What do folks think of the DLC?

[RiverStone]

According to their website, the the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC: leads the New Democrat movement, a national network of elected officials and community leaders whose innovative ideas are modernizing progressive politics for the 21st Century.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=86

Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack is chair of the DLC. Hillary Rodham Clinton is chair of the DLC's American Dream Initiative. They are both part of a broader Leadership Team.

I am neither pro or con on the DLC; frankly, I don't have enough information to form an opinion. I have noticed over the past few months on DU a wide variety of view's on the DLC's agenda - from strong dislike, to strong support. So, is the DLC a good thing or not?

As always, value the perspective of DUers.

:kick: :hi: :kick:


p.s. Just a small footnote, but should not the DLC's website say New "Democratic" movement rather then Democrat? We all know how annoying it is when the MSM refers to the Democrat party.

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. They are not a New Democratic party

Although given they way they ignore rank-and-file in favor of corporate interests, they might as well be. No, they represent a movement of New Democrats. Or New Democratics, if you prefer. :hi:

[RiverStone]

9. So - if they are in bed with corporations...

Can I make the assumption then that any Pres candidate - like Hillary RC or Tom Vilsack - who both have an active involvement in the DLC, would be looked on as a LESS favorable candidate because of it?

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. In my opinion, yes

Presidents are supposed to represent the people, not the corporations. But neither the Democratic Party nor the American people are in the habit of asking my opinion, so I'm not holding my breath for a candidate who is not a corporate whore.

[RiverStone]

16. That's why I asked...

I value your opinion. Thanks.

[Bjornsdotter]

2. Here it comes

...settling down to watch the show.

:popcorn:

[generaldemocrat]

6. Totally unrelated question.....

Are you Icelandic?

[RiverStone]

15. Ummm. I assume you mean either Iceland or Mars?

Seriously, I asked the question because I did not know the answer. I suspected the corporate connect....

Though as I (and other Mars dwellers) get enlightened - its begs the question: Is a politician's involvement in the DLC a big negative when you ponder who you would vote for as a Pres candidate?

[Bjornsdotter]

40. No, Swedish

...but Iceland is the only Scandinavian country to still use this method for surnames.

My screen name is who I am...I'm Bjorn's daughter.

Cheers :toast:

[generaldemocrat]

41. I did my grad school out in Europe......

and made friends with quite a few Swedes who were originally from Stockholm, Jonkoping, Bankeryd, and Goteborg.

Scandinavia is awesome, great quality of life, friendly folks. Quite the opposite of the states!

[Bjorn Against]

51. I am 100% Swedish my name is Bjorn and I am a socialist

Seriously.

[k_jerome]

3. i support the DLC...

you have seen strong support here? i must be blind.

[Phredicles]

4. The DLC is for people who don't think one Rethug party is enough,

so the Democratic Party needs to be another one.

In short, they suck hairy hippopotamus balls.

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. They're the part of the Democratic party that represent the rich class.

[generaldemocrat]

5. Bunch of arrogant war mongers.....

who take money from the same corporate interests that give even more money to the GOP.

[Greyhound]

7. It is the brand given to the Democratic Wing of the Corporate Party.

The Corporate Party controls about 90% of the Republic Party and the DLC is simply a nominally Democratic branch (or tentacle).

[RiverStone]

11. Is the "corporate" connect acknowledged outside of DU?

Thanks greyhound. Damn, its great how fast the info train flows around here!

Do you think this corporate suck-up view (about the DLC) is unique to DU, or is it widely known in other DEM circles or to voters at large?

Any examples of "corporations" folks are referring to?

[Greyhound]

18. As far as I know, nobody but political junkies like us have even heard

of the DLC.

Look at the members of the DLC and then look at their campaign donor lists.

[Pyrzqxgl]

44. er testicle

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. Brace yourself, Martha!

[LoZoccolo]

13. I don't think they think much at all about the DLC.

It seems to be approaching the level of reflex for many.

Want evidence?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2035218

[Clinton_Co_Regulator]

45. One could argue that they have thought it through

a bit more than you have, couldn't they?

[LoZoccolo]

66. One could I argue that I've been seeing what they say

a bit longer than you have, couldn't I?

[Clinton_Co_Regulator]

69. No

Been reading this site since week one.

[lojasmo]

14. Like ants at a picnic... EOM

Bishes all. Nearly every one voted for the war,

[leftofthedial]

17. they are the mechanism through which

corporate interests (basically the same corporate interests so well represented by the repukes) subverted the Democratic party to serve international financial interests.

[RiverStone]

20. examples...?

Thanks leftofthedial.

You and others refer to "corporate interests". Which corporations are we talking about here? I have found the the website-

http://www.buyblue.org/

...to be helpful in identifying corporations which are in bed with rethug personalities or interests, so I do my best to avoid them.

Any examples of corporations in bed with the DLC - or is it almost the same as those in bed with the GOP?

[leftofthedial]

26. repukes are the first string and the DLC are the bench

or think of them as Plan A and Plan B respectively

for the top 1 or 2% of global capitalists. Corporations are the top predatory machines invented by capitalists to do their will in the world.

Pretty much any corporation that benefitted from NAFTA has almost equal love for the DLC and the repukes.

"buyblue" helps us find marginally less rabid corporations to give our money to, but it really is just a view into the circus mirror of campaign funding and political bribery. Campain donations fund elections, which are a farcical sideshow that exists to fuel the "big-game" archetype for politics and to delude us into thinking that we live in a democracy, rather than a capitalist oligarchy.

[RiverStone]

28. Someday we will leave the oligarchy behind...(hope)

Sadly, we do not have a 3rd party with enough force (not beholden to corporate interests) to challenge the plan A or plan B players. Maybe someday....

If it's a lessor of two evils, we at DU obviously chose the DEMS as at the very least - a default position. Its probably a little too optimistic to think that we can peel away from the DLC and all the corporate b.s. and reshape the Democratic party to truly represent the will of the people AHEAD of the will of corporations.

My disdain and disgust is so intense for the BushCo regime, that for now I see no choice but to fall in with the DEMS (corporate interests included) - and I do see some really good plan B players - like Russ Fiengold or Dennis Kucinich. So I'll hold out hope that we CAN change the party from within.
:)

[leftofthedial]

29. I'll vote for every Democrat on the ticket

but I'll fight within the party to return us to traditional Democratic values and to oppose the RW authoritarian repukes.

[wakeme2008]

19. Good Repugs...

Love Corps and Bush what more can I say :shrug:

[madfloridian]

21. A couple of thoughts....

It is my firm belief that we are in Iraq because of that group's desire to be a kinder gentler version of the PNAC. They call it spreading democracy, but I think we all know it is about more than that by now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3144775

Also I know for sure they did not/do not like activists. You can see it in the thread above, or you can see their contempt for anti-war activists in 2003.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/62

But then those are just my own thoughts.

[RiverStone]

23. Then again, do we even need to pay attention to the DLC?

Thanks madfloridian. You said in your Journal:

Then the DLC called us "fringe" for being against the war. I have yet to forgive them for that. I have tried.

Now it seems the formally "fringe" view has become the dominant view - thankfully! Has the DLC shifted this perspective - or do you think we should just ignore them? Or to ask another way, is the DLC's influence on the national stage enough that we even need to pay attention to them?

[madfloridian]

24. Have you seen the talking heads on TV?

Just watch. See who gets air time.

Do searches for who is behind the various candidates running in 08, and other times.

Look at the names of the leadership of the other two connected groups..the PPI and the Third Way. Check out their leaders, and watch the votes.

Yes, they have the media, thus they have the power still.

And ask yourself about what is a "faux grassroots" candidate. No, it is not a silly statement. We have them every cycle. They dominate and control the message if nothing else.

Watch to see who still wants to play nice and not make waves, when after all we have seen the face of pure evil in this administration. There are many whose fingers should be very tired right now of being held in the wind.

[chaska]

22. Traditionally, parties have been deifined economically (not socially). DLC = socially liberal Repub

[chaska]

25. Traditionally, parties have been defined economically (not socially). DLC = socially liberal Repubs

They don't get that "fiscal conservatism" does every bit as much damage to the groups they so magnanimously support (as long as it doesn't cost them their beloved tax cuts, etc.) as your average neo-nazi..., maybe more.

