He says he has tried to convey to them that a real political disaster looms if they don't get real health reform. From Susie Madrak's blog the Suburban Guerrilla.

Suburban Guerrilla..phone call with Howard Dean



Dean was in Philly at noon today and in NY tonight. Dean will appear at the 92nd Street Y for an interview and discussion conducted by best-selling author and noted journalist, Joe Conason, on the latest in the healthcare reform debate and the future of the progressive movement. Following the program, Gov Dean will sign copies of his book.

There was a mix-up about meeting with bloggers, thus the phone call to Susie Madrak. She asked him about the public option.

We need a prick in the White house, and Howard is just the guy!

He could win if he left the party instead of making a primary challenge. The guy knows how to organize people.

The fact is that the two parties likely have at least 40% or so of the population that except for an abysmal candidate they can count on - and they fight over the twenty percent in the middle.

Assume the Republicans can find an at least mediocre candidate and they get just that 40%. That means that Dean and Obama would split the remaining 60%. If Dean does better than 20%, he insures a Republican win.

The fact is Dean will not run third party and I doubt he will run in a primary against a sitting president.

There are more voters registered as independents than as Republicans.

Check it out. Plus, Perot came remarkably close with the Reform party, and he could hardly be considered an astute politician or a charismatic figure. He was a buffoon.

I'm pretty sure that the feeling in America right now is "A POX ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES" and I'm also pretty sure that no matter what happens (short of the imposition of martial law) between now and the election, the constant bickering without any real action will only increase these sentiments of loathing for both parties.

But hey, you might be right, Dean might insure a Republican win. Yeah, that's the ticket. Let's all just continue denying reality for a whole nuther presidential term. Sure, if that really works for you.

numbers I've seen from analyses in past elections. I also qualified it to say that that is with at least a mediocre candidate. An abysmal candidate - as Palin could be - would likely lose some of those Republican votes. The primary process generally will eliminate the truly abysmal.

The "independent" registration, which is increasing popular over time, does not mean that the individuals are not conservative (very very likely Republican voters) or liberal (very very likely Democratic voters. My three daughters are all liberal, two very likely to the left of me. I know at least one registered as Independent as she got the paperwork to return her status to Independent after voting for Obama in the primary. (NJ law allows Independents to vote in either primary, but their registration automatically switches to the party of the primary you voted in.)

Your numbers seem good based on that previous election. But I'm still skeptical. Things can change super quickly these days and I still think that Dean is the game-changer. Maybe five years ago it was Gore, but now it's Dean. The man has skills when it comes to organizing and good old fashioned politics.

In 2003, the energy and dominance that Dean appeared to have did not translate on the ground in Iowa. In 2012, even if he wanted to do this, he would be going, not for an open nomination, but against a sitting President. That was impossible even for the far more charismatic Ted Kennedy versus Jimmy Carter, who - whatever his virtues - is no Barack Obama. Now, I KNOW that 2012 is not 1980 and the internet exists, but I really don't see it.

In 1992, you had an incumbent at 33% by election time. The media delighted in the coverage of him becoming sick in Asia. You also had a charismatic Democrat, whose campaign was a roller coaster ride because of bumps in the road from his past. Bill Clinton was not yet the President Clinton, who people were very impressed by. (Remember how Obama seemed to grow in stature in the early months of his Presidency.) This really was a backdrop against which a third party candidate has the most chance.

The fact is that Perot came as close as anyone - and he might really have distorted the election if he would not have flaked out before the Democratic primary. Now, this would be the case I spoke of where one party (The Republicans) had a sub par candidate. In 2012, I can't picture Obama in that position.

My complements to the chef!

:evilgrin:


But let's try and stay focused on a run as an independent. Kennedy would probably have done much better, even back then, had he left the party. He had the recognition and, for the most part, the machine it would take. I don't think Dean would have any chance at all of defeating Obama in a primary. It would be foolish to try. But if he ran against him in a three-way general election, I think he could win. In the general people always vote for who appears to be the stronger candidate, and I think Dean could be much stronger by then than Obama will be, barring some dramatic change in behavior.

I don't think the American political system is set up to allow 3rd parties, with rare exceptions, to be much more than spoilers. There are already several political parties on the left: Greens, Peace & Freedom, as well as the various socialist and communist parties. Together they get little more than 1-2% of the vote in a typical election.

