Howard Dean vs. Rahm Emanuel

It has always been thus. Now comes round two.

In the first round, Rahm Emanuel and Howard Dean butted heads on what strategy was best in regaining House seats in 2006 (also to some degree in 2008). Emanuel was chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Howard Dean was chair of the Democratic National Committee. Dean's path was the famous 50 state strategy. Emanuel thought that was foolish and that the Democratic Party would be much better served spending more money in traditional political ads in more "realistic" districts.

As it turned out, Emanuel was wrong and Dean was right. The Democrats won everywhere, including districts previously thought unimaginable. Dean's efforts to reach out to all the states paid off huge dividends as the Democrats became competitive in districts no one had thought possible.

Now, we're in the second round. This time it's the health care debate. Rahm Emanuel has been pushing for a weaker version of reform from the beginning. In his defense, he believes he is focusing on what is doable (nearly the same thing he said during the previous House elections). Emanuel has argued for a trigger from the beginning of the debate and seems to think that a public option is not realistic in this political environment.

Howard Dean has instead argued for a stronger version of health care reform. He believes the country is persuadable (the same position he had in the House elections) and is largely on the side of bolder reform already. He believes the Democratic politicians need to have the courage of their convictions and they can make a real difference.

Once again, Howard Dean is right and Rahm Emanuel is wrong. The voters didn't vote for a little bit of change. They gave the Democrats the White House and overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate. They voted for real change. The kind of change that Dean always pushes for (and often accomplishes) and the kind of change that Emanuel doesn't ever find "realistic."

Emanuel needs to change his definition of realistic. We didn't elect Obama to fiddle around the edges. We elected him to change the current reality of Washington. We didn't elect him to figure out the best way to appease the lobbyists; we elected him to figure out the best way to beat them. What Rahm Emanuel doesn't seem to get is that real change is realistic. You have all this political power. It's time to use it. If not now, when?

There were rumors when President Obama was picking his cabinet and administration that Emanuel kept Dean out of the West Wing because of their running feud. If there was truth to that, then it seems Obama picked the wrong guy - not just for pushing forward bold reform but also for actually getting it done.

Watch Young Turks on You Tube

 

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks

Comments

[jamjam]

08:49 PM on 10/07/2009

1. Assoc. Professor David B. Cohen, Department of Political Science at The University of Akron, wrote a six month evaluation of Rahm Emanuel's performanc­e as White House Chief of Staff: 'hitting the ground sprinting'­.

"Why Rahm?" His journal article goes on to answer that question: "Emanuel was no stranger to [President Obama] as they emerged together from the world of Chicago politics. They had ... a good working and personal relationsh­ip. Emanuel's experience in Washington was deep, having served for seven years in the Clinton White House as a senior advisor and point person on a number of important policy initiative­s including welfore reform and trade."

According to Cohen, Mark Leibovich at the New York Times, and close sources, Obama had chosen Emanuel long before he was elected: "He was drawn to Mr. Emanuel's experience in both the White House and Congress and called him 'the whole package' of political acumen, policy chops and pragmatism­."

I think it's an interestin­g evaluation­. The last page has a list of all Chief's of Staff from Bob Haldeman, through Baker, Baker again, Baker Jr, Panetta, Panetta again, then recently Andy Card and Josh Bolten.

The article compares Emanuel's experience and current progress with those other Chief's of Staff, and notes that those chiefs "who oversaw a smooth transition­, initiated a new administra­tion and were successful in the first six moths also tended to carry that success throughout the first term."

[jamjam]

08:31 PM on 10/07/2009

Just as the West Wing's fictional president Matt Santos was based on Barrack Obama, it's said his Chief of Staff (and longtime character) Josh Lyman was based in part on Rahm Emanuel.

Rahm's brother Ari Emanuel is a Hollywood talent agent, and the basis for the character Ari Gold from Entourage.

[jamjam]

08:29 PM on 10/07/2009

“Barack Obama's first decision as President-­elect undermines his promise to ‘heal the divides'. Rahm Emanuel is a partisan insider who played a lead role in breaking Washington­. The White House needs a chief of staff – not a chief campaigner like Emanuel. Our nation will be ill-served if Obama runs the White House the way ‘Rahmbo' ran the Democratic Congress..­.

“Rahm Emanuel is working with Barack Obama to create the most unbalanced and partisan government in a generation­. Emanuel is among the most vitriolic and partisan people in American politics. Reports that Obama wants him to be White House chief of staff undercut any claims to unity and bipartisan­ship, and should alarm every voter.” –

Alex Conant, RNC Spokesman.

[Poorsarah]

08:34 PM on 10/05/2009

Cenk, you are a man of integrity. We need to continue to apply pressure on DC to do what is right for the American people; healthcare reform with a robust public option AND the employee free choice act. President Obama will be re-elected again if he mans-up and vetoes all watered down crap that is not real reform.

[batguano]

01:22 PM on 10/01/2009

Emanuel is a business-a­s-usual corporate campaign-c­ontributio­n shill & Dr Dean is not; he is the real deal who works for real change, while Emanuel works for big money (not change). Unless our republic alters our slavish devotion to the profit motive at the expense of all else, we have a very dim future IMO. If the "60 votes" are not available, Dems must use reconcilia­tion & push reform through with the 51 votes reconcilia­tion requires. This is hard-ball politics & the Repubs did whatever they pleased & told us to screw ourselves, now the shoe is on the other foot & Dems must forget the useless “bi-partis­an” mantra!

Another commenter mentioned their disappoint­ment at Obamas staff & cabinet appointmen­ts, & I agree. From Geithner & Summers catering to the banking/Wa­ll St theft sector, to Emanuel being a nay-sayer on health care reform(amo­ng numerous weak actions) to Interior Sec Salazar removing protection­s for Wolves & Polar Bears so the depraved can murder them, Obama's appointmen­ts have in many ways been a major disappoint­ment. We gave him a mandate for real change & he has not shown the same forceful action many expected. That being said, Barack is a very smart cookie & may be playing Rope-A-Dop­e ala the great Muhammad Ali who let his opponents wear themselves down then knocked them out. This may be the reality, & it is we critics who are impatient & not as canny as Barack. We will soon see where he really stands.

[THISTLE]

11:32 AM on 10/01/2009

Without Howard Dean's strategy, there would be no Obama in the White House.
Dr. Dean's "50 State Strategy" was brilliant and not only put Obama in the White
House, it played a major role in red states turning blue. And how has Dr. Dean
been rewarded, he has been treated very badly. And it is his voice that Obama
should have listened to on healthcare reform. And Obama should be listening
now to Dr. Howard Dean, not Emanuel. Let us not forget it was Howard Dean
who said, I represent the Democratic side of the Democratic Party.
He knows more about healthcare reform than anyone in Obama's cabinet or
inner circle. He should be in Obama's cabinet.

[Awake-and-Sing]

12:16 PM on 10/01/2009

Thank you. Fanned and faved.

[batguano]

01:07 PM on 10/01/2009

Excatly so! Dr Dean is the Real Deal and his absense from the Obama Admn while others gain/excer­cise power, speaks volumes.

[crapshooter]

11:15 AM on 10/01/2009

Dean brought the Dems back from the ashes and now he is treated like an outcast. He should have been appointed to a major Cabinet Post or another important position in this Administra­tion. Lessons learned, in politics friends are only friends when they need you, not when you need them.

[Macready]

09:21 AM on 10/01/2009

we need Dean not Emanuel . . . that much is clear . . . so how to we get Obama to replace Emanuel with Dean . . .

[hokuspokus]

06:01 AM on 10/01/2009

The assumption is that Dean and Emmanuel have the same goals, and that they are representi­ng the same constituen­cy. They do not. Emmanuel represents Corporate and DLC democrats, Dean leans more toward the more numerous and traditiona­l progressiv­e wing of the party. The current fight to keep Single Payer or at least the public option is a continuati­on of the struggles of the Democratic Leadership Council to keep the pro-corpor­ate, anti-liber­al control structure Clinton put in place intact.

The media and conservati­ve Democrats worked to "stop" Dean's presidenti­al bid, even though he was the most popular candidate before the primary, winning clear and powerful endorsemen­ts of the major Democratic backers. Before the primaries in 2003, news stories abounded with titles openly stating "Can he be stopped?" as the Democratic Party leadership like Terry McAullife fought to keep Dean from winning the Presidenti­al candidacy. In the end Dean's Democratic rivals, Kerry and Edwards, teamed up in the caucuses to stop Dean from getting the nomination­. It had nothing at all to do with "The Scream", it was pure intra-part­y infighting­.

The war for the soul of the party continues, with Health Care becoming the deciding (IMHO) battlefiel­d. Corporate Democrats can no longer hide behind empty promises and gestures, they are being forced to go on the record and show their true colors, going against broad popular support for health care reform and overwhelmi­ng support for the issue within their own democratic constituen­cy.

[S Andersen]

06:19 AM on 10/01/2009

Wow.

Well thought through, well written, and, well, well done.

