody knows that.

Heres the audio." from here http://teresacentric.com/2008/05/hillary-white-american... /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #12
43. She lied repeatedly about nonexistent snipers and "opposing" NAFTA.
That's for starters.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #12
50. What has she done right? I haven't seen her pass a single important bill or fight for the correct
side of anything that wasn't already a shoo in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #12
54. Do you believe that she has done nothing wrong? That she isn't partially responsible for the
million deaths in Iraq?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 08:59 PM
Response to Original message
39. Money talks?
The Clintons are in bed with Wall Street, and Wall Street means megabucks in the campaign warchest, as long as you play ball with them. I frankly can't figure out why else he would do it. It's pretty shitty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
40. I wish I could call out a number of DUers for their bullshit.
And I mean by name, listing their BS, and rebuking it for exactly what it is, bullshit.

But that's against the rules so I can't do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #40
46. Don't hold back.
There's no rule against replying to a post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #46
60. It's against the rules to call out DUers, and the profanities that it would necessitate would be...
...quite uncivilized.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
42. I think there's something special going on with Dean. I think the Dem Party is unhappy w/him.
More specifically, I remember reading about some squabble a while back between Dean and Rahm Emmanuel. With Emmanuel being Chief of Staff, Dean goes back to Vermont, is my guess.

There was a squabble a while back about whose idea it was to have a 50-state strategy. I clearly recall that it was Dean's. He talked about it during his campaign for President, I believe. Later, he implemented this when he became Chairman of the DNC. When it was successful in 2006, I saw Emmanuel on TV, with Pelosi and other Dems praising Emmanuel for his 50-state strategy that had been successful.

Politics is cruel, I guess. I can't believe they'd brush Dean aside after he is, more than any other single Dem., responsible for the winning strategy that has resulted in Dems owning the WH and Congress. And I say this NOT as a fan of Dean's. I wasn't, and I am not. But it's clear how valuable he has been. But he is no longer needed, I guess. Emmanuel in, Dean out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #42
65. Word. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
47. Look at Summers, the top economic adviser, who may be the new fed chairman.
He pushed the policies which led to this financial collapse.

It is truly mind-boggling. Only major incompetence seems to rewarded in DC.

All of the people that were so wrong about Iraq getting great jobs in the administration. Yet people that were right about Iraq, the biggest debacle in U.S. history are excluded. It really defies logic.

What's that old saying, no good dead goes unpunished. Dean should be afforded more respect after all he has done for the Democratic Party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #47
62. Yea, wrong about Iraq...like POTUS?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
51. It's not what you know, it's who you know
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 09:46 PM by Truth Hurts A Lot
Haven't you ever heard that expression? :) As McPalin would say, Dean's reward is in heaven.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:53 PM
Response to Original message
53. to make you whine...incessantly. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamthebandfanman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
56. HOW DARE YOU QUESTION GOD!
er i mean democratic leaders!

off with your head!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rowdyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
57. If Howard Dean wants to work in the Obama administration I'm sure he'd have no problem....
My understanding was that he didn't want reappointment as head of the DNC. I'm not sure he'd be interested in serving in any position right now-I think he may have other plans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBS Poll-435 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
58. This is the saddest thing ever. I am outraged.
:cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbmk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:17 PM
Response to Original message
59. Maybe...
Because Obama, for whatever reason, do not think it fits with the progression of his agenda?

Obama have not really struck me as person that makes senseless decisions. A LOT of people will have to live with the idea that they are not privy to the arguments behind the decisions that Obama will make.

And I do not think its completely abhorent to suggest he deserves to have some time where the answer to "How does that make sense?" is "Because it apparently does to Obama" - on a lot of issues.

By all means question/debate it. Learning the arguments that does go behind these decisions is of course interesting and comforting. But when ding so, it would not hurt to do it at least including an assumption that you might not be right or uncapable of envisioning the larger picture.

And don't expect to have that broader picture laid out by the people actually taking these decisions, as that might change the picture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
political_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
61. Because they aren't rivals. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 01st 2014, 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC