Who did you support for DNC chair?

[nickshepDEM]

If you supported someone else... List who and why you supported them.

[nankerphelge]

1. dean is the only one to save the party from itself

[saracat]

2. I supported Dean, but am disappointed that he isn't really supporting

candidates. Most congressional candidates have no support from the DNC and feel hung out to dry. I don't understand it. We need to take back the house and Dean is encouraging candidates but no one is supporting them. This is very disappointing.Apparently there has been little change in the structure and attitude of the DNC.

[radio4progressives]

4. "Most Candidates" are not supported by Dean? Please List these candidates

by name and district..

thank you.

[saracat]

13. Any congressional candidate in "non targeted "districts.

And any legislative candidate in "non targeted districts". Non targeted being defined as any district in which the Republican registration is greater than the Democratic registration. In Arizona , for example, there are NO congressional races that the DNC and the DCCC is supporting despite the fact that several are viable due to the fact the incumbants are NOT popular and the registration becomes more even when the Independents are factored in.Dr. Dean is the DNC Chair and the official DNC position is that they would rather there be No one running in these areas. They are not going to diffuse their resources. We were told this directly by the DNC. Period. Asking for candidates to run and refusing support is hypocritical.
It may be more difficult to win in non targeted districts but it is absolutely impossible to win if no one is on the ballot.That is an obvious fact.Check out a few posts here about how Paul Hackett was "requested" NOT to run by the DSCCC.And that was before Sherrod Brown decided to run.I have been involved with several legislative campaigns and several congressional races and having worked with the DNC and the DCCC, nothing has changed in the least.There is a Congressional candidates list that you might check out. This is the state of affairs everywhere. It is really to bad as the climate is different this year and these people might win. Oh, yes, Barak Obabma was another one(not Dean's fault, just illustrative of the problem) who was also told NOT to run and deprived of support.That story comes from Barak himself.

[micakron]

27. Hackett

Hackett shouldn't be running. He could be a bright star if he dropped his ego and stayed home. Too much, too fast. It's time for him to drop out and the Party and Caucus's jobs to make him drop out. It's about slotting the right candidates. That is what Republicans do in Ohio and that is why they win.

[saracat]

30. Why?? Even the polling shows Hackett could win?

Why should he be the one to drop out? Should Obabma have dropped out when the Party told him too???????

[JNelson6563]

21. Interesting perspective

I have looked through many a financial report and I have yet to see any, ever, where the bulk of funding wasn't done by the candidates and their campaigns.

As far as I am concerned, with an eye to Fed. fund raising regulations, it is the role of party leadership at the various levels to grow the actual party and give the candidates platforms to stand on and supporter networks to draw from.

I know of one Cong. candidate and small group of supporters who, ignorant of Fed. PAC laws, were certain that the Dist could raise and donate hundreds of thousands exclusively to this candidate (who deserves it just because they are willing to run, of course). After countless explanations it was finally understood that there is a combined limit per cycle involving all Fed PACs within a state ($5,000). Now that the Dist or State party cannot be responsible for funding of this campaign I would like to think we'd see activity in fund raising by this camp. Sadly I predict we will see the whine be transferred from the previously mentioned groups to someplace else, probably the DNC.

Lastly, when it comes to distributing funds orgs. have to be judicious. For instance, there are usually strict benchmarks in place in order for financial support to be disbursed. Unless we discover a way to just shit money....

Julie

[saracat]

24. The DNC as well as the DCCC spent over one million dollars in a targeted

congressional race in my state during the last cycle. They fund who they choose to. BTW, as far as being judicious, the people of the district dindn't like the candidate, they had him foisted on him for his name and he lost. Maybe if the powers that be listened to the districts a bit more we would have won. It was a race we should have one. Everyone except the honcho's KNEW this candidate couldn't win. He had a famous name but due diligence whould have shown neither he, who is a bore, or his family were well liked. Famous doesn't always mean electable. And this wasn't MY district in case you were wondering!

[JNelson6563]

34. how do we know this?

Can you give me the candidate's name or state and district? If they threw $1 million at a race it had to have met some benchmarks....there had to be reason they'd think it would be well spent like high polling numbers, benchmarks met, etc. I'd like to look up the financial reports of this candidate.

And be sure to clearly seperate the DCCC and the DNC as they are different entities with seperate funds and decision making.

Julie

[saracat]

39. I know this as my state party told me so and I witnessed it AZ CD 1

.Paul Babbit was the candidate last cycle. The DCCC also contributed to the last candidate in CD 1. CD 1 is a Democratic didtrict that it appears we have lost for a good long while now. Rick Renzi, who has never even lived in his district, and still primarily lives in Va.. has made tremendous inroads in the Indian Community and it looks like we haven't got a prayer in that district. If we had put up a "real" candidate previuosly, and without their interference, we would have won. Everyone acknowleges that. Now we have an American Indian , State Senator Joe Jackson running, and neither entity will do squat for him. There is a list serve for congressional candidates. I suggest you read it and find out what the candidates really think about the "help" they are given.

[JNelson6563]

49. Got a link for that?

There is a list serve for congressional candidates. I suggest you read it and find out what the candidates really think about the "help" they are given.

I'd like to do that, do you have a link by chance?

Julie

[RazzleDazzle]

50. As JNelson says, the DCCC is NOT the DNC -- don't confuse them

and don't complain about them in the same breath. They're different, and I'd never give any money to any of the Democratic Congressional Committees -- just because they operate under old rules, which aren't necessarily good rules or even pro-democracy rules. They like keeping the power where it's always been (in their hands) so winning elections isn't even the most important thing.

[LittleClarkie]

3. Dean

Rosenberg might have been a good second in command, but it was pretty much Dean all the way.

[radio4progressives]

5. I supported Dean then, and I support him NOW. n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. The Minnesota members of the DNC held listening sessions

for rank-and-file Dems to come and express their opinions. I attended a session with about 300 people, and a straw poll showed that Dean was the overwhelming favorite of the crowd.

I could tell you what this crowd of 300 told their DNC members, but the DLC operatives on this board would jump all over me and tell me that I didn't know what I was talking about.

By the way, the DNC members told us that in many states, DNC reps are not elected by delegates at state party conventions but are appointed from the ranks of large contributors. This may be part of what is wrong with the party.

[MrBenchley]

7. Profiles in courage

"I could tell you what this crowd of 300 told their DNC members, but the DLC operatives on this board would jump all over me and tell me that I didn't know what I was talking about."
Oh, c'mon....plee-ee-ase?

"By the way, the DNC members told us that in many states, DNC reps are not elected by delegates at state party conventions but are appointed from the ranks of large contributors."
Here's a list of the DNC members (I guess that what you mean by reps)...any there seem funny to you?

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Democratic_National_Commmittee

[Lydia Leftcoast]

8. See?

:-)

[MrBenchley]

9. See what?

If I promise not to say "boo" will you unburden your soul? I'm really curious to hear what this deep dark secret is that terrifies you so.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

11. Okay, they said

1. That they were tired of Dems caving into and making nice with the Republicans and voting for Bush-sponsored bills

2. That they were tired of the party ignoring the grassroots until it was time to give money or door knock, since the grassroots activists understand their local voters better than anyone in DC does

3. That the Dems needed to make some bold initiatives of their own instead of just reacting to the Republicans

4. That there was too much corporate money in politics

5. That they were angry about the invasion of Iraq


Everyone who wanted to speak got two minutes, and there were huge lines at the microphones, although, of course, not all 300 people in attendance got to speak. I don't remember everything that everyone said, of course, but these were the recurring points.

Other DUers, including dpbrown, EricJ in MN, no name no slogan, and goodhue, were in attendance. Maybe they remember more.

[xxqqqzme]

38. that's the way it was on the left coast.

we traveled to the 'town meeting' in LA 2 support the good Doctor for chair. There were 8 of us from Orange County. I would do it again too. Howasrd knows what he is doing and the wimpy dinos should get out of his way.