The same is true on the right. Conservatives may bitch that the GOP is not conservative enough, but where else are they going to turn to? Libertarians (who often agree with Democrats on issues like abortion, and in some cases are even opposed to military spending)? Constitutionalists? The Reform Party (does Ross Perot's organization even still exist)?

So, if you're a flaming conservative, you vote in the primary for the Republican whose views are closest to yours. If you're a staunch liberal, you vote in the primary for the Democrat that thinks closest to the way you think. If you don't like your party's nominee in the general election, you either hold your nose and vote for him (or her) anyway, you vote for a third-party candidate (knowing it's really a vote for the other major candidate), or you stay home.

I think most Americans feel that change is absolutely necessary.

I think that is what people will continue to vote for. If they ever get that choice they will choose it.

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/20-secret-control-of-the-presidential-debates/

This story highlights why it'll be difficult for any 3rd party candidate

However I do remember the 2008 YouTube debate, where people signed on to YouTube to vote for the most popular questions to be asked of all the candidates.

Impeachment was far and away the most popular quesition, by at least a magnitude. Not a peep. And the debate was billed as the chance for the "people" to ask the questions.

I still don't quite understand how they got all the candidates to go along with that complete sham. I am seriously befuddled by it. My best guess is that most of the candidates themselves were so burried inside the bubble that they were unaware of what transpired and what the most voted-for question really was. They had to have been lied to, right? Right?

authority around the world

It was never asked

(It was for the Repiblikkan Party debate)

Not so hard, really.

I've come to realize is courageous, although I've taken it for granted for many years (as in my lifetime), because even within the party one is smacked around for it, or shunned to a degree.

What disturbs me most is the 'all politicians lie' excuse, along with the 'some politicians are corrupt' as if we shouldn't demand better. I truly have no patience for lying and/or corruption.

Oh, mimi-rant off.

:bounce:

He got mine in 2004.

n/t

I agree, but the corporatists in the DLC/Democratic Party won't allow it. I'd much prefer Dean start a new movement of citizen patriots -- a Progressive Party.

No offense to Kerry fans out there. Just an old Deaniac. :hi:

Thanks for standing up, Dr. Dean. We need your voice in this game!

Had Kerry not run in 2004, after Kerry/Feingold and the filibuster of Alito, he would have been the obvious candidate against Hillary Clinton. In 2008, he could have directly addressed critics of his 1971 Senate speech in a time when many - even in the right - were asking his 1971 question. Although I like Obama, I think that Kerry, with all his experience and his character, would have been better.

Now, I realize that I am in the minority on that - and like you, stilling having regrets about Howard Dean not winning, I still feel the same about John Kerry. Dreams when you really commit to them die slowly - and because both Dean's and Kerry's subsequent actions have justified the faith you and I put in them, it dies slower. They are both remarkable public servants, both continuing to give even when not getting the rewards they deserve for what they do.

I think Obama is on the road to massive failure and the Dems will have no choice but to primary Obama--if he doesn't remove himself from the race a la LBJ. Dean in 2012!

serious Deaniac Derangement Syndrome.

Gowsh. What does he know? Dr. Dean only engineered the biggest political turnaround in an age.

everyone else got the credit. At least he can speak up more on the outside looking in. But that is not much comfort for being shunned by your party.

I'm really glad we have that guy around.

And third, and fourth..........

And that's why I follow him -- me, a guy who did all he could to chop him to pieces in the primary.

He's shown the brains, backbone, and bravery to spell things out for what they are and show us where and how to get where we need to be.

And for Democrats that includes all other Senators, not just fellow Democrats. For example, you wouldn't believe how Senator Rockefeller blew me off when I asked him to at least pretend he supported some kind of sanction against Lieberman on account of his trechery in 2008.

"I do think they know it’s a giveaway.”

This should be screamed from the rooftops.

Everyday, I believe more and more that we're going to get a weak public option with the bulk of the money flowing into the insurance industries' coffers. But because that public option name is in there, anyone who says boo will be called a radical or secret Republican or defeatist, etc. The marginalization of true reform and true liberal progress will continue unabated, and Wall Street will have won again.

