Bill is not longer DLC. In fact, he told them off a couple of years ago.

[genius]

Whatever mistakes he made in office, I think he has partially woken up to the dangers of the DLC. Now if we could get Hillary to quit things would be a lot better.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

1. I don't understand

What does this mean?

[Ken Burch]

3. what did he tell them off FOR, perchance?

Can you be sure he didn't think THEY were getting "too liberal"?

[genius]

5. Actully, just the opposite. He thought that they were too rigid

and conservative and were hurting the Democratic Party.

[MichiganVote]

4. It means that the Dem leadership didn't do much to defend Clinton

from Starr and later ran for the hills when Bill..er...tried to suck up in all the wrong places. With the money it now takes to win a campaign, none of the Dem's are men or women unto themselves or their party. Not even for a Prez. No different for the Repub's. Something George Bush and Karl Rove have exploited.

[AntiCoup2K4]

2. Hillary won't quit.

She thinks the appeasement express is her ticket to the White House in 2008 :eyes:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

6. I'm rather disappointed in her

But, she's still a first-termer, and I'll say she's committed to doing good things for her state.

I'm not sure what I expected from her, but I know it was more than this*.


:hippie:


*More Than This - great Bryan Ferry song from about a thousand years ago.

[papau]

7. Hill is quite liberal - pushed single payer Nat'l Health when Bill was

against anything the DLC had a problem with.

She is more to the center than DU, but she is no DINO, and no GOPlite.

[FightinNewDem]

19. Fact Check

The Clinton health plan was not single-payer.

[papau]

32. Fact Check - I was one of the Insurance folks in this game - The "Clinton"

Plan was the Bill Clinton Plan.

Hillary was told no by Bill as to her desire for single payer. Hillary was FEAR FACTORY NUMBER ONE to the insurance industry because we knew she wanted single payer.

Indeed one of the things that made life easy fo me at the time was knowing the we had convinced Bill to avoid single payer so as to have our insurance company support.

[Ken Burch]

34. WHAT INDUSTRY SUPPORT?

Excuse me, but the "Harry and Louise" ads weren't exactly what I'd call support.

And single payer, my friend, would have been far easier to defend then the public/private bureaucratic nightmare that Hillary did give us.

[wyldwolf]

8. really? When did he do that?

[charlie]

10. I'd like to know too

Something like that would be big news, like Jesus rebuking Christianity.

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. *lol*

----------------------------------------------------------
Save this nation one town, county, and state at a time!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm#why

[wyldwolf]

11. hey, genius, let's see a link

[genius]

15. Thre was a lot of discussion in the du and elsewhere in 2003.

on his lecuring of the DLC. Look it up yourself. Also check this link for his name, or lack thereof:
http://www.ndol.org/new_dem_dir_action.cfm?viewAll=1

[charlie]

16. You have to be in office

to be in the directory.

I missed the 2003 discussions. What did he lecture the DLC about?

[wyldwolf]

22. true, but not to be a member

[charlie]

23. Right

So his absence from the New Dem Directory isn't evidence of a Clinton/DLC schism, as genius would have it.

[wyldwolf]

25. we are on the same page

[wyldwolf]

21. but you said he was no longer DLC

So prove it

[FightinNewDem]

24. Oh for crying out loud.

The list you link to is a list of elected officials. Clinton is a former elected official, in case you hadn't noticed.

Bill Clinton has spoken at a number of DLC events since leaving office. He has never renounced or repudiated his affiliation with the organization, no matter how much you might like to fantasize about such a development.

I saw Clinton speak at a DLC party at Rockefeller Plaza in the summer of 2002. I saw him again at a DLC meeting of elected officials (including Gov. Mark Warner, Gov. Bill Richardson and Rep. Artur Davis) in late Spring of 2003. If he has somehow become "anti-DLC", he has a funny way of showing it.

[Eloriel]

17. Yeah, me too: DOCUMENETATION (link), please. n/t

[Malva Zebrina]

9. I wish that people would stop this

Clinton is an ex president. In 2008, he will have been out of office for eight years.

Although we experienced peace and prosperithy under him, the fact is that he is now passe.

It is time to move on. Times have changed and Clinton is still operating as if it were the same as when he was president.

Well, as good a man as he is, I don't think this adoration is applicable to today's times.

Great leaders failed after the times changed.

Move on. Clinton has not done a single thing to buck this fascist neo con movement, or the movement of the religious right into our government. He has not spoken out against the abuses of this government. He still believes he is in the same position as he was when he was president--and the fact is that he is not.

He deserves a place in history,and a high place, that is for certain. But he is NOT the spokesperson for this party in these times any longer.

I don't know who is, and neither do a lot of Democrats for few seem willing to take the bull by the horns.

Let us not get into magical thinking about Bill Clinton. Or his ambitions at this point. He does not have any authority to speak for this party in these times, and most especially when it is so broken apart.

