OBAMA'S biggest mistake - REPLACING HOWARD DEAN with the former VA governor Kean

Looking at the how the election results broke, it's pretty clear the Democrats abandoned Dean's strategy of having an underlying national strategy to back up the individual candidates.

Regardless of the tide Etc. in favor of Republicans, nothing helped them win big more than the return of the Democratic party of old where "everyone is/was on his/her own" under Kean.

All the elements of team spirit Dean had imbued the Party apparatus with was gone.

Prior to Howard Dean, the Democrats had the deserved reputation for poor organization, lack of unity/focus Etc. vs. the traditional smooth running Republican machine.

Howard Dean came in after 2004, and by 2006 he had created a national Democratic structure that was good enough to beat the Republicans, even in Alaska.

It was his 50 state strategy that put money into Alaska after decades of being considered a lost cause. It was key to Democratic Senator Begich's win from Alaska. It created a state party structure Begich accessed to turn out his vote.

2 years after Dean, nothing was left and a golden opportunity to exploit a split Republican constituency was lost.

After 2008 despite his success, Howard was told his services were no longer needed, and Kean replaced him.

It was Rahm Emmanuel who apparently insisted Howard Dean go.

Rahm was angry Howard Dean got the credit for the successful strategy that carried the Democrats to victory in 2006 and 2008.

Rahm hated the campaign in all 50 states Howard Dean instituted, considering it a waste of money. He felt he deserved the credit for the party wins as the campaign chairman of the House (I think that's what the office is called).

The unity that gave Pelosi the speakership several years ago was due in large part to a unified House effort - members joined together to make sure the public knew Democratic house members stood with the people on key issues. Dean's national party apparatus helped in many ways the public doesn't see - psychological support is extremely important to candidates running in tough races. Knowing you're on a team helps too, and Dean made sure Democratic candidates didn't feel like lonely soldiers.

This time around they made NO effort to show a united front, and the Republicans did. For Republicans it was the "bogus grass roots" Tea Party.

The senate and governorship the same. All across the nation it seemed it was the "Individual Democrat" vs. the Republican party machine represented by whoever.

Yes money matters, independent groups matter, all factors matter, but none is more important than unity of purpose on our side.

It certainly won the day for Republicans in 2010.

Under Kean the "Democratic brand/team" that Howard Dean had built up was also abandoned.

The party no longer was able to maintain a good public face for the public. Yes I know a large part when the President is from your party, he plays the major role, but it is NOT supposed to be just the president.

Yet that's what Team Kean must have figured was a good idea figuring Obama's speaking skills were so good, they didn't have to worry about support.

Nobody continues to win when one of the first things done after the 'big win' is to dismantle all the elements of the party that won it all.

By NO means is this a slam on President Obama.

I'm strictly talking party planning, execution of strategy, maintaining unity, backing each other up, what the party strategy focus is/was Etc.

The role Dean played is a supportive one when your man is president. It's there to help him shine and the party stay 100% ready to face politics day to day.

Not having Dean there, someone who knows how to "support" not just take orders, started to hurt President Obama early on.

Without Dean the DC political game became President Obama a team of 1 versus the entire Republican party.

It didn't help that petty party squabbles that Dean was able to keep private started to become public again, making the Democrats look weak.

While I know it won't happen, if Democrats want to win in 2012 Dean needs to be brought back to restore order.

Maybe they'll realize that in letting Dean go, they let the one man who would have effectively had the President's back during these long 2 years, and will have during the next two. Should they bring him back.

Bringing Dean back is unlikely though, but I can hope.

.... Rahm, Max, & Harry.

If we don't learn that corporatist sell-out politics (and the abandonment of the people-based, true populism of Howard Dean) open the halls of power to right wing, pseudo-populist demagogues, we will not have a happy 2012, or future.




:kick:

Are we not already on that path? Rahm isn't a sellout--he's doing exactly what his corporatist cronies want. In their frantic push to amass obscene amounts of money and power, the corporatists will not waste their time and energy on the hoi polloi--beyond slathering on enough Bernays sauce to insure we remain misinformed and malleable.

...and, while we're indulging in food analogies, might I add that our goose is cooked?

Very ashamed of my — blech — Montana senator.

Hope that Russ, Alan and Joe don't wander far. They have re-elections to win. Bring on 2012!

