"In an MSNBC appearance Monday, Dean reversed his opposition to the Senate bill from last week"

BOOM!

:popcorn:

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

R. :kick:

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

.

I see. :crazy:

Statesmanlike...in spite of Norah's insipid line of "gotcha" questioning.

He was good as DNC chair, but his anti-war and health care bona fides have always been suspect IMO.

We can't insist that everyone be an "investigative journalist" but then get mad when they're tough on our guys too.

I've said it before. After the first switch off on the House Bill I didn't waste my time. People on both sides advocate him but the man obviously has a bloody agenda or doesn't know what he's talking about. I have came to realization he definitely didn't read the Bills, and he's talking about what he heard. It's similar to the situation that happened to Barney Franke in relation to the DOJ thing----he went butt as crazy and then he backed up his words when he found out the reality of it. Same drama.

:tinfoilhat:

Rahm accosted him in a dark alley and threatened his family! (Note to the humorless: I am not a fan of Rahm, but that doesn't mean his detractors are above satirizing)

Dean woke up with a Vermont dairy cow's head in his bed!

Etc., etc.

I don't see how anyone can accuse the WH of strongarming him. People need to realize that Dean isn't as great as he was projected to be. That's all he's been doing throughout this entire thing is switching sides and sending mixed messages.

and what I saw was a man who weighed a couple of options, both of which he considered bad, and took the lesser evil. That is so often the case in politics. Over that week circumstances shifted, again as so often they do in politics, and he responded accordingly and, IMO, appropriately. Bernie Sanders did not disagree with what Dean was saying and for me, it was on the strength of Sanders' opinion, in conjunction with Dean's, that I came sadly to agree with both of them.

He first was very supportive of the HOuse bill. As it progressed he went on to disagree with the House bill and then once again he became supportive of the House bill. In the end I wasn't sure if he was in support or against the House bill. Senate bill, he was heralding it. He then went on to imply he wante the bill to die in the Senate and now he's bak to supportig it.

This is not a man who knows what he's talking about. I'm sorry. At first I backed him, and if he had stayed on one side instead of this switching shit I would have no problems with him since I supported his experience. I started to take note when I found out he was gettin paid to back a position in the House bill and hence his possible push for it.

It shows that they can learn, and grow, and change.

Maybe if it was years, I'd see a learn and grow method. Here I see uncertainty and no clear aim or belief.

That being said, donations can change within days, as well, and should have some scrutiny.

I personally think he's more about an agenda than the American people. To support and then not to support and then to support again...it just doesn't make sense to me.

I'm afraid I missed that...

if dems lose the congress, even the anti-obama wing of the democratic party is gonna look back on his administration as the "good 'ol days."

if they improve it in conference, as he hopes they will. It is still a BAD bill. And the President FAILED on the PO, and helped give us this crap. And took a slam at women at the same time ascreating empty mandates while rewarding Big Pharma.

many as we're going to get out of the Senate. That was a direct response to, "What changes do you think need to be made?"

He makes a lot of other statements in defense of his previous position, but he has reversed himself.

He seems to be trying to be diplomatic but he is very clear that he doesn't like the bill. And he repeatedly states that this is NOT health care reform. Feingold doesn't like the bill either. They are hoping to change it in conference. dean also indicated that the only reason he is saying anything supportive is that he has an "emotionalreation" to the GOP.

Dean made it clear that he accepted the bill because the changes were made. He still wants it improved in conference, but so does everyone.

He is hoping for further changes in conference and not everyone is hoping for a better bill.The president got what he wanted.

Quite frankly I don't like the bill. It doesn't do nearly enough to control costs and I hate capitulating to scum like Joe Lieberman. That said I support the bill because I believe that it is a net improvement over the status quo. Feingold and Sanders feel that way too as does Paul Krugman and it looks like Dean is coming around to that position as well.

I see no substantive changes in his position. He knows it sucks but also knows it will pass. Unlike myself, he holds out hope for improvements.

Here is the You Tube video of the interview.

That is just unfair.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=416005&mesg_id=416005

Taking things he sort of kind of said in a pondering way, and twisting them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=416005&mesg_id=416005

and the truth terrifies them so it is whisked awayin order to accomadate their preferred or dictated narrative. All part of "message dicipline"

and a public option for health care.

Look over there! :eyes:

;)

At least he is consistently disapointed with this piece of shit.

Barack Obama just keeps moving the goal post.

Like the house bill. He'd give it a chance before he kills it dead.