IMPORTANT.... From Howard Dean

[charlyvi]

Link to tweet

[aikoaiko]

1. Howard Dean of now makes me sad.

I remember when he didn't make me sad.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

27. He's right. Purism is self-satisfying. Pragmatism helps other people.

Politics, fundamentally, is the art of pragmatism. The art of collecting and redistributing resources for the good of society according to the agreement of society.

[sharedvalues]

38. Yes he's right. Dem party is a coalition.

We can't compare the Dem party to the GOP.
The GOP has achieved purity by completely selling out to the Koches and other billionaire donors. This allows the GOP to act like an autocratic party (Ornstein, 2012, WaPo).

The Democrats remain a traditional political party - a coalition. Coalitions need to compromise to get things done. Democrats still need to have values and ideals, but sometimes it's more important to be practical than pure to help people. The GOP has the luxury of purity tests, because they are fully owned by billionaires with a single agenda.

[Honeycombe8]

46. I'd agree with this. Governing is about compromise, and winning elections is about pragmatism.

You can have the best person in the world, the one with the best ideas, the most experience, the one that reflects all your views...but if he can't win, he's not the one. Better to have someone not quite so perfect who can win. Otherwise, the opposition will win.

[liberalnarb]

50. He may have a point. But I have a hard time taking him seriously

He WAS the purity wings candidate in 04, then did a full 360 and became an insurance lobbyist.

[Midnight Writer]

83. By golly, you're right! He's not pure enough for me to listen to him, either.

[DFW]

97. I have an easy time taking him seriously

I've known him for over 15 years, since before anyone outside of Vermont knew his name. His ideals haven't changed. Times have. We didn't heap disdain upon him in 2003 because no one outside of Dennis Kucinich was making noise to Howard's left on a national level. He was never a purist. He might have come off that way because so few were to his left back then. But there was a reason Rove feared running against him. The bad blood between Howard and Bernie Sanders (which went back almost 20 years before that) was not on the public radar, either, but Howard was long over that by then.

I asked Howard in February, 2009, what his future plans were. Tom Daschle had just been scratched as Obama's new HHS secretary, a post Howard would have been selected for had it not been for the fact that Rahm Emmanuel still harbored a grudge for Howard's having been right about the 50 State Strategy in 2006. Howard said if he was not picked to be part of the Obama administration, he would lend his name to some firm for income, and spend the rest of his time "raising hell for causes I believe in."

I have been lucky to get together with him in person once a year since then (if that), because he has a LOT of causes he believes in. He travels all over the world, in demand by liberal political parties requesting help in organization. He also helped organize a march from Bangkok to the Burmese border to draw attention to human trafficking (basically slavery by another name). I don't remember anyone here giving him credit for that. He was invited to the Davos forum--not as a business rep or politician but as an environmentalist, a cause of his that most people ignore.

Just because he has gotten past tooting his own horn since losing the primary of 2004--something not universal to all New Yorkers now living in Vermont, it seems--doesn't mean Howard has abandoned his ideals by any means.

And by the way, didn't you mean 180? "A full 360" would bring him right back to where he started, which would have been accurate except for the fact that he never went anywhere to begin with.

[yardwork]

98. Thanks for this post. I've been a fan of his for a long time.

He was right about the 50 state strategy and he's right now.

[DFW]

100. Every time we get together

I think, "damn, THIS guy should have been our president." Nowadays, he won't hear of it, of course. Nor will Judy, which plays a big part of it. For all his running around the world, Howard has always been a family man, and very protective of Judy and their children. I'll bet almost no one on DU knows a thing about his family.

Howard has thought for a while that an ideal Democratic candidate for president should be around the age of 50 (Howard will be 69 in November). He thought this two years ago, as well, but supported Hillary because we didn't have the deep bench that we do now. He thought she had by far the best chance to win the 2016 election, and, indeed, she did win it. In the USA, these days, to actually take office, it's no longer enough just to win the election, as shown by two out of the last three presidents.

[fleabiscuit]

127. Most excellent post. Thank you. nt

[Alice11111]

132. I got to sit by him at a Dem dinner a few years ago. He

talked to me or with me just like we had been friends for years. I supposed that part of that is the way it feels when you have been on the same page, even as they turn, for years. There was not the occasional darting of the eyes around the room to see who else he had to connect with, that is the norm when talking to many politicians.

When he volunteered to head the DNC, he was pretty much ignored. I would like him as a Pres candidate or a DNC head. He is the real thing. Plus, as Jesse Jackson would say, you can FEEL him.

I want to add, even though he wasn't appointed to a seat in the Obama WH, he didn't go away with bitterness. He was still out there, working, and raising money for the party, that did not nominate him or give him a seat at the table.

[jaysunb]

133. +1000

I too have know Howard for nearly 15 years and I agree with every word you wrote. Without Dr Dean there would have been no speaker Pelosi a definitely no President Obama.
Democrats lose for a number of reasons, but the self inflicted wounds should be the first correction.

[calimary]

68. Yes, he IS right.

Holding out for the perfect instead of going with the good - is how we got donald trump.

PERIOD.

[lastlib]

80. Salvor Hardin (the Foundation trilogy hero):

"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right."


(I guess it's correctly attributed to the great Isaac Asimov.....)

[aikoaiko]

101. But there are few purists. This is just an "enlightened" way to say STFU to critics

Now that Dean is working for the lobbying wing of a large firm, I am skeptical of his motives.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

105. Not STFU, not at all, not one bit of Shut the Fuck Up. No.

Ideals are good. Some forms of purism are good. Democrats and progressives stand for civil rights and inclusion. We are pretty much all purists on those aspects.

People with very leftish ideas should be encouraged to speak up and advocate for their causes and actively try to move the needle left. Likewise for centrists. That is NOT Shut the Fuck Up.

But AFTER the discussion, after the arguments, after decisions are made and voted on, after candidates have been chosen, ... then all members should and must come together pragmatically to help the party and the candidate.

If they can't come together, then goodbye. Good people can agree to disagree on a few items if they generally agree on most items. They can work together.

If a person is a single issue activist or a far left or committed center-right activist, then the Democratic Party isn't the place for them and they need to get out of the way, leave the party, and go somewhere else where they can advance their agenda better.

[KPN]

117. Pragmatism is good. But this whole "progressive purists" argument is phony baloney

when compared to the number of current Independents or even Republicans who left the Democratic Party over the past 30 years.

If folks really want to win back the WH in 2020, they will stop falling prey to this short-sighted argument.

Yeah, there's a battle going on around economic and other policy positions within the party. The outcome of that battle and the extent to which nominated candidates appear genuine to that outcome will decide whether the party prevails in 2018/2020, not the label "Democrat".

How about we just stop feeding this impractical, if not false, fire?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

120. Now is a good time for those discussions, the "battle" you refer to.

Refine and update our positions. Consider new ideas, even radical ideas. Develop them all and hash it out.

Now is a good time. Between the major every-two-years elections, but not losing sight of special elections and out of sync state elections.

[aikoaiko]

125. Whining is not voting; Dean talked about whining

And linking "whining" worth losing the vote.

I generally agree with you but we've seen a new STFU and get in line Dean beginning in 2016.

There will always be a small % on the left and right who don't vote Dem or Repub.

It's perfectly normal and should baked into our expectations.

[Alice11111]

135. In France, there is a tacit agreement, that all left center

parties come together to block the far right in the general. There is actually a name for it. So, even though most parties did not want Macron, they blocked Le Pen.

We should be so wise. I do NOT forgive the left purists who did not vote. There are many reasons we lost,including cheating, but non voting by ignorant purists, is one of them.

[KPN]

114. THIS

and of course, he is part of the "establishment".

Blame is a convenient mechanism for covering one's failures -- as we see daily with 45. Not to mention that the actual number of so-called purists, while large enough to have swung the 2016 election in our favor, is relatively small and minor in comparison to the number of former Ds who are now Is or even Rs.

No question this is a STFU statement from possibly an establishment figure, but I have to wonder whether its actually fake intended to exacerbate division within the party.

[aikoaiko]

126. You have a point.

Dean's statement came after Joy and her pundits beat up on Bernie supporters.

Joy Reid is still hating Bernie supporters which was the point of that segment.

Dean decided to go down the same path.

[Kahuna7]

116. Pragmatism is what gets us through life. If you're

unable to be pragmatic, career wise and relationship wise, you're not likely to enjoy a successful existence.

[Alice11111]

131. He is 100pc right. We wouldn't be here had he been the DNC chair in 2016.

[wallyworld2]

39. Me too

That was before his new job.

Howard Dean, Now Employed by Health-Care Lobby Firm, Opposes Bernie Sanders on Single-Payer

Dean is being controlled by the same big pharma and big insurance corporate entities and their lobbyists as Hillary is. . . and this is why both of these people are suddenly against single payer.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10027528420

[Honeycombe8]

48. All the Washington politicians are in the pockets of ins. and pharma. Incl. Obama.

I loved Obama and voted for him twice. But have you ever wondered why that awful, harmful provision in Medicare Part D (the one that prohibits the fed govt from negotiating with Big Pharma on drug prices for Medicare)...why it was never removed, despite Obama in the W.H. and the Dems controlling Congress?

Obama even campaigned on removing that provision. Then he never mentioned it again.

They are ALL beholden to ins. cos. & Big Pharma. Democratic & Republican alike.

The ins. cos. even wrote large sections of the ACA. Who else would? The staffers aren't ins. experts.

