Senator Reid and Governor Dean - "Things are being done"

[Ichingcarpenter]

While Democrats across the country are anguished about the bitter fight for their presidential nomination, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid doesn't appear to be losing any sleep over it.

Asked about it last week, Reid said he remains convinced the nominee will be decided well before the August national convention. He wore a serene and mysterious smile.

But Reid isn't one for lengthy explanations. The conversation went like this:

Question: Do you still think the Democratic race can be resolved before the convention?






Reid: Easy.

Q: How is that?

Reid: It will be done.

Q: It just will?

Reid: Yep.

Q: Magically?

Reid: No, it will be done. I had a conversation with Governor Dean (Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) today. Things are being done.

That's all the Nevada Democrat would say about it.

Reid also weighed in on the controversy over Michigan and Florida, states whose Democratic convention delegates were stripped when they scheduled primaries before Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, without permission from the DNC.

The DNC authorized only Nevada, Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina to hold nominating contests before that date. Those four states teamed up to demand successfully that the Democratic candidates not campaign in the two renegade states.

The punishment was intended to be symbolic, on the assumption that a nominee would be decided early and delegate counts wouldn't matter.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/16948521.html

[BlueIdaho]

1. I wish I could get excited

But I think we all know just how good Harry Reid is at getting things done at his regular job...

[Ichingcarpenter]

5. To me this news reveals things are coming on that we don't know about

Reid has to deal with a lot of Dino Democrats in the Senate and form a coalition
to advance Democratic Party Policies, he is a behind the scene type leadership style
which I don't really care for.

However, this bit of news is very revealing.

[LisaM]

2. If it's so easy for Reid to "do things", then why hasn't he ended the Iraq War?

I find this very, very disturbing.

[surfermaw]

17. If he had enough democrats in the house and senate he would stop the war.

[surfermaw]

18. Longer we keep both of them out there the less time Rove will have To bring the one down

[gateley]

3. "He wore a serene and mysterious smile."

Indigestion.

[flor de jasmim]

4. Before August? Big deal! How about next week?

[LWolf]

6. I think I'll jot the two of them a note:

Dear Sirs:

About "getting things done:"

I hope you don't plan to "get something done" before I get to cast my vote. If my vote doesn't count in the primary, please don't count on counting it in November. While you're working hard to "get something done," please consider the following suggestion as the best alternative to this national party humiliation you've chosen to call a "primary."

Let it ride until the convention. Meanwhile, find some possible alternatives that could actually unite the party and win the GE. Gore and Edwards are two suggestions, but there are more. Have one ready to step in as an alternative in a deadlocked convention, and send the two Senators back to the Senate to provide evidence of their abiding concern by actually writing, introducing, and working to pass legislation for all of their grand plans.

[cui bono]

7. As an Edwards supporter after having been a Kucinich supporter....

why should Edwards be "given" the nomination before the two who are the remaining cadidates? I don't get that line of reasoning at all.

And believe me, I'd rather have him than either of the two survivors.

[Ichingcarpenter]

9. I agree and I started with Dennis then went to Edwards

I find the reasoning lacking a explanatory
coherence

[LWolf]

10. Why should either of those two

be "given" votes that they wouldn't have gotten, because of a faulty primary system and schedule?

How many of the votes they've gotten would have gone to other candidates in a clean, fair primary process?

Why should ANY vote count more than any other? Why should early votes decide the nominee, and late votes count for nothing?

If there were something inherently democratic about the primary process, you 'd have a point. But there's not, so the point is moot.

Here's why it should happen: the two current contenders have divided the party in such a way that I don't think either can unify the party behind them for November. The point is to send a strong candidate in. A candidate that can win.

Going into the convention evenly divided, the best you'll get is a slight advantage, probably in superdelegates, leaving voters on the losing side angry and doing nothing to unify the party. Between the pointedly undemocratic schedule, the Michigan/Florida mess, and the potential for conflict over superdelegate choices regardless of who they choose, there is no coming together to defeat McCain. Unless you offer a candidate that is not involved in the horrific sexist/racist/religious civil war we're experiencing; one that is outside of that division and can bring both together.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. How many of the votes they've gotten would have gone to other candidates in a clean, fair primary pr

I think NH settled that. Ignoring minor irregularities in the tabulation, Clinton and Obama outdistanced the other candidates by a lot and clearly demonstrated that they were the only two capable of generating broad support. By the time Edwards withdrew, then NH results had been replicated in other primary states as well, with Obama coming out the clear leader.

