Hillary's DLC speech on C-Span NOW (7:08 edt)

[welshTerrier2]

this is the speech that started all the noise this week re: party unity ...

[stepnw1f]

1. Good Old Ted Kennedy!!!

I only have respect for the man. Great quote by the way, welshTerrier2!

[HockeyMom]

16. Me too

More so than for MY Senator lately.

[Placebo]

2. Thanks so much!

Watching it now. :)

It will be repeated later tonight as well since it's part of the ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE 2008 series.

[Donna Zen]

3. Sorry, just ate dinner.

[welshTerrier2]

4. heh ...

me too ... i'm taking the pup for a walk now ...

be back soon ...

[IndianaGreen]

5. Grab the MAALOX!

It is dinner time in here as well, I won't spoil it by watching Hillary kiss the DLC's ass.

[sandnsea]

6. Oh this is rich

The enlightened liberals who value knowledge and open-mindedness SO MUCH, refuse to listen to what the woman actually said. No wonder half the people around here don't know what Kerry's agenda was last year. Probably didn't watch his speeches either.

[Donna Zen]

11. Enlightened liberals

I admit to feeling a little snarky when I made my comment, although even if I did get cspan, which I don't, I wouldn't watch Hillary. I did read the points of interest that were posted on an earlier thread, and I went to the link to read the entire proposal. I find watching a Democrat negate the "left" upsetting. I also disagree with this power struggle that is being advanced by the DLC as misguided.

I've seen Kerry many times, including a small meeting before the IWR vote. I did read his position papers, donated money to him, and campaigned for him.

Open-mindedness includes understanding where someone is coming from before branding them as this way or that.

[saracat]

13. I listened. But she is never going to be my choice,I will not work for a

Clinton primary. If she wins, I will vote for her. But I will hold my nose and hope for the best. I hope she doesn't run. Maybe she can convince me, but so far, I haven't liked anything she has said.

[sandnsea]

15. I agree with you, pretty much

But considering DU was filled with hate over this speech, you'd think the least people could do is listen to it.

[welshTerrier2]

17. i've already heard the speech ...

and i took the time to notify others that it was being shown again ..

your statement "The enlightened liberals who value knowledge and open-mindedness SO MUCH, refuse to listen to what the woman actually said." paints with far too broad a brush ... i trust you'll grant me an exemption ...

why don't you try reaching out to those who don't feel represented by much of what they see as pandering bullshit instead of attacking them ?? maybe that would help build the unity Hillary called for ... or are you just into complaining?

[robcon]

7. I agree, sandnsea.

Is this Democratic Underground, or hide-your-head-in-the-ground.

Hillary is our best chance in '08, and we had better start listening to her, IMO

[election_2004]

12. How is she the "best chance"?

How will she give positive momentum to other Democrats who are running across the country?

[sandnsea]

14. I didn't say that

But people who jump all over her, without being willing to listen to what she said, really piss me off. I think she's a horrible choice for 2008, but whoever the Republican candidate is will be far worse.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

28. No, Clark, Boxer, Gore, Kerry are our best chances

Centrism with a progressive core, and (especially with Clark, Boxer and Gore) a refreshing opposition to the ongoing stupidity of the Iraq War and any intended follow-ups in Iran or Syria, combined with an intelligent pragmatism on issues like the environment, taxation and management of the budget. Choosing a candidate like that is the way in 2008 to the Oval Office.

[TroglodyteScholar]

31. If...

If a woman who is hated equally by the moderate-to-far right AND the far left is our best chance, we are *screwed*

[jonnyblitz]

8. thanks for the warning.

:puke:

[liberalpragmatist]

9. What is the big deal?

I'm not really that interested in a Hillary Clinton candidacy in '08, but I agree with her on far more than I disagree and I think she'd make a good president - far better than a Republican. At the moment I'm leaning towards Edwards or Clark or maybe even Kerry in '08, but I'm going to give her a fair listen.

Seriously, presidential concerns aside, what is the big deal about this speech? Why are internet lefties so up in arms over it? I've read the speech over and over and I can't find anything that's really offensive about the speech. So it's offensive just that she's speaking to the DLC? Was she not telling EVERYONE (the DLC included) not to cause divisions within the party? Might that have been equally directed at Bruce Reed and Al From as much as, if not more than, to the left-wing of the party?

