Color of Change [read more]
Emerge America [read more]
Indivisible [read more]
Swing Left [read more]
Run for Something [read more]
Alliance for Youth Action [read more]
Arena Summit [read more]
Collective PAC [read more]
iVote Fund [read more]
Latino Victory [read more]
Voto Latino [read more]
Yep. Household names, you know the operation and you know the product.
Actually, it is even hard to be certain to get the set of links correct, and it's not likely worth much time. Can you tell me:
- What is Howard Dean up to these days and who is his closest confederate in it?
- What is Howard Dean's paycheck amount?
- Who is paying Howard Dean?
- Do you care?
Right. Made up names of whoever, sucking cash, possibly, from wherever.
If front-burner to anyone, who?
And those questions are posed with a thought experiment - do you really know much more if you follow those links?
How many links did you follow before quitting? Any? I have to admit I had no inclination to "read more."
But I am old and have lower expectations than those who've seen less and are more easily impressed.
Obscurity and irrelevance; CIA fronts; the Russians; the Turks; the Brits - from the names it could be any such thing.
Who are these people?
________________UPDATE________________
Google reports these as recent Twitter threads. Hours ago.
https://mobile.twitter.com/GovHowardDean/status/962222839502958593
https://mobile.twitter.com/GovHowardDean/status/962132566059954176
The man sure knows how to launch interesting and lengthy Twitter threads.
In contrast, do you care about Bernie? People do. Use that as a barometer.
More: Less than a month ago; names named; Dean Morning Joe-ing between Christmas and New Year:
"I think my generation needs to get the hell out of politics. Start coaching and start moving up this next generation who are more ... fiscally sane," Dean continued. "Neither Republicans or Democrats can claim they are fiscally responsible anymore.
“This young generation is going to pay for that if we don’t get the hell out of the way and have somebody who is 50 running the country.”
He also highlighted some potential younger contenders.
"I'm going to support someone who is young and in the next generation," said Dean, naming Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) as well as Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, the son of former L.A. district attorney Gil Garcetti, as possible contenders.
"I wouldn't be surprised if 17 people run," Dean said.
"Like the Republican primary the last time around," Geist said.
"Hopefully there won't be people in it for the fun of it," Dean added.
"And end up winning it anyway," joked panelist Sam Stein, in a shot at President Trump.
Dean also said he thinks "progressives are in the process of informally taking over the Democratic party" and that "the country has moved to the left."
[bolding added] If he thinks progressives are that hot-shot why did he decline to name any?
How old is Tulsi Gabbard? Elizabeth Warren? Kieth Ellison? Too old? Too young? Too what, exactly?
And, afoot, a game of pack the race so that the one with the most beltway money backing can flood out others? In the Derby they sometimes need to use an auxiliary gate, so many horses, with odds against them. (It winnows out for the Preakness.)
But if you want to dilute out Elizabeth Warren or Tulsi Gabbard, either or both, then pack the field.
Nasty, but afoot.
___________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
Wow! What a divide. Howard Dean, here. Tom Perez, there. A litmus test debate far afield from the economic inequities Bernie, and Warren have in focus. Far afield from the anti-militarism Bernie and Gabbard have in focus. Play into the traps of Focus for the Family, or whatever they call themselves. Look there, not at how big money is screwing regular citizens left and right, front and center. That and try to co-opt the word "progressive" for the likes of Cory Booker who can progress his steps from New Jersey across the river to Wall Street when he needs campaign cash.
Give me a break.
__________FURTHER UPDATE__________
The mumbo-jumbo about litmus test or no litmus test, try this hypothetical - a candidate opposing Superdelegate abuse and advocating Superdelegate abandonment, or even allowing the perk of automatic national convention attention as honored bigwig, but with superdelegate votes pledged in proportion to how voters as abiding decision makers under principles of democracy voted? How's the litmus testing on any of that?