Howard Dean's hostile takeover (MSM leading Dems over cliff)

TownHall ^ | February 9, 2005 | Bozell

[oust the louse]

"Is there any way Dean could become chairman if the Clintons really didn't want him there? That's the one issue I just can't overlook. How does this benefit Hillary?"

They want him there to possibly look very liberal. If you haven't noticed,Hitlary has been taking a more centrist stance in many issues,thus making her look like the party savior in 08....JMHO....

[OldFriend]

He's bashed X42 for all the harm he did to the party.

I can't figure out why Ickes backed him, unless it's merely to spy and do mischief.

It's fun to speculate tho because the choice is so anti-intuitive.

[starfish923]

Good points.
Of course, the ones who "come up through the ranks" are the ones we recruit and send. It's up to all of us. Your reply seemed to infer a bit, at least to me, that these people pop up spontaneously like weeds and we have to deal with what we're given.
Maybe I'm too idealistic.

Thanks.
Those who come up from the ranks have to please those who run the party. Obama had to please the rank and file Democrats who run the party. He HAD to have kissed some butt and play the puppet for a while to get where he is.
That means that those who DO come up have to WANT to serve, WANT all the hoopla, WANT the power, fame, whatever. They ARE recuited, I suppose, but they have to REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want to bloom and grow from the get-go just to get local recognition. So, by the time they get national recognition, as in a Senator, you KNOW that they want it REALLY, REALLY, REALLY badly.

Obama fits the profile the Dems want, he wants BADLY and both entities are well served. So, in THAT sense, we ARE stuck with those who decide that they want to run and serve. They simply have to meet their party's criteria for being "winnable" and maleable.

That's MY read on it.

[mountaineer]

That's been my theory, too. Hillary puts a whacko extremist leftwinger in as DNC chair, and then makes a big show of contrasting herself with him.

[OldFriend]

Obama is an empty suit, and a willing puppet.

Unscripted he has nothing at all of import to say, which tells me he has no important thoughts either.

[petercooper]

DEAN! DEAN! DEAN! DEAN! DEAN!

[NorCalRepub]

you are so right and one thing i don't understand.....we all here like politics like many others on other boards or blogs so we tend to think the MSM has been found out so to speak.......but most of America does not blog nor do they watch cable news...........so how is the rest of America wising up to all the crap we here see every day cause most don't see it?.......that is why I think the REpubs will get even stronger cause the more that blogs, bulletin boards and cable become more prevalent, the more and more other people will hear of this Dem/MSM alliance......for now though, most of America doesn't. This actually lends even more credibility to Bush's win.......just think how much he would have won by if more people were aware of the MSM BS

[Raycpa]

Heritage foundation at one point had Dean rated the 4th most conservative governor

Source please ?

In any case, many of us are welcoming Dean with open arms. Conservative or no conservative (keep in mind the democrats themselves thought he was too liberal to win). He is just what the Democrat party needs right now. I couldn't think of a better face for them than maybe Clinton who happens to be my biggest hero for the GOP. Clinton role in the rise of the recent conservative movement is second only to Newt's brilliance. I look forward to Dean making his name alongside Clinton's in the history of the recent conservative movement.

[bourbon]

With that bile-spewing reception, Republicans were happy to let Pat return to the studios of CNN and elect Haley Barbour to run the party.

Barbour bump!

[yoe]

Frankly, no one can quite determine the strategery behind choosing this man as their chairman.

Is there any way Dean could become chairman if the Clintons really didn't want him there? That's the one issue I just can't overlook. How does this benefit Hillary?

See Post #5 the last line says it all.

[Raycpa]

so how is the rest of America wising up to all the crap we here see every day cause most don't see it?

We are all different. My wife knows BS by instinct when she hears it. I on the other hand need to get all the facts, list them out, weigh them, check details, agonize over minor points, mull over concepts and then make some tentative conclusions based on them.

My wife thinks its a waste of time because she knows it is crap by smell while I need a lab test. I think many nonbloggers know.

[KC_Conspirator]

We win, you lose.

But go ahead, we like even bigger margins in congress.

[KC_Conspirator]

Consider this: If, on the cusp of the first President Bush losing the 1992 election, the Republican National Committee had united around the idea of having his conservative base-rousing primary challenger Pat Buchanan be the next party chairman, how would the media cover the story? You can bet the farm they'd have shouted from the rooftops that the GOP had a death wish, that the lemmings were pouring over the cliff, that the Republican parties were forsaking every American voter in the middle for the foam-flecked extremists.

The premise of this fine article is absolutely correct and the Buchanan comparision is right on. In fact, the GOP moved to isolate Buchanan and by 1999-2000 he was out of the party. But now the DNC is going to make this guy the head of the party? Go ahead Johnson, make my day.

[chiefqc]

Must be willing to become her lap dog, and if, Oh God, she is elected she will throw him a little bone.

[onyx]

YES!
A Haley Barbor bump...
thanks you bourbon.
"Peace be with you."

[Protagoras]

Pubbies had better keep pushing and teaching and not get lazy.

They better not keep moving toward the libs.

The best thing that could ever happen to the Dems is exactly what is happening. Implosion.

Then they can reinvent themselves, drop the unpopular stuff and get back to beating the stupid party.

Hillary is already doing it.

[Ibredd]

It could be to make anyone else look middle of the road.

[starfish923]

I personally think Obama is overated. He is a good speaker and comes off very well on T.V., but the guy doesn't even have a Senate voting record.
I remember the first time I saw Clinton in an interview on McNeil Leher Report in 1991. I thought that he talked a very moderate to conservative game. I did not vote for the Clinton, but that was my first impression. We all now know history. I will not fall into that trap again.

Clinton would say anything to keep himself in power. He knows that centrism works better than extremism. This has nothing to do with his character. He is simply the quintessential pragmatist.
What fooled me was his character. I believed him and Hillary and DIDN'T believe Gennifer Flowers. In 1992, Clinton admitted his lie. THAT was when I found out about his character. Sorry, Gennifer. It was hard to believe HER because SHE was also having a multi-year adulterous relationship with a married man. So, in those years, she was also a liar and a cheat. Both have rotten characters.

Sos, bottom line, WHAT is Obama's character? As Zell Miller related about George Bush's character:
"I knocked at the door of his soul; and I found somebody home. He is the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning. He might not be a slick talker but he is a straight shooter,"
It IS all about character.

So, how do we find out about Obama's character? THAT I would be curious to know.