What did she say that was so offensive to the blogosphere? Sorry for not understanding everyone's outrage.

[AJH032]

10. you're right

now our fellow dems on the far left are acting like republicans: divisive and hateful

[welshTerrier2]

18. OK ... here's a little of it ...

i appreciate the tone of your question ...

first, understand that the DLC has a very long track record of posting anti-progressive hate speech on their website ...

second, let me be clear that i believe it is critical for the Democratic Party to achieve unity ... if we don't, the DLC-Dems will lose and the progressive-left Dems will lose ...

but i also see a Party that has for far too long turned its back on the progressive wing ... i see a DLC controlled party that has pushed further and further to the right for the sole purpose of winning elections ... and they have lost and lost and lost ...

we have a very dangerous situation existing in the Party today ... some will dismiss the vocal left as being insignificant ... some will say we are internet activists only and really don't matter ... i disagree ... i think the internet left is a rapidly growing force in American politics ... the ability of these groups, MoveOn, DFA, PDA and many, many more activists who have finally gotten an effective tool for communication, to raise money and work actively for their beliefs is a force to be reckoned with ...

any Democrat who believes alienating or ignoring this group is sound strategy does so at their own peril ... there's gold in them thar hills ...

Hillary's call for Party unity coupled with her increasingly close association to the DLC sent the wrong message at the wrong time ... as a goal, calling for party unity is great ... we won't win without it ... but doing so without showing an understanding that many believe the Party has failed to hear them, failed to care about their views and failed to represent those views is truly horrific ... and it's bad politics too ...

unity is something that has to be earned ... when you call for unity, you have to be willing to layout a program to achieve it ... expecting all the good little boys and girls to "make nice" is nothing but empty rhetoric ... the Democratic Party needs to find a way to give each and every Democrat, regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum, a much greater voice in the direction of the Party ... mouthing the hollow words "why can't we all just get along" is indicative of someone who is badly out of touch ...

regardless of my feelings about Hillary, the DLC or anyone else in the Party, one thing's for sure: things have to change ... if we really want a unified Party long before 2006 begins, and there's not much time remaining, the Party better find some fresh ideas to address the rift ...

pretending it doesn't exist or pretending we're all on board will be a formula for disaster ... let's hope that doesn't happen ...

this article provides a fairly good background: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0727-01.htm

[Pepperbelly]

19. actually ... i think it might have been directed to the DLC ...

That was who she was addressing after all.

[welshTerrier2]

20. perhaps so but still she showed a lack of awareness ...

source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0727-01.htm

"John D. Podesta, who was White House chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, said he interpreted Clinton's remarks as critical of those on both sides -- centrists as much as liberals -- who would devote more energy to internal party battles than to confronting the right. But he said Clinton may have underestimated the bad feelings within the party. "I think she was trying to push the DLC back a little bit, but she walked into a crossfire maybe she should have realized was out there," he said."

[Pepperbelly]

21. Podesta thinks it was ...

pointed to at the DLC and you still want to complain?

[welshTerrier2]

22. to be clear ...

i was providing some documentation that supported the very point you were making ...

my added comments are that i have no idea whether it was directed to just the DLC, just the left or both ... my criticism of Mrs. Clinton's comments was that they were nothing but "happy talk" ...

i believe there are some very deep differences dividing Democrats and we damned well better start working to resolve them ... being chided by Mrs. Clinton to get along for the good of the Party without "working through a process of reconciliation" is total crap ...

it would be sort of like bush going to Iraq and telling the Sunnis and the Shia that they should all just get along so they can have a really nice democracy ... the goal is great; the process is naive ...

[Pepperbelly]

23. forgive my paranoia ...

If I sounded snappish, I apologize.

:D

[welshTerrier2]

24. no problem, my friend ...

no snapposity was intended ... :toast:

[liberalpragmatist]

25. Okay, you make fair points

I can see where you're coming from. As I've said on other threads, I'm not really a vociferous DLC-critic. I have a number of disagreements with them and tend to disagree with them on a lot of their ideas for political strategy. In that way I'm closer to the progressive line. I just tend to think the term "DLC" has become a catch-all bogeyman on the left, with many DU'ers and on the blogosphere treating the DLC as a monolithic, insidious cabal, when really their quarrels are with the leadership.