Give me the KKK anyday over the DLC. I know what I'm dealing with there.

[ellenfl]

27. i only know what i read here but i am not inclined to

believe in the dlc. i only support the dnc because howard dean is in charge.

i am also not a big bubba and hillary fan. her requests for $ go right in the trash. bubba sold us out in many ways when he was prez and i don't see hill as being much better. wuth them, it's all about money and i don't trust that.

any future contributions i make will most likely go directly to candidates, as did most of my 2006 contributions. my contributions are pittances anyway but i figure if enough people contribute a pittance we can get rid of some of the corporate money. clean elections!!!

ellen fl

[CRH]

30. DLC - 70's RePubs, recycled.

Founded in mid eighties by Al From and sidekick Wilbur Marshall.

The DLC tries to distance itself from populism, you know those pesky ideological citizens' movements that were based in traditional democratic party values.

Pro Globalization, pro NAFTA, pro CAFTA, pro free market corporate led capitalism, less government regulation, and a hawkish foreign policy slant, are examples of the DLC platform.

Wilbur Marshall co-signed a Project For a New American Century (PNAC) letter to President Bush in 2003 in support of the invasion of IRAQ.

So, I guess if you are a new right wing pro corporate rights over citizens, militarist democrat of the eighties and nineties the DLC is a 'progressive neo Conservative' movement that modernizes the party platform; but, if you are an old school democrat who feels the corporations have superseded the citizens' rights to control the charter of business, possibly even think a little regulation of resources and utilities is not always a bad thing, or that privatization of everything in the public sector is not always a good thing, then the DLC seems more 70's republican than Nelson Rockefeller.

The DLC very much believes in promoting and protecting American hegemonic economic dominance and when needed, using a little military attitude adjustment on the natives in other countries, when needed.

Edited for grammar and punctuation.

[RiverStone]

32. Does then being a DLC player rule out you voting for them?

Thank CRH!

So would being a player in the DLC, and in the case of Hillary RC and Tom Vilsack - BIG players in the DLC - RULE OUT you supporting them as DEM candidates?


WELCOME to DU!
:applause: :hi: :kick:

[CRH]

39. Yes , I would rather cast a loosing vote for a Kuchinich than ...

a wining vote for a corporate pandering politician. I think the future will illustrate the corporate global economy of today was greedy, brutal and short sited. I think the future will illustrate there is a trilogy of demand on our potential for political change; that of energy, climate change, and population. I personally do not feel societies exercising belief in frivolous consumption and everlasting affluence for the few, is realistic on a planet of finite resources. I do not see politics or politicians aligning themselves with the profits of a corporatism that demands an ever larger slice of the earth's primary budget, as being a solution. Any economy that demands growth to survive I feel is a failing model for the future. These criticisms of course, are only my opinions.

[Greyhound]

42. Same here. In regards to the rest of your post, I would ask that you think

in longer terms (50 - 100 years) and see if that might change your mind as to the future view of our corporate oligarchy.

[GeorgeGist]

31. I don't think much of them ...

or their 'innovative ideas' for modernizing progressive politics. For example, they haven't anything new to say on Campaign Finance reform in nearly 5 years. http://www.ndol.org/ndol_sub.cfm?kaid=127&subid=169

[crispini]

33. DU's pet bogeyman.

Honestly, if someone is associated with the DLC, I *am* going to be somewhat suspicious of them... BUT, I think they are awfully demonized around here, and I think it's almost a knee-jerk reaction at this point for many DU'ers.

What really blows me away are posts where people are obviously confusing the DLC and the DNC. It's easy to do, but don't be going off on your two-minutes-hate on my Howard.

[wyldwolf]

34. You're kidding, right? This question here is like going into a baptist church...

... and asking them what they think of Catholics.

[Tyo]

35. It's an organization allied with the Republican Party

which rather confusingly uses a donkey as its mascot and symbol.

[Kelly Rupert]

36. Are you trolling or what?

I find it hard to believe that you could go five minutes on DU without noticing this board's overwhelming hatred for the DLC.

[RiverStone]

38. And I find it hard to believe.....

That you would accuse someone of being a freeper troll for asking a legit question!