Hillary isn't against single payer, is my understanding. She just thinks it's not going to pass so it's pointless to focus on that instead of something that has a chance of passing and improving what we have. I don't agree with that, but I can see that side of things, and it's not the same thing as being against it.

[Hulk]

71. Is that why he never mentioned it again?

....or might it have something to do with realizing that it would NEVER sail to get the necessary votes to pass the ACA.

I think a politician can have high ideals and goals, but once they hit Washington, the soon learn that in order to get anything done, you are going to have to negotiate, compromise, move slowly, and if you are lucky, pass something that is better than what you have.

I think President Obama learned that. He didn't do a LOT of things he promised; but he also had a Congress that was hell bent on blocking him at every turn. Remember, we only passed the ACA by the bare skin of our teeth. It wasn't like we could have pushed for one more thing to make it better. We were damned lucky to get it at the 11th hour when we did.

[Jakes Progress]

88. Now come on.

You are actually asking people to think. Thinking is no fun. Ranting and calling out the sins of others is much more fun. Besides, if you already have health insurance and retirement and civil rights, why should you have to worry?

[Honeycombe8]

108. You just made my point. The Democrats wouldn't have removed that provision, you say.

Which is my point. The Dems were in control of Congress, both at the time the ACA was passed, and later.

Obama never even mentioned it again.

Big Pharma has deep pockets...and PAID to get that provision into the Part D bill. They sure as heck paid a lot to KEEP it there. They paid everyone who had any influence in changing or keeping that provision.

Pharma and health devices contributed more to Dems 2008 - 2014. Then they contributed more to Republicans after then. But note that the single politician they collectively contributed the most to in 2015-16 was Hillary Clinton. They contributed $2,078,000 to her for the Prez election, far more than to any other single polictian (altho collectively they contributed more to Republicans).

They contribute more to whoever they think will win. They typically support Republicans, but in 2008, they cut donations to Repubs and greatly increased donations to Dems. They contributed the following in 2008: Obama: $848,00 Clinton: $639,429 Romney: $410,411 McCain: $347,375.

This is not to say that any one politician is worse than another. This also doesn't mean that they do everything the big donor wants (but money talks, doesn't it?). My point is they all get big money from big pharma and ins. cos. This doesn't make the recipient evil. If someone offered you $2,000,000 on the hope you'd do something, but with no requirement that you actually do something...wouldn't you take it?

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=H04

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pharma-election-money-backs-obama/

[delisen]

76. I think Single Payer actually has more of a chance now

that so many people don't want to give up the ACA-just want more. and better.

If we don't spend money on our needs, like affordable healthcare for everyone, the money will be vacuumed up by the super rich and big corporations or unnecessary military spending.

We have been held back by having an unhealthy population.

[Jakes Progress]

89. Why?

[eShirl]

2. Did he actually say this?

?

[R B Garr]

5. He said this on AMJoy this morning. nt

[Skidmore]

6. Yes, on one of the msnbc programs

this morning. I agree with him.

[bdtrppr6]

28. YUP!

[onecaliberal]

85. Yes he's so right

[progressoid]

75. He also said that most of this "division" is a small, but loud, group of people

And put some blame on the media for hyping it up.

[hrmjustin]

3. He is right.

Purism is destroying our party.

[LiberalArkie]

19. By all means lets get back to the Democratic Party I grew up with.

Lester Mattox, Orval Faubus, George Wallace. All big business and the people always voted for the Democratic Party. Straight party loyalty like Kim Davis.

[hrmjustin]

23. WTF!

Where the hell am I or Dean advocating going back to segregationists?

Your response is exactly making my point!

[Honeycombe8]

49. Now you know that the southern Democrats then are the extreme Republicans now. nt

[INdemo]

106. Could it also be stated that the then Racist Democrats

are now the racists Republicans?

I remember right after Obama secured the nomination in the primaries. A couple of work associates stated that they" had voted for a Democrat their entire voting life but they would be damn if they voted for Obama...
They caught the racist bug early and this was/is the problem with the Turtle the now Senate leader.

[Honeycombe8]

109. It started long before Obama. It started w/the Civil Rights Act.

But they didn't change their party registration. They just started voting conservative in the south. LBJ even said that would happen, when he signed the Act. He was right.

So those Dems became Republicans, even tho some are still registered Dems.

[paleotn]

51. Oh sure....

just like JFK, LBJ, Adlai Stevenson, Tip O'Neal, Jimmy Carter, George McGovern.....all big business.....oh! wait!

You do know the parties were very, very different back then. All the dixiecrats are now Rethuglicans. The old liberal Republicans (yes, there were many....they helped pass the Civil Rights Act and many other progressive pieces of legislation) are today all Democrats. Comparing the 2 dominant political parties of today, with those of the mid 20th century does everyone a disservice, particularly those who really need liberal policies to become law. But then again...you can remain "pure". Whatever the hell that means.

