Obama picks not-Dean
As Josh said yesterday, looks like it's Kathleen Sebelius for HHS. Not bad, I guess. And after all, who would want to fill that position with a physician who brought near-universal health coverage to Vermont, made health care central to his 2004 presidential bid, and has served as an effective, visionary chair of his party for the last four years?
Of course, the smart money was never on that kid. Something about him being too strongly attached to the political party that won the last election decisively.
This post originally appeared at jesselava.com.
Advertisement
Perfect, to the point, and rec'd.
February 19, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, man.
February 19, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who wouldn't want that kind if person? Those who worship at the altar of status quo Washington, DC of course. And sadly that includes many, many DC Democrats who are very bit as wedded to the establishmed power structure as any Republican.
February 19, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was watching Dean the other day, and thought similar thoughts. Besides his expertise and experience in Vermont, if he had not started what he started in 2004, would we be where we are today?
February 19, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another point well-taken! Yes, if not for the trail-blazer Howard Dean, who picked himself up after getting kidney-punched by the media in 2004 and shoved the 50-state strategy down the gagging throats of the corporate Democrats, where would we be today? The lucky ones would be in Canada, Jamaica, or New Zealand . . . but most of us would be "inside looking out," not just figuratively but literally.
February 19, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
So now the corporate Dems muscle everybody out of the room except themselves so they can do as they please without any interference from those bothersome liberals like Dr. Dean.
February 19, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Dick,
We may be from the same state, but we live in two different universes. From my view, effective leadership in moving health reform through congress is based on "skill sets". I would venture to say that most policy wonks concerned about health care reform know that effective leadership will require a range of "skill sets". I have heard many comments here at TPM speaking in favor of Dean, but I have seen no discussion about the kinds of skill set that might be required in order to successfully move health care through the landmines of congress. I would be curious to know what skill-set you think Dean would bring to the table, and how his would compare with what Daschle would have brought, if he had not so damaged himself.
February 20, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
We are from the same state Stephen. I agree with your assessment. But the actual head of a department is never the issue. It is the team, the organization. And as someone was just saying, Governor Dean created with his legislature a pretty good health insurance program. And he is a doctor and he is a good organizer.
That is all. And like others in the Dem Party, we would like to see Dean recognized for his many accomplishments.
So I do not feel I am in some other universe. Not really. It is 8 degrees here and we are almost to the last week in Feb. I bet you are not doing much better.
But I have read your material. It is good. Glad to have you here. Let us debate in the same universe.
February 20, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Dick
We should touch base sometime. I am active in the CD-5 DFL. You can reach me by leaving an e-mail message with the CD-5 secretary.
February 20, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or maybe:
1. Obama doesn't want universal health care.
2. Howard Dean is associated in the minds of most Americans with shrill party activism, exactly what Obama wants to avoid.
3. Dean is doing a good job as party chair and shouldn't be elevated away from his skills?
February 19, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't be #3; he's not party chair anymore!
February 19, 2009 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. #3 withdrawn!
February 20, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is it about Dean that threatens people? We should make more noise. Obama talks about his team of rivals...well???
February 19, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rivals is a reference to their personal competition and rivalry, not their ideas. There is precious little diversity of political viewpoints in Obama's cabinet.
I'd say the energy Secretary is the only one that really deviates much from the standard corporate centrist line in any significant way on any major issue. I predict his every progressive attempt will be watered down and diluted with favors to industry and polluters desired by the White House but which he opposes and knows will hinder progress. I hope that isn't the case, but realistically speaking I don't see how we end up with any other result given who the people in positions of real power are.
February 19, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hilda Solis at Labor is a true progressive as well.
February 19, 2009 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Solis is good, but she isn't in the cabinet yet is she?
February 20, 2009 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
So Obama can make nice with Joe Lieberman, and any number of assholian republicans, but because there is some unspoken problem with Rahm Emmanuel (which I will speak: his brother Zeke is really really really in favor of keeping insurance companies in charge of everything), somehow Howard Dean is out of the running.
Get rid of that boor Rahm, and bring in Howard Dean. This Obama blind spot is very disappointing to me.
February 19, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish it was only a spot.
February 19, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You assume that Obama chose Rahm, but Rahm was probably chosen for Obama in March at some fundraiser at Bloomberg's on the Upper East side or something like that.
Bill Clinton described himself as a symbolic president near the end of his second term. Obama is no different - Just a big charming dose of symbolism.
February 19, 2009 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you say that Obama is only a symbol? I don't see any evidence of his administration being run by anyone other than him.
February 20, 2009 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
First: Dr. Dean is not a liberal. Many of his positions (especially guns) runs counter to what is standard liberal philosophy. He is moderate... I would say potentially as moderate as Obama. He stood out from the crowd of other contenders by being anti-war, and his fundraising was ahead of its time (unless you count Jerry Brown's 92 campaign, which would have benefitted from the modern internet).
Now, I do have some points:
1. The rumormill says this is a snub. Nothing Dr. Dean has said confirms this. Animonsity between he and Rahm seems professional and philosophical, not personal.
2. Dr. Dean's retreat from politics may be his own personal choice, not a snub.
3. Dr. Dean's retreat could involve vetting. Perhaps he would be forced to open up accounts that he presided over as the chair of the DNC. There could be inside baseball. Further, I have researched all of the DNC chairpersons and have yet to see (correct me if I am wrong) ANY of them who served in an executive administration outside of Terry McAlliffe, whose service was advisory and not cabinet level. There could be a reason for this.
Now, none of us know the true story. I have countered the premise of this thread with counter-narratives that are equally unproveable. This is Rashomon, people, and nothing more.
You can rail against Corporate power in our government all day, but to speculate needlessly on interpersonal drama is ridiculous. There is plenty of truth that more than proves the corruption of our process without resorting to gossip.
February 19, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have read that Dean was interested in HHS, so I doubt that his retreat from politics was completely by choice. But I myself don't know whether the drama with Rahm had anything to do with his not being selected. I also agree with you that Dean is more moderate than people realize. But at least he has a record of accomplishment on health care and a history of supporting universal coverage. In fact, I saw Obama speak at a backdoor fundraiser in May or June, 2003, when he was runing for Senate. And when asked about health care, he said he favored the Dean plan, at least among the candidates then running for president.
I suspect the fundamental problem for Obama was that Dean's seen as polarizing, and Obama wants to be above all that. What he ignored in the process was Dean's talent, record, and passion on this issue. I think that's a lot to overlook -- particularly when the ultimate choices is someone with no particular acumen in the area.
February 19, 2009 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bob Strauss served several Presidents and was Chair of the DNC
February 20, 2009 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd much rather have seen Jim McDermott get the job. But Obama isn't interested in the only thing that will work.
February 20, 2009 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
And after all, who would want to fill that position with a physician who brought near-universal health coverage to Vermont, made health care central to his 2004 presidential bid, and has served as an effective, visionary chair of his party for the last four years?
And, we should point out, isn't a popular sitting governor of a "red" state and a good candidate for a run against Brownback's seat.
Not only from a policy standpoint, but from a political standpoint, this is stupid. As others have noted, Obama must really really really not want UHC, much less single payer.
Of course, the smart money was never on that kid. Something about him being too strongly attached to the political party that won the last election decisively.
Not to mention, a party that has already started backing away from his 50-state strategy. It's almost like they don't like winning. To say nothing of organizing actual people to be involved in the political and policy process. That would be, you know, terrible. Uppity citizens are very, very dangerous.
February 20, 2009 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
edit: for a run for Brownback's to be vacated seat.
February 20, 2009 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, neither does Dean:
Moreover...
I'm a Deaniac, but holding him up as the silver bullet to comprehensive reform is wrong. That's not his goal. That's not what the Dean Plan for Vermont was, either.
He'd make a great HHS Sec, but I'm also willing to give Sebelius a chance.
February 20, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amazing! When are the quotes from? Do you have a link for them? Needs further dissemination, as I've read so many present the idea that he is some kind of single-payer savior.
February 20, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, links would have been nice. For, you know, context -- as well as time, and place.
I found some my self -- the "no single payer because it wouldn't pass Congress" is from the Concord Monitor / WashingtonPost.com on-line Q&A Nov 6, 2003. (Source: OnTheIssues.org)
BTW, demosaur, when you are making assertions or posting quotes, that's what you do -- source or link.
Far more recent comments from Dean are here.
The money quote:
Despite the negative comments at the ThinkProgress post, I like this. It's pretty much what Edwards was advocating during the primaries. Leave the private insurers but provide the option of buying into Medicare. Make the private insurers compete. Medicare runs at 3% overhead. The private insurers run at 20-30% overhead. Use some of the efficiency of Medicare to provide better payouts to providers (so more will opt into the system).
It's also quite similar to at least some of the private-public hybrid systems on the Continent. (You know, that "European socialism" that has Knewt's knickers in a knot.) I'm pretty sure this is close to Germany's system, and I believe France's may be similar as well.
So contrary to demosaur and artappraiser, I don't think of Dean as a "single-payer savior." What he does appear to be advocating is allowing a single-payer option -- for everyone -- and letting the market do the rest. I'm fine with that. If Sebelius is prepared to get on board with that, together with Obama, then I'm fine with that too.
March 6, 2009 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Best choice.
February 20, 2009 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink