2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum"WARREN 2016" - Would Dem Party Bosses Allow It?
I see quite a few posters here would like to see Elizabeth Warren as the Dem nominee in 2016. Who better? I would love that too.
But remember what happened to Howard Dean as soon as he started talking about too much corporate power. And no, it wasn't about a scream. It was about editing out the noise in the room to make him seem just a tad bit crazy. Dem leaders were not about to have a populist nominee with the nerve to talk about limiting corporate power. As a matter of fact, President Obama borrowed much from Howard's grassroots approach and still had no position for him in the administration.
It is clear that, like Howard Dean, Elizabeth Warren is about changing the balance of power in the country. So what makes anyone think Dem leaders would allow Warren to be nominated in 2016?
(As I said, I'd love for it to happen.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Tarheel_Dem
(31,235 posts)over? And Pres. Obama didn't owe Howard Dean a "position". 
polichick
(37,152 posts)and also a new grassroots approach that threatened the establishment.
That's why it became necessary to take him down.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 11, 2013, 03:43 PM - Edit history (1)
If there was anywhere where a genuine grassroots effort could have succeeded it was Iowa or NH. Historical example - Jimmy Carter - out of nowhere he won Iowa.
What I have heard is that face to face, Iowans were more impressed by John Kerry than by Howard Dean. Dean had more money, more big name support, and better media. What Kerry had was that people who said they were definitely with him stayed with him. He won that state by meeting people and persuading them to come out for him.
I suspect that the Dean momentum, fueled by something new - the internet meet ups etc - was overrated by the media wanting a story. I KNOW that a huge percent of the people on DU, Daily Kos etc were adamantly for Dean. They were NOT representative of the Democratic party though. Nationally, the polls reflected who was getting the media - and in 2003, Kerry got almost no media coverage; Dean got three simultaneous magazine covers in August 2003.
DrToast
(6,414 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)I couldn't agree more.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)How come he didn't accumulate as many votes as Kerry if there were too many Deaniacs?
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Much, if not all, his loss was due to Joe Trippi. They ran an awful campaign the final couple months of the primary. No one took him down - no more than how they try to take down the front-runner in any election. He took himself down.
The campaign's problem boils down to Iowa. It was the perfect storm, really, that blunted his momentum and allowed Kerry & Edwards to surge ahead in the polls.
1) Dean was pummeled in the final debate prior to Iowa. I doubt every candidate got orders to take Dean out - rather he was perceived as the front-runner and the best way to gain traction in a campaign is by hitting, and hitting, and hitting the front-runner. You can blame Al Sharpton, who is certainly not a party insider, for providing the first chink in Dean's armor by attacking the diversity of his cabinet as governor (or lack thereof). I thought it was a low-blow, considering Vermont is one of the least diverse states in the country. But it stuck mostly because Dean didn't handle the answer well and, along with the confederate flag flap, the imagery just wasn't good for the campaign. Still, that wasn't the death blow - sadly, it knocked 'em off message and they could never recover.
2) The Caucus Tapes. Dean openly trashing the Iowa caucus, saying it was dominated by special interests and the extremes. Whether it was true or not, the fact the most important state in the 2004 Democratic Primary proved to be Iowa, which runs the most famous caucus in the world, certainly didn't help.
3) Dick Gephardt. Maybe your point would be valid that the establishment got behind Gephardt - but it takes two to tango. Gephardt drew Dean into a fight and both got muddy. It was absolutely stupid for Dean to take the bait, and, in retrospect, what really damaged him. Had he ignored Gephardt's attacks, or attacked in a far more constructive way, Kerry & Edwards never surge because voters aren't turned off by the petty back and forth between the two camps. But he didn't. He got too close down to Gephardt's level, who was desperate for traction, and it made it easier to pull Dean down with him.
4) Trippi. Trippi ran a horrible campaign once Dean became the front-runner. This happens a lot. It happens because most insurgent campaigns struggle handling the position as top dog - they're not used to it and they don't necessarily expect it. It's much easier running a presidential campaign when you're last place in the polls because there is nothing to lose. In the summer of '03, Dean's campaign was brilliant in its operations because it was being run as the underdog. The second they took the lead in Iowa, and then the national polls, it all started collapsing from within because the narrative than shifted on two fronts - the fact criticism would be turned up from other campaigns because they were now perceived as the front-runner and now the possibility of winning was real, so, they had to start acting like a legitimate campaign. They struggled doing that. It showed.
5) The youth never turned out. You can't blame the establishment for that. Dean had counted on a huge swell of youth support in Iowa and it never materialized. Sure, the caucus had new voters - but they weren't young new voters. The reality, only 17% of caucus goers were from the age of 17-29 - and Dean still lost 'em to Kerry (by 10).
To contrast, in 2008, the 17-29 group made up 22% of all caucus goers - the second highest turnout by age group.
