Dean's in

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I saw on the news last night that the last guy running against Howard Dean for DNC Chairman has dropped out of the race--leaving Dean as the only one running...therefore its pretty much assumed he will be the new DNC chair

You've probably all read it before, but this is his statement when he officially announced his running for the DNC Chair...sent to supporters in email :


----


Dear Chris,

As I have traveled across our country, I have talked to thousands of people who are working for change in their own communities about the power of politics to make a difference in their own lives and in the lives of others. Every group I have spoken to, I encouraged them to stand up for what they believe and to get involved in the electoral process -- because the only sure way to make difference is to step up and run for office yourself.

Today, I'm announcing my candidacy for the Chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee.

The Democratic Party needs a vibrant, forward-thinking, long-term presence in every single state and we must be willing to contest every race at every level. We will only win when we show up and fight for the issues important to all of us.

Another integral part of our strategy must be cultivating the party's grassroots. Our long term success depends on all of us taking an active role in our party and in the political process, by volunteering, going door to door and taking the Democratic message into every community, and by organizing at the local level. After all, new ideas and new leaders don't come from consultants; they come from communities.

As important as organization is, it alone can no longer win us elections. Offering a new choice means making Democrats the party of reform -- reforming America's financial situation, reforming our electoral process, reforming health care, reforming education and putting morality back in our foreign policy. The Democratic Party will not win elections or build a lasting majority solely by changing its rhetoric, nor will we win by adopting the other side's positions. We must say what we mean -- and mean real change when we say it.

But most of all, together, we have to rebuild the American community. We will never succeed by treating our nation as a collection of separate regions or separate groups. There are no red states or blues states, only American states. And we must talk to the people in all of these states as members of one community.

That word -- 'values' -- has lately become a codeword for appeasement of the right-wing fringe. But when political calculations make us soften our opposition to bigotry, or sign on to policies that add to the burden of ordinary Americans, we have abandoned our true values.

We cannot let that happen. And we cannot just mouth the words. Our party must speak plainly and our agenda must clearly reflect the socially progressive, fiscally responsible values that bring our party -- and the vast majority of Americans -- together.

All of this will require both national perspective and local experience. I know what it's like to lead hands-on at the state level and I know what it's like to run for national office.

With your help, this past election season, Democracy for America, already started creating the kind of organization the Democratic Party can be. This past election cycle, we endorsed over 100 candidates at all levels of government -- from school board to U.S. Senate. We contributed almost a million dollars to nearly 750 candidates around the country and raised millions of dollars for many more candidates.

Together, we helped elect a Democratic governor in Montana, a Democratic mayor of Salt Lake County, Utah and an African American woman to the bench in Alabama. Fifteen of the candidates we endorsed had never run for office before -- and won.

I also have experience building and managing a local party organization. My career started as Democratic Party chair in Chittenden County, Vermont. I then ran successful campaigns: for state legislature, lieutenant governor and then governor. In my 11-year tenure as governor, I balanced the state's budget every year.

I served as chair of both the National Governors' Association and the Democratic Governors' Association (DGA). And as chair of the DGA, I helped recruit nearly 20 governors that won -- even in states like Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Mississippi.

All of these experiences have only reaffirmed what I know to be true. There is only one party that speaks to the hopes and dreams of all Americans. It is the party you have already given so much to. It is the Democratic Party.

We can win elections only by standing up for what we believe.

Thank you and I look forward to listening to your concerns in the weeks ahead.

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

[irishgrl]

Please, let this be the dawning of a new spirit in the party, one that inspires participation from ALL Democrats. May we stand shoulder to shoulder against the juggernaut. NEVER SURRENDER!

[dissention]

I hope he gets it for the simple fact that it will chap the asses of Bill and Hillary. Those two need to be knocked down quite a few pegs and realize that they do not run the Democratic party.

[gldstwmn]

I hope Howard gets it. :thumbsup:

[strandinthewind]

I hope he gets it for the simple fact that it will chap the asses of Bill and Hillary. Those two need to be knocked down quite a few pegs and realize that they do not run the Democratic party.

