Dems should either let Dean lead or fire him.

[bklyncowgirl]

Something's not working.

Alot of us hoped that Howard Dean, as DNC chairman would lead the Democrats to a stronger fighting position. Where he's been allowed to operate, Dean's been effective. Democrats have made gains in local races--apparently the 50 State Strategy is working. Unfortunately, the 'hands off' approached worked out with Congressional leaders many of whom would have rather had Charles Manson as DNC chairman than Howard Dean, has caused alot of dissonance in the party's message.

This business with Hackett's brought it to the top. It's not about policy--it's about tactics.

The party seems to be divided between those who want to go on the attack and strike at the Republicans and the Bush administration while they are struggling and run with a strong message of reform designed to differentiate themselves from the Republicans and those who believe that it is better for the party to be less critical more bipartisan and to offer a traditional menu of policies in the hope of attracting swing voters.

The Firebrands, who include moderates like Dean, traditional liberals like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry (I'll put him in here for his brave shot with the Alito filibuster), conservatives like Jack Murtha along with most of the liberal blogosphere, believe that people aren't going to vote for Democrats unless they stand up for what they believe in. Paul Hackett was their poster child for a stronger more outspoken opposition and plainspoken policy positions.

The Traditionalists, who include most of the congressionalleadership and long serving congresscritters all political persuasions as well as other Democratic politicians from Red States and of course the DLC believe that the way to win is to moderate their message to appeal to moderate voters who've been going Republican in recent years.

"Don't scare the soccer moms" is their motto.

Paul Hackett may not have scared soccer moms but he sure scared Traditionalists. Now the Traditionalists have gone and knifed the Firebrands' poster boy in the back. This has pissed off alot of people--not the least of whom is DNC Chairman Dean.

This infighting is not a good thing. The Democratic leaders of all persuasions need to get together and decide what their tactics and policies are going to be and they'd better do it soon. The Traditionalists and the Firebrands need to get together. If Dean is such a lightning rod then maybe it would be better for someone everyone can agree on to lead the party.

This would allow Dean to do something else--like maybe run for President.

[bullimiami]

1. do you feel like terry mc had more influence than dean?

i think not. mccauliff was one of the dlc flock and was mostly a mouthpiece not a force.
dean is fighting his battle for change from the inside, so there are factions of resistance. i think it was to be expected.

[bklyncowgirl]

5. I agree that McCauliff was part of the flock

They were more or less bleating the same way--it was a weak message for a weak party. I don't want an old party hack.

I'd much rather have the leadership say, OK Howard, we'll do it your way. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be happening any time soon.

If the Washington Dems can't accept Dean as leader, it might be better to get a less polarizing person in there who cut the differences between both groups and give the Democrats a strong but coherent strategy to take to the fights.

Either that or figure out a way to get the do nothing Dems to come around and start acting like a party that wants to win.

[KittyWampus]

2. Is that why they encouraged Hackett to run for Congress?

[mattclearing]

3. You have summed up the division in the Party well here.

I don't know if I could handle another Dean run, especially with Hillary, Kerry, Gore, Clark, and Edwards all potentially in the mix. I'm a big fan, and the heartbreak from the Dean scream/Iowa disaster was too much for me to take the first time.

But you've helpfully defined the issue without making a lot of the divisive, unhelpful comments that we tend to fall into here at DU. I'm prone to DLC-bashing, which is easy to fall into.

The question is how to get the moderates on board with a real reform program. It's too late for Hackett, but we still have to get through these mid-terms without botching the golden opportunity the GOP has given us.

It's clear that moderate contrast doesn't work. We need to push harder.

[BlueIris]

4. For the first time...I'm conflicted. Maybe he should stay.

That's right.

And I know some of you are in shock that I would post that. For the record, I'm just typing out loud here, no one flame.

I am...not a fan of Howard Dean as a former presidential candidate or as a politician. I could post about why, but it's all been covered. My main problem with him as Chairman is the fact that in my assessment, the man cannot stay on message to save his life, and there have been too many times in the past year when I've felt that his outbursts helped exactly no one do anything.