[calimary]

47. Hey, Lydia, I attended one of those sessions here in L.A. It was last

January, I believe. Our crowd here was comprised of people from all over Southern California - from the northernmost edges to the southernmost extremes. Several hundred, just like yours, and all ages, nationalities, income levels, physical-health levels, religions, colors, accents, you-name-its. It was Dean by a LANDSLIDE here. Landslide, nothing. AVALANCHE was more like it. I think I counted maybe four people there in the standing-room-only meeting hall who raised their hands to vote for someone else. And a MOST adamant, emotional, insistent landslide it was, too. Not a milquetoast comment in the house. It wasn't just "Howard Dean!" It was "Howard DEAN-DAMMIT!!!" Even among those whose first choice was not Dean - they, too, said they'd find Howard Dean acceptable if their guy wasn't chosen.

Oh, gosh, xxqqqzme - were you there, too? Sorry we missed each other! But it was RAWTHER exciting, wasn't it? Really gratifying to see so many people per square inch who said EVERYTHING I would have said if I'd had the chance to speak. We, too, had WAY more people wanting their two minutes to speak than there was time or room to accommodate. But EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM said what I would have said, and with as much feeling and emphasis. People were REALLY charged up, and they weren't going to accept any alternatives. But then again, California went bigtime for Dean even after Kerry had the nomination locked up. Many of us, myself included, STILL voted for Dean even though we knew Kerry had already gone all the way.

And I'd vote the same way if I had to do it all over again.

[MrBenchley]

10. Supported Dean then, not so much now

When Dean utters a soundbite like "The idea that we are going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong," he's basically telling America "Democrats don't have a clue about what to do in Iraq."

Is it too much to ask to have the party chairman remember what his job is before he opens his yap?

[eridani]

15. Something wrong with telling the truth?

If wars of choice are wrong, period, then there is no right way to do them. Technically speaking, he's wrong that we can't win--he's only saying that because he refuses to consider genocide as a live option.

[MrBenchley]

23. There's sure something worng with being an ass in public....

You'll notice his spokesperson ran out immeidately to do damage control, and that this morning he's back to talking about how Democrats can win and putting the "loss" back on Chimpy and the GOP's shoulders.

"he refuses to consider genocide as a live option"
So are you telling us that when Clark wrote his excellent op/ed the other day setting out a plan for success in Iraq, it was secretly a plan for genocide?

[eridani]

25. That is the only practical effect of effectively deciding to stay forever

Sorry, if someone is breaking into my car, I don't want them to "finish the job" or "win" in any way. Stealing stuff from cars and unprovoked military conquest are both WRONG, capeesh?

I'm sure Will has the whole article up here someplace, but this is the part relevant to Clark.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/120805Y.shtml

Wesley Clark, another Democrat who hopes to be redecorating the Oval in 2009, took the whole thing one big step further with an editorial in Tuesday's New York Times titled "The Next Iraq Offensive." The article detailed a series of troop maneuvers that would redeploy American and Iraqi forces along the borders with Syria and Iran. Clark warned that Iraq was becoming a Shia-dominated buffer state that serves to protect Iran, and that a radical shift in tactics must be undertaken to avoid the creation of an Iran/Iraq superstate. At bottom, Clark said the United States must remain in Iraq, and that his plan was one that could achieve victory in this conflict.

It was a cogent and effective argument centered around an undeniable fact: this occupation has empowered Shia fundamentalism in Iraq, said fundamentalism being deeply tied to Shia fundamentalism in Iran. This union poses a danger to the Mideast region and, in the long run, a danger to the United States both at home and abroad. There is one significant dent in Clark's thinking, however. In making his argument, he accepted a number of premises that should be rejected as deeply flawed.

Here's the deal: we invaded Iraq to establish a permanent, muscular military presence in the Middle East; we invaded Iraq to take control of their petroleum reserves for the next hundred years, a pretty little piggy bank in a world where oil is becoming harder to find; we invaded Iraq so we could use our military presence there to attack and invade several other countries in the region; we invaded Iraq to establish strategic positioning for any economic and/or resource struggles with China and Russia; we invaded Iraq because administration officials who think they are members of the Likud Party believed this war would serve to protect and defend the state of Israel; we invaded Iraq so a bunch of military contractors with umbilical ties to the administration could get paid.

