I'm curious, how many who supported Dean in 2004 are supporting Clinton now?

[MercutioATC]

The issue has been raised a few times...is this divide primarily a product of "new politics" vs "old politics"?

The Democratic establishment was historically directed by the DLC. It determined the strategies based on "tried and true" formulae.

Howard Dean, both as a candidate and as Chair of the DNC, threw away those strategies. He's asserted the DNC's authority in the process and chosen new methods to forward the party's support.

There's a rift between the DLC's "old politics" and the DNC's "new politics". Is this the crux of the rift between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters...even unconsciously?


On a personal note, I was a Howard Dean supporter and I'm supporting Obama now...not because I'm a "Hillary hater", but because I don't believe we'll see substantive change unless we change the paradigm. We don't just need to elect a Democrat, we need to begin to change the way we deal with issues on a very fundamental level. I believe Howard Dean did that (and continues to do that in his current capacity). I believe Obama does that.

It it a surefire "winning" strategy? That depends on your definition of winning. I believe that the only way we "win" is if we change the dialog. I'm willing to sacrifice some perceived assurances of a "win" for a chance to make that change...and I don't even feel that's an issue any more.

Discuss, If you'd like...

[EFerrari]

1. Not me and I regret that now. But, I definitely see a through line

between Dr. Dean and Obama. :)

[Lou Queb]

2. Is it better to win a GE and a majority of seats in congress or

to change a party for good at the risk of loosing an election ?

[stillcool]

3. I think they might be the same thing...

Winning with the party we have, is still losing...as proven by the 2006 elections.

[MercutioATC]

4. I agree with stillcool...but to answer your question,

yes, personally I do believe that change is more important than willing a given election.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. I would gladly accept incremental positive change in 2008

with 3 Supreme Court Justices needing to be replaced, with Global Warming at the tipping point, and with two wars already being fought and another potential one looming in the wings. I do not see this as a run of the mill election. If it came to it I do not accept the risks involved of being willing to trade off possibly losing in 2008 against potentially setting it up for more radical changes to occur in 2012 or later. I have never doubted that I will work for the Democratic ticket in 2008 even when there were 8 or 9 candidates running.

[MercutioATC]

6. Thankfully, I don't believe we'll have to choose.

We'll get both.

[Lou Queb]

7. With this 2 party-system, better cast a vote for the dem ticket and

that is the pathway towards change.