I thought she and everyone around her have been noncommittal.

He would be an awesome president.

Howard Dean would make an AWESOME!!!!! president.

The man is brilliant, has common sense and real compassion.

I would feel honored to be able to cast a vote for the good Doctor.

DEAN in '16

he seems to have become pretty establishment since then.

The first one is the one that can get him in the door. The other two are the ones the establishment is scared shitless of. And they know that he didn't lose a single supporter for the Dean Scream - at least not long term, gained many more for the 50 state strategy and even more for the graceful way he bowed out when Rahm shat on him. He's a team player - to an extent. He has a soul that won't allow for certain pragmatisms we have seen of late in Obama and are guaranteed to see in HRC.

Dean stands for what is best for this country, or at least what he believes is best. And on most things, I agree with him. Don't get me wrong, I am so far to the left, I would have voted for a naturalized citizen named Hugo Chavez, but I am not young anymore and so I don't believe in fairytales and the ability for a true populist to get elected. I would give my heart and my soul to Elizabeth Warren and Alan Grayson and neither will ever be President. That, that is wrong, is true, but it's also true that I'm right.

I find it hard to tell from some of his comments on msnbc.

Smart candidates to be, get careful, sometimes, alas, too handled and just too damn careful.

Unless his views have "evolved" to the point where he believes that same sex marriage should be a federally protected right and not up to states to decide.

but the beautiful thing is that train is out of the station. Even stupid ass Santorum would be run over by that train. When does the train finally reach the station? Don't know, but no one will be able to stop it now. Bask in that for a minute. That part of the inevitable future much as the sadly inevitable past is a done deal.

Will gays see full rights in my lifetime. I would have said no just 5 years ago. Now, I don't know.

said, incorrectly of course and on national TV, that the Democratic Party Platform had a plank opposing marriage equality. The very idea that our Chairman did not know the platform or that he utterly disagreed with it and so felt free to write up his own version and call it 'ours' made me sick. He was apologetic, but he did not comprehend the level of horror he had engaged in.
He'd have to buy me dinner and really sweet talk or I'd be against him, same as I was Edwards, and man was I right about Edwards. 'I can not support gay marriage because of my traditional Baptist views of marriage as a Sacrament for one man and one woman' he would preach while his wife nodded along and his mistress waited back at the hotel. Edwards IS what I think of all politicians who are opposed to equality.

PRO - Dean would be great!

CON - Dean was actually a lousy Candidate!

PRO - No he wasn't. "They" stopped his campaign because "they" were afraid of him!

CON - Show me the evidence!

PRO - They made the scream sound worse than it did if you were in the Room!

CON - That happened after he lost badly in Iowa, and his campaign team in New Hampshire was just as bad!

You may now resume your normal discussion...

Seriously, your media is so tilted to teh right that absolutely no-one (with the possible exception of Rachel Maddow) would have mentioned it.

He proved as the DNC Chairman that he is able to rally people to an idea so profound, it took the house and the Senate (and boy did Rahm and his crew fuck that one up!)

Which would leave us with...

I'm perfectly happy to have Clinton run again; she showed a lot more capability than Dean did.

That's a lousy job, too.

Dean made it through ONE caucus and failed...

they turned on him. Coverage went from fawning and favorable to attacking and demeaning.

Who would've expected that? The Moneyed media monopolies discredited someone who was threatening their money train? Who would've expected that?

End of story.

In Iowa, when Clinton went there, she wasn't running (was saving that for the next election) made it her work to discredit Dean as unelectable at all the caucuses, and at the debate. all of the other candidates, except for one attacked him.

Carol Mosely Braun?

And his supporters were so heartbroken when he lost the primary that he SCREAMED happily and heartily to cheer them up. Any dem should know that. It was a scream he had perfected for his son's hockey games, I believe.

Only if she doesn't run, should we put up our stealth candidate.

Ever time I think that fucker's dead, it gets back up again. Three years is a long time in politics. I wouldn't count the GOP as irrelevant, although I'd love to.

I will watch in a state somewhere between horror and amusement as the thrills and the spills of the 15 month long republican clown car demolishen derby unfold.
I will not be the least surprised when Jeb Bush emerges as the "Great Champion".
I will not be surprised when to appease the deranged front line cannon fodder branch of the GOP Scott Walker is selected as his running mate.

Then I will go out and vote for Clinton, or Grayson or Dean or Biden or anything followed by -D even if I have to hold my nose in the process of doing so.

Even if the GOP got out of the habit of scraping the bottom of the barrel for candidates, let's face it, they have run themselves into the ground so far that they aren't going to produce an Eisenhower.

This is just a what if game.

when she was first running, it was so obvious that she'd have the nomination sewn up that no one else would run against her.