I know DU is populated by many wise political junkies and pundints; and I have greatly enjoyed my time here since last summer. It is possible Kelly, that not everyone is fully aware or informed of the prevailing DU view on every single issue.

Please check my journal or search my 500+ post history BEFORE jumping to such a gross and false conclusion. My disgust and disdain for the BushCo regime is well documented. Being referred to as a troll - and what troll is not a freeper - is insulting.

I asked about the DLC and found what I was seeking; clarity and perspective. For that and many other wonderful insights, I'm grateful for DU and the vast majority of folks here that presume we are all trying to learn and gain insight.

Minus you.

[Kelly Rupert]

48. I never called you a freeper.

Trolling is attempting to instigate a reaction for one's own enjoyment. One who has an account solely for this purpose is a troll. Often on DU they're Freepers. Over in Freeperville, they're likely to be DUers. On Fark, they're likely to be, well, everyone.

I didn't call you a troll. I certainly didn't call you a freeper. I simply asked if you were trolling. Here, DLC rarely exists without "fucking" or "assholes" beside the acronym. Asking "What do you think of the DLC?" is a bit like asking "What do you think of Dick Cheney?" It would seemingly serve little point but to get people frothing on command.

[RiverStone]

49. trolling 101

Ok, I'm not a troll though you suggested I was "trolling"...

DU has been my first introduction to blogging; I do appreciate the clarity on the nuance of being a troll vs trolling terminology.

Using your definition - no, I had/have no desire to piss people off just for the fun of it. Gawd, I got a life! Again, my post history/journal speaks for itself. Your assumption that I would know DLC is universally hated on DU was just that. Though it seems 95% of the respondents to my question dislike the DLC. Great to learn something new today; new for me anyway.

In the category of - don't sweat the small stuff - maybe next time simply don't assume anything . There are genuine newbies, rehabilitated rethugs, young folk, or just someone that missed the story on DU. I imagine the true freepers or just plain assholes sort themselves out pretty quick and are well known by all. One thing that distinguishes us from freepers is we DON'T march in lock step on all issues.

My reaction to this particular "small stuff" was (thinking) ya called me a freeper - when I already spend way too much energy hating the pukes and all they stand for. Shrub and Shooter get me to frothing on command alright! DUer's.....hey they're buds! :hi:

[crispini]

57. Here's some more terminology for ya...

although DU has some blog-like features (such as the "journal") it's really not a blog. It's a message board. ;)

[Vidar]

37. Corporate whores.

[SOS]

43. "Why the Iraq War was Right"

Why the Iraq War Was Right
By Peter Ross Range
Editor of the DLC magazine Blueprint

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252474&kaid=124&subid=307

Unelectable in 2008.

[AtomicKitten]

46. Feh.

They are probably the most conservative Dems and to the right of most here, but they are not the boogeyman on all issues as they are made out to be at DU.

The DLC puts the meaning into the notion of a big tent and the tolerance it takes to coincide peacefully with a different POV. I don't support the calls to annihilate them that we hear at DU. I subscribe to the basic tenets of democracy in which all voices are heard. But that's me.

[Adelante]

47. And me!

Feh, too. :)

[RiverStone]

52. Feh? Defined? Off topic.

Hi AtomicKitten.

Still learning the culture of the blogosphere (and DU in particular).

Pondering what Feh means - I checked Urban Dictionary for "Feh" - geez, 10 definitions?!

See:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=feh

So, which feh is it?

Thanks :hi:

:)

[AtomicKitten]

53. ***

Feh is the multipurpose alternative to but slightly more aggressive than meh which is "the verbal equivalent of a shrug of the shoulders."

I can tell you from experience that discussion of the DLC at DU almost always degenerates into those demanding their collective heads on a spike at the castle gate.

In other words, same conversation, different day. :)

[Lord Byron]

50. We can only change the party from within

Third parties have a history of not working. Let's unite and promote real progressive popular politics. No DLC. I won't vote for any DLC candidate.

[Zodiak]

54. Wow...accused of trolling eh?

Sorry about that. I, on the other hand, find your question asked too little on DU. We don't talk about what the DLC is enough, in my opinion.

Some say that people on DU who do not like the DLC have an agenda. I submit that anti-DLCers didn't come into this with an agenda, but developed one once they saw just what the DLC does within the party. That is what happened to me. I heard a lot about them on the Smirking Chimp, but never was any substantial information given on who they were, who donated to them, and what their voting records are like.

