Was Dean removed from consideration in 04 by the DLC

[satireV]

If so, they rewarded him with the party chair.

So why not make him the VPOTUS candidate with Senator Clinton in 08?

That seems like a decent match. It certainly would help Sen. Clinton get back some of the Dem voters who think she is too conservative. And it sets up Dean to run as POTUS in 2016.

:hide:

[ScreamingMeemie]

1. I like to believe that he won the party chair due to a huge letter writing

campaign on the part of his supporters. They also gave it to him because nobody can raise large quantities of money like he can. :hi:

[Cha]

24. Jack Murtha supported Dean

for the DNC Chair, too :)

"Murtha: Give Dean DNC chair
By Hans Nichols
Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) is actively lobbying Democratic National Committee (DNC) delegates to select former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean as their next chairman.

The endorsement of the leading antiwar presidential candidate by one of the Democrats’ most prominent early supporters of the Iraq invasion signals a rehabilitation of Dean’s image in the House and greatly increases his prospects of leading the party, many Democratic lawmakers and aides said.
patrick g. ryan
Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) is writing letters in support of Howard Dean.


Several lawmakers said support by the hardscrabble, old-school Vietnam veteran, who endorsed former Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) in the presidential primaries, would compel the DNC to take a second look at the firebrand governor and not simply write him off as an extreme avatar of the party’s antiwar wing."

More at..
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/010505/murtha.html

[emulatorloo]

2. DLC and DNC are two separate animals

EOM

[NoPasaran]

3. No

Finishing third in Iowa had a lot more to do with '04 than the DLC did.

[RubyDuby in GA]

5. Right....

And the backing of the DLC for Kerry had no bearing on it either. James Carville spoke to a group here in GA before the Iowa primary and he flat out said that Kerry would be the nominee.

Don't trust the DLC as far as I could throw them, and I don't work out.

[karynnj]

16. Saying it didn't make it so

Carville was NOT supportive of Kerry at all - he rarely had a nice word for him.

[RubyDuby in GA]

27. Ok, so you were there and I wasn't

Sure.

[mattclearing]

4. If anything, it was a media lynching.

I dunno about you, but it looked like a pretty coordinated effort. How many thousands of times was that clip played?

[stray cat]

6. The people didn't vote for Dean in 2004

The people, right or wrong, removed him

[derby378]

7. But - did those people listen to DLC-funded 527's??

That's the charge - that the DLC turned it into a slugfest between Dean and Gephardt for third place, allowing Kerry and Edwards to scoop up more votes.

Supposedly, Al From was pissed off that Dean refused to kiss his ring, so he dropped the dime and sent some 527's to do som "black ops" work on the Dean campaign.

[stray cat]

13. He was pretty much out of the race by WI

Iowa and New Hampshire losses started too much of a trend. Maybe the danger of being an early frontrunner - too much media attention. I never heard any ads by the DLC.

[DaveinMD]

8. Dean

was removed from consideration by those who participated in the Iowa Caucus. It wasn't some plot. Actual people voted.

[Larkspur]

9. The IA Caucus is not a one-person, one-vote system

It resembles a Middle Eastern bazaar and it's Byzantine rules make it easily manipulted by Party insiders.

All caucuses should be replaced with one-person, one-vote primary systems.

[DaveinMD]

10. people participated

it was not some DLC conspiracy. Dean then went on to lose lots of other primaries. I think Dean is great and is a wonderful party chair. The best we've had since Ron Brown.

[Larkspur]

14. It was manipulated by the IA Party hacks

The Caucus is not a secret ballot, like primaries are, so by it's nature, it discriminates against introverts who don't like to be bullied by extroverts and against those who are not part of the party infrastrucutre. And it is not a one-person, one-vote system. A candidate needs X amount of delegates to be viable and if he/she doesn't reach viablity, those delegates choose another candidate. That's what happened to Dean when he could not read viability in some caucus posts. His delegates had to choose another candidate, so the IA Caucus is not democratic at all.

[divineorder]

15. And Caucuses discriminate

Against those who simply cannot take 2-3 hours out of a cold winter night to hobnob with people. Night workers simply cannot take off enough nights to learn how to do the process. If you can't get a babysitter, you're screwed. If you can't get a ride, you are screwed, If you are unpopular or a stranger new in town, you are screwed. And since the process is dominated by Party insiders, its definitely possible that deals were already made months and weeks prior as to who gets support. So the result could well already be determined, and the Caucus a formality.

Primaries allow for people to secretly change their minds up to the last minute, since there is no way to know who you originally supported, and no way of knowing who you voted for. One can be persuaded one way, or say one way, and vote another without repercussions.

[DaveinMD]

21. fine

he then could have won other primaries. He didn't. It wasn't some conspiracy. I don't think he'd say there was some secret conspiracy.

[AntiCoup2K4]

31. There's a reason Tom VilSUCK has a prominent place in the DLC today....

He was rewarded for a job well done.