He does not want to give up the spotlight which he so enjoys, but to be honest, I think the times are a changing and that Clinton is no longer the voice in the wilderness--or a voice inthe party because he is out of it and has NOT uttered a single word against the fascist policies of Bush.

In fact, we read with dismay, that he seeks to become good friends with Bush and lavishes compliments upon him.


Do we need that Bill?

If you were up on the times and the mood of the ordinary people, you would recognize that this camaraderie with Bush is NOT what we need at this time.

[Geek_Girl]

12. I'm not sure that that is fair

I don't think he has rebuked or made to much noise against the current administration, because his wife is in politics and wants to be the next president. If he did not have to tread lightly I think he would be alot more outspoken.

[Malva Zebrina]

14. and that is the crux of the matter

is it not? When one''s wife and her career, becomes the driving force instead of the sad and deteriorating condition of the country and it's demise into fascim,then what can you say about that?

If that is his force, then, I can say he is playing us all and we are mere serfs, and he has not overcome the politician within that was ONCE successful and is now in stasis being stuck in that same condition as his previous presidency, in order to promote his wife's career.

He is NOTHING right now except the whipping boy for George Bush. I would rather see him go the way of Carter, than to keep up this politicizing as if he were still operating in his administration, long gone.

I am weary of being jerked around by politicians, although Clinton certainly deserves much respect for his two terms in office, he has not taken one lead in anything that we as citizens are concerned about.

He is NOT any longer, a voice in our current condition, as much as a good man he may be.

[Geek_Girl]

28. With all the crap

He put his wife through I think he owes it to her.

[Malva Zebrina]

29. and spousal fealty takes precidence over the condition of the country?

Out of guilt?

[Geek_Girl]

33. This is just speculation

But I think the Clinton really care about the country. I really believe that but they are also pragmatist and they will do what needs to get done in order to put themselves in the best position to have the most influence.

So in Both Hillary's and Bill's case IMHO I would say they believe the ends justifies the means. That means they will kiss GW bare ass if they had to, in order to get where they need to get so they could do the most good.

[Selatius]

18. I haven't seen any evidence that he hasn't spoken out because of Hillary

and that he doesn't want to jeopardize a potential run for Hillary.

[Geek_Girl]

26. It's just my opinion

I don't think he's going to go nuclear on the Bush administration even if he wanted to because he knows that could possibly hurt his wifes chances in '08.

[FightinNewDem]

20. Riiiiiiiggggghhhhttt.

Nice try. Let's see your documentation.

[greenohio]

27. Bill Clinton My Life

"Going to the Democratic Leadership Council. In 1985, I got involved in the newly formed Democratic Leadership Council, a group dedicated to forging a winning message for the Democrats based on fiscal responsibility, creative new ideas on social policy, and a commitment to a strong national defense..... I thought the DLC was the only group committed to developing the new ideas Democrats needed both to win elections and do right by the country.

... In March 1990 I went to New Orleans to accept the chairmanship of the DLC. I was convinced the group's ideas on welfare reform, criminal justice, education, and economic growth were crucial to the future of the Democratic Party and the nation. In December, we launched the Texas DLC chapter in Austin. In my speech, I argued that, contrary to our liberal critics, we were good Democrats."

Gosh he could have bashed the DLC in his book. But he didn't. Maybe you're not being straight.

[FightinNewDem]

30. More from "My Life"

I was amazed by some of the criticisms of the DLC from the Democratic left, who accused us of being closet Republicans, and from some members of the political press, who had comfortable little boxes marked "Democrat" and "Republican." When we didn't fit neatly in their ossified Democratic box, they said we didn't believe in anything. The proof was that we wanted to win national elections, something Democrats apparently weren't supposed to do.
I believed the DLC was furthering the best values and principles of the Democratic Party with new ideas. Of course, some liberals honestly disagreed with us on welfare reform, trade, fiscal responsibility, and national defense. But our differences with the Republicans were clear. We were against their unfair tax cuts and big deficits; their opposition to the Family and Medical Leave bill and the Brady bill; their failure to adequately fund education or push proven reforms, instead of vouchers; their divisive tactics on racial and gay issues; their unwillingness to protect the environment; their anti-choice stance; and much more. We also had good ideas, like putting 100,000 community police on the streets; doubling the Earned Income Tax Credit to make work more attractive and life better for families with modest incomes; and offering young people a chance to do community service in return for assistance to pay for college.

The principles and proposals I advocated could hardly be called Republican-lite or lacking in conviction. Instead, they helped to modernize the Democratic Party and later would be adopted by resurgent center-left parties all over the world, in what would be called the "Third Way." Most important, the new ideas, when implemented, would prove to be good for America. The Georgetown speeches gave me the invaluable opportunity to demonstrate that I had a comprehensive agenda for change and was serious about implementing it.

[greenohio]

31. "criticisms of the DLC from the Democratic left"

Some things never change.

[CWebster]

35. Note the same language--"modernizing" "new ideas"

The exact same language used in the vision of "re-imaging" the party from New Democrat, Simon Rosenberg, seeking party chair.