I wish it were otherwise as I too got to Obama by way of Kucinich and Edwards, but that is the way the chips fell.

[LWolf]

13. So NH gets to decide for all of us?

I don't think NH is reflective of the rest of the nation. There were exactly 2 primaries and 2 caucuses (not counting Michigan and Florida) when Edwards withdrew, and he was the last out.

If there were some benefit to picking a couple of states to go first, allowing their results to manipulate the ballot in the rest of the states, what would happen if you picked a couple of west coast states? Or southern states?

That's the way the chips fell this time. I believe the whole process to be corrupt, and would prefer a clearly democratic process. Barring that, a late state has no impact at all, unless to play spoiler.

I may do that with my late May primary vote, if it's still close enough. I'd like to see a draw, a brokered convention, and a candidate that is neither of the two currently campaigning.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. No NH did not get to decide.

It was an early example of how the two front runners established that they were in fact the two front runners, by consistently garnering a large majority of the votes between them. Super Tuesday, with its primaries and caucuses across the nation eliminated all other players, and in fact decided the contest in favor of Obama. Unfortunately Clinton has chosen to drag this out endlessly hoping for some miracle that is not going to happen.

[Life Long Dem]

31. Hillary received 10% more than the polls showed. It was odd.

D. Kucinich started a vote recount, and it faded from the news on I think money issues. So I didn't hear the result of the count.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. The recount showed minor irregularities in the computer

tabulated opscan systems, but nothing that would have made a change in the outcome. I'm glad Kucinich had the gumption to do this, a lot of people here had conniptions over the recount, but we need to make it clear to the gangsters in charge that we are going to inspect everything they do.

[LWolf]

37. No.

There were two small state primaries, and two caucuses, before the rest of the field dropped. Edwards was the last out, BEFORE Super Tuesday. Super Tuesday did not eliminate anyone; those first 4 states did.

Any support either candidate received ON Super Tuesday was bolstered by the fact that no one else was running, so plenty of people who would not have voted for them did, not having any other viable choices.

[cui bono]

26. I'm not defending the way the primaries are set up, but there they are, with rules.

I still don't see a valid reason why a person other than the 2 remaining candidates should get the nomination. How would you explain that to the die hard Clinton/Obama supporters? Or even the moderate ones?

[LWolf]

36. Here are my reasons:

The "die-hard" supporters themselves.

I don't know how many truly "die-hard" supporters of Obama and Clinton there are. Before the field was narrowed down, neither were in the majority at DU. Of course, DU is not the larger world, but the bigger it gets, the more mainstream it gets. DU is much more centrist in 2008 than it was in 2003, for example. The point being, I don't know how many Democrats, outside of 4 states that had early primaries and caucuses before the rest dropped, really support either of the two candidates, and how many are making a vote, not because they truly support that candidate, but to prevent the other candidate from winning. You know; that strategy we are always encouraged to follow in November.

I suspect that it's a significant number; why else would so much bigotry, sexism, and outright hatred be on display? One thing is obvious; this primary, people are voting from emotion, not from logic. It's a powerful, visceral thing. I can understand some of it, to be sure. Not the extremes that have been played out in the campaigns and among the campaigners and supporters, though.

People engaging in bigotry, in sexism, in hate in order to "defeat" their "enemy" have crossed the line of partisanship and left it far behind them. There are plenty of Obama supporters who will not vote for HRC, should she become the nominee. There are plenty of HRC voters who will not vote for Obama. I, frankly, won't vote for either. I've never pretended to be partisan, and I don't like the kind of "leadership" that has led the party into what I'm seeing now.

Remembering that both sides have a lot of democratic votes, and support, behind them, I see that they've managed, between them, what I consider to be an irrevocable divide. The only way I see to heal that divide is to offer voters a candidate that they HAVEN'T already sacrificed on a public altar of bigotry and hate. Someone who the party can truly unite behind, because it won't be one of the current two.