[bluestarone]

58. bull

shit

[Progressive dog]

107. There is no Democrat advocating that

In fact none of those people would be members of the Democratic party today if they still held the same racist views. Zell Miller didn't have the decency to stop claiming to be a Democrat but we know he has a purity test of his own.

[R B Garr]

4. He's right. I heard that this morning and totally agree. And to think

what the world would be like if Al Gore had been President. That is turning into a generational mistake. Looks to be even longer now with the latest development.

[marylandblue]

52. The "what if" game is hard to play and nobody knows what would have happened anyway

What would the world be like if Robert Kennedy wasn't assassinated?

[R B Garr]

60. Elections are different from assasinations.

You have a choice in elections. Don't throw away your vote.

[BlueMTexpat]

93. + a million or so! eom

[DFW]

99. If Gore had been allowed to take office

There would have been no Iraq invasion and no Citizens United (decided under Obama, but because of Roberts and Alito, both appointed by Cheney, dba G.W. Bush).

I was invited to a DNC fundraiser in May, 2008, in New York with Howard and Al Gore, and just being there with the two of them made me think, DAMN, if only THIS were our ticket!!

[R B Garr]

143. Exactly, THANK you. No Iraq invasion and no Citizens United, great points.

Sometimes I think about those young gullibles who voted for Nader and fell for the 3rd party lies -- they are approaching 40 years old now, 17 years past the 2000 election, and look at the world they have created for themselves. We just saw Gore's new movie, and he reminded how Bush/Cheney gutted his climate change funding. No true progressive would think that the GOP big oil agenda would be superior to Gore's environmental goals.

It would be nice if Bernie Sanders spoke realistically about Citizens United when he discusses campaign contributions instead of misplaced blame.

Al Gore and Howard Dean would have been a fantastic ticket! Would have loved to meet them together. SIGH....

[DFW]

144. I don't know any Nader voters personally

But if posts I have seen by a few proud Nader voters are any indication, they consider themselves blameless for Cheneybush. I disagree completely, but it is useless to argue, so I don't bother. They suffer the consequences of their actions just like the rest of us, whether or not they are willing to take responsibility.

[R B Garr]

145. Very understandable. It's been interesting to see Gore on TV so much with his new movie coming

out, but it's really made me nostalgic for him. He has a perfect answer for when he's asked if he'll run again. He says he's a recovering politician, and the longer he stays away, the less likely it will happen. I could support him running again with another old guard type like Dean just to get some stabilization in the party and to let some of the younger people gain traction. Any thoughts on whether we'll ever see this again? The GOP hangs on to their so-called star politicians (Gingrich, etc), and it bothers me that ours are discarded.

[DFW]

146. Judy would hang Howard by his toes from a Vermont maple tree if he ran for national office again

Don't count on Howard for that. I don't know Gore well enough to have any insight as to whether he'd want to do it again, but he talks to Howard, and I suspect Howard will discourage him even if he shows the slightest interest.

Howard still firmly believes that younger blood should be stepping up to do this. As DNC chair, he remained neutral, of course, but he wasn't at all disappointed to work with the young Obama after he had secured the nomination in 2008.

After the 2008 victory, it was downright scandalous that Howard was excluded from Obama's administration, but as a fellow Chicagoan, Rahm had Obama's ear, and Howard didn't. Howard just took it as luck-of-the-draw politics, and moved on, but I'm betting (and Obama will surely never speak about this publicly) that Obama regrets not having Howard as HHS secretary, or, at the VERY least, Surgeon General. I mean, c'mon. Kathleen Sibelius or Howard Dean? That's not a choice, that's an insult.

For the DNC Chairman who turned our fortunes around 180° within 2 years, and got us the White House in 4, to push him out to pasture with not so much as a very noisy gesture of recognition was disgusting, I thought. But that's why Howard is in politics, and I'm not.

By the way, if Gingrich is the closest the Republicans can come to having a star, then they will need every hundred million the Kochs can spare, every hour of extremist propaganda Murdoch will give them, and every stolen or fictitious vote they can get away with, if they are to come even close to holding their own in the next election.

[R B Garr]

147. Thanks for the insights. Howard's 50-state strategy

was brilliant, but also common sense. He continues to be a real asset. Gore is such an intelligent statesman. He was a keeper, too.

And I should have said "retread" with regard to Gingrich, lol. He's just a face from the past. That's more what I meant.

Thanks, DFW!

[DFW]

148. Gingrich gives you a warning signal the first time you meet him.

Never EVER trust someone with a handshake like a dead fish!

[Vinca]

7. While he might be right, calling Dems "whiny" is akin to Hillary's "deplorables" comment.

Nothing good can come of it.

