"newsworthy", "a breakthrough"

Sorry, those adjectives--to allegedly describe the opening post of this thread-- would only apply if people thought Howard Dean was a complete idiot who does not realize the importance of seating the FL and MI delegations. It seems that Q and Janet are among those less than charitable souls who thought there was any chance Dean would not make sure the FL and MI delegations are seated at the convention.

It's patently obvious to me--and many others--that despite the fond hopes of many Mudcatters, Dean would have been a disaster as the Democratic 2004 candidate. And it has nothing to do with "screaming"--which is an absurd overstatement of what happened in the incident which turned out to knock Dean out of contention.   Look, I've said this before--and nobody has ever come up with a counterargument---the #1 issue in the 2004 election was "national security". There is no way Dean would have done any better with the electorate than a true military hero--which Kerry was.

However, this has precisely nothing to do with this thread.

The main point to keep in mind is that, despite not being the best choice in 2004, Dean is no fool. He has a tough row to hoe this year in his current position. But anybody with any sense knows the FL and MI delegations must be seated at the convention. And Dean has plenty of sense.

For the n'th time, it was never in doubt some arrangement would be made to seat the FL and MI delegations.

No information provided by Janet, Q, or any other poster has provided any facts beyond this conclusion, obvious to all thinking beings, emphatically including Howard Dean.

So this thread title does nothing but state the blazingly obvious, as Jack, Bobert, I and others, have pointed out.



I'm not about to get into a fight with Janet, though it appears to be her dearest wish. John McCain--who is not McWar, by the way--put it best in a comment about his competition with Romney. "Never get into a fight with a pig--you both get dirty and the pig likes it".

It is still likely, as I pointed out earlier, that Obama will be able to generously give Hillary all the delegates she "won" in the MI and FL primaries she agreed would not count--until she needed those delegates desperately. And he will still beat her handily in delegate count.




You never know where your issues will come from. But even though it appears the Clintons' taxes may not be the deciding factor in the contest between Hillary and Obama, she has just handed him a far better weapon in Mark Penn's visit to Columbia to advocate for a treaty she herself is supposedly strongly against.

The irony is this issue--saying one thing, while your own staff undercuts your position-- is one of the main factors which caused her win in OH. Exactly the same issue is in play in PA--with the shoe on the other foot.

In fact this plays right into Obama's strongest argument--judgment over "experience"---experience which in Hillary's case has already been proven a house of cards. It is clear, Obama can argue, that Hillary has no judgment--this has been proven not only by her blatantly political vote to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq, but by her spectacularly bad judgment in selecting a man to run her campaign who is actually working to defeat one of her main positions--necessity to have trade agreements fair to US workers.

Penn admits the visit to Columbia was bad judgment on his part. That's putting it mildly.

Obama supporters can also pointedly ask--over and over-- why the firm headed by Hillary's chosen campaign spokesman--Penn--is also representing John McCain.

If this issue has legs--and it should--it could easily hold Hillary to less than a 15 to 20% win in PA.   And without a win of that magnitude, the pressure on superdelegates to go with Obama will increase markedly.

And Dean is only looking for a way to end this contest--with Obama as the nominee.

No fool, he is very aware of the opportunity Obama presents--to dramatically increase the rolls of Democratic voters--especially with more young and black voters. Hispanic voters will see that Obama's positions are at least as much in their favor as Hillary's.   Older women voters, in addition to often being far more against the Iraq war than Hillary is, see the #1 issue, as I've noted before, as preventing a Republican from naming any more Supreme Court justices. So despite what they may say now, they will support the Democratic nominee--whoever that person is.

And Dean is also aware of the danger of picking Hillary as the nominee. The enthusiasm of the Obama legions will emphatically not transfer to Hillary. Just being willing to vote is not the deciding factor in a campaign. The gritty work of actually getting out the vote needs foot soldiers--provided in 2004 to Bush by the "Religious Right"--and now available-- in unheard-of quantity--to the Democrats with Obama supporters--including amazing numbers of independents--and even some Republicans--especially anybody against the Iraq war.

Far from offering anything comparable, Hillary has a 48% negative rating--virtually half the country.    And she will bring the Republicans together--against her--like nothing else can.

If anybody cares to debate any of the above--without vulgar attacks on anybody--I'd be happy to oblige. Obviously, discussions can get heated, but while questioning somebody's logic, or even sense, we should be able to stay out of the gutter. Hope it's not too much to ask.