6) Trippi. Again. The campaign was poorly run in those final days. They never saw the Edwards surge coming. They didn't take him seriously. They thought it was a three-way race between Dean, Gephardt and Kerry. It wasn't. It was a two-man race between Kerry and Edwards - Dean and Gephardt were already done. Worse, they didn't know how to game the caucus like successful campaigns have done in the past. Dean was supposed to have 50,000 caucus goers ready to go, no matter what. It never materialized. The problem Dean's campaign ran into is that they brought in a lot of outsiders to help recruit caucus goers. They were unfamiliar with the system and it showed. Add the negativism of the final month, the fact he was pummeled as front-runner, and the mismanagement all around, and you see why the campaign failed.
To me, Dean's implosion was similar to that of Hillary's. They bought their own hype. Then when things got real, when it became clear it wasn't a sure-thing, they panicked and it showed. Hillary's downfall began in an October debate where she answered the question on drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants badly. Dean faced a very similar situation. Neither could recover - though Hillary did a better job trying than Dean.
At the end of the day, Dean would've been the nominee if he had dropped Trippi around September, 2003. But he kept him on. That's generally the downfall of many campaigns - they wait until it's too late to make changes. Dean waited until time was out before realizing his whole foundation was slipping.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)and Clinton's 2008 campaign is close. Dean's campaign imploded pretty much out of the starting gate (Iowa) and the nosedive was pretty steep after that. Clinton's ran a strong but inept campaign. Granted she too lost Iowa, but she also turned around and won NH.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)And it really began with poor debate performances. Clinton's downfall started in October when she fizzled in a debate on the drivers license question. Dean's collapse began in a later debate when Sharpton hinted at him being a racist. It just snowballed from there. The difference was that Hillary had way more support to withhold the collapse than Dean.
SharonAnn
(13,776 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)
zazen
(2,978 posts)People still followed the MSM party line, so when the idiot newsreaders executed the DINO strategy against Dean there wasn't enough of an internet-, social-media-based movement and network to counter them.
Now it's different.
Yes, the DINOs and corporate PTB will go after her. But, a lot of people are going to take to Warren when they see her on a national stage. She's very warm, sensible, and to even some more traditional types, non-threatening (she seems like that nice middle-aged lady down the road who raised her kids at home and then does lots of volunteer work.) She seems eminently reasonable and all about restoring middle class families by holding financial predators responsible for how they've decimated our economy.
I don't and never did support HRC because of her neoliberal policies, though I admire her a great deal for what she's accomplished under awful circumstances. Sadly, I think she may lose the nomination to Warren not on the issues (which would be legit), but because she's perceived as much less feminine (harsher, edgier, and invulnerable) than Warren. I hate that ridiculous gender stereotypes may paradoxically end up playing a role and I will decry them whenever I see them, but they may indeed play a role in helping the more progressive candidate get elected.
polichick
(37,152 posts)a populist movement possible - just not sure it'll come through this party.
It would be quite a show if HRC and EW both go after the nomination!
Yavin4
(35,442 posts)I love Warren, but her appeal is severely limited. She has no chance in a national election if she cannot win by double digits in Mass.
polichick
(37,152 posts)If we have a centrist corporate candidate and populist Warren, her appeal may be much stronger - for the people but not necessarily for party leaders.
I guess what really interests me is the question of whether this party and its voters are on the same page.
Bonhomme Richard
(9,000 posts)We might as well just toss it in and find something else to do with our time.
With that attitude we will never get anywhere. maybe, just maybe a real progressive candidate that takes it directly to the people can make a difference.
I know...it's just not being practical....Look where we are now.
Yavin4
(35,442 posts)What does that tell you? And, this is Mass., one of the most Liberal states in the nation.
treestar
(82,383 posts)we'd be talking about 2014, not 2016.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Romney left office with approvals in the 30s, Brown lost with approvals near 50.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Remember that Romney was their former governor, and chose not to run for reelection because he likely was going to get his ass kicked if he did.
You aren't comparing apples to apples.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Obama ran against Romney, who they already hated in his own right. Warren ran against Brown, who really was nowhere near as hated as Romney. Brown was reasonably liked - even after the nasty 2012 campaign and was considered a frontrunner for JK's seat this year.
Did you mean this post to reply to the same person I replied to.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)She started off something like 20 points down.
Romney, on the other hand, would have lost by 40 points to a potted plant.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)
msongs
(67,420 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)that could beat Hillary's. That's hard to imagine.
polichick
(37,152 posts)I have no doubt Warren could get enough people behind her - my question is, even if she did, would party leaders try to take her down.
We know HRC has nothing to worry about on that count.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)I think the key would be if in addition to the grassroots/left internet support, there are at least some powerful Democrats brave enough to back her. I think that without Daschle (whose leading staff went to Obama in 2005) and Kerry and Kennedy, Obama likely would have come up short. Consider that the blessing of the 2004 nominee and the liberal lion DID help many concerned that he had less experience that Clinton. In addition, in Kerry, he had a prominent advocate who could counter the Bill Clinton attacks. (Of course, he did NOT have Clinton's power or renown, but he was very credible and very good in helping those attacks backfire.)
Consider that Pouffle was a Daschle guy and Axelrod had worked for Edwards in 2004 - neither were inexperienced. In addition, when Kerry opted out, many Kerry people went to Obama. They were people who had experience in easily winning the 2004 nomination.