[Squinch]

8. Democrats are not as delicate as the deplorables.

[zentrum]

18. Agreed.

[JI7]

22. They need to be called out. They attack others in far worse ways

[WinstonSmith4740]

32. Oh, I don't know.

Except for the whiners, and we all know them, I think we're made of sterner stuff than to let minor names bother us. I knew too many last year. They drank the Kool-Aid the Russians and the Trump campaign were selling on Hillary, and just couldn't sully themselves by voting for her. When I would tell them they might as well vote for Trump, their attitude TO A PERSON was on the lines of "Well, too bad." Now, of course, there's all kinds of alligator tears and claims of how they never thought he'd be doing the stuff he is. Hillary was dead on with her "deplorables" comment, because yeah, I think members of the Aryan Brotherhood, the KKK, and nazis, who threw their support enthusiastically behind him, are nothing but deplorable. If those who claim to be on our side of the aisle are going to adopt a scorched earth attitude of "my way or the highway" we'll never be in the majority again. Until we get rid of Citizens United, we have to come to grips with the fact that money talks in politics. Our candidates will get money from people we may not like. They may do things we may not like. As far as I'm concerned, as long as they stick to the basic principles of the party platform, I'm happy. But all this call for "purity" is going to do is splinter the party and hand permanent control to the republicans.

[delisen]

36. Actually I think Clinton was on to something.

For the foreseeable future there is a percentage of Trump voters who are motivated by authoritarianism and dislike of those they consider inferior. The others are beginning to peel away-but the core will remain.

They see society as a rigid ladder. They want bosses over them and underlings below. Some people they don't even want to be on the bottom rung.

I think of them as unfreedom voters. They are the spiritual descendants of the subset of Tories who did not want to end British rule, solely because they liked a bossman King George III to be in charge and make them obey,

[sharedvalues]

41. She referred to the racists as deplorable. Racists are deplorable.

HRC was referring to only a subset of GOP voters as deplorable. She was referring to the racists and neo Nazis and hatemongers. She was right - those GOP voters are deplorable. The right wing media then manufactured a falsehood that she called all GOP voters deplorable. Not all Republicans are deplorable.

[bluestarone]

59. yepper

on this

[LiberalLovinLug]

82. any Trump voter that STILL supports him is an A grade Deplorable as far as I'm concerned

And the term is one of the best things to come out of the Hillary campaign. It is the perfect word for them.

[Quixote1818]

63. Agree, this is like driving a wedge right down the middle of the Dem party

and we just lost last year. Can we just stop picking out candidates and pointing fingers now and let things play out naturally and stop all this infighting. This thread it part of the problem, not a solution.

[nini]

87. So the whiny ones are hurt by this

Yet they throw every insult at the rest of us?

Boo freaking hoo

[sandensea]

9. Politics: the art of the possible

Dean treads heavily; but he's right: we must be pragmatic if we intend to make our principles a reality.

[charlyvi]

11. Exactly.

Politics isn't for binary thinkers.

[sandensea]

13. A noble but eminently unsuccessful politician once said:

"We break but never bend."

[sharedvalues]

45. Unless your party is fully owned by donors

Like the GOP. Then you can threaten to kick people out of the party if they want to help people with government. Because a small number of single minded donors control nearly all the GOP politicians.

[marylandblue]

54. Those donors did not want Trump

[sharedvalues]

78. He co-opted the hate they cultivated!

The donors have funded identity politics hatemongering for 40 years.
That donor strategy required dogwhistled hate to get the racist vote while keeping the upper class GOP onboard.

Trump broke the GOP donor bargain by being explicit about hatemongering. He won votes temporarily but he's breaking the GOP apart as we speak.

The donors are now desperately trying to ram through tax giveaways and Medicaid cuts and vote suppression before Trump and the GOP break down. They might win, or they might not be fast enough and America will survive.

[Me.]

10. It Should Be Pointed Out

That this was said in response to the bashing Kamala Harris, Deval Patrick & Corey Booker are taking from the ultra left.

[wryter2000]

16. Thank you

[MrsCoffee]

33. Thank you for pointing that out.

[elehhhhna]

130. This should be higher up. Context is everything.

[DrDan]

12. amen

[earthshine]

14. Great - let's have Dem party stand on Single Payer! That'll be uniting. nt

[CaptainTruth]

15. I agree that purity tests could easily make Dems a permanent minority ....

... then NONE of our values will be advanced by government.

We need to learn a phrase that our European colleagues know well: Coalition government.

We don't have to sacrifice our values & beliefs, we just need to be willing to work with people whose beliefs don't match ours 100%. The reality is, in politics it's the key to winning.

