2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumGreat long interview with Howard Dean
http://www.ora.tv/politicking/governor-howard-dean-joins-larry-king-politicking-0_7229sd93hmbjHe doesn't say everything that is on his mind here, but he gives it straight as he sees it as always. His biggest pitfall when he was running, his biggest asset all the rest of the time.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,678 posts)DFW
(54,433 posts)Quick, clear concise answers, doesn't dance around. You can tell he's not running for anything!
elleng
(131,063 posts)Lucid, forward-thinking and thoughtful!
DFW
(54,433 posts)Can't have anyone who talks like THAT in a position of power, can we? Obama is bad enough.
Last edited Sat Apr 11, 2015, 01:36 PM - Edit history (1)
and maybe the saddest part was/is that Dem ptb/were and are among the most opposed to him (AND Wes Clark.)
DFW
(54,433 posts)Howard would have been HHS Secretary. Imagine THAT scenario with the Senate and House majorities we had 2009-2010.
elleng
(131,063 posts)Saw him, @ Politics & Prose discussion about his co-authored book about election strategy, where he said NOTHING about 50-state strategy, so I ASKED him about it. He did NOT respond.
DFW
(54,433 posts)It was over funding, and as DCCC head, he and Howard (DNC chairman at the time) fought constantly over fund allocation. Rahm wanted to only go after sure thing races, and Howard wanted to go after places that had not been in play lately. Neither budged from their position, and Howard turned out to right, of course. Rahm never forgave him for it, and made sure Howard was exiled from the Obama administration as soon as he was in a position to do so. Rahm won, but the country lost.
Listen again to what Howard says. Who, besides Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, is that straightforward, that lucid, that focused, and that quick? What an asset he was, and what an asset he would have been.
we're all the worse for it, and will be. IMAGINE if we had some of the state houses now, ASIDE from THE House.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Dean is good for the party. What Rahm did made no sense to me strategically.
edit: I just found this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/25/the-long-and-amazing-feud-between-rahm-emanuel-and-howard-dean/
If it was over the "50 State Strategy" I think I understand it more now, going to read it.
DFW
(54,433 posts)One of the longest conversations I ever had with Wes Clark was about Iran. This was about ten years ago. Wes was convinced that Cheneybush wanted to invade Iran as well as Iraq. I said I disagreed with him because Republicans don't like invading countries they know will shoot back. Iraq was a huge miscalculation, but there was no question about Iran. He agreed but thought they still might try it anyway.
Here we are ten years later with a new generation of congressional Republicans, twice as whacko as the gang in Congress in 2005. And guess which country they can't wait to attack? Wes was just ahead of his time. Ten years ago, the Republicans weren't quite crazy enough to want to attack Iran. Now they are.
elleng
(131,063 posts)PassingFair
(22,434 posts)elleng
(131,063 posts)This has been seen in many places.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)aren't playing a bigger role in the party today. I would have loved to been a fly on the fall when you had the conversation with Clark.
DFW
(54,433 posts)Wes was always a pleasure to talk to, and he always listened to those who disagreed. He took in my argument that Republicans don't like to attack enemies who they think will shoot back, and that they would for that reason not attack Iran (remember, this conversation took place 8 or 9 years ago). Wes thought they would do it anyway. I can't think of any other occasion where I was right and he was wrong, but we didn't disagree on much else anyway.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)in terms of foreign policy.
Iwillnevergiveup
(9,298 posts)has maintained his good sense, relevance and outright likability in the face of the disrespect (by many Democrats) he's been shown, is beyond me. He was a great candidate back in 03, and is still a true patriot. But it is somewhat surprising to me that he's unequivocally thrown his support behind Hillary.
DFW
(54,433 posts)He wouldn't have done this if he were not convinced that she shared more of his views than is publicly known. Howard is not for sale, so there's nothing she could have bribed him with.
As recently as January, he told me the one thing he knew for sure was that Hillary was, at that point, still undecided as to whether or not to run. He did mention another woman that he considered a strong possibility for the nomination. She has been quick to endorse Hillary after the announcement, so it's possible this support--which was surely secured before the announcement--was a factor that helped her decide to go for it.
Hekate
(90,769 posts)DFW
(54,433 posts)When you listen to his responses, unrehearsed, straight, intelligent, and direct, you just WISH the country had done itself the favor of having Howard's voice doing weekly addresses from the White House for eight years.