For my part, I will list the voting records of all of our senators according to a scoring system I use for measuring my level of support. I score 29 issues from the 109th...all bill passages and nominations (read my journal if you want to know more about my silly little system).


Harkin (Iowa) 82.75862069
Boxer (California) 82.75862069
Feingold (Wisconsin) 82.75862069
Kennedy (Massacheusetts) 77.5862069
Corzine (New Jersey) now Gov. 76.66666667
Lautenberg (New Jersey) 75.86206897
Durbin (Illinois) 75.86206897
Akaka (Hawaii) 75.86206897
Sarbanes (Maryland) 72.4137931
Kerry (Massacheusetts) DLC 70.68965517
Leahy (Vermont) 70.68965517
Levin (Michigan) 68.96551724
Mikulski (Maryland) 68.96551724
Reed (Rhode Island) 68.96551724
Biden (Deleware) 67.24137931
Dodd (Connecticut) 65.51724138
Wyden (Oregon) 65.51724138
Dayton (Minnesota) 65.51724138
Obama (Illinois) 63.79310345
Bayh (Indiana) DLC 60.34482759
Murray (Washington) 60.34482759
Schumer (New York) DLC 58.62068966
Inouye (Hawaii) DLC 56.89655172
Bingaman (New Mexico) 56.89655172
Dorgan (North Dakota) DLC 55.17241379
Reid (Nevada) 55.17241379
Byrd (West Virginia) 55.17241379
Clinton (New York) DLC 53.44827586
Menendez (New Jersey) DLC 50
Cantwell (Washington) DLC 48.27586207
Stabenow (Michigan) DLC 46.55172414
Kohl (Wisconsin) DLC 44.82758621
Feinstein (California) DLC 44.82758621
Leiberman (Connecticut) DLC 44.82758621
Rockefeller (West Virginia) 41.37931034
Conrad (North Dakota) DLC 41.37931034
Baucus (Montana) DLC 39.65517241
Carper (Deleware) DLC 34.48275862
Johnson (South Dakota) DLC 31.03448276
Lincoln (Arkansas) DLC 31.03448276
Salazar (Colorado) DLC 24.13793103
Pryor (Arkansas) DLC 22.4137931
Nelson (Florida) DLC 20.68965517
Landrieu (Louisianna) DLC 17.24137931
Nelson (Nebraska) DLC 3.448275862

I flagged the DLC members (or those identified as close to the DLC)....the mmbership is iffy because they do not publish their member lists anymore, so I hear. I also hear that they do not disclose their contributors, either, but I have not verified that.

The DLC falls out on the very bottom of the list of Democrats....some (like Nelson and Landrieu) vote almost exactly like Republicans on just about every issue. There are exceptions....like Kerry and Clinton. Kerry I have no problem with...Clinton I consider a true centrist and tolerable. The rest I wish to see replaced with Democratic populists (the DLC's opposites...economic liberals, social conservatives) whom I believe will serve their people better (who are poor and religious in rural areas).

I do not like the DLC because they reduce the power of the People in the People's party and make the Democratic party look divided and wishy-washy on key issues when we need to present a united front (like torture, free trade agreements, proto-fascist judges, etc.).

[IndianaGreen]

55. DLC is a bastion of appeasers and neoliberal globalists

They are as passionate about neocon/neolib imperialist wars as Dick Cheney.

[ShortnFiery]

81. They serve the Military Industrial Complex and other large

USA and World Conglomerates. The DLC has no love lost for us Peasants. Why the hell do you think that we must tolerate Donna Brazille on CNN spewing pablum? Bread and circuses for the American Peasants because the DLC grossly underestimates the intelligence of the Democratic Base. Time will prove the foregoing correct. Unfortunately we are going to have to "hurt bad" before we rid ourselves of the DLC, i.e., corporate enablers. :(

[Zorra]

56. Their ideology conflicts with that of the Democratic Party.

when you support the transnational global corporate agenda, and NAFTA, you work directly against American working folks.

[madfloridian]

58. More added to my post...their new chairman and more of my thoughts.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/955

I added some posts to the thread. There is a Salon article about Harold Ford, the new chair of the DLC.