[NastyRiffraff]

17. He's absolutely right

Dr. Dean hits the nail again. He's a doctor who's always fought for health care. A certain senator dithered and hem-hawed and played coy about his vote on the ACA. He finally did vote for it, but it took him awhile to decide, since he wasn't "sleeping well".

[boston bean]

20. I can think of one individual politician that I wish would read and learn.

[Gore1FL]

21. "I'm from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" was a better quote from him.

I'm sorry to hear his position has changed.

[JI7]

25. I think he got that from paul Wellstone

[JI7]

24. He is right. For some it's a career/hobby. They aren't interested in actual policy

But more about how they are seen.

I find most of them to be assholes.

[DoodAbides]

26. He is obviously correct. Many have said this one way or another. None of this is rocket science. nt

[calimary]

69. Welcome to DU, DoodAbides!

The good doctor has the right prescription - AGAIN.

[DoodAbides]

70. I like Dean. nt

[LarryNM]

29. Wonder if he feels the same about the "center" purists n/t

[lunamagica]

30. I completely agree with him.

[kentuck]

34. ????

Howard Dean can go fuck himself, huh?

[DefenseLawyer]

42. Mr. Dean is a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry

I agree with his sentiment, but in my experience it is the cautious Wall Street money people that seem to write off the "whiny left" far more often than the opposite is true. These people have been in charge for 30 years and they have had some astounding losses. So much so that I'm not all that keen to be lectured by them.

[paleotn]

57. But that still doesn't mean he's incorrect.

and as for his point on this....you have heard of the old saying ....don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[aeromanKC]

35. You don't think the ENTIRE GOP Party wanted Trump in either do you??

But guess what, they held their nose and stuck together and won.

AND now they have Gorsuch on the Bench for the next 30 years.

Trump will be gone and their will be other more "Pure" GOP candidates for them to get excited and whole heartily support in the future, and meanwhile right now they got their F'n Gorsuch on the SCOTUS bench for the F'n 30 years.

[delisen]

37. Howard Dean has affirmed his support for women's

health rights and is opposed to the DCCC funding candidates who are opposed.

He is not going wobbly on the rights of women as human beings.

[BarbD]

40. Dean is absolutely correct -- I recall his presidential bid

I was in Vermont at the time he declared for the Presidency and was asked if he would opt for public funding. The Progressive purists were appalled when he turned it down. However one has to be a realist and it was ridiculous to think anyone could win without being able to pull out all the fundraising stops. As much as we would like to take money out of politics, this is the unfortunate world we live in. After Howard lost the nomination and he took over the running of the DNC, he pushed the 50 state strategy. Obama could not have won without him and all of the Vermont Democrats who campaigned so hard. We Democrats are all in this together. Get a thicker skin.

[charlyvi]

43. Yes, yes, yes.

You're absolutely correct.

[femmedem]

44. He wouldn't be talking about single payer for all if the left didn't push for it, hard.

It's only becoming a mainstream idea because of the "whiny party."
Same thing with the Fight for $15.

I don't need my candidates to pass a purity test. I voted enthusiastically for Hillary even though I disagree with her stance on fracking, for example. And Dean is right that it takes a certain amount of privilege to let your purity come at someone else's expense.

But I also recognize that the people Dean is denigrating share a lot of my values. We just disagree on strategy.

[WinkyDink]

47. Memo to my fave, Dr. Dean: When one writes, one can write correct and eschew "gonna" and other

Last edited Sun Aug 6, 2017, 09:31 AM - Edit history (1)

colloquialisms.

[Dustlawyer]

53. It can be a fine line. On one hand you want the seat,

on the other you cannot change for the better. That is unless you you keep up the pressure that you will primary them unless they move left.

While doing that we must organize a coalition to get the money out of politics. It is the root cause of most of our problems. It has cost us Representative Democracy as the politicians generally represent Donors!

[David__77]

55. This isn't about "pure" or "impure." It's about competing agendas.

Some people support legal access to abortion - some do not. Some people support Medicare for all - some do not.

I think it's perfectly normal and reasonable that people vote for and work for candidates who advocate for the agenda that they support.

The Democratic Party is a coalition with people with different viewpoints.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

56. So says the big pharma "unofficial" lobbyist

[woundedkarma]

61. Sure... sell your souls just to win

Then you can be just like the republicans.

There's a candidate who is pro-life, lets throw women under the bus to get those pro-lifers on board.

Hey, there's a guy we can run who hates black people, muslims and hispanics, lets throw minorities under the bus so we can get that neonazi vote.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders will probably be out a job soon, lets see if she'll run as a dem so we can score that sweet fundy christian psycho liar vote, who cares if we throw truth under the bus.

WE DIDN'T LOSE because there is anything wrong with our platform. WE DIDN'T LOSE because there was something wrong with our candidate. WE DIDN'T LOSE.

Russia stole the presidency.

And Republicans STEAL other elections because they are willing to say anything (certainly they don't mind lying constantly), do anything (collude with enemies) and be anything (gun advocates, anti-gay... just plain evil) to win.

What I'm hearing every time someone brings this up is that we need to be more evil just like those republicans.

[paleotn]

62. Exactly....

...so lets cut this shit out. OK!?

[loyalsister]

64. I love Howard Dean on issues

and when he tries to court voters. But attacking fellow citizens (who also happen to vote for Democrats), is beneath him.

[NEDem]

65. He's aboslutely correct.

[Scurrilous]

66. K&R

[NBachers]

67. I agree with Howard Dean

[TryLogic]

72. #1 I don't know what he is referring to. #2 I question whether this really comes from Howard Dean!

[concreteblue]

73. Purity and purity tests are One Thing

Labeling your opponents as such for having legitimate disagreements on policy and tactics is another.
It is not so hard to tell which is which......

[kellytore]

74. Purity cost us this last election.

I have a lot of progressive friends who did not vote in this last election because Hillary did not pass their purity test. I have a friend in California who did not vote for Jerry Brown because of him making it mandatory for kids to be vaccinated. Your purity gave us Trump.

[concreteblue]

91. Flat out wrong.

Lots of issues gave us Trump "Purity" is not one of them. Being lukewarm at best on core Democratic Principles? THAT was definitely one of them. So was voter suppression, election fraud, Russian propaganda. To try to pin it on any one thing is somae AM Radio quality "thought".

[riversedge]

77. Thank you Howard Dean

[elfin]

79. Good for Howie! We represent Diversity AND Unity.

I HATE the divisive threads. I accept ALL who resist for whatever reason.

If Dems don't "get it together" we will lose and lose again.

I tolerate clutter. I tolerate messiness as long as the substrate is ethical and has a long view in recovering practical means to reach our nation's deals.

[llmart]

81. Agreed!

Howard Dean speaks for me.

[BzaDem]

84. Howard Dean is exactly right. People who use their voting power to hurt others are not on our side.

It doesn't matter if they claim to be from the right, or claim to be from the left. Actions matter, not claims.

[Stellar]

86. I saw that on AM Joy...

https://m.

[janx]

136. Thanks for posting the source of this.

It amazes me how often people can get into arguments without determining where the initial information came from. Original sources and context matter.

[Stellar]

139. Exactly!

[George Eliot]

90. Pragmatism. Is that what's moved us to the right of D.D.Eisenhower?

I'll vote for any Democrat that will bring us back to left of center. The further left the better.

[BainsBane]

92. Yeah, but it's not about purity

Notice the eagerness to compromise on issues that involve other people's lives. It's about prioritizing their own interests above everyone else.

[aikoaiko]

104. Which is true of most people across the political spectrum

Lots of people have issues that are near and dear to them and will "whine" or impose a "purity test" for a "core value" on a candidate.

[BlueMTexpat]

94. I stand with Howard Dean

and am proud to do so!

[riversedge]

102. +1

[tomp]

96. several problems

1) "whiny" is not acceptable. Them's fightin' words. he reminds me of rahm emmanuel on that. they can both go fuck them selves on that.

2) the candidacy of sanders pointed out something very important. the truly progressive left is a substantial section of the party. not large enough to get the nomination but still substantial and, in my view, growing. and this is not new, nor is the castigation, ignoring, misrepresenting of them, often based on their being "not practical" or not understanding the "reality" of politics

what is missed is that they have a better sense of the reality of politics in the u.s. than the center-right of the party, who want us to play nice and by some set of arbitrary standards of protocol, despite the obvious worsening of conditions for the majority of people, and the failure of the center-right to achieve stable election results. that some of this profound degradation of the public welfare can be traced back to clinton(s) is forgotten, ignored, or denied.

3) that an insurance lobbyist is now lobbying against the truly progressive left (i.e., against single payer) is no surprise and is a degree of impurity in our politics that is worth suffering the slings and arrows of entrenched power.

[BeyondGeography]

103. Dear Howard, Donald Trump is President

If this is your analysis of how that happened, it's pitifully incomplete.

[TooStrong]

137. THIS

[janx]

140. He did not say that. He said that it was a relatively small number of people and that the media

had blown it out of proportion. You watched the source of this, yes?

[floWteiuQ]

110. To some extent...

He's right; however, the problem comes down to emotional appeal versus intellectual appeal. Intellectually we have the science and the experts on the various fields to guide us with the known facts. Emotionally you have people running around using one of the most abused words in the English language. That word is " believe". Some go out of their way to tell you what they believe, even though they lack the facts or expertise on the subject. This is where the battle belongs. Someone needs to distill to folks the difference in believing in something and using the comprehensive knowledge systematized by science to reveal the how their beliefs are emotional opinions not based on demonstrable facts.

[HelenWheels]

111. We should have a President Dean

Dean is one of the few in public politics who has never disappointed me. He is intelligent, talks in understandable language and knows his politics.
Al Franken is another who has never disappointed me.

[Nitram]

112. Dean is right. The proof is those who are attacking him in some of these comments,

because they don't consider him "pure" enough.

[rock]

113. How is that from Howard Dean?

It certainly doesn't sound like Dr Dean to me.

[KPN]

115. WTF? Why are you even posting this crap here?

I don't care who it originated with, it's nothing but divisive and could well be fake.

While I'm at it, this whole meme about "progressive purists" is way overblown. Their numbers are far fewer than the numbers of former Ds who have gone I or even R over the past 30 years.

If you really want to win in 2020, or maybe even 2018, just cut this crap out. Geezus!

[charlyvi]

118. I will post what I want to post.

If you don''t like it, trash the thread. In your own words....Geezus! It's not fake....see post #86; you know, the actual video.

[KPN]

121. OK then.

I just feel like this statement (I'll take it at your word that HD actually said this) has absolutely no positive effect and only serves to divide -- whining about whiners? Really?

[charlyvi]

122. The majority of posts on this thread disagree with you.

That's fine. You'll take me at my word? You didn't watch the video, did you? I think his point is an important one. fyou don't see it that way, it's okay. I'll just disagree, but I would never tell you that you shouldn't post something, or that what you post is "crap" or that what you post is divisive simply because I disagree with it. That's not okay. Have a good day anyway!

[KPN]

123. My apologies if you took my post personally.

That wasn't my intent.

No, I didn't watch the video because I do take you at your word. At the same time, I stand by my basic opinion that this whole argument is far more harmful than helpful. As a registered Democrat who has voted strictly Democrat for the past 45 years, I don't buy the argument that Dean makes. It takes no responsibility for any party failures and I find it frightfully short-sighted in that regard.

[NNadir]

119. Where would Frederick Douglass have fit on this spectrum? In general, I agree with Dr. Dean but...

...even as a person who has no tolerance with say, Michael Moore and Molly Ivins (in 2000), and even worse, Susan Sarandon in 2016, all three having been total assholes with respect to their times, I do believe that some things are non-negotiable.

In Frederick Douglass's case, he supported Abraham Lincoln in 1860, but agitated against Lincoln's policies as President (with respect to Slavery) up until 1863.

Douglass and Lincoln ultimately became friends, but only after Lincoln changed, not because Douglass changed.

Douglass said of Lincoln, "“Lincoln is the first white man I ever spent an hour with who did not remind me I was a Negro.”

Speaking of Lincoln after his death, Douglass said...

I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.

Frederick Douglass one one member of the triumvirate who saved the United States from itself, Lincoln in the political sphere, U.S. Grant in the military sphere, and Douglass in the all important moral sphere.

I think our modern Democrats could learn from that great American of the past, Douglass.

More on Douglass's relationship with Lincoln is here: Lincoln comtemporary, Frederick Douglass

[FairWinds]

124. As usual, the centrists, including Dean, have it exactly backwards . .

it was the southern and third way Dems who walked away
from the party in a snit when Dukakis and Gore were candidates.

[LWolf]

128. Who's whining now?

This makes me glad I supported DK in '04. Of course, Dean himself wore a surface-left costume at the time, and was still brought down by establishment shenanigan's...including his famous "scream."

He took his political spanking too well, and became too compliant with the establishment.

I don't have any patience with Dean. At all. Speaking of going down swinging...the establishment wing of the Party went down screaming last November, and they're still determined to carry on as if they have no problems...no problems at all. While they whine about "progressives" and "the left" in the perpetual blame game, rather than taking any responsibility themselves.

[elehhhhna]

129. He as not talking about women's rights :

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/344668-howard-dean-to-withhold-support-for-dccc-if-it-funds-candidates-who-oppose

[Gothmog]

134. I heard Governor Dean make this statement yesterday nn MSNBC

Governor Dean nails it

[Plucketeer]

138. ....or whatever we're gonna have in health care."

Pay no attention to that lobbyist behind the curtain!

[Trumpocalypse]

141. Dean is 100% right.

The demand by some for ideological purity is killing liberal/progressive causes.

[Kentonio]

142. My issue with this, is that it assumes we all want the same things

But that the centrists are just more pragmatic about how we get there. I don't think that's actually true though. There are plenty of Democrats who don't want single payer, who don't want free college tuition, who don't think taxes on the rich should be raised or minimum wage levels substantially increased.

For these people it's not about a pragmatic route to progressive ideals, it's about pushing their own agendas at the expense of ours while painting us as naive wild-eyed extremists. I'm sure as hell not going to bow down to that.