I'm not a purist or idealist by any means. I knew single-payer would never happen at this point in political time. But I never could have imagined, if I didn't see it happen in real time, that eight years of one of the worst administrations in recent memory would lead to such a passive, appeasing Democratic majority on so many major issues of our day.

If anyone had a mandate for reform, it was this President and this Congress.

And this is what we're getting. It's utterly unconscionable and at odds - if not outright opposition - to the principles and direction of the Democratic Party of FDR and LBJ.

Way too many Dems in Congress just want the money - and will do anything their corporatist friends want to get it - at least that's what I think.

our congress critters like their jobs, benefits, vacations, and the insurance industry pays them to keep those high paying jobs so they have lost their soul and thrown the american people under the bus. The repubs have the best insurance coverage and are unwilling to let anyone else have it - I suppose that just want the peasants (outside the beltway) to die - I am very unhappy with the non-reform happening and the excuses - if they don't do this - it is lame duck time for all of them

Thanking Bill Nelson for "supporting healthcare reform we can all agree on". Yeah, the insurance companies see billions of $$$ heading their way with the Finance Committee bill.

We need somebody to primary this "God anointed, cargo cult member of The Family" in 2012. Chosen, my ass.

have cost Pharma about $86 billion? He was very good and made a great case for allowing the dual Medicare/Medicaid people to get the lower Medicaid drug price. It was defeated narrowly in the conservative Finance committee (with Baucus, Menendez and Carper voting with the Republicans and I think Snowe voting with us). He is speaking of trying again on the Senate floor. Here, he was considering the elderly poor who are his constituents.

(I was as shocked as anyone that it was Nelson fighting for this.)

doen here is still a huge supporter of his. I get the idea that they never pay one bit of attention to what our reps actually DO in the House and Senate; they just blindly march behind anyone with a (D) behind their name. He needs a Truly Democratic Primary challenger!

and kinda proves Howard Zinn's comments about effecting change from the outside

because being on the inside almost prevents doing that --

that statement on DU. Folks would be jumping at him screaming that he wasn't a Democrat! Bless him for speaking truth to power. That isn't encouraged anymore.

I thought he had.He wasn't crazy about the lobbyists either AFAIK.

I had some other stuff, but tired tonight can't find it.

"Has he said anything?" Of course he has..if you were listening to him back during his early Primary run in 2004.
He said everything we need to know NOW., THEN!
I was listening & I REMEMBER!

but I recall, he has said something recently.Much of what was said by previous candidates has proved prescient.Dean is however still speaking out.

We could get seriously creamed if a big, complex bill gets passed, and the health care situation continues to deteriorate for another 4 years. That situation is just about guaranteed. We need voluntary buy-in to Medicare, which could start immediately. I could have sworn I heard that Dean was in favor ot this.

time to set up all the systems needed to sign people up and to collect the money and likely they would need to renegotiate all the contracts.

would be good for small businesses who are the largest providers of new jobs. He thought we could get that as the public option. He seemed positive about it. I hope he's hearing something, underground.

It's a fallacy to think that the American people's votes actually are counted. The powers that be manipulate the results. Our only power now is our pocketbooks. A massive tax revolt is about the only way to get the "jerks'" attention and affect real change!

The Hyatt hotel chain in Boston fired 98 hotel workers, mostly housekeepers, many who had worked for Hyatt for 20 years or longer, to be replaced by contract employees from a Georgia staffing agency.

Boston taxi drivers say that they will refuse to drive customers to the Hyatt chain if the housekeepers aren't given their jobs back. Others promise to avoid staying at Hyatt hotels for the same reasons. This is the way to handle the corporate chiselers. Hit them in their pocket books. This kind of action is long overdue.

The corporations have purchased most of the U.S. government. The only vote that we have left is to vote our pocket books. Refuse to do business with companies that fire workers for no good reason, and refuse to shop at stores that sell mostly imported goods rather than stock American-made products.

The thread about Hyatt hotels in Boston can be found at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6625329#6626044

Give 'em a good kick in the fanny, HoDo. It's the medicine they need, though they sure don't like the taste.

there’s a “95 percent chance” of a real public option, and if there isn’t one, the bill shouldn’t pass. No point to throwing billions of dollars to the insurance industry if we don’t get the public option, he said.'