Bill C. can pretty much do whatever he wants in the D party and Dean is not going to change that :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

I hope Howard gets it. :thumbsup:

Me too. I like him. I think he is a rebel and that can cut both ways, but I like him and think he can stir the masses to the battle cry - he certainly demonstrated that in 2003.

[dissention]

Bill C. can pretty much do whatever he wants in the D party and Dean is not going to change that :shrug:

If Dean gets in there, I foresee Bubba's status as the King of the Party diminshing a bit, but that's just me. Dean has the grassroots support and the youth vote behind him and that's something that no Democrat has really ever had. Expect Dean and his Deaniacs to shake things up quite a bit (and hopefully for the better) because he's running in '08. :nod:

Of course, some of this is wishful thinking because I have such a disdain for Clinton. :laugh: They say hindsight is 20/20 and, by golly, I have seen the light as to how evil and despicable Clinton truly was and is.

[strandinthewind]

If Dean gets in there, I foresee Bubba's status as the King of the Party diminshing a bit, but that's just me. Dean has the grassroots support and the youth vote behind him and that's something that no Democrat has really ever had. Expect Dean and his Deaniacs to shake things up quite a bit (and hopefully for the better) because he's running in '08. :nod:

Of course, some of this is wishful thinking because I have such a disdain for Clinton. :laugh: They say hindsight is 20/20 and, by golly, I have seen the light as to how evil and despicable Clinton truly was and is.

I guess I just do not see Billy C. as that bad, but when compared to W noone is :eek: I do admit that Billy C. had his faults in the political arena though.

Can Dean run if he is the DNC head?

[dissention]

Me too. I like him. I think he is a rebel and that can cut both ways, but I like him and think he can stir the masses to the battle cry - he certainly demonstrated that in 2003.

He's the only Democrat who ever really could. Kerry certianly couldn't, he was a weak man of no substance. Dean had the energy and he actually wanted change. I can't believe how stupid I was not to support him. :o

[strandinthewind]

He's the only Democrat who ever really could. Kerry certianly couldn't, he was a weak man of no substance. Dean had the energy and he actually wanted change. I can't believe how stupid I was not to support him. :o

Well, Dean had some issues that perhaps would have haunted him in the end - the police officer business comes to mind. But, I supported him. Kerry listened to too many polls IMO. But, I will give it to Kerry in that he almost won the electoral vote by doing so and he did that in a time when conservatism was in vogue. So, though I fault Kerry for losing, his reliance on the middle of th road (which statistically is where the votes are) almost got him elected :cool:

[dissention]

I guess I just do not see Billy C. as that bad, but when compared to W noone is :eek: I do admit that Billy C. had his faults in the political arena though.

Clinton was a pig and the ultimate of suave politicians. It's easy for us to say that he did fabulous things for the economy, but upon further inspection of his record, it's amazing to hear liberals put down Bush and praise Clinton to the heavens. It's amazing to me and the ultimate hypocrisy. For people who are so for gay marriage and gay rights, they certainly didn't rally against Clinton when he was doing anti-gay stuff. For people who care about the well-being of the poor, they certainly swallowed the Welfare Reform Act pretty easily. They kept pretty mum when Clinton and Wes Clark were bombing Chinese embassies. The hypocrisy is what gets me and I'm ashamed to admit that I was just as much of a hypocrite. Not anymore, pal. :laugh:

Can Dean run if he is the DNC head?

Yes, but they're making him promise that he won't. Fat chance. :lol:

[dissention]

Well, Dean had some issues that perhaps would have haunted him in the end - the police officer business comes to mind. But, I supported him. Kerry listened to too many polls IMO. But, I will give it to Kerry in that he almost won the electoral vote by doing so and he did that in a time when conservatism was in vogue. So, though I fault Kerry for losing, his reliance on the middle of th road (which statistically is where the votes are) almost got him elected :cool:

Every politician has issues that will haunt them, the difference being that Dean had balls and could weather the storm. If only he had won Iowa, we might be calling him President Dean right now.