Consider that Clinton was assumed to have the advantage getting the Bill Clinton team that had won two elections. However, that was over 10 years before - and technology had changed. In addition, Mark Penn and other arrogant Clinton people made big mistakes in planning the nomination race. Obama needed Clinton to run a poor race - and thanks to her team, she did.
I think the biggest difficulty anyone will have beating HRC this time, is that I think there were many things she learned from last time - and I don't see her making the same mistakes twice.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)The Iowa result of Deam losing by TWENTY points to Kerry and coming in a poor third were the real reason. Imagine there were NO scream and nothing that could have been used, what would have happened that night?
Dean and Gephardt were the people the media designated as the the frontrunners and likely winners going into Iowa. The question about Kerry was if he would drop out after Iowa or after NH. The results - Kerry 38%, Edwards 30% and Dean 18% (and Gephardt even less) led to Gephardt dropping out immediately. The next state was NH. Dean did not lose the % of people he was polling there - but Kerry gained many people previously for Clark (who was imploding), Gephardt and undecided. Both Dean and Kerry were very well known and NH has always had the reputation of being a retail politics primary.
After losing Iowa and NH, Dean faced a problem of his own campaigns making. Dean had raised huge amounts of money on the internet and going into Iowa had FAR more money than anyone. Trippi wasted nearly all that money in those two states. Kerry, winning those states, saw donations to his campaign rise - Dean saw his decline. He made a strategic decision to not particularly contest the next set of primaries - as they were in states not good for New Englanders to concentrate on some more likely later states.
At that point, the media was already pivoting to Edwards with articles on the "sunny" Edwards praising him as the new improved Bill Clinton with no bimbo problems. 2004 could quickly have become like 1992 - when it was a Southern group of states that Clinton won to become the new frontrunner. Had that happened, I think Dean's strategy could have paid off. Edwards was close to Lieberman in defending the Iraq war in the pre primaries, Dean could have made the contest him vs Edwards. Instead, Kerry won 5 of the 7 states (DE, ND, NM,AZ, and MO). Clark won OK and Edwards won SC. CNN declared it a victory for both Kerry and Edwards. (Shows they wanted an ongoing fight and they did not want Kerry - compare how quickly they crowned Romney whose wins were nowhere as impressive as Kerry's)
As to speaking out against the power elite, Kerry was the one who did FAR more of this in his career - especially during a 5 year investigation of BCCI that he continued even after TPTB had both Jimmy Carter and Jackie Onassis call him to get him to stop. Not to mention, Kerry started as an activist, both antiwar and environment. He did not have a typical up the ladder political career pushed by mentors.
What I think is that the nominations going to Kerry and to Obama both show that while TPTB are of course powerful - they can be beaten. Leading up to 2008, it is obvious that most of the powers in the party and the media were lined up for Hillary - just as they are now (almost more so and this time almost like Republicans arguing it is her turn). Obama's grassroots plus his having most of Tom Daschle's staff and the strong support of Kerry and Kennedy were able to beat them. But, consider who Daschle, Kerry and Kennedy were - three very powerful Democrats.
I could see a repeat of that with Warren - where some powerful Democrats see that she could allow the Democrats to run a very populist campaign. Obama did not really do that and Hillary really can't. If by 2013, the Obama administration is seen as very very positive, then Hillary will very likely be the candidate. If, however, things are near where they are now - it may take someone who can BOTH praise what Obama did and have her own agenda that in some ways is very different.
polichick
(37,152 posts)which is why it was necessary to take him down with bullshit tactics.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 12, 2013, 02:11 AM - Edit history (1)
Kerry was well known in NH and was (per polls) many people's second choice even before winning Iowa. The biggest thing hurting him was that the CW was that he could not win the nomination. In fact, had I been polled in 2003, I would have said Dean. I wanted Kerry or Dean - and with Kerry polling near Sharpton and Dean the frontrunner, it was better strategy to pick Dean. (At that point, my preference was nowhere as strong for Kerry as it became later after knowing more about Kerry.)
Dean was BEFORE IOWA slightly sinking in NH, with votes going to Clark. When Clark imploded, slightly before Iowa, they did not go back to Dean - some went to Kerry and many went to undecided. Kerry winning Iowa, like EVERY one who has won Iowa, gained momentum in NH. It was that momentum and Gephardt getting out, that almost immediately put Kerry ahead in NH. Consider that people for Gephardt were as angry with Dean as the Dean people were with "the establishment". (Remember in 2012, Hillary was 20 points ahead in NH before Iowa - and nearly lost it. Dean's lead was not that big and there were more undecideds. )
A real different take on the scream is that the target was NOT Dean, but Kerry. Why? Without it, the main story would have been Kerry's unexpected by the DC pundits win. One focus could even have been the incredible moment where Kerry and the Republican marine he saved in Vietnam were reunited. It looked like something out of a Kapra movie! Instead at least half the coverage was the scream. The other story - which would have hurt Dean just as much is that the media would cover "Why Dean lost". You've seen that before - the media makes the result look obvious by taking all the worst moments of the campaign and showing them back to back. (Consider how they treated Kerry who nearly won what would have been an upset.) So, scream took the attention away from Kerry's campaign and message -- and in mocking Dean tried to weaken a man who became one of the best surrogates Kerry had.
