Howard Dean (the former Governor of Vermont who ran for president in 2004) was also the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) from 2005 to 2009. He knows that the electoral college has become corrupt, is out-dated and should be abolished.
According to his comments in an exclusive video that NBC News unearthed during the 2004 election cycle (when Dean was running for president), he had said on a 2000 Canadian TV program:
"If you look at the caucuses system, they are dominated by the special interests on both sides on both parties. The special interests don't represent the centrist tendencies of the American people. They represent the extremists. Then you get a president beholden to either one extreme or the other."
The Democratic Party machine, which is packed full of "moderate" Democrats (Republican LITEs), are already standing behind and endorsing Hillary Clinton — even phony (or back-stabbing) progressives such as NYC mayor Bill de Blasio and Ohio's Senator Sherrod Brown. They, just like the labor union's leaders, are backing a candidate that the vast majority of Americans don't even trust.
So what does that say? Special interest extremists — people who don't represent the interests of the THE PEOPLE, but their own interests. That's why, despite all the online polls (not media/corporate sponsored polls), the delegates will vote for Hillary — even if the popular vote supports Bernie Sanders (one of the founders of the congressional progressive caucus).
Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton aren't progressives, they are phonies. The same can be said for Obama, who supports the TPP trade agreement.
Via NBC News (by Mark Murray, Dec. 1, 2015) Did Hillary Clinton also just recently diss the Iowa Caucuses in a private email? The latest State Department release of Hillary Clinton emails contained this message from Clinton to friend Sidney Blumenthal:
"If Mittens [Mitt Romney] can't beat Grinch [Gingrich] in Florida, there will be pressure on state Republican parties to reopen or liberalize ballot access especially in the caucuses, which as we know are creatures of the parties' extremes."
Hillary Clinton lost the caucus contests in 2008 (including Iowa's) to Barack Obama. But if Clinton's caucuses-tilt-to-the-extremes comment sounds familiar, it's pretty much what helped sink Howard Dean before the 2004 Iowa caucuses when his comments were revealed about caucus-goers being special interest extremists.
While Martin O'Malley's campaign has seized on Clinton's email about the caucuses (with a statement of Iowa Democrats responding to it) it's unlikely to have the same kind of impact for three reasons:
- The 2016 Dem race isn't as close as the 2004 race [because Hillary dominates the black vote;]
- The Democratic party establishment doesn't have its knives out for Clinton the same way it did for Dean back then [like they do for Bernie Sanders now];
- The 2004 NBC report was explosive because the comment was caught on tape — instead of one of thousands of released emails. [but this can change, with social media and blogs.]
Des Moines Register: Some Iowa Democrats said, in a way, Clinton's correct. Caucus and primary elections are controlled by the extreme factions of the parties — the diehards who take the time to attend party gatherings: "Obviously, you get people who are very passionate," said Democratic activist Kurt Meyer of St. Ansgar, who is remaining neutral in the caucus race.
An October Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll found 50 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers identify as liberal — with 37 percent as moderate. So why are they backing a moderate — someone who the American people think is a pathological liar?
And if Clinton talks about the caucuses like this when no one's looking, her commitment to Iowa might be in doubt if she's elected president.
Grant Woodard, another Iowa Democratic activist who is remaining neutral, predicted that this controversy won't affect Clinton's status as the front-runner in the Democratic caucus race here:
"Those who support her already are unfazed. Those that haven't decided won't be concerned and this won't be a factor in their decision. Only those that are diehard supporters of Sanders or O'Malley will use this as confirmation in their choice and try to make hay out of it.
Does Grant Woodard sound neutral, or is he really a diehard Hillary supporter who will vote for her only because it will make her the "first woman president"?