Robert Gibbs will be next DNC Chair.
I didn't like Gibbs during the campaign.
I called for his head during the campaign.
Who knew this guy would go on to be a worse press secretary than any of the Bush press secretarys. Well, I could have guessed. If he is this crappy as a press secretary what kind of DNC Chair will he be?

I wondered about Howard Dean. He was criticized for a bit of exuberant enthusiasm during his primary bid for the presidency. I never really understood why he was criticized for showing emotion.
We're human we have them, apparently so do corporations. I also thought Dean was grandstanding when he said the 50 state strategy was his Idea but none the less he was chair when we won congress back and when Ob a Ma was elected. If it was me I wold put him back in. Tim Kaine seems to be a nice guy too but he didn't cut the mustard.

The RNC will trot out Jeb Bush for Bush III

God help us.

BEFORE that, he was their darling.

But when he said that he'd break up the combination of TV network, news magazines, newspapers, Internet portal, etc. the media went after him in a big way.

Let the Blue Dogs find their natural home somewhere else. This is our Party now.

All of Obama's picks are very similar and so Kaine's pick is no surprise. Unless it is the right..then his picks will be hardcore right idealogues like the Catfood Commission chair.

As usual, Dean was right and no one Listened.

Yeppers.

The Clintonistas sabatoge the Obama presidency...

Hillary is elected in 2012.

I kid you not...these idiots in DC still think she can be president.

After the unanimous Senate vote to give banksters free rein to foreclose on houses without obeying law...while homeowners had to follow the law...do you think Hillary would have vetoed that bill? Obama saved a lot of homes by standing up to the corporations and banks.

Why else would so many so called high up WH officials trash the democratic base..trash people like Howard Dean... put people like Larry Summers and Tim Geithner in leadership positions. Nobody is that stupid.Fascists..clintons and bushes are the chosen ones. They can do anything with they want with impunity.

Barack Obama announced the appointment of Larry Summers and Robert Rubin and Timothy Geithner to head up his economic team on 11/24/08.

Barack Obama, then the president-elect, made that announcment and one presumes he made the decision as well. Or are you suggesting that he was somehow manipulated by the Clintons to install their chosen appointees? Do you realize that such a suggestion carries with it the implication that Obama is either 1.) a tool of the Clintons or b.) not strong enough to stand up to them and make his own choices for high-level advisors or c.) too dumb to figure any of it out?

You can't have it both ways.



Tansy Gold

It's been extensively reported that Clinton DEMANDED her husbands cronies in key cabinet posts, and a high post of her own, as a condition of not sabotaging Obama at the convention.

With extensive hands-on experience demolishing public housing projects.

He's just a puppet of the Clintons? Still? That's not a very flattering portrait of him. You're saying that he's so weak he's still under the Clintons' thumb? Even though he had won sufficient delegates in the primaries and could have held his committed delegate votes over the Clintons' heads as a signal from the voters that he was the Chosen One, you still think they held a figurative gun to his head?

Please show us where it's been "extensively reported" by someone other than :tinfoilhat: bloggers.

Y'know, I've recently been accused of being a PUMA and a Clintonista and an Obama hater, but it seems to me that your comments imply a deep-seated dislike, shall we say, of the Clintons.



Tansy Gold, NTY

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

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

Yep. Those republicans sure kicked out asses here in Maryland.
Don't be an idiot. Unemployment is high. People want jobs. Thats why democrats lost in SOME places

The idiots were out in full force as usual during mid terms

"key" states rather than Dean's "50-state strategy."

Therein lies the difference in several races where Dems were literally abandoned by the national organization. That was totally wrong, especially when many of those who were abandoned had acted like "real" Dems.

Why does no one get this? When your party is in power, the chairman of the corresponding national committee is a figurehead at best because the party's real leader is the President.

Dean had no interest in being a figurehead, so he left.

Kaine was just a figure head?

who ran away from the HCR vote.

They fall on Citizens United who allowed corporations to essentially purchase Congressmen.

And they fall on our attention-deficit, quick-fix electorate that doesn't ever take the time to THINK about why things are the way they are.


And yes. Kaine is a figurehead.

It fell on the fact that there was nothing bold proposed in health insurance reform that anyone Could run on. Had it been a bold plan with a public option that went into effect immediately people would have seen immediate benefit and it would have had actual impact. But slow acting little adjsutments here and there that get pushed out for years until they go into effect is going to give you exactly what you would expect.