How many have been saying this at DU to be shouted down by the fan club, who is happy with any junk bill passing so as to get a 'victory' for the Dems? I'll stick with Dr. Dean, thank you.

Only when a bill is actually defined can it be seriously looked at to see if it does more good, than harm. If it does and it is the best we can get, the legislators will take it.

Just because Dean says it shouldn't pass, when no one even knows what it includes, does not make it right. The fact is that if it came to that and the bill helped people, Dean would likely change his position.

I'm quite sure Dean will not change his position - he has been advocating this from day 1, and is not a spineless, corporate shill like the majority of our representation in congress and those who just want a victory for the party.

- a woman with breast cancer denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, who could under all the plans discussed could get insurance.

- a person with income a few hundred dollars above the Medicaid threshold and no insurance, who under all the plans would get a very significant new subsidy.

- someone who is mentally ill and can get only plans that exclude coverage of mental illness. Parity for mental health is in the bills.

The fact is that until the bill is written, no one will know if there is enough good in it. At this point, Dean is advocating for the public option. Expressing nuance now does not help hic advocacy. The fact is that as Governor of VT he made many compromises. Enough that there was a significant Progressive candidate to his left in many races.

anyone not supporting a strong public option is a corporate shill. You're advocating compromise with companies that profit from denying health care. Just because they throw us a few bones doesn't mean we should roll over and play dead.

and the status quo. I strongly prefer there by a strong public option. You still did not answer my question - so I will rephrase it.

If Dean were a Senator and that was the final conference bill, would he be willing to be the final vote that defeats a plan without a public option, but which does the things I listed?

he would "be the final vote that defeats a plan without a public option", along with every other legitimate Senator with a 'D' beside their name. I would hope our representation would not be guilted into accepting a few tweaks to a flawed system over fighting for the best interests of their constituents. Time to stop accepting the lesser of two evils and demand what is best for the country.

and the result would be - not a better bill - but the status quo.

They just don't care what the people think.

I'm with you.

Several people spoke of how Kennedy was more effective BECAUSE he had those excellent personal relationships. Senator Kerry in his Senate tribute to Kennedy spoke of how important this was.

"Teddy was the best natural teacher anyone in politics could ask for. I may not always have been the best student, but he never stopped dispensing the lessons. I came to the Senate out of an activist grassroots political base, where the coin of the realm was issues and policy positions. Activists are sometimes, as I learned, so issue focused and intent that they can inadvertently look past the personal touch or the emotional connection for fear that it somehow distracts from the agenda. But Teddy,
through his actions, showed us how essential all of those other elements of political life are.

Yes, Tip O'Neill taught a generation of Massachusetts politicians that all politics is local. It was Teddy who went beyond that and taught us that all politics is personal. All of us knew the kindness of Ted Kennedy at one time or another, Mr. President."

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=9030197

There are many things to criticize in Baucus' bill, but there are many Senators in the hearing who are clearly trying to write a good bill. It would seem more helpful to praise the efforts of the liberal Democrats on the committee who led by Rockefeller, who though the chair of the Health sub-committee was excluded. The fact is that Dr Dean, himself, knows the limitations that people have in government, where they sometimes have to do things in ways they likely do not prefer to get enough support for something to actually pass. He, after all, had to cut Medicaid (or Medicare) one year because the VT constitution requires a balanced budget and for that year, money had to be cut from almost everything. Just as it was ridiculous to say in 2003 that this meant he was not less good on providing heathcare, it is silly to say that people who ultimately vote for something far better than the status quo, but far from ideal care less than Dean does.

Dean at this point is an activist acting as an activist, but the fact is that creating legislation requires working with those you disagree with and it clearly helps if there is a personal relationship that allows people to more easily trust others.

Sometimes we just plain have to stop the excuses.

we have? You have to operate within the system of government that exists. The reason we need the majority is it changes what we are even fighting for. When the Republicans had the majority, we had to fight to try to stop them from eliminating hard won gains. We fought a bad bankruptcy bill, where we failed, and we fought drilling in ANWR and changes in social security, where we won.

Now, we are fighting for things we want - not fighting to stop bad things.

I'm talking about letters, emails and phone calls, to be sure. But I'm also talking about more direct means, like camping out in large groups in offices -- even to the point of arrest, if necessary.