[ISUGRADIA]

17. If you have the supporters in Iowa you will win

Dean didn't. Party rules did not make him come in 3rd. The fact that he had fewer supporters voting did.

That said, the 15% viability rule in Iowa for each caucus should be scapped for a simple one-person, one-vote system in the caucus with statewide results tallied.

[karynnj]

28. Has anyone ever evaluated after the fact the impact of the 15% rule.

I was fascinated watching the caucus in 2 locations on CSPAN. It was far more interesting then I expected. I guess you would need the first tallies and the official, after people who picked candidates who got less than 15% have to decide.

Last time, I wondered how helpful the Kuchinich/Edwards agreement was. Could it have changed the order of almost all of the candidates below Kerry. (I would think if I were a Kuchinich person I would drift to Dean or Kerry, rather than Edwards who other than Lieberman was the most pro-war and who was likely the most conservative.)

[ISUGRADIA]

33. It would make a great polisci paper/thesis/book

Kucinich had a fairly low base vote (maybe 4% if it had been just an initial count of support) so I do doubt the order would have changed. I think I can safely say that because in counties and areas he should have had big support (college towns mainly) he still barely broke 15% in most precincts.

But your point is valid. I recall discussion of a much tighter 1988 vote where Gephardt won because of delegates. A media straw poll had Paul Simon closer in real votes and it was argued by a few if it had been a strict straw poll, no 15% Simon might have won.

[snowbear]

11. I think "satire" is trying to live up to their name..

http://eliteleague.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/lol!.gif

[killbotfactory]

12. The DLC treated him like poison

And they have contacts in the media that tow the line for them.

Deans initial success was despite this opposition, and then all the bullshit that was flung at him started to stick and people got cold feet. Then after Iowa, the media did the final blow with the scream bullshit.

[Cha]

25. And , Dean re-emerged

as the DNC Chair and he's doin' what he wanted to do..working with us to "TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY!":patriot: :patriot:

[LittleClarkie]

18. Hopefully you didn't light that blowtorch intentionally

But since you're already hiding, I doubt it.

Your suggestion would negate the efforts of the net roots, in effect telling them that whatever they did, the outcome was preordained.

Second, the Dean folk tend not to like the DLC very much, so any suggestion that Dean was in cahoots with them is not going to go down very well. Neither do they tend to be Hillary fans. If you are attempting to make Gov. Dean look less desireable or Hillary more desirable by pairing the two of them up, it ain't gonna work.

Third, he's busy being the Chairman. He doesn't have time to be the POTUS, the VPOTUS, or anything else besides the DNC Chairman.

Third, it doesn't take more than a glance to realize that the DLC and Dean are on separate paths. Not to mention that you give the DLC more credit than they probably deserve. What do you think they are, a bunch of Boss Tweeds dictating who comes and goes in the party?

If they gave Dean the thumbs down, and let's say for giggles they gave Kerry the thumbs up, I suspect it might have been because they didn't think he could win, and then one of their own could have a shot in 2008. I'm wearing a big horking Reynolds Wrap Hat when I speculate like this, as in the facts probably wouldn't bear me out if I ever bothered to research what happened. But there has to be a reason I heard rumors that there were people double crossing Kerry in Ohio that he thought were on his side. If I'm right, those who wanted Hillary in 2008 were probably just as horrified when Kerry started to build momentum as the Republicans I know were.

Short answer - um, no. I really, really doubt that was it. Dean and the DLC don't work and play well together.

[Blasphemer]

19. Yes and No

In Iowa, it was ultimately his frontrunner status was his nemesis. He was heavily endorsed and leading in all polls. Naturally, the other candidates would fight to bring him down. Kerry was able to quietly run an effective campaign as he was considered dead in the water. I think those in the party who were not fond of Dean were prepared to take him down after Iowa had he won. The Iowa phenomenon took care of it for them. I have never been convinced that Kerry was their choice and even if he were, I don't think they could have anticipated the impact of Iowa's results. My sense was that everyone was prepared for a much longer primary battle and there wasn't really a consensus on the "Anti-Dean" candidate. As for his DNC chairmanship, there was most definitely a bid to keep it from happening - it failed. It wasn't a reward as he won despite the elements working against him.

[Le Taz Hot]

20. Let's get some things straight here

1. The DLC got rid of Dean, via dirty tricks and with the consent of the Lieberman, Kerry, and Edwards and the MSM who took their marching orders from the DLC. (If you have any questions about this, just look at who the MSM has representing the Democratic party on all the talking heads shows.) Clark was thrown in there for the SOLE purpose of taking votes away from Dean.

2. The DLC did NOT reward him with the party chair. There was ENORMOUS pressure from the grassroots and e-Boards to nominate and elect Dean as the DNC party chair and the delegates had virtually no choice. Millions were going to walk if they didn't.

3. Why should be be Vice President? He's doing a GREAT job at the DNC. And Hillary? Sure loser in 2008. Worse than Kerry who lost to the worst president ever.