We allowed the Blue dogs and DLC fools to craft healthcare reform that was ok for the insurance companies (the same companies that helped fund the tea party) and in exchange they were supposed to be kind and not donate too much money to republicans or make too big a deal of it.

Was there one Bold proposal with a big name that was overtly and over the top progressive that was proposed and pushed with the full weight of the democratic party?

No.

Was it Obama's fault.

Only a little.

Most of it was the fault of the blue dogs who hamstrung the party and watered down every single proposal and many of them refused to run again and ran off to the private sector to work for the lobbyist industry.

-edit-

In sheer political terms, the choice really wasn't Dean's to make. Indeed, any decision on who will serve as the next DNC chair will come with directives from Obama and his aides. And a name being floated around as a possible Dean replacement is one of the president-elect's closest allies: Claire McCaskill, the junior Senator from Missouri and a national co-chair of the Obama campaign.

"My sense is that the Obama folks are pretty insular and don't want somebody else building the party and haven't even decided what building the party means for them," explained one aide. "I bet they go with a split chair again ... McCaskill at Chair, and somebody like Steve Hildebrand at Operational Chair."

-edit-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/10/dean-prepares-to-step-dow_n_142614.html

This administration NEVER wanted him from the get go. Rahm even claimed that Dean's 50-state strategy was HIS idea!

Rahm was never one of my favorite cabinet memebers.

He should have been replaced with someone who would continue Dean's strategy and style which had been SUCCESSFUL, not another milquetoast faux-conservative DLC Terry McAuliffe-type FAILURE.

"Dean had no interest in being a figurehead, so he left."

The President in power APPOINTS his Chair.

Kaine was appointed.

I don't think Dean was even considered.

and Barack Obama is the real power in the DNC? Be careful how you answer that. . . . .



TG, NTY

Regardless of any other consideration(s).

Two completely different philosophies and nature of character.

Not the former Republican from Vermont who stole the quote.

That so-called "former Republican from Vermont who stole the quote" is largely responsible for ushering in Dem majorities in the House and the Senate. Is that what bothers you?

Please go back under your bridge unless you have something more positive to say.

You must think that Michael Steele is a genius.

Yes, I saw your comment downthread already.

Epic fail. :spank:

I'm tempted to see what he said... but not that tempted.

but I thought Obama had the philosophy of assembling a "team of rivals."

Seems like Howard would have been #1 on that list.

That's not exactly oil and water.

I think what's happening here in this discussion is that a lot of theories are being proposed as to who is to "blame" for the election debacle but they are being proposed in such a way that they a.) exonerate the president completely and b.) set up excuses for a 2012 failure, too.

The Clintons hated Obama. Dean hated Obama. Rahm hated Dean. Obama hates/fears/distrusts everybody.

And yet even though they all hate each other, they're all out there workin' together in the same party! Amazing, ain't it?




Tansy Gold, NTY

You people are nuts!

If you had read beyond the headline you would know this.

In regards to who to blame it was Rahm's opinion that they could do better than Dean.

In presidential politics though, the decisions of the administration are always attributed to the President, good or bad, and even if all he did was "ok" a decision made by a trusted adviser as in Rahm.

He could say no, but the workload of being President is so heavy, that for decisions like does Dean stay or go, he'll let an adviser decide basically.

Do you know something we don't? How do you know it was Rahm's opinion? I think you guys are making stuff up based on what you want to believe and what you assume to be supposed bad blood.

Nor have I ever seen a more tone deaf leader who kept trying to get far right constituencies to "like him," while abandoning his own constituencies.

I mean- when the two major teacher's unions uninvite a Democratic President's representatives- much less the President himself from their national conferences, that's - how does one say? Not a good sign.

President Obama had a mandate for progressive change- which by the way, is still popular on issue after issue. Or at least to be seen as fighting for it.

Republicans had a mandate to go sit in Siberia.

The very last thing we needed was a leader who bent over backwards to accommodate every interest group that's gotten it wrong.

Being 'tone deaf' might be Mr. Obama's primary deficit. One can hope that's the reason he's been kowtowing to the bullies and obstructionists who are bent on fulfilling the expectations of their corporatist masters. We certainly don't want to believe that Mr. Obama is a puppet for the Corporatist cabal.

;)

I've been asking, "How tone deaf is he?" over and over. I don't understand how you expect people to support you when you ignore and/or demean them. It seems Obama thinks that kinda thing works. He expects to get some amount of support from the Repubs and yet they demean him constantly. I don't get it unless I just figure he's just not that into us.