Even if the party COULD somehow all get behind someone they've spent a year eviscerating, they've done their jobs too well, handing all of those entrails to McCain to feed on throughout the general election campaign.

Anyone who wants to see a true WIN for the democratic party, and a defeat of McCain, wouldn't be backing either Obama or HRC at this point.

That's my pov. I think it's as valid as anyone else's.

[John Q. Citizen]

8. Dream on little dreamer, dream on. Obama has run a brilliant campaign and he will defeat McCain.

[LWolf]

11. I think you're wrong.

You can disagree with my reasoning, posted above, as I disagree with yours.

If you want to take that chance.

[sniffa]

19. I just have to say what I'm sure most have noticed

You post this in just about every other thread. What exactly are you hoping to accomplish? It's not registering your displeasure as you've been doing this for weeks, so you obviously have another agenda.

The most benign angle I can imagine, is that you want as many DUers as possible to put you on ignore.

[LWolf]

22. Agenda?

What is anyone's agenda who repeatedly puts up posts attacking or promoting one candidate or another?

I want to see neither Obama nor Clinton as the Democratic nominee, and I'm willing to say so. Repeatedly, in the face of the civil war currently being played out in GDP and in the party in general.

Let it not be said, come November, that Democrats didn't participate in either side of this disgusting debacle without repeated reminders of other choices, and of possible consequences.

I don't see a win in November for Clinton. I don't see a win for Obama. Moreover, I don't want either of them to be president. Neither do I want McCain.

Longshot that it is, I'm posting the only scenario I can see that has the slightest chance ending up with a decent candidate in November and a decent president next January.

It's my matriotic duty. That's benign enough.

I don't put people on ignore.

Anyone who is too narrow to discuss an opposing viewpoint rationally, or too weak to skip flamefests, probably has a huge ignore list.

[Cha]

14. I remember a quote from Dean..weeks ago

that said.."This primary will not be settled in Denver."

I imagine in the old days when the primaries were settled at the convention(they were weren't they?) that they had them scheduled much sooner?

[cui bono]

28. Maybe he means we'll never have a nominee?

:scared:

[kid a]

15. let it be DONE!

[Ichingcarpenter]

23. Reference? Is that like Captain Picard "make it so"?

I know there is a reference to 'let it be done' but I don't get it right now.

[rainbow4321]

16. They need to do an intervention with HRC

PLEEEEEEEEEEASE!!!!

Just make it stop..make her GO AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Like someone who wrote on the Dallas Morning News blog a week ago...

Don't go away mad, Hillary....JUST GO AWAY!!!!!!!!!!

[Bigleaf]

20. Fuck. I've heard this shit from our Dems for the last 7 years. Famous last words.

Wake me up when they actually DO something.

[undeterred]

21. The world has always been run by Good Ol Boys

and Hillary never got to be one of them.

[wileedog]

27. Yeah, its sexism

When your candidate, who happens to be a woman, runs the worst campaign in primary history.

She was up by 30 in the polls 3 months ago. Did the country just re-decide to hate women again since then?

[crispini]

24. Why is Harry Reid suddenly reminding me of Yoda?

"Things are being done, yes! Nominate someone we will! Drag on until Denver it will not!"

[Capn Sunshine]

29. Gotta tell ya, that's my takeaway from meetings this past month

All the actual Democrats are putting the party first. When the time is right, the message goes out to the Clintons to pack it in.

[tabasco]

30. Send in the guys with the white coats to tell Hillary "it's over!"

[travelingtypist]

33. I hope to karma this is true.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5035190

This is what I've been dreaming about. Right after Hillary refused to
disavow Mrs. Ferraro. That was it for me.

[DemVet]

34. I have no respect for Reid or Dean. Both MUST be replaced.

Dean has been a most ineffective leader of the DNC. The GOP played him like a harp on this MI and FL mess. It's his fault all these voters are potentially being disenfranchise.

And Reid, Geez where do I start? We trusted him to take on the 'pubs and end this Iraq War. Instead, he gives them a few mean-spirited statements and then promptly kisses their ass. If Hillary doesn't get the Nomination, she needs to run for Majority Leader and kick Reid's ass back into obscurity.

[SunsetDreams]

35. Things are being done behind,

and her latest lies will speed it up.