However. His comments yesterday...for the first time, we agreed on something. A perspective and a way that voters should approach that perspective in order to create actual, valid change. And I didn't so much want to smack him in the face, as shake his hand. To me, the comments were helpful and supportive and...gasp! Effectual! That, my friends, is important (I really despised him before that). I didn't think we'd ever get to this place. Now, I'm still livid at other things I feel Dean has inexcusably messed up WRT the Party and what people believe to be our priorities now, but, but...yesterday was productive. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, in case I never get to call you that again.

Egh.

Conflicted.

[400Years]

6. How about firing the corporate whores and keeping Dean.

We need Dean. We don't need the DLC.

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. Wish we could recommend replies as well as posts. ;^)

[400Years]

32. thanks GPV

:hi:

[sandnsea]

8. screamiing "chickenhawk" is not a strategy

It's one thing to be tough and in their face, but you also need to prove you can govern. We have just as many threads on DU wanting a strong governing policy as we do wanting attack politics. So the DLC's wrong and so are the firebrands. Only a few really get what needs to be done, I'd say John Kerry and Russ Feingold and few others.

[bklyncowgirl]

14. You're right on the need for a strong policy--and a strong left hook.

Even the most outspoken of the firebrands agree that you have to have good policies.

The problem is that in the attempt to appear to be all things to all people the Democrats have left the impression that they have policies for everything but stand for nothing.

Kerry--to his eternal credit--stood up for the right thing with his Alito filibuster but he never really had the backing of the Senate leadership and enough Democrats were so afraid of offending people who will never vote for them anyway that they would not support his efforts. I predict that if Feingold tries to filibuster the Patriot Act that the same thing will happen.

Having half the party undermining the efforts of the other half is not good for the party or for the nation.

[Armstead]

9. Brown is NOT DLC or centrist or MOR politics as usual

Rather than get so obsessed about style, we ought to look at the substancer here.

Brown is the kind of liberal and progressive fighter for the issues that matter. He is among the few in Congress who have been willing to challenge the conventional wisdom about the WTO/Free TRade/NAFTA-CAFTA scam.

He's been fighting to protect programs like Medicare for years.

If there were more like brown throughout Congress, it would push the tame "politicsd as usual" that we at DU are always complaining about and actually make the Democrats a Party of Reform.

[bklyncowgirl]

11. Tactics matter--not style.

I don't know much about him but Brown sounds like a perfectly good liberal. I'll even say that Hackett is more of a centrist on many issues than Brown. Hell, if I lived in Ohio, I might have voted for Brown over Hackett on the issues.

That's not the point.

It's the way this was done that I object to. Democratic voters in Ohio should have decided who will represent them in the general election--not nervous policians in Washington DC.

[Armstead]

13. It has always been that way and always will

Those who have power and influence will use it. That's both human nature and the nature of party politics.

The real issue is outcomnes and what values that is driving that power. The key for our side (liberals and progressives) is to push the system in a way that actually advances our goals and values.

In this particular case, that process worked to get a clear and experienced PROGRESSIVE WITH EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE ISSUES to run for a Senate seat.

The way is was done might be distateful and heavy handed, but if the Democrats pull this off we will have the equivalent of a Paul Wellstone representing Ohio.

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. indeed -- Sherrod Brown is the Paul Welstone of Ohio

Brown Tops DeWine in New Poll
An Opinion Consultants poll finds Ohio voters favor Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) for the U.S. Senate over incumbent Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH), 43% to 38%

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/01/26/brown_tops_dewine_in_new_poll.html

Sherrod Brown is endorsed by PDA (Progressive Democrats of America) and is an outspoken member of the Progressive Caucus.