:eyes:

...and failing to focus on the economy. Plus losing control of the "message."

and ignore things like this:



http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/03/3056168.htm?section=justin

Even in areas with GOTV, people may have came out, but not enough change the predicted outcome. As long as the economy was still bad, people were going to blame it on Democrats.

...and that was TRULY missing yesterday.

Regards

It was our time. I certainly liked the 50 state strategy, but it depleated funds and IMO, we were going to win big in 08 anyway.
People had had enough of Bush.

Honestly, the plan had to be in place earlier than this. Instead it was a Clintonesque defense plan. The White house rarely came out swinging and when it did it was usually on a Friday so as not to offend too many people. The communication staff and Rahm were too busy calling progressives 'retards' to actual push progressive policy. Instead Max Baucus got to decide what healthcare reform should be.

How can people just who got us in this mess, first there was Reagen, and then George W. Bush, but supposedly the democrats did it.

Lending his voice to the others advising Obama and probably cautioning him about the dissatisfaction of his base. I doubt that Obama's inner circle even alerted him to the depressed mood of his base. Also Dean would not have dismantled or misused Obama's campaign database.

You must think that Michael Steele is a genius.

People are claiming it's the economy, but how would Dean have improved that?

The group that got crushed yesterday, the blue dogs, rode into office during Dean's reign as DNC chair. Did you think he could have saved them from losing yesterday?

Nobody is interested in rationality here. Just find someone's head to cut off!

he was an embarrassment.

Point in case - the moment that Murkowski lost the Alaska primary they should have dumped about 1-2 million into the state. Come on it's Alaska and it's not that expensive to buy airtime up there. Hell it's cheaper than Delaware. We have the same size population but most of our metro stations come out of Baltimore or Philly where it can get quite expensive.

We didn't even bother running someone against John Thune. :wtf: When you don't run someone against a candidate it makes it harder for others on the ticket to win.

Kaine needs to go - bring back Howard Dean PLEASE!

At some point, Democratic leaders must find a way to connect with their base, because, certainly the Republicans have connect with theirs. Of course, it's a based on a collective prejudice, but it works for them.

Just like David Willhelm in 1994. You need someone to kick butt and take names in that position.

Wildly ineffective as a Leader and Spokesperon. All but invisble for the past two years. Utterly failed to do what was necessary to blunt midterm losses. If the GOPers had had better candidates we would have lost the Senate as well.

If he remains as DNC head we are toast for 2012.

Steele was crowing today about the Republicans' "50-State Strategy." :grr:

We didn't even field a candidate against Thune. Dean conceded nothing!

and Rahm hates Dean...and I wonder how Obama feels to?? He probably agrees with his friend or he would have given him a job in the admin....

It's time to put our energy into solutions, and stop blaming and shaming. Also, those who would have you believe that 'progressive pundits' (whose numbers are few, and whose audience is limited and partisan) have any measurable impact on the general electorate have an agenda built on a bedrock of divisiveness and personal gain. We can only hope that these trying times will be the crucible within which exceptional activists begin the challenging work of reuniting our nation.

That is why he was replaced

It is like you people live in your own little world and do not follow real events

I don't suppose you can prove that?

He said that if we have a Democratic president, that person is the "de facto" head of the Democratic party.

Rahm Emmanuel (of the *winning* diss your base strategy) acted like the little bitch in all of this, not Howard Dean.

Obama was hired to purge people like him.

Now that we know who they are...Rahm, Bacaus, etc we now have our work cut out so we don't make the same mistakes the next time around....if we have that chance.

Call Kaine and tell him to step aside.

Call Dean and ask him to bring it... and listen to this man this time, if you want to win. He got you there last time. Kaine fucked you up this time. What you gon' do?

to follow his lead of being real democrats.

just look at the support they gave Grayson and Feingold.

And his bigoted attitudes and long history of anti-gay policy making make him an extraordinarily poor choice to head this Party.
I think a moist paper towel has a more compelling dynamic than Chairman Kaine on his best day.

His mistake was not telling anyone and everyone about his tax cuts over and over again. A large number of people voted yesterday under the misconception that Obama raised their taxes. He also could have spent a little more time illustrating how the Deficit exploded because of the huge loss of revenue because of the recession he inherited.