If you have doubts as to whether or not Kerry was the "annointed one" (primaries and caucuses are charades), think about this. Beginning a year before the first caucus, I and many others throughout CA worked our asses off and had displays, booths, attended political conferences, conventions, etc. for the following candidates: Dean, Kucinich and later, Clark. Not ONE time was there ANYTHING for Kerry and yet, he turns out to be the nominee. What does that tell you?

After the last primaries I became more convinced than ever that primaries are the MOST dangerous entity in a true democracy.

[pstans]

22. 2 things

1. it was Gephardt and Dean going at each other in Iowa, giving Kerry and Edwards the chance to finish 1 and 2.

2. I think Dean would turn down the invitation to run for VP with Hillary...unless he believes she has no shot at winning and thinks he would help win.

[radio4progressives]

23. Dean was elected to DNC by a hard won victory - DLC did NOT want him

and launched a vigorous smear campaign against him.

After a 3 month long hard fought campaign, the rank and file, (over 400 delegates) unanimously voted DEAN as chair - which should have sent a loud message to the DLC - but they've poo pooh it like as if it is meaningless.

Now, it appears the DLC is using the media to get rid of Dean vis a vis the Iraq war wedge.

I'm pretty pissed off at this point - this party is showing a very disturbing machivalian aspect to it.

If the DLC thinks things are ugly now, they haven't seen anything yet if they keep this up.

[Michigander4Dean]

26. Like there's doubt his candidacy was sabotaged

Two words: Secret PAC.

[UDenver20]

29. Ok dude...

No one was "removed from consideration"... By whom? for whom? for what?

The STONECUTTERS don't determine who our nominee is.... We have a primary (and caucus) system.

DEAN (who happens to have been my pick) couldn't win the key primaries to pick up enough votes at the (nominating) convention. The Democratic (primary) voters (who were most likely experiencing mass-hallucinations) voted more heavily for Kerry and Edwards - who pulled away from the rest.

Now we're hallucinating again. A bunch of nimrods seem to think that we'll do any better with Gore, Clinton, or Kerry - even though two of them couldn't get the job done on their first tries and one is the most GOP-mobilizing figure that we could put up.

Looks like we're up for another four years of a GOP President! Woohoo! (not).

[jackbourassa]

30. Ummm...that's all wrong,,,

Number one:

The DLC, despite all its bluster, doesn't have the "power" to select who our Presidential candidates are or are not. Their candidate in 2004 was Lieberman and he got trounced. They definitely didn't support Dean, and actively campaigned against him - but there were a number of factors which led to Dean losing. DLC hijacked Kerry's campaign when it became evident that a) he would win the nomination and possibly the election (he began to decline once they came aboard); and b) that he would let them.

Number Two:

Just like in number one (above), The DLC actively campaigned against Dean for the DNC chairmanship. This time however, Dean won regardless of their position. The two DLC candidates finished fourth and fifth respectively in most polling and didn't even bother remaining in the race when it became clear that they would lose badly. The only one who remained in the race against Dean was someone who worked for Gore and is not himself DLC.

So in conclusion the entire premise of this thread is completely wrong.

The DLC are really nothing but a bunch of whiners now. They have nothing to contribute to the party. They have no power base in the party. They represent no constituency. And can not get anyone elected to anything.

Consider this. Since the DLC took over the Democratic Party in 1992 we have lost every election that Ross Perot was not involved in. But the illusion of the Clinton victories, and Blair's victory in Britain gave them this delusion about their own greatness.

They peaked in 1998. When the President of the United States, the Democratic Leader in the House, The Democratic Leader in the Senate, the Chairman of the DNC, the Prime Minister of Britain, and the leaders of the British Labour Party were all DLC (or a British variation of it).

But they have been in steep decline ever since.

Today. There is a Republican President. The Leader of the Democrats in the House is a liberal. The leader in the Senate repudiates the DLC. The DNC chairman is Howard Dean. And Blair is on his way out, having been "tolerated" (barely) by his own supporters.

How you like 'dem apples?

[Andromeda]

34. Agree with your analysis...

The DLCers are a bunch of whiners and they don't have as much power as they'd like to think they have.

[eridani]

32. Two things

One was the really vile ad campaign linking anyone who criticized the war with Bin Laden.

The second was that, as others have pointed out, Iowa caucuses are an insider-run closed system. You can either accept that and work with the situation as you find it, or try to change it in a few months. Kerry did the former, and the Dean campaign (imitated by the Kucinich campaign in this respect) did the latter. Kerry hired a guy who was very well versed in how to win caucuses, and did a great deal of behind the scenes work lining up support from local Dem party members and PCOs. Dean volunteers from out of state didn't have local connections, and didn't have the time to get to know the system either. I did some letter writing from out of state for Kucinich (this tactic also borrowed from the Dean campaign), and realized afterward that we had absolutely no way to measure the effectiveness of tactics like that. The time I spent getting to know the processes of my own local Dem party turned out to be far more useful in the long run.