Kerry may have almost won the electorate, but let's get real. He only almost won because he wasn't Bush, not because the vast majority of the people who voted for him actually liked him. It wasn't his middle of the road bull**** (though that helped, I'm sure), it's that he wasn't Dumbya. :nod:

[strandinthewind]

. . They kept pretty mum when Clinton and Wes Clark were bombing Chinese embassies.

yep, we did that on purpose :rolleyes: Come on, that was a mistake and you know it :rolleyes: Spin Spin Spin

[strandinthewind]

Every politician has issues that will haunt them, the difference being that Dean had balls and could weather the storm. If only he had won Iowa, we might be calling him President Dean right now.

Kerry may have almost won the electorate, but let's get real. He only almost won because he wasn't Bush, not because the vast majority of the people who voted for him actually liked him. It wasn't his middle of the road bull**** (though that helped, I'm sure), it's that he wasn't Dumbya. :nod:

ITA - Kerry beat himself. But, if he had played it too far to the left. the middle of the road people would have gone to W - many of them did anyway. Kerry played it to the statistical models and fell within the margin of error. Would Dean have done better. Who knows? That his own party failed to support him is telling though. We shall see how 08 pans out.

[dissention]

yep, we did that on purpose :rolleyes: Come on, that was a mistake and you know it :rolleyes: Spin Spin Spin

And even if it was a mistake, I didn't hear any outrage from the left over it. If it had been Bush, we'd never hear the end of it. But it was Clinton, so no one said a word.

[strandinthewind]

And even if it was a mistake, I didn't hear any outrage from the left over it. If it had been Bush, we'd never hear the end of it. But it was Clinton, so no one said a word.


I remeber people were outraged at the time :shrug: and a google of "clinton bomb chinese embassy" reveals as much :shrug:

I think everyone just realized it was a horrible mistake not a calculated mistake like the war in Iraq and the falsified and tricked up intelligence. Therein is the difference to me. But, ITA Clinton was at fault for it and it was a horrible thing.

[dissention]

I remeber people were outraged at the time :shrug: and a google of "clinton bomb chinese embassy" reveals as much :shrug:

I think everyone just realized it was a horrible mistake not a calculated mistake like the war in Iraq and the falsified and tricked up intelligence. Therein is the difference to me. But, ITA Clinton was at fault for it and it was a horrible thing.

Of course people were outraged, but were they outraged at Clinton? F*ck no. They gave him a free pass. I'm still not convinced it was a mistake, but as soon as Clinton came out and said he regretted that it happened, the lefties sat down, shut up, nodded their heads in approval, and kissed his assed. For christ's sake, the US gave four different explanations as to what happened in less than 24 hours. They couldn't keep their stories straight, so we have four wonderful tales that we could pick one from and choose to believe.

[dissention]

I went and Googled that term and this fab article came up that talks about all the different stories that were being passed off to excuse the bombing.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/may1999/bomb-m10.shtml

[strandinthewind]

Of course people were outraged, but were they outraged at Clinton? F*ck no. They gave him a free pass. I'm still not convinced it was a mistake, but as soon as Clinton came out and said he regretted that it happened, the lefties sat down, shut up, nodded their heads in approval, and kissed his assed. For christ's sake, the US gave four different explanations as to what happened in less than 24 hours. They couldn't keep their stories straight, so we have four wonderful tales that we could pick one from and choose to believe.

Why would we intentionally bomb the Chinese Embassy in a Balkan State? It makes not sense to me.

[strandinthewind]

I went and Googled that term and this fab article came up that talks about all the different stories that were being passed off to excuse the bombing.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/may1999/bomb-m10.shtml

I know - but I think that was not really evidence that we intentionally bombed the Chinese Embassy. I think it was evidence that the sotry changed as more was learned.

[dissention]

Why would we intentionally bomb the Chinese Embassy in a Balkan State? It makes not sense to me.

Think about it. China certainly didn't have to sit and ponder that question for very long, it's pretty bloody obvious.

[dissention]

I know - but I think that was not really evidence that we intentionally bombed the Chinese Embassy. I think it was evidence that the sotry changed as more was learned.