What I wrote was my opinion, which I tried to substantiate with the reasons why I thought so. I would place the point where Dean was really out as after he lost NH and opted not to contest DE, SC, OK, MO, NM, AZ and ND. If I needed an exact moment when, it was when Kerry won 5 of these 7. It was also the moment when Edwards was really out as well. (If Edwards does not take all these, how does he win? ) However, I see the roots of that day in Trippi running through money like water in Iowa and that Kerry was close enough to win NH with the expected momentum that anyone would get out of winning Iowa.) The ONLY thing that could have put either Edwards or Dean back in the game after that day was if Kerry really screwed up - and he didn't.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Who made that decision?
Dem voters, including me, were with him.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)There were not enough votes available left to contest the race. His brother put out a statement I think in late November that spoke of the various types of voter suppression in Ohio, but explained that they could not win by a recount. The problem was that Ohio was able to prevent enough Democrats from voting.
Even the RFKjr result proves that more people went to the polls in Ohio wanting to vote for Kerry. However, he included estimates of people prevented from voting - and you can't count votes never cast. Kerry himself did speak at length about this to a Boston group on the following MLK day - appropriate as voting was a major MLK issue and it was disproportionately black voters denied their vote. (He was HEAVILY criticized by the media when he did this). He also detailed a huge number of ways the Republicans suppressed the vote in a speech given when the Rosa Parks voting act was renewed in 2006 - this was the one the SC just acted on.
The problem he had was that he could not prove that more votes in Ohio were cast for him -- and it may be that more were cast for Bush. Just because you could vote easily in republican areas and had 10 hour waits in some Democratic ones can not be used to contest the election. Not to mention, getting a court to consider whether there was significant voter suppression would not change the result. In the 2002 NH Senate race, the Republicans (about 3 years later) were found to have crippled the Manchester Democratic GOTV lines. Result - the people who did it went to jail; Sununu remained Senator.
Kerry obviously made the decision to work hard to fight for the Democrats winning in 2006 and 2008.
polichick
(37,152 posts)speaking out about Viet Nam.
What I'm really questioning in this thread is whether party leaders and party voters are on the same page, especially about corporate influence.
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)I remember Dean was on Lawrence O'Donnell one night and said he lost because of mistakes in his campaign. Now I know what he was talking about.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,414 posts)and yet he still won. Was he being pushed by the "Dem Party bosses"? 
polichick
(37,152 posts)Perhaps the party leaders knew what the people did not.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)it's funny how the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson spent so much money trying to defeat him in 2012. I would imagine them not spending so much against a candidate if he or she happened to be on board with their agenda. And let's not forget--he did extend tax breaks for the bottom 98% of Americans while pushing tax hikes on the top 1 or 2%, which was an action that the aforementioned tycoons haven't exactly been crazy about. Does any of this not count?
polichick
(37,152 posts)He's still the lesser of evils.
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)Proud Liberal Dem
(24,414 posts)and he has thus remained. If you read his "Audacity of Hope" book, not much of what he has done policy-wise since he was elected has been very surprising IMHO (and I have generally been satisfied with him).
polichick
(37,152 posts)Now you're making the opposite point.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,414 posts)Are "centrists" automatically assumed to be "establishment" or something? Obama was a Loooooooong shot for being nominated, let along elected. I always believed that Hillary was the "establishment candidate" (the party leaders' preferred candidate)- certainly was long expected to be the nominee.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)No doubt Hillary was the DLC candidate of choice. But there were some powerful folks behind Obama too. Some connected to the Kennedy family. And in there somewhere, after he won Iowa, there were meetings on Wall Street to disuade deep seated fears that he would shake things up on Wall Street. Supposedly, it is where he first came in contact with Geithner and got his "man crush".
brooklynite
(94,601 posts)...but the "Party Bosses" didn't screw up Howard Dean's campaign; Howard Dean did.
Dean was great at turning out people to his rallies. he sucked at getting people to actually vote for him. In the Iowa Caucus he came in third, and his performance in New Hapshire wasn't much better. (nb - I was in New Hampshire the weekend before the Primary and I could see he campaign disintegrating: poor organization, inadequate volunteers, uninspiring speeches, etc).
The Presidential nomination is open to anyone with the organization and resources to fight for it: that's why the 2008 Primary went almost to the Convention before it was settled. Are you suggesting the "Party Bosses" didn't have a favorite and couldn't force his/her opponent out earlier?
Now as for Warren: she's not planning to run, and if Hillary runs, she definitely won't be getting in as the "liberal alternative". This has nothing to do with "Party Bosses" and everything to do with not wanting to lose unnecessarily and protecting your future opportunities.
polichick
(37,152 posts)If Dean had been doing so badly, it would not have been necessary to invent the campaign to take him out. What Dean did "wrong" is to start talking about curbing corporate power.