Representative Brown is at least as liberal as Sen. Kennedy or Sen. Feingold

courtesy of vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=H3141103&type=category&category=Foreign%2BAid%2Band%2BPolicy%2BIssues&go.x=12&go.y=8


2006 In 2006 Citizens for Global Solutions gave Representative Brown a rating of A.

2005 In 2005 Citizens for Global Solutions gave Representative Brown a rating of A.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Council on American-Islamic Relations 100 percent in 2005.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Peace Action 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 84 percent in 2003-2004.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 96 percent in 2005.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 50 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Council of La Raza 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 77 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 90 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Education Association 89 percent in 2003-2004.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Service Employees International Union 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 93 percent in 2005.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Postal Workers Union 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 93 percent in 2004.

2004 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers considered to be the most important in 2004, Representative Brown voted their preferred position 88 percent of the time.

2004 On the votes that the Service Employees International Union considered to be the most important in 2004, Representative Brown voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Communications Workers of America 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers considered to be the most important in 2003-2004, Representative Brown voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 95 percent in 2004.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2005.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2004.

2004 On the votes that the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance considered to be the most important in 2004, Representative Brown voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 94 percent in 2003-2004.

2004 In 2004 National Organization for Women endorsed Representative Brown.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2005.

[depakid]

10. Dean needs to find a graceful way out

or even an ungraceful one.

The longer he's associated with the ineffectual, cowardly and some would say corrupt members of the party- the greater the chance he'll be tainted by them.

The current "leadership" is leading the Dems down a sure path to a 7th straight defeat in the upcoming Congressional elections- and Dean doesn't need to be any part of that.

He belongs back on the campaign trail.

[bklyncowgirl]

12. Personally, I'd rather see Dean stay on as Chairman.

But they have to let the man lead. If they won't let him do it then maybe there's someone in the party who's universally admired, not affiliated with any potential presidential candidate and understands that the Democrats need both a coherent policy message and a mean left hook.

[sybylla]

16. You have it wrong

The infighting is a very good thing. If you don't like the DLC, if you want the Dems to have a strong message, then you should be supporting Dean, not finding a way to shove him out.

This is not about a party divided. It's about the fight for control over message. The elected representatives in DC (your traditionalists mainly led by DLCers) want to be able to say what the message of the Democrats is - note the wishy-washy response to the SOTU. The grassroots, led by Dean, say no way, the Democratic message derived from the platform is dictated by the grassroots and that is where the heart of the party is. Anyone not in agreement is not supporting the Democratic Party.

What we need to do is to elect strong, progressive, Dems with stern backbones to go to DC and show the traditionalists how it's done. That is the only choice if you want to end the bickering. The sad backroom deal with Hackett is just the beginning slavo in the fight to take back our party.

Don't cave to the traditionalists now.

[bklyncowgirl]

17. I agree with you up to a point

I'd rather see Dean stay on as chairman with the backing of the party and the power to act, if necessary, to negotiate a party line on important issues..

Right now if Dean speaks out on an issue, like the Iraq war, he's immediately bashed not only by the Republicans but also by people in his own party.

If they won't give him a voice in policy matters, then they should find some universally admired Democrat, with no affiliation to any potential presidential candidate, to whom they would be willing to give that authority and let Dean take his fight for change in the party to the voters.

Problem is I can't think of any universally admired Democrat who is not affiliated with a presidential candidate, can you?

[sybylla]

27. Dean isn't bashed by people in his own party

He's bashed by a few elected representatives who call themselves Dems and like the party just fine the way it was under Clinton. However, I have to confess that I have heard no one but pukes and pundits bash him, which leads me to suspect your claim entirely. I'm very involved in party politics locally and follow it nationally as well and have heard nothing at all within the party's grassroots questioning Dean in the least. And that's a fine statement about Dean, who's had the job for one year, since I frequently heard criticism of his predicessor from the moment I became active in the party in 2001.

Who won't give Dean a voice in policy matters? The grassroots of his party gave him one - a very big one if our elected leaders are paying attention.

Howard Dean is the spokesman for the grassroots of the Democratic party, elected by them. Everytime Howard Dean speaks and elected officials ignore it, they are ignoring their grassroots. Everytime Howard Dean speaks and elected officials bash him, they are bashing the grassroots. And the grassroots activists must start holding them accountable for it. Or they will most definitely become the party of nothing.

[bklyncowgirl]

30. I didn't say that Dean is widely criticized by Democrats

Dean clearly has a big following in the grassroots and still has the loyalty of the DNC members who voted him in.

I do think that there are highly placed and highly visible elected Democrats in Washington who did not want him and who have distanced themselves from him when he's been more outspoken than they like.

[sybylla]

33. Really?

That's what I took this to mean:

Right now if Dean speaks out on an issue, like the Iraq war, he's immediately bashed not only by the Republicans but also by people in his own party.

You are right when you say that there are highly placed and visible Dems in DC who do not want Dean to lead the party. He was not their choice. He was the choice of party activists. His job is to cheerlead for the party and act as whip, to shame those Dems who don't like the party platform into reconsidering.

My husband always says that when someone calls him an asshole, at least he knows he has their attention. That's the least you can say for Howard Dean - he has the attention of the "traditionalists" in DC and the pukes across the country.

And I think that's a good thing.

[bklyncowgirl]

37. I should have said "some" people. My fault for not being clear. nt

[Armstead]

19. Style versus substance -- It's not about tradition

As distasteful as it may be, this is how nthe system operates. Our goal should be to use that system to advance our values and goals in the real world.

Ted Kennedy is a traditionalist. He's a product of a classic political machine and a family that played hardball politics to the max. But he's also one of the most ardent advocated for the interests of the disadvantaged and the middle class in the Senate.

Taken on his own terms, Brown is exactly the kind of person most people at DU would want to see running. He is a clear and unapologetic liberal/progressive and has a long track record of standing up for our values on the issues that matter.

He is outspoken and CLEAR about the scam of "free trade" and WTO corporate globalization.

He makes a clear case for the need to restore balance between the private and public sectors, and to return to the values of serving the economic interests of the majority as the driving force in politics.

He fought against the drive to the Iraq War.

That's not a slam against Hackett. But we shouldn;t shoot ourselves in the foot and throw the baby out with the bathwater by undercutting our side's ability to use power for actual outcomes, and not just symbolic show biz.

[bklyncowgirl]

21. I'm not questioning Brown's progressive credentials, not at all

He sounds like someone I'd like to vote for. If I lived in Ohio, I might very well have voted for him over Hackett.

But that's not the point.

The point is this dispute over tactics--and I really do see it as tactical as opposed to a policy dispute.

The Democrats have been losing ground steadily. It's time to try something new.

[Armstead]

23. I understand, but we have to use the system we've got

As I noted asbove, Ted Kennedy is a product of a ruthless political machine but he is also one of the best and most populist liberal Senators we've ever had.

I wish the Democratic leaders who interfered in Ohio had been less heavy handed, and had allowed to primary to play out. But they apparently saw a chance to advance an experienced House mamber with a track record into the Senate.

Time will tell whether they made the right choice in terms of 'electability." If Brown loses where Hackett might have won, they will have "screwed the pooch."

But if they were correct, and Brown makes it into the Senate, it will be a significant victory for liberals and progressives.

[sybylla]

28. Sadly, it is Paul Hackett's political career that got screwed here

He should never have backed down. Democratic voters have nothing to lose in an even-handed primary. But the atmosphere in Democratic politics today won't tolerate quiters. Whatever his reasons, Paul Hackett will have a difficult time being taken seriously in the next election and that saddens me deeply. He was the kind of candidate we need in Democratic politics. But who will send their political contributions, money people have a harder time parting with in these hard economic times, to a quitter?

[Armstead]

29. I agree -- It should have been handled a lot better

[sybylla]

24. Traditionalist is not my word

The OP used it so I included it in my post to make it clear to her who I was referring to. I'm thrilled to be corrected as to the philosophies of Sherrod Brown and am happy that a progressive candidate remains in the race.