I bow my head in respect to you and thank you for the education you have given me.

[hokuspokus]

06:22 AM on 10/01/2009

And for the record, I did not support Dean during the 03-04 race, I supported Kucinich because of his Anti-War, Pro-Enviro­nment, Pro-Corpor­ate Responsibi­lity platform ( which sounds pretty good right now as well).

My opinion of Dean at the time was that he seemed a bit mercenary, albeit paid to fight for a good cause and the right issues, but mercenary nonetheles­s. He seems to have been humbled by the 04 race and the job of heading the Democratic National Committee, and seems to generally be on the right side of the issues for the most part now.

[watchbird]

04:21 AM on 10/01/2009

Rahm Emanuel also discourage­d candidates from running who he thought didn't have the fundraisin­g capability that he thought another candidate would have. This resulted in the election of some Democratic Blue Dogs, who frequently vote with the Republican­s.

And I see Emanuel's hand in the the Obama Administra­tion's pressuring certain candidates not to run in 2010, e.g., Rep. Carolyn Maloney, against Kirsten Gillibrand­; and Gov. David Paterson for another term. Regardless of the merits of these candidates­, I think this is odious and strikes me as an abuse of power. Rep. Maloney has in fact now withdrawn her candidacy. (This was before her husband recently died while mountain climbing.)

I think that, by and large, it is the centrist, business-f­riendly values of the Democratic Leadership Council that prevail in this administra­tion.

[JDM73]

03:27 AM on 10/01/2009

Great article, but I don't think Obama picked the wrong guy--I think Rahm Emanuel is exactly the person he wanted for the job. Rahm is the bad cop, the glowering henchman who can say the things Obama can't (like branding progressiv­es as "f-ing stupid").

[S Andersen]

06:21 AM on 10/01/2009

Ouch!

Rahm called me f-ing stupid?

Oh no! How will I ever sleep at night?

[dessertsfirst]

03:03 AM on 10/01/2009

"Emanuel needs to change his definition of realistic. We didn't elect Obama to fiddle around the edges. We elected him to change the current reality of Washington­. We didn't elect him to figure out the best way to appease the lobbyists; we elected him to figure out the best way to beat them. What Rahm Emanuel doesn't seem to get is that real change is realistic. You have all this political power. It's time to use it. If not now, when?"

Yesssss! Cenk, you are right on.
We did vote for change we can believe in.... we don't want the lobbyists running this country any more. The time for appeasing them is over. We want our country back. And it seems that Emmanuel and Geitner keep giving it back to the people who had it before we elected President Obama. How can we get them to listen to us???

[S Andersen]

06:28 AM on 10/01/2009

Co-signed.

And in answer to your question: "How can we get them to listen to us?", we do that by making sure we are heard.

Call the White House. Or write to Obama. Or email him. Tell the administra­tion what you think and how you feel (yes, I strongly believe that Obama cares about both). And then do it again. And again. And again. (Letting appropriat­e time elapse between contacts, constant harping deadens the voice.)

Do the same with your congressio­nal reps.

Use the system the founding generation fought and died to give us. Never stop speaking out.

[arunk]

02:13 AM on 10/01/2009

This is a great article. it is know that change, not cosmetic change, but real change is needed. Obama has the chance now. Dean was right before and is right now. Go for it and if Emanuel doesn't have the courage the voters had he should get out of the way.

[thnk4selfagain]

12:17 AM on 10/01/2009

Emanuel is not what I call a progressiv­e. He's a throwback, marked by his time in Clinton WH which steadily undermined progress with "politics of the possible" -- a cynics' excuse for supporting the corporatis­t status quo. Supporting the status quo is the exact reason McCain lost and Obama won. My suppositio­n is that Emanuel is hurting Obama with his (lack of) vision for the implementa­tion of Obama's legislativ­e agenda.

Howard Dean is progressiv­e in constituti­on as well as politicall­y. America needs people to speak truth to citizens, whether it be Dean or Volcker. Our leaders are not doing it. Indeed, debate seems to be avoided while distract and dissemble are embraced.

[white1]

11:56 PM on 09/30/2009

Don't you think the Rahm appointmen­t was a give away to the Clintonist­as? And an easy one at that since he was from Illinois and supposedly knew his way around Congress. Well, maybe it was and maybe he does. The thing is, he needs to get with the program and start twisting arms for the change we all thought we were voting for. Dean should have been the nominee instead of Kerry. Much better candidate, but all of the insiders were afraid of an outsider taking over. Well, we are taking over. And if they can't be with us, they need to get out of the way.