I don't think Warren will run - but I also think plenty of people in the party would try to take her down if she did. She wasn't even allowed to run the bureau that she inspired in this administration.
brooklynite
(94,601 posts)I have the evidence of his actual performance on the ground. What do you have?
polichick
(37,152 posts)brooklynite
(94,601 posts)Where they plotted the demise of the Dean campaign?
In the TV control room when someone passed a note to the audio technician to tweak the sound?
Or were you just in the room when Dean made his speech and you think it sounded different on TV?
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Kerry, the antiwar hero of 1971, the only Senator willing to investigate gun and drug running to arm the Contras (until things blew up and they created a House/Senate committee on it and the deals with Iran), and the Senator who actually did run the investigation that led to closing BCCI - even though Democratic bigwigs like Clark Clifford were implicated was so much less scary to them?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)when she was denied the leadership of the CFPB because she wouldn't play nicely with Geithner and the other White House bankers... but she came back as a senator.
Massachusetts demanded that she go back to Washington, and there she is. When America is smart enough to demand that she's in the White House, she'll be there.
polichick
(37,152 posts)in the White House, she'll be there."
I'd like to think this party will be smart enough to put her there, but I'm not sure that's the way it'll happen.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,414 posts)the Republicans filibustered her nomination to death just like they're doing with the current nominee because they want changes to the law that they're not capable of getting through the normal legislative process- as I recall.
But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good Obama/Democrat-bashing session?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)or do the honorable alternative.
Thanks!
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,414 posts)I mis-remembered that period of time. The Republicans have made things so bad in the Senate, I just naturally assume that they're filibustering anything and everything (and everybody). She was NOT, in fact, filibustered- though Republicans and financial institutions opposed her appointment, NOT President Obama nor any Democrat I'm aware of. I think it's fair to say that she would've been filibustered had she been put up for nomination as Republicans hated her and are refusing to allow a confirmation vote on ANY nominee for CFPB. On an up-or-down vote- had she been nominated- I believe that she would have been confirmed. President Obama DID appoint her to help set up the CFPB as was his prerogative. My point still stands that her lack of nomination had nothing to do with President Obama or Democrats in general.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Thanks!
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,414 posts)He IS being filibustered by the Republicans
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)he wouldn't be filibustered?
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)don't pick sides. Whoever the primary voters pick is who we get. What stopped Dean was that the other candidates ganged up on him and got that scream video played over and over. As for Warren I doubt she runs and if she does I don't think she has a chance because I agree with her too much which means she's too far left.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)and they likely did more because they thought it fun. It was painful to see - even as someone happy Kerry won Iowa. In fact, I resented that it took away from an analysis of why Kerry won.
polichick
(37,152 posts)used by Dem leaders all over the TV back then.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)I was speaking of that as my own reaction. I liked Dean and knew some of the things he had done in Vermont. I did not live here then, but had for decades vacationed there. In the 1990s, we took our kids on a tour led by a VT senior citizen tour guide of the Montpelier statehouse who made sure the kids saw Dean's office. He made a point of explaining to them both that his daughter was the same age as one of ours and that he was a doctor. He then spoke of how good and smart he was as governor. His job was to lead groups through the statehouse - but the thing that most sticks with me is the genuine love this man had for the then governor.
My feeling then - as the "scream" continued was how sickening it most feel for him and people who really knew and respected him as the serious, well meaning person he is. It must have felt like being in the middle of a whirlwind that he could do nothing stop - even though he did had done absolutely nothing to deserve that ridicule. That this happened the night when he could have had the joy of taking the first step to the Presidency and instead did far worse than any public expectations only made it worse. The closest I personally ever got to experiencing what people working for Dean felt was the 2006 treatment of Kerry when he skipped the word "us" in reading a prepared joke. It was like a kick in the gut for me and others in the JK group - I can't imagine what it was for people who genuinely know either JK then or Dean in 2004.
Even without that, that night would have been a miserable day for him and the NH loss would have been as well. The one thing I really hate with the current way politics is covered is that it seems the vast majority of people exit long careers of service ending with extreme negativity towards them by the media. Dean at least has the everlasting respect and support of the people proud to have been part of his campaign. He also will forever be seen as the person who changed how money is raised by Democrats for campaigns. Small amounts summing to large amounts via the internet may be the biggest change in decades and may be what allows "people" to have a choice that the TPTB would not prefer.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Even IF there had been no sound from the crowd (impossible as that is), there was NO justification to playing that thousands of times!
I was speaking of that as my own reaction. I liked Dean and knew some of the things he had done in Vermont. I did not live here then, but had for decades vacationed there. In the 1990s, we took our kids on a tour led by a VT senior citizen tour guide of the Montpelier statehouse who made sure the kids saw Dean's office. He made a point of explaining to them both that his daughter was the same age as one of ours and that he was a doctor. He then spoke of how good and smart he was as governor. His job was to lead groups through the statehouse - but the thing that most sticks with me is the genuine love this man had for the then governor.