He did a ton of good things that even the teabaggers would love, he and his party just didn't let enough people know about them.

or can't read. It's just finger-pointing and a way to avoid responsibility.

Give people some credit. They are anxious, and not enough was done to create GOOD jobs. The party is turning its back on the people who made it strong and is in bed with corporate interests and banks. Think not? At the end of the day, who is getting the money?

If you are employed, seeing your future circling the drain, will you be cheered by repeated messages of how much your taxes would be cut if you only had a paycheck? Giddy because they don't tax the first $2400 of your unemployment benefits? Ecstatic because you know WHO made the deficit bigger? Think all is right with the world because, now that a bill was passed to equalize pay by gender, it is ironic that both you and the guy in your department both have no paycheck?

The reason the election was lost was not enough jobs for 30 million unemployed and underemployed people. The person who would have pulled this out would be the person who could have sold the idea of employing about half of them in forward-looking jobs for at least the next 3 years.

It would have given people other things to think about and do instead of what they did.

And we still have time to change it, but only about 90 days. Christmas is likely not going to be a pretty time economically for some, but it would get us into the early part of the year if someone would push something big and visionary. And if they don't, barring some miracle that causes a huge manufacturing revival, we will continue to spiral, slightly downward.

...go from here.

I should have known what the Obama Presidency would be like when they let Dean go (in a very classless way) and Rahm became Chief of Staff. Still, I hoped in the face of evidence.

Otherwise, he is likely to have a very divided party in 2012. I'm not threatening. I'm just reading the tea leaves.

Obama is just not sensitive the the rank and file in the Democratic Party.

We are that rank and file, but he seems to think that the rank and file are the wealthy people with whom he rubs elbows, noses, whatever in D.C.

No, Obama. We here are the Democratic rank and file.

We who are loud and ill-mannered and angry to see our friends lose their businesses, their jobs, their homes even in some cases their lives in stupid wars -- and to see a supposedly Democratic administration paying no attention and doing nothing.

President Obama needs to understand that he lost this election so badly not just because of the bad economy or the Republican negativity but because he did not support and defend and protect the American people and because he really snubbed his nose at his base.

Big mistakes. I hope this will all change because if not he will not have a party behind him. He just might find himself running against any of a number of real Democrats in the primaries.

And, yes, I voted a straight Democratic ticket in California -- for liberals up and down the ticket. It was great to vote for people with spines.

to run the DNC...someone like Grayson, or Russ.

it might have added some weight to your argument.

As someone in VA, when that occurred, I had just considered it as a political thank you for him endorsing O early on.

What Dem leadership has a problem with the 50 state strategy?

A good part of the reason Obama won was Dean's leadership and grassroots organization...Amen.

Howard Dean for President in 2012!

Dean is partially responsible for what happened. Let me emphasize that Dean did a good job. By perusing a 50 state strategy, he got a lot of DINO / Blue Dogs elected. Where Obama failed is that he was unable to lead the party and keep those seats safe.

bring back Dean!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9461334

re corporate wing of the Democratic Party and it's future influence over the

Dem Party!!

However, certainly Obama either followed very poor advice not only re Howard Dean

but a very long list of other appointees, or he made those decisions himself.

Whatever, Obama certainly isn't unaware of what's going on -- though the comment

the other day re Summers having done a "heckava job" does make one wonder!!

Over the decades, what has happened with the Democratic Party -- and especially its

neighborhood and local links to citizens -- and its previous failures to contest so

many races -- looks more like DISMANTLING of the party than an effort to use it to win!


:)

From the party to prevent another George MacGovern from being nominated and to "root out the kooks" and advocates of the poor and working class -- just look at any of the yuppie scum that local party chairs in any suburb in America.

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

What does he do for this administration?

:eyes:

Watching Kaine speak is torture. I watched him speak last week about how we were going to keep the House. HELLO!

Winners go home and f--- the prom queen.

(Although I didn't know they had those in Scotland, so I wonder where Sean Connery got that piece of advice.)

Period.

Refusing to dance with the people what brung him. Instead he runs around DC begging Repugs, and Blue Dogs to please please pretty please dance with him.

It wasn't a miscalculation. It was a deliberate sell out strategy to become servants of the corporations instead of taking the fight to the people to FIGHT the corporations.

Now, Obama is indicating he is going to compromise with the repukes as opposed to the compromise with the repukes he did the last two years....

Dem good cop - repukes bad cop.

Spin around in that circle until you puke.