But I didn't really see anything offensive in Clinton's speech. I can see where you're coming from. I'm not totally sure I agree with that, but I'll give it some thought.

[welshTerrier2]

26. allow me to elaborate a little ...

first, let me repeat that the DLC has the most awful anti-left hate speech on their website ... they regularly publish articles criticizing the Party's progressives ... it's incredibly divisive ...

but my main theme on DU is NOT to attack the DLC ... since the last election, i have written many times about the risks the Party faces from the very deep divide among us ... the Party is facing very dangerous times ...

all of this is happening at a time where the neo-cons themselves are falling apart ... their policies have never been good for this country and their failures, and their crimes, are all coming home to roost ... having said that, however, poll after poll shows that the Democrats are not making any gains ... the republicans become less popular but Democrats don't become more popular ... at a time where our victory should be almost guaranteed, the future remains very uncertain ...

if the activists in the Party take a walk, and contrary to the "small fringe" labels some would like to believe, we are very a very powerful emerging force in the Party, 2006 would fall far short of what it could be ...

here's the point that many DU moderates just don't get: regardless of what arguments they make about what progressive Democrats SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do, the reality is that the old ways (e.g. ABB) that kept many of us working for, paying for and voting for candidates we really didn't like are not going to fly anymore ... all the whining in the world is NOT going to change that ... ABB is DEAD ...

the right course for centrist Dems and the Democratic Party itself, and this should be obvious to all, is to reach out to every single Democrat and give them a REAL VOICE in setting the direction of the Party ... this applies not just to "the left" but to every single Democrat ... the status quo cannot continue without inflicting serious damage to our chances in 2006 ... shared power is the only way to build unity ...

the arguments on DU have been somewhat foolish ... this is not a debate about whether angry, rebellious progressives are right or wrong ... frankly, i don't care what anyone thinks about that ... the bottom line is that i don't feel represented by the Party's power elite and i am no longer willing to just go along ... so the Party can try to convince me not to have that attitude but i promise you that will go nowhere ... or, they can change some of the Party's internal processes to make it more democratic and to truly share power ...

a great start to this would be to ask every single elected Democrat to start holding regular town meetings all over their states ... and build in a process to publicize the ideas proposed by average citizens at these meetings and incorporate them into the Party's platform ...

unity has to be the objective; but without allowing every single Democrat a chance to really participate in the Party's direction, unity will never be achieved ...

[liberalpragmatist]

27. All good points

I really don't have any major disagreements that come to mind when reading that. I think my disagreement with you is purely over the specific action of Hillary Clinton's speech. And I can see your view on that one too.

[Q]

29. Hillary's speech is an indication that...

...the DLC is bringing out their 'big guns'. The call for unity more than likely came from Hillary and not the DLC. The DLC isn't exactly known for their ability to work with others within the party. Perhaps Hillary is sincere in wanting to see the 'left and right' of the party finally come together?

But to what benefit?

It will NOT benefit the left or even a majority of Democrats to blindly follow the DLC's 'winning' agenda. Hell...they're still bragging about 'helping' Clinton win a decade ago. But the political dynamics have changed since the 2000 selection and 9-11.

Which brings up another problem...

Many on the 'left' are left wondering why the DLC won't join them in fighting or even acknowledging these very important issues:

Election Fraud
Government/Corporate Corruption
Accountability for 9-11
and
unnecessary, illegal wars

The DLC's response on these issues has been to tell the left to 'shut up' and to stop acting 'anti-American'.

What should the left conclude given this type of response? Is the DLC complicit? Is winning really more important to them than accountability and justice? If so...then the left and right wings of the Democratic party will never see eye to eye on these and other issues.

The left tends to believe that NOT fighting the Bushies on these pivotal issues has turned off many voters that want their party to fight for them and makes them distrust the motives of Democrats in general. This is also one of the main factors preventing the left and the DLC from working together.

[CWebster]

30. Well, I watched her

say nothing other than drop some buzz words like "values" and "personal responsibility".