My feeling then - as the "scream" continued was how sickening it most feel for him and people who really knew and respected him as the serious, well meaning person he is. It must have felt like being in the middle of a whirlwind that he could do nothing stop - even though he did had done absolutely nothing to deserve that ridicule. That this happened the night when he could have had the joy of taking the first step to the Presidency and instead did far worse than any public expectations only made it worse. The closest I personally ever got to experiencing what people working for Dean felt was the 2006 treatment of Kerry when he skipped the word "us" in reading a prepared joke. It was like a kick in the gut for me and others in the JK group - I can't imagine what it was for people who genuinely know either JK then or Dean in 2004.
Even without that, that night would have been a miserable day for him and the NH loss would have been as well. The one thing I really hate with the current way politics is covered is that it seems the vast majority of people exit long careers of service ending with extreme negativity towards them by the media. Dean at least has the everlasting respect and support of the people proud to have been part of his campaign. He also will forever be seen as the person who changed how money is raised by Democrats for campaigns. Small amounts summing to large amounts via the internet may be the biggest change in decades and may be what allows "people" to have a choice that the TPTB would not prefer.
polichick
(37,152 posts)We still couldn't hear him from the back of the room.
Editing the sound and providing it to media outlets was disgusting. (It's easy to do that kind of editing; we have a sound designer in our family who could do it in two minutes.)
But what Republicans did to John Kerry regarding his military record was truly depraved.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Even local boring political election parties are loud - I can imagine that it was near impossible to hear! As to editing, it is trivial when you have someone speaking into a mike.
I really resented that they took something absolutely normal in context and twisted it -- and that is what they always do. There is no way that any candidate could ever avoid having something that can be distorted that way.
polichick
(37,152 posts)to stop a candidate in their tracks. That's what I think corporate centrist Dems would do to Warren.
polichick
(37,152 posts)but I do think populists like Warren are too far left for today's Dem party. Sadly.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)the people who work for the DNC. That's who I think of when somebody mentions the bosses. I could be wrong but during 08 they all seemed pretty neutral when everyone was talking about superdelegates.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)The DLC picks and funds candidates. Other congressional reps do as well. Nancy Pelosi enjoyed her speakership because she funded so many other congressional reps. Money talks, everything else walks.
tokenlib
(4,186 posts)And that is what would happen with a Warren candidacy. Without a strong Progressive candidate--Hillary gets a coronation with the corporate media's blessing. And once again, the Progressive/ Labor base of the party will be told.."you have nowhere else to go."
Now I'll go hide under my teflon tent..
polichick
(37,152 posts)the change will have to happen from outside the party.
Either way, it will happen.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)I hope she runs. I hope she's nominated. I hope she wins.
And I will laugh my ass off when, minutes after her inauguration, the emprogs start laying into her because she either did or didn't raise her pinky finger the dictated distance.
Blackford
(289 posts)Kirsten Gillibrand is my second choice.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)I think that Warren is in the ideal place for her. Senators last longer in office than presidents. she can push for reforms for years to come, just as a certain former Sr. Senator from MA did before her. Teddy would approve.
Blackford
(289 posts)she'll be able to get far more done than she could ever do as president.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)I think that she's of better use to people in her current position.
erpowers
(9,350 posts)Supporters of Elizabeth Warren need to vote for her and get others to vote for her in the primaries. If she gets the most votes in the primaries she will be the nominee.
The real problem is going to be the pressure to pick a nominee that can win in the general election. There will be a great amount of pressure on Warren supporters to abandon her in order to allow the Democratic Party to win in the general election.
I contend that was the real reason Howard Deen lost the nomination in 2003-2004. Too many of his supporters voted for John Kerry because they thought Kerry had a better chance of beating George W. Bush in the general election.
polichick
(37,152 posts)I really believe that Dem bosses (a powerful group of elected Dems and their corporate owners) will try to taint her as quickly as possible.
With the internet and social media having more and more organizing power, it's possible for the people to stick together - for me, that's the optimistic part.
madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)80-20!!
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Malia Obama in 2040 and 2044
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)Beacool
(30,250 posts)When it comes to the Clintons, this place is as virulent as any RW site.
Disgusting.............
polichick
(37,152 posts)Beacool
(30,250 posts)I never said that this thread was about Hillary.
polichick
(37,152 posts)
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Dean had the support of more super delegates than any other candidate. These are the Dem bosses. So in a sense Dean was establishment candidate.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2004/01/wait_dean_has_the_most_delegates.html
I know it is a belief among Dean fans that he was the choice of the people and was somehow brought down by the party leaders. But the truth is many party leaders were already supporting Dean and he just failed to connect with most voters.
ancianita
(36,095 posts)really the Pentagon that decides and the party bosses just convey the decision through party convention proceedings as if the decision were theirs. Because, seriously, the DoD is not about to have just any woman as its CIC. Hillary's done time in the halls of State and has familiarity, thereby with the three-letter agencies.
And as for party bosses, Progressives would have to literally stop the nominating convention to force the issue, and it still wouldn't be allowed.
If, by some miracle, Warren were nominated and won, what makes anyone here think that being president wouldn't change everything we admire about her? There are realities and limitations of that office that no one but former presidents know.