I thought Vilsack was setting a nicer more pleasant tone, but now he is running for prez.

Zodiak is right, it is imperative to discuss it. But there are risks when one does.

[Arugula Latte]

59. It sucks

like a Dyson.

[madfloridian]

60. Here's a perfect example of the harm done by the DLC, requiring politically correct speaking.

They wanted all the 04 candidates to speak so cautiously. I found this interview in the archives from 2003 of Howard Dean and Judy Woodruff. It was a thread in which Kef was posting, and it was one in which Dean was being blasted for being improper in his speech. It was an ugly thread.

Judy Woodruff was really being snide about everything he said and did, ever. He told her how he felt about Iraq and Vietnam, and he got slammed here at DU and by the DLC leaders that he did not speak nicely enough.

From December 2003
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0312/08/ip.00.html

WOODRUFF: Do you feel any guilt at all today, Governor, about not having served when so many others went?

DEAN: No. I took my physical. I told the truth, they chose not to take me. That's what happened.

WOODRUFF: So the fact that there were other young men who didn't have the ability to get good medical care and get medical tests doesn't -- there's not an inequity there that bothers you...

DEAN: Judy, I was a high school junior, senior, I had a back pain, I went to the doctor, the doctor told me had I had a congenital problem in my back. Four years later I went to the draft physical, they told me I couldn't serve. I don't know what else I can tell you.

WOODRUFF: But we know today there were people who went to Vietnam who had back pain.

DEAN: So your argument is that I could have lied to the draft board and gotten in.

WOODRUFF: No, I'm -- no. That's not what I'm -- I'm just asking if you have any twinge of any feeling about it.

DEAN: I have a lot of twinge about the terrible policy that sent our young people to Vietnam for an exercise that turned out not to be justified, as we're doing right now in Iraq. Yes, I have twinges about that.

She also talked to him about not being politically religiously correct. It was not nice. He also got blasted out of the water for these comments.

DEAN: As a matter of fact, if you're a religious person, you're a religious person. I don't think it ought to matter what religion you are.

So people who talk like that are what Jesus would call the Pharisees. And I think that's enough of that kind of stuff in the Republican Party. We are all in this together, whether you are a Christian, or a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu. And there's plenty of all to go around in this country.

WOODRUFF: Was it just over a bike path that you left the Episcopal Church?

DEAN: Yes, as a matter of fact it was. I was fighting to have public access to the waterfront, and we were fighting very hard in the citizens group to allow the public to use it. And this particular diocese decided to join a property rights suit to close it down. I didn't think that was very public spirited.

One thing I feel about religion, you have to be very careful not to be a hypocrite if you're a religious person. It is really tough to preach one thing and do something else. And I don't think you can do that.

WOODRUFF: And you don't believe, Governor, the Republicans are going to have a field day with comments like these?

DEAN: The Republicans always have a field day with things like this. That's the reason Democrats lose, is because they're so afraid of the Republicans having a field day with comments like this or like that, that they never make any comments.

That is why I keep posting about the turn to the right the party took. Every word he said above was true. He got torn apart here and on TV by the talking heads sent forth by the corporate wing of the party.

[LWolf]

61. They are the rw corporate wing of the democratic party. n/t

[mmonk]

62. I'm not going to go there but in my opinion,

we wouldn't have had to go through the last six years the awful way we did had they not been a part of our party.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

63. "They don't" is the short answer.

When the DLC is mentioned on DU all rational thought goes out of the window and a two minutes hate that can last for hours commmences.

[Apollo11]

64. Dean called it "the Republican wing of the Democratic Party"

Here's the link:
http://www.time.com/time/election2004/columnist/klein/article/0,18471,574861,00.html

It's interesting to read the entry on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

It tells you that Bill Clinton and Al Gore were both founding members of the DLC back in 1985. This was right after the 84 Presidential election when Reagan-Bush won 49 States (the Democrat Walter Mondale only won in his home state of Minnesota).

Gore has since moved away from the DLC, especially in 2003 when he opposed the invasion of Iraq and endorsed Howard Dean's candidacy.

But it seems that the Clintons have remained close to the DLC.

