A good bad reason to appoint Dean to HHS

http://www.lastchancedemocracycafe.com/?p=1858

The smart money says Howard Dean stands little chance of being appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services. Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, apparently hates his guts. Although, for what it’s worth, there does seem to be a little momentum building in the good doctor’s favor.

There are, no doubt, many good reasons, having to do with the public health and welfare, for appointing Dean to HHS. But, to be honest, I’m drawn more to a “bad reason” for appointing him: doing so would be a great way to throw a bone to the progressive netroots.

Though much maligned by the inside the Beltway crowd, the netroots probably did more to help put Obama in the White House than almost any other group within the Democratic Party coalition. And he’s going to need more help from the netroots in the future. But the truth is that we netrooters have been feeling a little neglected lately, as we’ve watched Obama filling his cabinet with middle of the road insiders.

Howard Dean is a netroot hero — appointing him would go further than just about any other gesture imaginable toward assuaging these feelings.

If I were Barack Obama, that’d be worth something to me.

Now there’s a theory, of course, that netroot support will actually hurt Dean’s chances, because Obama won’t want to appear to be bending to pressure from his “nutty” liberal base.

All I can say is that I hope, for all of our sakes, that he isn’t that stupid. That he’s smart enough, in fact, to remember who his real friends are.

Kind of like "truth in advertising".

We need more Democrats and less of whatever parasitic species currently making up the Democratic Party.

progressives need not apply.

.. who can think independently of the
vicious propaganda machine, and whose
ideas are actually good and workable
and human.

Obama could use some liberal thinkers
and good thinking in his admin.

:( I want to see Dr. Dean, Dennis Kucinich AND Dave Obey in Cabinet positions, for they're the ones that have truly represented THE PEOPLE for all these years.

I am from Vermont and we don't see him that way up here. He's actually very moderate

People are sensible.. less silly... Its cold most of the year, there's a lot of space inbetween homes and people have a conservative streak when it comes to land and old-time values.. but they don't get to bogged down on silly things like gay marriage.. that's a none-of-your business issue. Then again, I've also heard enough racial epitahs to last a lifetime from that area..

and being frugal etc. made me think I was a conservative person, I mean-- isn't conservative is a modification of "to conserve"? I believed in conservation of resources, our natural as well as renewable. For many years I thought I was a yankee conservative. My father was always very frugal and while I can go off the deep end now and then, I know how to cut back when I need to. I didn't realize that the word had a very different meaning politically. My family were always democratic politically-- but it always felt that we were democrats in the sense that we were Catholic--born into it, so to speak. My dad, as a reflex, disliked anyone that was Republican. Honestly, my mom will tell me that someone is a Republican (as a pejorative). It is funny. But both my parents were conservative in the behavior of life (in most cases--my Dad was known to drink too much). We also felt we were liberal in thought, able to weigh both ideas in debate, to be open minded and inclusive. So, I think that liberal and conservative, in essence, are not an either/or proposition. I think it is a mistake for political entities to co-opt these terms. It is confusing and tends to obfuscate real issues and render the terms practically meaningless.

But, I've heard Lieberman is suggesting Frist.