SugarShack
(1,635 posts)Taverner
(55,476 posts)I wish it would
I really think the first female President would be our FDR
Conditions aren't right for it right now, however
The reason I think it won't happen is many:
- The DNC will not let it happen. But then again, the DNC was pushing for Clinton.
- What do Dennis Kucinich, Paul Wellstone, Bill Haywood, Eugene Debs and Henry Wallace all have in common? They were or are progressives. Face it, we get shafted. They draft us to stomp the pavement, but they make absolutely sure the radicals of our party (and I mean that in a good way) get nothing.
- I think she would make a great Justice of the Supreme Court, and can see that happening
But if she runs, she's got my vote
Mutiny In Heaven
(550 posts)She won't bring change in that area, other than to perhaps be more hawkish than President Obama, so if that's a sticking point for you, she's a candidate you'd do well to steer a thousand miles clear of.
I think, to be honest, that her relatively bland style will stop her from ever winning the nomination or becoming president; that's not a reflection on any other than how I feel she will be received by the mass-audience.
TBF
(32,067 posts)If Hillary bows out then it's wide open but someone with charisma will be needed. I love Warren (and Bernie Sanders too for that matter) but unfortunately these are not electable options.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)known. But he still made it.
TBF
(32,067 posts)and folks gave him a chance because they didn't know him.
Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have a lot of charisma and experience. There are negatives as well so as much as I'd love to see Hillary run & win it might be easier to go with a new candidate just as the party decided to do with Obama. I just don't see the charisma that would be needed from Elizabeth Warren. Of course that could change - nobody knew Wendy Davis three weeks ago either.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)honest, intelligent, has integrity, ability and has shown her willingness to fight against
huge odds for the well-being of all Americans. She has no fear of tangling with
powerful opponents. There is power in her gentle way of speaking. She simply exudes
an aura of trustworthiness -- she will never betray anyone. To many of us she is very
charismatic, indeed!
TBF
(32,067 posts)and character but that doesn't translate to charisma. Can she get up on stage and give the speeches we need to captivate folks in general (not just intelligent folks)?
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)Does SHE want it? She may be content with being a senator.
polichick
(37,152 posts)I'm sure she makes a lot of Dems feel hopeful.
EW ran for the Senate because she wasn't allowed to head the bureau she inspired - perhaps she'll be compelled to run again if she feels nothing can get done in the Senate.
I heard her say that she ran because the alternative was throwing shoes at her TV. Good on her - most of us are still throwing shoes!
Cal33
(7,018 posts)lives. They haven't done anything else. Now, we all know that politics is often full of
dirt, deceit, cunning, skullduggery, vengeance.....and many other negative traits one
can think of. When one has been exposed to so much of this all of one's life, one CAN'T
HELP but develop some degree of acceptance of the presence of these traits in others,
and become more tolerant of them. So, such a person is likely to fight less hard against
such negative traits.
Elizabeth Warren entered politics late in life. Her honesty and integrity shine through in
all that she is trying to do. She can be depended upon to fight against deceit, lies and
corruption. She will get things done! This is what we need RIGHT NOW. Our government
has never shown these negative traits to such an alarming degree as it is doing now! We
need her.
If anyone can bring about REAL CHANGE in our government, Elizabeth Warren can.
I can think of two other politicians who have maintained their sense of honesty and
integrity: Sen. Sanders and Rep. Grayson. And there are others. We need such people
in government ... and never have we needed them so badly as now!!
polichick
(37,152 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 14, 2013, 01:56 PM - Edit history (1)
But if they're not sufficiently entrenched in the system that has become a symbiotic relationship between gov't and corporations/mic the powers-that-be will try to stop them fast.
Still, change can only come when the people demand it - and maybe we're getting to the place where people will demand leaders that really represents them. ('Course, many thought they were doing that with Obama.)
Edit: typo
Cal33
(7,018 posts)Hope," Obama described pretty clearly where his policies lay. And just last week he said
that if he had been president in the 1980s, he would have been considered to be a moderate
Republican. In short, Obama hasn't changed. It's just that many of us misunderstood him.
To the Right-Wing crazies, of course, he is a "Commie," just like Eisenhower.
But there can be no mistake about Elizabeth Warren. Her actions show where she stands.
About the Democratic Establishment, I hope come 2014 and 2016 voters will ignore its
powerful influence, and vote in progressive and liberal candidates. The DLC and DNC
have been playing footsies with Corporations and the MIC long enough. We've had enough
of the BS. They don't seem to care that the very life of our nation as a democracy is at stake.
polichick
(37,152 posts)about that sound like Ed Snowden today. I worked for him and heard those speeches in person - it's not true that he hasn't changed. The reason for the change is anybody's guess.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)are all aware that most politicians, either deliberately or through ignorance, make more promises during their campaigns as candidates than they are actually able to deliver as president in office.
The general population probably has also been taken in by the journalistic exaggeration from way back when, that the president of the U.S.A. was "the most powerful man in the world." In actuality, most of the important things the president wants done have to also meet the approval of many people and different factions. One of the purposes of a democracy is to see to it, that no one individual, or even a group of individuals, should ever become too powerful -- hence the checks and balances.