John Kerry and John Edwards were both members of the "New Democratic Caucus" in the Senate.

[oasis]

65. Try winning a national election without them. (eom)

[Zodiak]

67. we're working on that

because our record with them isn't so hot in recent years, save Clinton.

[oasis]

70. Yup, the Clintonistas know how to win. That's why I'll stand pat with Hill 'n Bill.nt

[LoZoccolo]

71. Score one for oasis.

:thumbsup:

[Zodiak]

73. If winning in 1996 is your goal.

That was ten years, one Bush, and about 25 million angry Democrats ago. Things have drastically changed since then, especially Americans' reception to the concept of "free trade" and "globalization", clear favorites of the DLC.

Besides...this isn't about Bill and Hillary exclusively, but the DLC in general, which is FAR more conservative than Clinton, as evidenced by voting record. What about the 17 other DLC Senators who vote more with Republicans than with Democrats and do it quietly? They are over 90% of the membership, at least in the Senate.

...and I do not refer to the Clintons as "Clintonistas"...that sounds derogatory.

Before you accuse me of haterating on Clinton, you should read my post above that quite explicitly states that I consider Kerry and Clinton to be immune from my genralized criticism of the DLC.

[k_jerome]

76. oh c'mon, wouldn't you rather have...

the old Gephardt and Daschle handlers running your campaign. lol.

[wyldwolf]

78. popular vote winners in 2000, most votes of any Democrat ever in 2004...

...over half of new congressional seats DLC...

Tim Kayne, Gov. of VA - DLC.
Elliot Spitzer - early DLC member/still New Democrat, Gov. of NY...

[madfloridian]

72. We tried winning with their advice in 2000 and 2004.

How'd that work out?

And what happened to the Congress during that time.

Just asking.

[wyldwolf]

77. Just asking?

What advice from them did we "try" in 2000 and 2004?

For probably the 100th time, can even cite circumstantial evidence that the DLC did anything to hurt our congressional makeup during that period?

Just asking.

[k_jerome]

75. bingo.nt.

[Cascadian]

68. The DLC are nothing more than corporate infiltrators.

The DLC's agenda is bend to will of the military/industrial complex and neutralize the party from the true Democratic Party's principles. They are collaberators by definition.


John

[madfloridian]

74. I believe we are in Iraq because of the DLC policies and influence.

We are in the war because of the DLC's advice and insistence. Not hard to do a search at their site. Use the words Iraq, Vietnam, activists, fringe. You will be amazed. They call it spreading Democracy, but those are only words.

www.dlc.org

Nothing much has changed either in their attitude toward the grassroots/people/activists of the party. I think Vilsack tried to set a more pleasant atmosphere while he was head of the group. I really do think so. I don't think it will last under the new leadership.

The usual suspect, Al From, had a say not long after the election.

Al From warned against bending knee to the noisy activists

I don't think he could have been more insulting if he tried.

As the dust settles from the election, Democrats will face many choices, but none greater than the choice about what kind of party we want to be.

That's an especially important message for the large number of potential Democratic presidential candidates. There's a perception in some media and political circles that Democratic White House wannabes, like their Republican counterparts, must systematically bend the knee to ideologically inflexible and noisy party activists to have any prayer of nomination or election. They should pay attention to what happened in Connecticut on Nov. 7, where even in a strongly anti-war blue state, voters rejected a high-profile effort to exclude Joe Lieberman from the Democratic Party.

He and the other DLC leaders who supported Lieberman over the winner of the Democratic primary will never admit that Joe was elected by Republicans.

The new leader of the DLC is apparently Harold Ford. Salon has an article up about him which expresses many concerns. I fear I share some of them. He will have trouble with Pelosi, and he insulted Howard Dean on national TV. He was later used by James Carville to call for replacing Dean as chairman.

I see no reason for stuff like this. I hope he tries to be more decent to the activists and netroots and grassroots and the DNC.

From Salon, an article by Tom Schaller of Whistling Past Dixie fame.

Is Harold Ford built for the road ahead?

To fully understand what the Ford choice means for the DLC, consider the man Ford is replacing -- or, better yet, consider the two major national Democrats whom Ford failed to replace.