I was trying to speak more to the perception of infighting and I appreciate your contributions.

[SaveElmer]

20. This has nothing to do with the DLC...

Quit using that strawman. None of the people involved in the decision to support Brown were or are in the DLC. Certainly Sherrod Brown, Progressive, and PDA endorsed candidate is not DLC. Reid and Schumer are not in DLC. This is about party politics, and trying to regain power in the Senate. Power politics is practiced by everyone on all sides. Schumer and Reid were perhaps a bit heavy handed, but their decision to back Brown was a correct one, he is the better prepared candidate.

[sybylla]

31. Check the OP, Elmer

The poster said the Hackett job was the last in a long like of BS occuring between Howard Dean and the "traditionalists", to use her word. I agree that the DLC had little if any role in persuading Hackett to quit. My post, was in general, referring to the long and seemingly unending battle perceived by the OP. Those I see most often speaking contrary to Dean, critical of him or critical of the Dem platform he touts are DLCers. But I can be persuaded should you have evidence to the contrary.

Additionally, last I knew, we, the VOTERS, were the ones to decide who was the "better prepared candidate." Do you like having your candidate chosen for you by party insiders who think they know what's best? It was wrong for anyone to interfere for so many reason, not the least of which is the fact that it has likely destroyed the political career of Paul Hackett.

If you're a grassroots activist, you ought to be angry about this manipulation or any manipulation of the ballot by anyone. Dean was right to criticize it, as the elected speaker of the Democratic Party and its activists.

[SaveElmer]

35. I t hink party leaders should have a significant say...yes

And no it is not the VOTERS that get to decide the preference a party makes...it is the party using whatever rules they have set up to make their choice. If you don't like the way the party makes its decisions, than you work within the party to change them or start your own party. This in fact is why we now have a primary system. And why we have super delegates. After the McGovern disaster the party realized it went too far in eliminating the influence of party leaders and dialed back a bit.

Every state party exerts influence in one way or another. The Minnesota DFL endorses candidates before every primary for example.

Paul Hackett ruined his own political career. He admitted today it was about his inability to raise the money he needed. Had he had the grassroots support everyone here seems to think he did, he should not have quit the race. There are plenty of candidates throughout the country who are bucking the party hierarchies choice.

If he couldn't withstand the rigors of the primary process how would he have handled the general when the wrath of the RNC was directed at him.

[Laelth]

18. That's it!

The Firebrands, who include moderates like Dean, traditional liberals like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry (I'll put him in here for his brave shot with the Alito filibuster), conservatives like Jack Murtha along with most of the liberal blogosphere, believe that people aren't going to vote for Democrats unless they stand up for what they believe in. Paul Hackett was their poster child for a stronger more outspoken opposition and plainspoken policy positions.

The Traditionalists, who include most of the congressionalleadership and long serving congresscritters all political persuasions as well as other Democratic politicians from Red States and of course the DLC believe that the way to win is to moderate their message to appeal to moderate voters who've been going Republican in recent years.

That's a very neat and clear description. I, as I've said, am one of those who wants the party to "stand for something" even if some people may disagree with us. Most Americans agree with us, anyway. It's strength we must show. Our numbers are weak on foreign policy and keeping people safe from terrorists. In order to show strength, we must stand up for our beliefs and not back down. We can not "race to the middle" to appeal to more voters. People, generally, don't vote on issues, anyway. They vote for an image of strength.

No, as regards Hackett, he demonstrates a lot of strength. No doubt about that. But I don't need a maverick. I want a strong progressive. That's what Brown is. So, in this instance, I'm rather miffed at Chairman Dean for attacking the party leadership on this. He's right to say that the leadership needs to listen to and stand with the base. I'll give him that. But Brown is closer to the base than Hackett.