As much as I admire and respect Howard Dean and worked for his campaign, what we most need is new blood.

Remember, too knew, too populist, too keyed in to the constituents does not a viable candidate make. Is that right? Absolultely, not.

especially here on DU, Hillary was assumed to be a total shoo-in for the nomination. Remind me again what actually happened?

I personally think that she is far too much of the old establishment, does not offer any new ideas, and would essentially be a terrible president. I sincerely hope the Democratic party comes up eventually with a better candidate. The fact that so many here are simply salivating of a potential Hillary Clinton Presidency bothers me a great deal because if one, shows a lack of knowledge of history, and two shows a complete inability to think about the possibility of someone else.

Everyone's supporting Hillary if she runs. I support Hillary if she runs. Howard does too. What if she doesn't run?

will be hard to beat.

unless something happens like she decides not to run.

I would vote for him in a minute, but I will not vote at all if Hillary wins the nomination.

will more than make up for you and the few others that feel the same way.

It'd be over after just a few primaries.

I'd like to see Dean on the national stage again, but I don't think he'd touch Hillary vote-wise. I can't imagine who would.

If there are no viable options other than her, she will have my gracious support in both the primaries and the general.

DU primaries, I was.

to Dean and President Obama~ Oh, And, I'm not taken in by any of the US corporatemedia's bullshit.

Personally, I'd like a candidate who's younger than both of them. Being President is exhausting for Democrats (because they actually work at it).

Note that Elizabeth Warren will also be 67 in 2016.



-Laelth

and can turn that scream into a "plus" and have everyone doing it, and regains his "oomph," he's got it made if he's not backstabbed by his own party like he was in Iowa.....

Seems to me he managed to lose Iowa all by himself.

Mrs. C. spoke long at that primary. Several people from DU were there and were disgusted with what went on with her and the other candidates and the caucuses. Dean was too liberal for her. I doubt if anyone expected a Dem to win that year, being Bush was up for a 2nd term and a war going on. Mrs. C. wanted the field open in 2008, but I think she feared that the popular Howard Dean might win. His anti-war and pro-health care had people traveling to see him from all over, and donations were high, and he had a 50-state strategy.

Dean was awesome and she had good reason to fear his winning.

And when the DNC handed over the reins to a new head, Dean was not even invited to the ceremony - kind of unheard of...

Don't be shy, name some names...because it's clearly obvious that if you like a candidate, they couldn't possibly be flawed enough to lose an election.

More than Hillary? If he has more than Hillary, he'll probably win the nomination. If he doesn't, he won't.

But if Hillary runs, I don't think that the top tier will choose to run (Biden, Cuomo, etc.). If she chooses not to run, then it'll be a free for all.

In 2008 we had two very unique and historical candidates, 2016 will not be a repeat of 2008. If anything, there's deeper support for a Hillary run now than there was in 2008. It was the media that kept proclaiming her as inevitable.

The party nominated the first biracial candidate and they are intent in also having the first woman nominee. The Left may not like her, but she's very popular with most Democrats.

As for Dean, I have a beef with him since 2008. When the media was spewing one sexist comment after another, such as: Hillary is pimping Chelsea (Shuster), the only reason that she's a presidential candidate is because her husband messed around (Matthew), someone should take her to a room and only he come out (Olbermann), etc.; Dean, Pelosi and the rest of the leadership was mute. After the primaries were over, Dean was asked by a group of activists why he had never mentioned the media's sexism. His response was that he didn't watch much cable TV. Well, he sure as heck spoke against racism when it reared its ugly head. Ditto for Pelosi. So, as far as I'm concerned, they can both jump off a short pier.

is not only standing in politics, but clearly in the lead IMO, is because she has shaken off way more BS, much of it pretty sick, from both parties, MSM...you name it...and has come out fighting.

She graciously, and with class, endorsed Obama. She was rewarded with an international position at which she has excelled, that set her far and away above any contender and, so true, those known Democrats will not run against her. Not because they think she's entitled or it's her turn or it would be cool to have a female president. For the right reasons...her tenacity, she has the personality, the political clout, the well-seasoned political family and the ability to raise bucket loads of money. Then there is the global respect and approval. Best yet, she pisses off the Republicans into near frenzy.

Back to the question, if not Hillary, who else could or would actually be a contender and win. And anyone who doesn't think she is already "in it to win it", well...she is.

She has the popularity, brand name recognition and capacity to raise funds that few will have in 2016. I'm not going to say that it would be a sure thing if she were to be our nominee, but I think that she would have the strongest chance of winning against any Republican they nominate. Although, the state of the economy and how things go with Obamacare will have a big influence in how people vote.

But I'm not going to hold my breath.