All of this is enshrined in the codicils of the Project for a New American Century, the organization whose membership rolls include Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Libby and a pile of others who have crafted our insane foreign policy and thrown us into this mess. This is what they wanted. They've been planning it for years, well before they ever got into the White House with Bush. For them, victory had nothing to do with defeating Hussein or fighting terrorism or establishing democracy. Victory means we stay in Iraq forever.

Period. End of file.

When Wesley Clark and these other Democratic aspirants talk about "winning" in Iraq before we get out, they accept a premise that should be rejected out of hand. For the architects of this war, victory has already been achieved, and all arguments in favor of remaining in Iraq until impossible goals are reached strengthen that victory. There is no democracy at the end of this tunnel, only more tunnel.

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. Since you chose to insert this on a Dean thread

I will give you my reply to what Pitt wrote that you posted. Elsewhere on this thread I have already voiced my strong continuing support for Dean as DNC Chair

We need words to describe the difference between having the worst case scenario occur in Iraq and avoiding having the worst case scenario occur. If we agreed that the very worst case scenario for Iraq, internal civil war leading to regional warfare, is something virtually all of us would like to have avoided, and if we concede that it is indeed American stated policy to avoid that scenario, having it happen anyway would be an American failure. That is the failure that Clark says we must avoid. Avoiding that is the mission Clark wants to succeed at. Clark doesn't so much talk about "winning" as he does about "not failing". Clark always opposed Bush's Iraq crusade. Clark believes we have to manage damage control now. There is no place for Bush's " vision" of proactively transforming the Middle East. There is a place for attempting to prevent a slide toward greater chaos.

These goals are very far removed from Bush's fantasy "victory" of making Iraq safe for Democracy and indoctrinating the Arab world into the joys of American style freedom. Clark doesn't think we are fighting in Iraq to defeat Terrorism, and he has long argued against imposing Democracy by force. Unlike some other leading Democratic politicians, Clark always made the case that Iraq had no meaningful connections to 9/11, and that invading Iraq would aggravate the terrorist threat, not reduce it. Clark thinks we are now trying to help stabilize Iraq in order to slow down the further spiraling of terrorism, not to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" and other related lunacy.

Clark also envisions the very real possibility that the United States may need to leave Iraq relatively soon without succeeding in returning any semblance of stability to that region or nation. He presents his best effort at a course of action that might still limit some of the damage caused by Bush's invasion. Clark's positions are certainly subject to debate, but Pitt's quick summary of them does not do them justice. He attempted to rhetorically link very different viewpoints for the sake of a crisp strong opinion piece. Pitt argues his case passionately, but his short hand summary of Clark's views is misleading.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[FreedomAngel82]

12. Dean since the first day of the race for the chair

I knew he would be perfect for the job and he's doing fine.

[snowbear]

14. Does anyone remember who all ran for the seat?

Cuz I don't remember! http://eliteleague.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/lol!.gif

[SCDem]

22. I supported Dean and still do

[BlueIris]

16. Other and we need to dump H.D. Not supportive of choice,

not supportive of other Dems, not interested in working effectually with the Party, and not capable of doing anything other than making his pathological fans feel as if their non-sensical, one-dimensional "arguments" are valid, or could ever create change.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[Le Taz Hot]

48. I'm pathological now?

Wow! Amazing what passes for debate here at DU these days. Fucking pathetic.

[Adelante]

17. Dean and today

He's doing tremendous work for this party

Howard :yourock:

[Clark2008]

18. Dean...Hell, I mentioned he'd be better suited for DNC

chair than president back in January 2004.

I never thought he could win a national election because of red-state negatives, but I DID think that his abilities to raise money and fire up the base would make him an EXCELLENT DNC chairman.

Guess I was right. :)

[itzamirakul]

19. I supported Dr. Dean. I am very disappointed and sorry that I did.

Talk about the BIG SELLOUT...

[zanne]

20. He's the first DNC chair to actually listen to us.

There are two different groups in the Democratic party; the party leadership and the people. For a long time, our voices weren't heard by the DNC and our senators and house reps were voting in lockstep with the Republicans. We finally have someone who listens to the people who vote. He pisses off Republicans and gives them talking points, but noone other than die-hard RW'ers pay much attention to the talking points anymore. He sometimes gives the Republican base something to talk about, like Mehlman gives us talking points. The war between the party chairmen is out in the open now, but I don't think it hurts us.

[micakron]

26. It's about their staff

A good chair surrounds himself with the right people. Howard has done this.

[_dynamicdems]

28. I supported Dean and I like Dean. He gets a bum rap much of the time

for speaking out and for his style. It really annoyed me how the media ragged on him over that scream. What is wrong with showing enthusiasm? You are dammed if you don't and dammed if you do by today's media. They want to drag everyone down.

It seems to me that every single word by every single Democrat is scrutinized by the media with the express intent of using their words against them. I'd rather someone speak from the heart than have to censor every word that comes out of their mouth lest someone misinterpret. How about something really radical: how about the media really start scrutinizing what Shrub and cohorts say? Bsh says something absolutely horrible and they just snicker. Bsh gives fifteen different versions of his OWN policy and they give him a free pass! They should hold * to the same standards they hold Dean and others.

[Mass]

36. Great - I agree so much with you.

[SaveElmer]

29. Dean...and I still support him...but

Sometimes he needs to think before he speaks...and needs to speak clearly when he does. It is obvious he meant we could not win in Iraq in a strictly militray sense...but that is not what he said.

He is now the chairman of the Democratic National Committee and nots its spokesman...he should let the elected leaders of the party speak to issues. Dean of course should be consulted and have input, but shouldn't be out there making statements like this

[AntiCoup2K4]

31. Howard Dean

And he's doing a damn good job!

[lojasmo]

32. Howard Dean, of course.

What other reasonable choice was there?

[MODemocrat]

37. I'm 100% for Howard Dean

He's doing a good job; He's a very likable politician, and he tells it like he sees it. If I had to decscribe Dean in one word, it would be "forthright". Quite an asset in today's political world.
:thumbsup: :)

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. Strong Dean supporter then, strong Dean supporter now

And guess what? I don't expect Howard Dean to personally be perfect at all times or to personally prevent any bad thing from happening to any good Democrat. I strongly support Dean's efforts to rebuild the Democratic Party in all 50 States, and never did expect 6 month miracles.

[brentspeak]

41. Dean is the Republicans' best friend

He serves up the most lame-brained quotes, just ripe for RNC commercials, and then has to backtrack on them - every time out.

I supported his efforts to get the DNC to be more focused on winning in the red states, but he inserts his foot into his mouth so often that even the Dems he's pushing don't want to be seen with him on the campaign trail.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

45. Since when is telling the truth "lamebrain quotes"?

:shrug:

Who cares if the Republicans don't like what he says? They aren't supposed to!

In fact, if we had a DNC chair whom the Republicans approved of, that would be a sign that he was doing something wrong.

[enough already]

43. We cannot abandon Dean now and let those bastards win

DEAN IS RIGHT, DAMMIT!

[NoPasaran]

44. Supported Dean then

Still behind him 100%. A lot of the Dem activists I work with (who were not Dean for Prez folks) also think he is doing a fine job.

[calimary]

46. Dean. Damned straight. Period. End of sentence.

End of discussion. Neville Chamberlains and other assorted bush-enablers/capitulators need not apply.

[brook]

51. Dean then and now.

Nothing riles the local reptiles like the Dean sticker on my bumper. That, in itself, is a reason to admire Dean.

I saw Howard at some little meet and greet months before he was 'known to the world'. I liked what he had to say then and I still do. The more reptiles he pisses off, the better. Their discomfort is my pleasure.

Sure wish people would stop already with the 'scream' thing - it was a damned microphone distortion - and endlessly explained by some of the more honest press at the time.