Once he announced he was running for president, Tom Vilsack was required by DLC bylaws to end his 18-month stint as DLC chairman. It was the popular Democrat's own choice not to run for a third term as Iowa governor last fall. As both a Beltway outsider and a Midwesterner, Vilsack was an interesting person to chair an organization Al From founded 20 years ago as a device for moving Democrats rightward to pacify the party's fading Southern wing. The press release Vilsack issued to announce his departure from the DLC, for example, made special mention of how he'd helped forge "a successful working relationship with organized labor leaders on mutually beneficial issues for the first time." And while DLC policy guru Marshall Wittman was deriding the "the activist left out of sync with the American public" on Iraq, Vilsack was using his waning hours as governor to urge the Iowa Legislature to pass a resolution decrying the Bush-Lieberman-McCain escalation plan.

..."Where Ford may find trouble connecting is with two people who are now among the nation's most powerful Democrats, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean. He sought the job of one, was touted as a replacement for the other, and is an ideological peer of neither.

When I think of Vilsack's stepping down, taking his friendlier attitude toward the grassroots with him...it worries me. There have been other recent warmings to the "activists". I think more may be coming under the apparent new leadership.

[ieoeja]

79. Taking DLC at their word...

... that they really do want to move America forward then their split with traditional Democrats is on election strategy.

DLC Theory: the guy with the most money wins.
Reality: Terry McAuliffe, staunch DLCer, gave a speech as outgoing Chair of the DNC bragging about the victory in 2004. For the first time in decades the DNC raised more money than the RNC. We lost the presidency as well as seats in both houses of congress. But we raised more money and that is how Terry defined success.

DLC Theory: if we win elections by moving to the Center/Right, we can then move America forward.
Reality: there is no end to this cycle. You have to move Center/Right to win. Once in power you must then govern Center/Right to win next election. After that election you must continue again move Center/Right to win the next. And so on.

This is especially true when you are continually helping to promote the Center/Right position. Here on DU you see a bunch of nobodies (that would be you and I) attacking DLC Democrats constantly. But you don't see non-DLC Democrats in the news attacking the DLC. Conversely, DLC Democrats frequently use the strategy of "separating themselves from the fringe" by attacking traditional Democrats in order to bolster their Center/Right creds. It is a lot easier for Republicans to frame traditional Democrats as being out of the mainstream when you have a huge force within the Democratic Party making the exact same claim.

The above is, as I say, written on the assumption that they really DO want to see the Democratic Party succeed. Shortly after Clinton's election, an Australian version of the DLC was founded and went on to short term electoral success. It was eventually discovered that the Australian DLC was actually founded by members of the Conservative Party in an effort to undermine the Liberal Party. I seriously wonder if the DLC was founded in the same manner. Not that most DLCers have that as their goal. Most DLCers just may be useful idiots for the original founders.

[wyldwolf]

82. You say "taking the DLC at their word" but don't produce a single quote

[Catchawave]

80. Meh. They're not Republicans

I have no problems, as a centrist Dem that is. :toast:

[Madspirit]

83. Wikipedia says..

This is from Wikipedia: (There is more, including the history, at: Wikipedia.com.) I had not heard of the DLC until this thread. If you go read the rest at Wikipedia, it also says they STRONGLY supported this war....Madspirit

Wikipedia.com:

The Democratic Leadership Council is a non-profit corporation<1> that argues that the United States Democratic Party should shift away from traditionally populist positions. Moderate and conservative Democratic party leaders founded the DLC in response to the landslide victory of Republican candidate Ronald Reagan over Democratic candidate Walter Mondale during the 1984 Presidential election. The founders believed the United States Democratic Party needed to shift to the right of center to remain viable during the Reagan era. The DLC hails President Clinton as proof of the viability of third way politicians and as a DLC success story. Critics contend that the DLC is effectively a powerful, corporate-financed mouthpiece within the Democratic party that acts to keep Democratic Party candidates and platforms sympathetic to corporate interests and the interests of the wealthy.

The DLC's affiliated think tank is the Progressive Policy Institute. Democrats who adhere to the DLC's philosophy often call themselves New Democrats.

The DLC's current chairman is Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa, and its vice chair is Senator Thomas R. Carper of Delaware. Its CEO is Al From and its president is Bruce Reed.