With Daschle out, who should the President nominate for HHS? How about Dr. Howard Dean? He’s been speaking out on healthcare reform lately. What do you think?
Bradley has the Senate connections that Daschle has, he endorsed Obama before NH, he worked on a healthcare plan in the early 1990s, and, like many in Obama’s cabinet, he has played basketball.
If Obama was going to get someone like that in government, I think it would have been from the git-go. You don’t say “now that my choices aren’t working out, I’m going to go wit ha figure who has baggage, a lot of enemies, and is loathed by the moneyed consultant class which I am now courting.” At a time when his nominees are going down (or being confirmed, see Gregg) in flames, you don’t suddenly decide to throw oin a container of kerosene.
<
p>Sadly, the egos of Obama and/or his people precluded Dean from possibility. Moreover, Dean’s drive has been about 50-states, making the Party competitive across the country. Plouffe/Axelrod/Kaine will be about reelected Obama. The two agendas will conflict to a degree.
<
p>No, the fact that Dean was an unqualified success does not balance out the fact that he pissed all the failures off.
karencsays
I wonder though if “Plouffe/Axelrod/Kaine will be about reelected Obama. The two agendas will conflict to a degree.” might be a shortsighted way to look at things. (Not critizing your observation – which I agree with – but the wisdom of that strategy.
<
p>In the 1990s, there was a similar emphasis on Bill Clinton only, and it led to a weaker party over all. The fact that there were so many loses in Senate and House seats over his tenure as President, weakened Clinton in terms of what he could actually accomplish. In addition, the Democratic party’s infrastructure was weaker in 2000 than it was in 1992.
<
p>In retrospect, given the charisma and star power Clinton had – at least among Democrats, enthusiastic support of state parties could have left them far healthier and likely helped in 2000 (or 2004 if 2000 still depended on FL.) Dean’s greatest gift to the party may well be that he provided Obama with local parties that were more viable and engaged.
<
p>It would seem the best interest for Obama 2012 is for the Democrats to do as well as possible in 2010. Major losses will be spun as a rejection of Obama and Democratic
Bradley has the Senate connections that Daschle has, he endorsed Obama before NH, he worked on a healthcare plan in the early 1990s, and, like many in Obama’s cabinet, he has played basketball.
Ezra has been hearing rumors about Phil Bredesen, and thinks there is something negative between Dean and Obama.
Dean didn’t get a lot of acknowledgment for the success of the 50-state strategy. He’s said he’s now out of politics, which I think is our loss.
… of a ‘plausible explanation’ on Dean’s absence during the hand-over.
Klein: “you really don’t want the lead health reformer to suffer from a chilly relationship with the president.”
<
p>I think I’d rather have that than be thinking that Obama has a warm relationship with some of his other nominees.
… is a priority for Obama, but he is regularly not on the same page as his point-man, it really will be a problem.
If Obama was going to get someone like that in government, I think it would have been from the git-go. You don’t say “now that my choices aren’t working out, I’m going to go wit ha figure who has baggage, a lot of enemies, and is loathed by the moneyed consultant class which I am now courting.” At a time when his nominees are going down (or being confirmed, see Gregg) in flames, you don’t suddenly decide to throw oin a container of kerosene.
<
p>Sadly, the egos of Obama and/or his people precluded Dean from possibility. Moreover, Dean’s drive has been about 50-states, making the Party competitive across the country. Plouffe/Axelrod/Kaine will be about reelected Obama. The two agendas will conflict to a degree.
<
p>No, the fact that Dean was an unqualified success does not balance out the fact that he pissed all the failures off.
I wonder though if “Plouffe/Axelrod/Kaine will be about reelected Obama. The two agendas will conflict to a degree.” might be a shortsighted way to look at things. (Not critizing your observation – which I agree with – but the wisdom of that strategy.
<
p>In the 1990s, there was a similar emphasis on Bill Clinton only, and it led to a weaker party over all. The fact that there were so many loses in Senate and House seats over his tenure as President, weakened Clinton in terms of what he could actually accomplish. In addition, the Democratic party’s infrastructure was weaker in 2000 than it was in 1992.
<
p>In retrospect, given the charisma and star power Clinton had – at least among Democrats, enthusiastic support of state parties could have left them far healthier and likely helped in 2000 (or 2004 if 2000 still depended on FL.) Dean’s greatest gift to the party may well be that he provided Obama with local parties that were more viable and engaged.
<
p>It would seem the best interest for Obama 2012 is for the Democrats to do as well as possible in 2010. Major losses will be spun as a rejection of Obama and Democratic
http://www.truthdig.com/report…