Your example of transparency is especially true. It looks like a direct contradiction to what
Obama had promised during his campaigning days. I am imagining now that you could be a very idealistic type of person, since you have been directly involved in actually working in politics.
Were you a volunteer, perhaps? I hope you're not letting it become too big a trauma.
I remember having read that even a popular president like Eisenhower used to average 18,000
threats a year. This could be used as a guess among the reasons for change, although I don't think it could be applied to the transparency thing.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Even though I've worked for the Dem party (volunteering) for 4 decades, I've never been naïve about the propaganda that our country pumps out, especially regarding the mic. What has changed for me is that I no longer see the Dems as being sufficiently different from Republicans to work for the party. There are few who are not corporatists. These days I vote for Dems as the lesser of evils.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)consider Extreme-Leftists to be Democrats. To me, extremists are followers of dictatorships, whether
left or right they are against democracy.
TBF
(32,067 posts)Equating "extreme-leftists" with dictatorships is just another form of red-baiting.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)may use different terms to describe them, but I wouldn't want to live under the rule of
either one of them. Most people wouldn't.
TBF
(32,067 posts)You don't have a clue as to what you are talking about and the red-baiting is tiresome.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)Which regime of the two would you prefer to live under? Call them by whatever name
you like, both haven't got the slightest compunction about using force and eliminating
people who don't do exactly as they say.
Another point: Some words have different shades of meanings for different people.
The word "ego" is an example. Maybe the word "extremist" belongs in the same category.
I think of it as someone who is a fanatic and is incapable of bending, not even in the
slightest degree. Whether right or left, these people are equally unappetizing to me.
If this is red-baiting to you, so be it.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)
Cal33
(7,018 posts)Beacool
(30,250 posts) treestar
(82,383 posts)you may argue about who gets money, but the voters get exposure to some candidates without much - Kucinich was nationally known and took part in the debates, for example. The primary voters could have been excited by him and chosen him. And he was just a Representative. Any Senator who runs will get coverage and the chance to inspire people to vote for, campaign for and donate to them.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)reading what someone wrote: He voted for Bush, Jr. because he thought Bush was
someone he would have enjoyed having a beer with. I also remember having read of
someone who didn't vote for Kucinich because he didn't "look presidential." He
didn't say a word about what he thought of what Kucinich stood for.
And, I suppose, the Establishment is very aware of and knows how to make use of
the above attitudes.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)I don't think she does. If this is the case and someone convinces her to run anyway, any opponent worth their salt will sniff it out and use it to their advantage.
Has anyone who keeps yelling for "WARREN 2016" ever considered that she might not want the job?
polichick
(37,152 posts)since the Senate isn't exactly functional - and decide to go for the WH.
(That's why she ran for the Senate, she has said.)
nolabels
(13,133 posts)The corporate cabal the runs this country would only needs one or two Trojan Horses or disaffected staffers to undermine any effort. People seem to forget he who owns the messenger gets to control the message.
People are starting to connect the dots and see how it's actually been working, but fear it will be another six or eight years before a majority gets it
polichick
(37,152 posts)That's why EW wouldn't get very far even if she wanted to - even if WE wanted her to.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)throwing shoes at her TV. 
There are too many Dems. in high positions who allow themselves to be walked over. They
are letting the minority Repubs. run the government.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)It's called the Stockholm syndrome. In what part of resistance that is left to those that finally get elected to a Democratic ticket are muted or tiptoed around with. By the time those ideas get to bill they get frozen out with filibuster or procedure. There probably isn't that much grand planing or phone calls to make it happen that way because it is already setup to happen that way.
In the meanwhile the so called conservatives (read billionaires and sycophants) get what they wanted which is nothing happening (that is because they have it now just like they want it). They have successfully brainwashed enough people into thinking that anything that has a Democratic recommendation on it is wrong (no matter what it is). They have been doing this kind of branding on the black population for centuries, so they are pretty expert at it
Effectively they are a cult in a diminishing minority
Cal33
(7,018 posts)no longer be any further elections within one or two terms, or phony ones just for show -- the way it is in some Third World countries today. And what we'll essentially have is a dictatorship. But if we should have a Democrat for president in 2016, the present state of affairs will be dragged out longer, and Democrats will have gained some time to win more people over. We must have someone who will make real changes. We can't afford to wait any longer. I think we are reaching the end of the road.
If the crazies should actually succeed in taking over entirely, they will be inflicting even more misery and suffering on the whole nation.
Things are bad now, but I'm not without hope. I think Dems. can make gains in 2014 and 2016.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)We haven't had a real Democratic President since Kennedy. One that stood up for people and their rights, another sell out is just that
Cal33
(7,018 posts)against him. He is a really decent human being. He would have won a second term, too, had he
not been dirty-tricked by Ronald Reagan.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)Carter and his advisers were at the forefront of deregulation
Just try transportation on for size, and the possibility that because someone was not worst at something doesn't really classify them as benevolent
Deregulating Transportation
http://economics.about.com/od/governmenttheeconomy/a/deregulating.htm
It is kind of interesting to think about how got the worst of two evils in that election between Reagan and Carter though.