Maybe I am naive. Or maybe I am just not really paying that much attention to the party politics. I haven't really thought this was the case, I thought I was reasonably informed. But if You have heard all this before, please let me know.
This is about the debate last night in New Hampshire. Only, it isn't.
It is more about the events, or more accurately, the coverage, surrounding the debate.
And to me, this was THE NEWS of the Debate more than anything said in the debate ... more than the 2013 NEWS
Like many here, being a political junkie, I am gonna watch the hour or so before the debate and then the post debate talking heads. I don't know why, I guess it is because politics is my "spectator sport" in a way (Please don't smack me down for this ... I hear lots of people talking about football or baseball or some such sports on here ... I don't watch any of that -- I watch politics)
Anyway, before the debate Chris Matthews has Howard Dean on. Cool! I like Howard Dean. I supported him in the primary last time around. And I definitely supported him for Chair of the DNC (well ... supported is a little strong, but I was really glad to see him 'win' that spot).
So Chris asks Howard about the Iraq war, the upcoming presidential campaign, the 'nerdy' Democratic candidates that focus on substance and other such things. (You can read the full transcript here) And then they get onto the issue of campaign reform and ethics and that is where it gets interesting.
MATTHEWS: Do you think Hillary Clinton is a credible reform candidate?
DEAN: Absolutely.
MATTHEWS: On campaign finance?
DEAN: I think she‘s—absolutely.
MATTHEWS: Come on, she‘s got money from Hsu and this guy, this Italian guy. And she‘s got all this—she‘s wallowing in all this strange money.
DEAN: That‘s totally untrue. She gave it all back.
MATTHEWS: Yeah, I mean, when she got caught.
DEAN: No—she—look, I know...
MATTHEWS: She didn‘t give anything back until she got caught.
DEAN: Nobody expected what we got from Norman Hsu. Look...
MATTHEWS: Eight hundred and fifty thousand dollars in bundled money from a crook, an international crook.
DEAN: And who was to know he was a crook, if the California court couldn‘t even keep...
MATTHEWS: Well, shouldn‘t there be some checking on these people?
DEAN: Chris, come on. Look, this is not about this kind of nonsense.
This is about, what are you going to do Iraq? What are you going to do about health care?
Well, That was a pretty full throated defense of HRC. Whether I buy it or not, I honestly do expect the DNC Chairman to fully support and defend ALL the Presidential Candidates. So let's see what happens when Matthews addresses John Edwards.
MATTHEWS: John Edwards has been running his campaign since day one on trial lawyer money. You know, is that the reform movement? Make sure there‘s no caps on financial settlements?
DEAN: Look, the system is the system the way it is. I‘m not defending it.
Well ... I kind of furrowed my brow at that one, I didn't really think all that much about it.
Until the post debate discussion dah dah dah (ominous music segue)
I am sure that we can all agree to disagree (or some such thing) on who "won" the debate. I have made it obvious to any who will listen that I was really impressed by John Edwards last night.
Apparently, the talking heads generally agreed in the post-debate analysis. And the conversation went towards the viability of the Edwards campaign. You can check out the whole transcript here
Anyway, the discussion, focusing on a long campaign with HRC, Chuck Todd then brings up something that shook me wide awake:
TODD: The only problem that Edwards would have, even if he won Iowa and New Hampshire, is that the Democratic elite can‘t stand Edwards. There is this weird establishment problem that Edwards has and they take it as a badge of honor.
And they say, see, these people in D.C., they don‘t like me because I‘m speaking the truth or I‘m a populist. But you know what, at the end of the day, if he ends up as her chief challenger, I think she could rally the establishment and win this thing in one of these delegate fights. And that‘s the real hurdle Edwards would have if he...
MATTHEWS: Give me some names of the establishment?
TODD: I‘m not going to sit here and name names.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: . the establishment over here. Who are these dark figures that.
TODD: It‘s called the Democratic National Committee.
MATTHEWS: Who are these people? Anne Wexler? Ann Lewis? Who are these people?
TODD: Yes, it‘s called the Democratic National Committee.
Ok ... this is it. This is where I started shaking my head and saying "What the Fuck!?"
I thought it was the role of the DNC to Promote and Support ALL the Candidates. Now, back to the first part with the discrepancy in Howard Dean's Treatment of HRC and John Edwards. All I can say is that I sure fucking hope that Howard Dean is NOT part of this crowd, and I just hope that he reflected what he was prepped on by staffers (who clearly were following this lead on the bias against John Edwards)
I don't know about You, but I find this really disturbing. No matter who You support, no matter who You like, no matter who You dislike in this race, I would hope that we could all agree that the DNC should not JUST be neutral in this, but that they should Support and Promote ALL the candidates.