The one thing that the RW seems to understand more than us right now is that political victories are not only about election campaigns. They are protracted struggles. If WE want meaningful health care reform with a viable public option, then WE need to fight like hell for it rather than simply leave the members of Congress to screw it all up.

He now is an activist and he is trying to do this - that is what "Stand by Dean" is doing. I don't see him leading a camp out in DC or elsewhere. There is nothing stopping him from doing that, sponsored by DFA, Bold progressives etc. It would be LESS likely that he would lead it as President or Senator.

As a Senator, there is precedent for asking people to lobby their Senators - Kerry and Kennedy did just that on Alito, Kerry and Boxer did that on ANWR, and Kerry used his email list on many things. At the time, Kerry first did this, my first thought was how unusual it was for a sitting Senator and our last standard bear to be acting simultaneously as Senator and activist - even though he was unusual in having started in politics as an activist.

But, the most likely person to lead a camp out in DC is an activist. Dean may consider that it would be counter productive as nothing is stopping him now.

just refuse business as normal until the damn single payer passes.

That is an action more likely call by an activist leader and not a public official of any kind. The fact is that you are seeing Dean, who was a moderate governor of VT, as way more radical than he is. (incidentially, that is not an attack - he is far more useful as he is.)

and the Good Doctor can know that his Grassroots have sprouted.

I suspect that he expects his grassroots to work to elect Democrats. Nothing in anything he ever said suggests he wants to lead a general strike or revolt of any kind. Nothing in his past suggests that either.

All that stuff was okay twenty years ago. All the hand shaking and cigars over port in the Senate drawing room. Back then republicans played by the same rules. They all played club house.

Starting with the neocon takeover of the republican party, the rules changed. Some still glad hand and refer to their Democratic opponents as sir and honorable. They shake hands and make deals. Then the back out and do just the opposite of what they said they would do. That leaves the nicey nice Dems with an oily hand and no leverage.

Then there are the total new bloods. They don't play by any rules except defeat everything the Democrats do. Don't agree on anything and obstruct everything.

That is why Teddy got screwed on NCLB. He envisioned a true education revision. He shook hands across the aisle and then his good buddies with the red ties stabbed him in the back by screwing up the bill so that it became a cornerstone of the neocon attack on public schools.

Tell me the last piece of progressive legislation that got through the Senate because the Dems played nice. Under O'Neill politics was local. Kennedy wanted it to be personal. Today it is viral. John Dean showed how to use the community to get things done. He went up against the club and beat them senseless. Then his mistake was that he thought that once he showed them how, they would understand. They didn't. They don't. And they are still losing every battle with the neocons.

The fact is that it is not the Republican Congressmen who did anything viral - it was the talking heads and activists. I also do not see that as working all that well.

In addition, there are MANY people who all helped with the Democrats returning to not just a majority, but a big majority. In fact, a major assist was from Bush for screwing up as badly as he did - on everything. Winning elections is not the same as passing legislation. The fact is that to get anything done you have to get it passed. The Republicans had tons of people fighting, but how many Senators or Congressmen shifted their position because of it.

I didn't say that the Senators (not congressmen since the House is a completely different horse) went viral. My point was the politics is viral. The secret club of the Senate doesn't work the way it used to because they can't work in secret anymore. The net and 24/7 news have exploded the slow, old buddy, let's-get-together-at-the-club-this weekend system. Senators who keep trying this find themselves coming up for air and being blindsided by questions they thought no one knew to ask. It's just not the same. Republicans are handling this by reneging on any promises made in the back room. They more readily lie to their Dem brothers because they know that whatever they do will show up on the news and be trumpeted on the net.

In addition. These guys aren't the same guys we battled with before. They march lock step to the party and the party has decided that no Democratic initiative will pass. They say that the bill needs x. Dems acquiesce and put in x. The ones who said it needed x now go on the Sunday shows and say that x will destroy America. They balk on a bill because they tell our guys in the back room that they can't support it without y. We put in a nice y, and the republicans still say no.

Again. Check out what happened with NCLB. I was working at the national level on standards around that time. I know what Teddy wanted to do. He buddied with several republican senators to get the bill passed. They screwed him over big time. Now Kennedy's name is on that POS.

Playing nice and being buddies doesn't work anymore. TMBG said it.

