Letters to the Editor
-
Howard Dean and the 50-state strategy is what worked - in spite of Rahm's best efforts.
Every aspect of Howard Dean's strategy has been proven by results; every criticism of Howard Dean's strategy by Rahm Emanuel was proven false by results.
Howard Dean spoke out against Iraq early. Rahm espoused the "don't-rock-the-boat" party "wisdom" of leaving the Iraq issue alone. Guess what? Howard Dean was also proven right.
How exactly can Rahm take credit for winning, then, in a vote which was essentially a referendum on the GOP's record of rubber-stamping Bush's positions?
And how is due to Rahm, that Howard Dean raised more money in an off-peak election cycle than any other DNC chair, ever?
In some states we would not have even had candidates ABLE to win if it weren't for Howard Dean. Red States like Kansas, Indiana and Montana that had been written off as lost causes. How are these wins due to Rahm, when he fought tooth and nail against Howard Dean spending time, money and effort in those areas?
I ask you.
Rahm wanted Dems to win, and played his part. But to credit the 2006 win to Rahm over Howard Dean, is simply not supported by the facts.