Did you read the whole thing in the entire two minutes since I posted it, dear? :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

Did you read the whole thing in the entire two minutes since I posted it, dear? :xoxo:

I read it when it appeared as part of my google search :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Think about it. China certainly didn't have to sit and ponder that question for very long, it's pretty bloody obvious.

Well, let's hear it :)

[dissention]

I read it when it appeared as part of my google search :wavey:

Touche. :wavey:

The links at the bottom of it are good reads, too, in case you haven't read them.

[dissention]

Well, let's hear it :)

If you read the article, you've already heard it. ;)

[strandinthewind]

If you read the article, you've already heard it. ;)

Silly me - I was asking for facts - none of which are asserted. But, it makes for good copy :laugh:

[irishgrl]

ok now, Clinton wasnt thrilled about having to sign that Gawdawful Reform bill, but you know that the Repugs were just fresh off of a new takeover of Congress and Clinton's hands were tied. Also, there were PLENTY of Democratic groups that disagreed with it and some non-partisan groups as well...mostly from the woman/child end of things. There was quite an outcry that the poorest, most vulnerable part of our society (single, uneducated women/mothers) was being targeted. I can recall that NOW, the League of Women Voters to name a couple, were quite up in arms. One of the biggest problems was the mischaracterization of women on Welfare as "Welfare Queens," as if somehow living on the dole meant you were leading the life of Riley! I can tell you as a former Welfare Recipient during that time, its no small feat to exist on such paltry fare. And, the regular COLA's were stopped, AND the maximum benefit amounts were pared WAY down.

as for the actual reform itself, about the only GOOD thing I can say about it (and I speak as a Social Worker here) is that it stopped the practice by SOME welfare mothers of having more babies to get more $$$. It also put a lifetime cap on the amount of time you could actually receive welfare. Personally, I think the Government needs to take another look at what they consider sufficient for an Assistance Unit to live on. Especially in States where the cost of living is higher.

[dissention]

Silly me - I was asking for facts - none of which are asserted. But, it makes for good copy :laugh:

You asked for a reason, it gave one. :woohoo:

[strandinthewind]

You asked for a reason, it gave one. :woohoo:

and like everything else ya say - it has little support in reality :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

Lord - I am feeling caustic today :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[dissention]

ok now, Clinton wasnt thrilled about having to sign that Gawdawful Reform bill, but you know that the Repugs were just fresh off of a new takeover of Congress and Clinton's hands were tied. Also, there were PLENTY of Democratic groups that disagreed with it and some non-partisan groups as well...mostly from the woman/child end of things. There was quite an outcry that the poorest, most vulnerable part of our society (single, uneducated women/mothers) was being targeted. I can recall that NOW, the League of Women Voters to name a couple, were quite up in arms. One of the biggest problems was the mischaracterization of women on Welfare as "Welfare Queens," as if somehow living on the dole meant you were leading the life of Riley! I can tell you as a former Welfare Recipient during that time, its no small feat to exist on such paltry fare. And, the regular COLA's were stopped, AND the maximum benefit amounts were pared WAY down.

as for the actual reform itself, about the only GOOD thing I can say about it (and I speak as a Social Worker here) is that it stopped the practice by SOME welfare mothers of having more babies to get more $$$. It also put a lifetime cap on the amount of time you could actually receive welfare. Personally, I think the Government needs to take another look at what they consider sufficient for an Assistance Unit to live on. Especially in States where the cost of living is higher.

I'm sorry, dear, you know I agree with you on most things but this isn't one of them. Clinton loved his Welfare Reform Act, it was his baby. The whole idea behind it is ludicrous and they're just window dressing the fact that they want to cut off the poor people of this country and make them suffer even more.

[SuzeQuze]

He's the only Democrat who ever really could. Kerry certianly couldn't, he was a weak man of no substance. Dean had the energy and he actually wanted change. I can't believe how stupid I was not to support him. :o

Ha! My my my... I am writing this admission down! :D Yeah Dean!!!

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I read somewhere when Dean first announced his intentions to run for DNC chair that he agreed to NOT run for president in 08 if he was going to run

Chris