"Throw the crib door wide
Let the people crawl inside
Someone in this town
Is trying to burn the playhouse down"

by rich, clueless old men, on BOTH SIDES of the aisle...SORRY!!! They are just completely out of touch with what the middle class of this country is forced to deal with every day, and I think this mindset is ultimately going to sink all of us...

Sadly, the Teddy Kennedys, the Russ Feingolds, the Barbara Boxers are few and far between, and we're all the worse off for it.

Recommended.

They just don't care.

They know it's easy to scare liberals into voting for them no matter what..."b-but it could be worse!" Maybe, but one thing's for sure: it will never get better.

These crooks get what they want, wealthy special interests get what THEY want, voters get screwed - and they get re-elected almost every time.

They are the most elite of the elite, and they have abdicated their responsibility to their constituents time and time again.

clue what it is like to live in the real world. You can see that when watching the Health committee this morning.

via Dr. Dean, the truth is they don't give a flying frig what the Great Unwashed (that's us, folks) want.
We're expected to take the crumbs they sweep from their table, bow, scrape and thank them for their generous largesse. :eyes:

insulated in their ivory towers. I also think they feel like they are better than us and that they think they deserve all the preferential treatment bestowed them.

They're not. They just don't give a fuck. But guys like Dean clearly aren't in a position to go around saying that.

...is the recreation of high school clique mentality.

The in-group here is created by power and wealth. The effect on the out-group is very powerful in terms of establishing the norms about how to be "in". It's why the Republicans "win" in the Senate even though they don't have a majority. The principles of power and wealth work well for controlling group behavior in a clique setting.

Tragic for the country.

2016.

I have tremendous respect for that man!

eyes. People are pissed and rightfully so. Some of them might just lose their membership in that sorry little club.

:loveya:

He'd make a great Prez.

:freak:

did him in.

I just didn't see it. I saw the teevee spin but I try not to get tangled in its web too much.

There was nothing crazy about Dean's "whoop".

The fact is he was expected to win Iowa - he was the front runner. He ended up with TWENTY percent less than John Kerry. (38 vs 18)
The story of that night, without the scream, would have been Kerry's under the radar win and Dean's and Gephardt's disastrous results. Dean had already been losing numbers to Clark, Kerry and unknown in NH before Iowa. Kerry, well liked in NH before but considered to not have a chance, got momentum from his win - just as ANY winner does. (Obama pre-Iowa was polling 20 points behind Clinton). Everyone looks better coming off a win, smiling and enthusiastic. Kerry then won NH.

At that point, Dean had major problems. Trippi had spent most of the $40 million raised over the internet in NH and Iowa and after the loss in Iowa, Dean's fund raising was not as strong as it had been. Dean announced that he was not going to campaign in the next multi state event - because he had limited (if any) organization there and no money. They were also not good states for a New Englander. He said he would concentrate on the elections after that. This could have worked had the non New Englanders split the states (MO, OK, SC, NM, AZ, ND and DE). But Kerry won five of them. That really made Kerry, not just a front runner, but likely an unstoppable front runner.

So, the reasons that carry more weight than "the scream" were:

1) Kerry, on the ground, in Iowa and NH was a better campaigner.
2) Trippi's waste of Dean's money drove the gamble that they could ignore the 7 states on the first multi-state day.

Because as I've said on DU for a long time-this is life and death to us. Just read the bleeding nipple story being turned down by Blue Cross. Well I have blue cross and I have breasts. I am not sure I could contain my rage if that happened to me.

But to the beltway or especially the Senate-it's all about THEM. It's not about me-about me dying and my kid dying-no it's about their fucking career. Their political career. First, last and always.

It is what has made those of us that pay attention despise politicians. The few that actually advocate for us-really advocate- come out like heroes. but really they are actually just doing their job. Because I can't make health care reform happen. All I can do is go to Mexico. That's what that Blue Cross story made we want to do-fling some blood at them and leave this shitty excuse for a country. EVEN Mexico has better heath care than we do.

reality.
Problems of regular people are incomprehensible to them.

mark

I didn't care for Dean at first, but boy did I change my mind, and for good. He is simply wonderful!

:kick:

For my hero, Dr Dean - the Speaker of Truth. :patriot: