is the DLC trying to sacrifice 2004 for Hillary in 2008?

[pruner]

if Hillary's plan is to run in 2008, as most pundits/editorialists/ect. seem to believe, than the Dems would need to lose in 2004. after all, I doubt anyone would argue that she'd challenge an incumbent Dem for the nomination.

if this is the case, it's logical that the DLC's goal would be the Dem nominee's defeat in 2004.

that being said, if the DLC is opposing Dean's nomination, wouldn't that mean they think he stands the best chance of winning in 2004?

[quinnox]

1. No, the DLC wants to win

that is why they are opposed to a Dean nomination. The DLC (and other Dem strategists) think he would lose (and lose badly) against Bush.

Though, if you were a Dean supporter, I can understand why you would want to believe the rather imaginative conspiracy of the post.

[Forkboy]

2. conspiracy?

It's exactly what the Republicans did in '76.

I also like the jab at Dean supporters...highlights your maturity.

[depakid]

15. oh horsehockey

The Republicans pushed so hard for Ford that he gained on Carter every week in the two months before the election and nearly pulled it off. Given another week or two he might have.

If anything, the hard right would have wanted Carter president, instead of the moderate Ford, because Carter was so obviously and hopelessly inept that they could count having a good shot at getting their figurehead Reagan in there by 1980- whereupon their corrupt extremists could permeate the executive and civil service, and thereby change America forever for the worse.

At that point in history, there is no way the American electorate
would have EVER voted Reagan in without having been sick and tired of Carter. Hell, even Bush I ran as a moderate in 1980

[Forkboy]

29. hey

dont be bringing no horses into my hockey...do you know how hard it is to skate through a dungpile?

[quinnox]

16. It's an observation

When Rove says he wants Dean, then I saw some Dean people say he meant the opposite. Now this is used again to try and say the DLC wants the opposite of what it says.

I think there are people within the Dem party who think Dean is a weak candidate, or at least, I know I am one.

[indigo32]

4. Some Dean Supporters

Would make the case that the DLC is wrong on this issue.... While I believe you that the DLC wants to win, I just flat out think they, and you are wrong about Dean.

[quinnox]

Possible

But although I'm not a member of the DLC, I can appreciate the argument they make. If Dean won the nomination, I would hope he would win, but I fear he wouldn't.

[alexwcovington]

11. Dean can win - don't let the freepers tell you otherwise!

Dean is not a left-winger. He's in a centrist position, plus he has a message that is firing up the masses. 300,000 grassroots campaigners. That's one of every thousand Americans! And the list keeps growing!

[Ein]

20. DLC has failed the Democrats...

Is that not obvious? They need to appeal to left, not the center. Until then I will just be waving at them, from the sidelines,

[alexwcovington]

3. Hmmm

Well, your arguments depend on a lot of supposition. I would not make the claim that the DLC would want a Dem to lose the race this time around - (certainly they may support a different one at first).

I mean, the party isn't THAT screwed up, is it?

[anti_shrub]

5. That's what Rush's theory is

He even said the Clintons would purposely mess up Dean's campaign if he wins the nomination so Hillary could be the savior in 2008.

[pruner]

7. I wasn't aware of that

I don't listen to Rush at all.

I was just reading John Fund's piece in tomorrow's WSJ (don't ask me why) and it got me thinking.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110003955

[BurtWorm]

10. Don't you know better than to take WSJ columnists seriously

when the subject is the Clintons? Their objective is to keep the faithful hating and sow seeds of doubt in the minds of everyone else.

[oasis]

32. Especially the woman hating John Fund.

[truthseeker1]

26. A-ha, Rush again

I should've known. When I visited my right-wing brother in Montana last month, he echoed this theory and he gets all his news from objective sources like Rush and Michael Savage.

He even went so far as to suggest that the GOP might even sacrifice Bush in 2004 so as to better fight off the Hillary machine in 2008. Could it be? Could they be THAT scared of Hillary? (I pointed out that since Bush's Bonesman nickname was "Temporary" that this theory could be true.)

I heard the rumor today that Hillary is thinking about jumping in to the 2004 race, which could be really interesting.

[BurtWorm]

28. I saw the categorical denial today.

She is not going to run in 2004.

Welcome to DU, by the way.

:toast:

[John_H]

6. Yeah, the DLC would pass of four years of a dem in power

for one potential candidate four years from now. Amazing.

[pruner]

8. it would be risking 4 years of power vs. the potential for 8 years

n/t

[Shanty Oilish]

9. Have they such power? Is Hillary so messianic?

Does Rush Limbaugh ever make sense?

[pruner]

12. I'm suggesting they don't have such power… and that scares them

which would explain their incessant whining about a Dean candidacy.