So, what's Dean talking about? :shrug:

-Laelth

[sybylla]

34. Dean is talking about fucking with the ballot

If Brown is the better candidate, he will win in the primary and be chosen legitimately by voters, not party insiders or anyone else. Everyone has the right to put their name on the ballot. That's what the damned election is for - to let the PEOPLE choose.


It ought to piss off every Ohio voter here that someone in New York interfered with their election. Where's the outrage?

[Laelth]

36. I hear ya.

And there's certainly an argument to be made for having an expensive and bitter primary fight when we (on the left) are trying to get rid of a moderate, Republican-enabling Democrat like Joe Lieberman. But that's not what we've got here. Brown is a progressive. Nobody really knows about Mr. Hackett. I'd rather see the progressive (Brown) not face a bitter primary fight.

And I'd rather not see Chairman Dean attack the party's Senate leadership (Reid and Schumer) when that leadership favors the progressive candidate.

-Laelth

[wordpix]

22. "don't scare the soccer moms"---hell I'm scared with these neoCon morons

and dangerous trigger-happy repukes in power

[PATRICK]

25. The unaccountable establishment

That seems to have forgotten completely their overwhelming responsibility for the last three election cycles(at least).

It seems to me, whatever the issue differences and agendas, all the newcomers were more than supportive of ALL Democrats. It is the GOP wing(since that is how they behave, never mind the ideology) that has done all the skulking, the backbiting, the sandbagging, the public attacks, the power moves, the lusting after the big donors, the crippling of strong issue stands, the legislature disunity debacles and on and on and on. It is not just the people still there thinking "being there" entitles them to be all national party bosses, it is the feeble attempt to graft a GOP style party system onto times clamoring for a populist super-majority. Instead they have handed a power super majority to the fewest and most undeserving Americans whose runaway greed, appetite for hate and violence and empty policies destroying all civil government make their untimely Turd Way utterly indefensible, inexplicable and a mysterious ivory tower mentality that gets riled by any Democrats "not like them". The threats to one's mindset and organizations come from those purer in heart, stronger in voice, younger in age who want to participate PARTICIPATE in the growth of the party. In their bitterness, with its familiar decadent tinge of reactionary senility, the advisers and dignitaries and regulars of the party of the good old days which few of them even can claim to remember as children when FDR made it easy, they would rather castrate the party, mute its voice, jettison its advantages and accomplishments than let a generation that has not failed give the party a life it perhaps has not to this date honestly enjoyed as a whole.

Those fumbling around aimlessly between the butt protectors and the newer activists are similarly contributing to a real drift. All that had to be done was to demand accountability- if not agreement- from those who failed the past cycles(Shumer had an easy race and tons of cash, that does not translate into a formula or make him the best of the best in Congress). Letting Dean and the clamoring of the local party leaders get the chair is not enough. That was a grim concession wrung from their inability to field a credible challenge, not accountability. And here are the results, none of them "Dean's fault", but the out of tune mob still disastrously cluttering the party's over-structure hiding behind decent but misguided voices who stupidly see no problem taking all the heat.

So when there is no gaffes or hostility, their is still a two tier party process going on. Dean, successfully building the grass roots beneath the radar. The Dems in Congress holding on and finding traction. But because the power difference is not honestly confronted, sometimes not even realized, the
turf protectors start moving in when they think they can do it without the Dean factor and putting down what they suspiciously see as building competition down the road. The reason it IS competition, by design or not, is that it is easily better than what the old guard can conceivably offer after a myriad or horrible test results. The old guard reacts to the former but in no way deals honestly with the latter. Would they rather pass the torch to more Nazis? No, but they can't conceive their infighting and loyalty to the renegade corporate vision will do just that- with graves aplenty to prove it.

[SaveElmer]

26. Jeez...just calm down...

Did you divorce your wife or husband the first time you didn't agree on something. Dean is doing a wonderful job so far. Reid, Schumer and the DSCC are doing theirs, and have done an excellent job of recruiting and supporting senate candidates. I agree that this could have been handled more deftly, but the right decision was arrived at. Brown is the better candidate IMO.