[BurtWorm]

13. What incessant whining?

:eyes:

[pruner]

14. this whining

Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, dismissed Mr. Dean's fiery speeches against the Bush White House by asking, "Do we want to vent or to govern?" Al From, the founder of the moderate DLC, was instrumental in promoting Mr. Clinton as a candidate back in 1992. He now says that Mr. Dean belongs to the party's "McGovern-Mondale wing" and that he would repeat their failed candidacies by being swamped in the popular vote.

I'm sure others can provide more examples.

[BurtWorm]

17. DLC whining, yes. But Clinton whining?

I haven't heard any.

There's a piece in the latest American Prospect that rips Al From and the DLC to shreds. It says they're out of touch. They've been around too long and didn't seem to notice the world and political circumstances have changed.

[pruner]

22. I didn't say anything about the Clinton's whining…

did I?

Though I do think the DLC often does their bidding.

[BurtWorm]

24. "Does their bidding...."

:eyes:

So, was Foster "suicided?" What do you think?

[pruner]

25. are your arms & legs tired?

it's quite a stretch from my statement to yours.

[BurtWorm]

27. The DLC does Al From's bidding.

Period. He invented it. It's his baby.

What evidence do you have that it does the Clintons' "bidding?" What bidding are you talking about? Be specific.

[maggrwaggr]

30. DLC= Democratic Losership Committee

These guys are so clueless they wouldn't be able to sell hot chocolate to an eskimo

[AntiCoup2K4]

34. Fuck Evan Bayh!

And Zell Miller and the rest of those DINO assholes.

If the 2004 Democratic nominee doesn't say, in plain English, that George Bush Jr's policies, actions and LIES (on both the foreign and domestic fronts) have damaged America and cannot be tolerated for another four years, then he is not worthy of that nomination.

Harry Truman once said that, given a choice between a Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the voter will choose a Republican. And my only modification to President Trumans words would be to add "Or else they don't vote at all."

Remember that less than 20% of those eligible voted for George Bush Jr in 2000. Only 2% of the population of California signed the stupid recall petition (and they were all paid to do so). The MAJORITY of American voters are not voting for these fascist frauds, but they might as well be if they stay at home and do not vote at all, because they see a Democratic candidate who sounds just like the Repuke.

[FloridaPat]

18. There won't be a country left in 2008 if Bush is reelected.

[dkf]

19. Sadly, I'm beginning to get paranoid about this.

Just think. Let's say Dean/Clark wins. Let's say Dean wins 2 terms. Next would be Clark's turn. Maybe he wins 2 terms too.

By that time, how old would Hillary be?

Can you imagine the Clinton's being out of power for the next 16 years?

They'd be going nuts.

Now I loved Bill Clinton, but I also believe that both he and Hillary really really want to get back into the White House.

Can anyone allay my fears please?

[BurtWorm]

21. Aren't there more pressing things to worry about than the Clintons?

Like, say, the Bushes?

[redeye]

31. How old will Chelsea be ;-)?

She might run if her mother is too old... I guess...

[Lexingtonian]

23. Oh, grow up

Political parties denying themselves available power is as impossible as rivers rejecting water to run in them.

Hillary's second Senate term ends in 2012. Her first one ends in 2006, which happens to be when we can first seriously expect to get a true Democratic majority in the Senate (meaning, without needing the 2-3 present DINOs- Zell and the two Nelsons).

I suspect the way she realistically assesses trends and time, maybe VP in 2008 or 2012 is the way she actually chooses to go- it would get her the fame for political trailblazing to within reach of the top but spare her the immense efforts/pricetags of the Oval Office proper.

As for all the Manichaean foolishness about the DLC, let's remember that the most serious point of its existence is to keep the South from descending into utter Republican domination. If you hate it, well, in four or five years the Republican Party will have declined so far nationally- the many opportunists will bail out once the domination evaporates- that the DLC will vanish along with its raison d'etre.

[Habibi]

38. I think the VP in 2008 option makes much more sense

than screwing up the 2004 election in order to position her for a 2008 run for the top spot.

But maybe I'm missing something: Do people really think she'll appear as a savior? There seem to be an awful lot of Hillary haters out there (I live in Upstate NY, and we're overrun with 'em, if bumper-stickers are any indication!).

[Zhade]

33. Well...

Considering the disturbing links between the DLC and the AEI/PNAC (discussed here, for instance), anything's possible.

[moondust]

35. I don't know about the DLC but

I think Bill Clinton's priorities and attendant motives should be questioned.

[GalleryGod]

36. NOPE.

:puffpiece:
:spank:

[Cheswick2.0]

37. no, it's a crazy idea

it makes no sense, there is no evidence for it.

[Hubert Flottz]

39. If we lose in 04 it won't matter!

The country CAN'T survive another Bush term!