DLC president/candidate

[sabbat hunter]

I know people here are rallying against anybody who has anything to do with the DLC, but wasnt Bill Clinton from the DLC and in fact a founding member of the DLC?

Does anyone here think Bill Clinton did a bad job as president? we had about 8 years of prosperity, budget surpluses, peace, friends around the world, broad minded judges/justices nominated to courts.

[Phredicles]

1. Not bad; could have been much better:

NAFTA, Welfare "reform", the Corporate Media Money-Grab Act, a.k.a. telecommunications bill, eight years of triangulation and compromise with a ruthless adversary...

[sabbat hunter]

4. welfare reforms actually worked

part of the reforms was to help people get off welfare by finding jobs. and it has worked. prior there was no incentive to get off welfare, nor any training to learn new skills or job hunting assistance.

i would say that bill clinton was 80% good 20% bad. bush has been 90% bad and 10% good. we can find SOMETHING he did right cant we? one small thing? eh maybe not

but still Bill Clinton was mostly good, I would have voted him for a third term if he was eligible and he ran.

[Phredicles]

6. I'm skeptical about welfare reform working,

but part of the problem is that it's pretty hard to find trustworthy figures about anything having to do with the economy these days. But my understading is that it's created more working poor.

Clinton = 80% good, Monkeyboy 10% good - both are about 25-30% too generous, in my opinion.

[davidwparker]

2. don't forget acceleration of outsourcing, allowing further media

consolidation. I'll pass on the Clintons. thanks anyway.

[MGKrebs]

3. Paging blm!

:evilgrin:

[SaveElmer]

5. Time for the daily BM...nt

[draft_mario_cuomo]

7. People are too focused on the "DLC" label and not what it stands for

There are many progressives who are supporting a candidate who doesn't have the "DLC" label but whose outlook is essentially DLC. In some areas he seems to go even further than the DLC. The DLC, under Clinton, at least fought the repukes. This candidate seems to have a fetish for working with the repukes, though. In fact, this is one of the central themes of his campaign, although he markets it in a way that is more appealing to primary voters...

[SoxFan]

8. DMC Slimes Again

Another thread, another slime job by Draft Mario Cuomo.

We all know you don't like Obama. Who is your candidate? John Edwards? The guy who'se position papers were written by DLC president Bruce Reed in 2003-04?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

14. What parts of post #7 do you disagree with?

[William769]

17. Well when you have a candidate covered in slime

What is he suppose to use?

I'm not sure who he is supporting, but I will say this John Edwards is poised to Kick Obamas ass!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

23. They fail to understand what concessions to the repukes his fetish for "unity" will require

It isn't surprising he never spells out how exactly he will achieve this... He knows the only way to attempt to achieve "unity" (which, by definition, requires a consensus that includes the repukes) is through bipartisanship--and that will require making concessions to the repukes in exchange for a watered-down, Third Way governing agenda. The notion that Obama is going to govern as a progressive is absurd if we are to believe his primary theme of "unity."

[William769]

24. His primary theme of "unity."

Was thrown out with the bath water. But the scum was left around the tub.

[Phredicles]

10. "The DLC, under Clinton, at least fought the repukes."

Boy that is sure NOT the way I remember it. When it came to their personal selves, sure, but as for their constituents, it was one sell-out after another.

[William769]

15. You better have your memory checked. NT

[draft_mario_cuomo]

16. Clinton successfully rolled back the "Republican revolution" in 1994

Clinton was too Third Way (oops...is this "slime"? Oh. It is about a Clinton so it is ok. Whew!) for my tastes but he did have his strong points. One of them was rising like a phoenix after 1994 to defeat the Republican agenda.

[ripple]

37. And Hillary doesn't work with the republicans?

Her ability to compromise and work with republicans is exactly why she received so much praise about how she conducted herself during her first Senate term. Not that there is anything wrong with that in and of itself (it depends on the issue at hand), but it might be instructive for you to be aware of that. Hell, she even began joining in on Brownback's Wednesday prayer meetings.

Obama has worked with some republicans on causes that most progressives should embrace, like ending the genocide in Darfur and ethics and lobbying reform. I see that as something to be commended, rather than scorned.

Perhaps you should consider promoting your own candidate (you know, the guy that co-sponsored the IWR)for a change, rather than constantly trying to paint Obama as something he is not.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

39. There is a difference between occasionally doing so and constantly doing so

Obama's central theme is "unity." That requires across-the-board cooperation. He can't afford to pick a fight on any significant issue without shattering his "unity" coalition. HRC, and others, will work with Republicans on an ad hoc basis, not on issue after issue because of a fetish for "unity."

Obama simply cannot govern as a progressive and work to achieve "unity." That is as disingenuous and absurd as Reagan (someone who Obama agrees with on some fundamental critiques of progressives, you know, "Old Democrats"...Reagan’s message “spoke to the failure of liberal government,” government at every level had become “too cavalier about spending taxpayer money.... A lot of liberal rhetoric did seem to value rights and entitlements over duties and responsibilities.... Reagan offered Americans a sense of common purpose that liberals seemed no longer able to muster,”) saying he would cut taxes, increase defense spending, while simultaneously balancing the budget.

[ripple]

40. LOL!!!! How occasional was Hillary's first term in the Senate? n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

41. Did the Clinton's sell out to Gingrich because of a fetish for "unity"? nt

[ripple]

52. DOMA, Don't Ask Don't Tell ring a bell?

After all, they embody such progressive values. :puke:

[truedelphi]

9. He also brought us NAFTA, the war in Kosovo, with

Its Depleted Uranium, the Federal Communications Act of 1996 (if you don't like the media consolidation of today - look no farther than Bill)

Those of us who were against pesticides and genetically modified foods/seeds still had an upwards battle -- as let's face it, Bill wore a hugely corporate face.

The health Insurance Plan as envisioned by Bill and Hillary was NOT a single payer Universal style health care system, but the same sort of "We have to fill the troughs of the Corporate Insurance Execs before we do anything else" style of health insurance. So it would have been prohibitively expensive. (Hillary herself said in an interview "The average American working family that has an income of $ 24,000 would only be paying $ 4,000 toward stheir health care if this legislation goes through. Where some family of four living on $ 24 K would get that $ 4 K, I have no idea. But Hillary did not seem to realize that her statement was out of touch.)

[SoxFan]

11. US intervention was justified

The US interventions in Kosovo and Bosnia saved the lives of thousands of innocent people. Milosevic and his allies were genocidal thugs, and Clinton was absolutely right in his decision to use American military power to put a stop to the bloodshed.

[MGKrebs]

18. Not only that, it was NATO, not just the US.

It really was a coalition, and therefore had some international legitimacy.

[truedelphi]

28. Perhaps the military aspect of it - but the Depleted Uranium

Aspect means that the same people that we "saved" will bear a generational burden
of cancer and birth defects.

Plus in Bill allowing this weapon to be used, it is now impacting our troops and the people we are 'saving" in Iraq.

DU = a Pandora's box of problems, all of which with Bill's blessing, have become an established part of our miltary might. (BTW there is now enough of that stuff in the atmosphere above the heads of every creature on earth that we are all breathing it right now.)

[GeorgeGist]

12. Yes...

[Hart2008]

13. You are judging Bill Clinton between two Bush bookends!

Almost anyone looks better compared to Junior Shrub.

Try comparing him to someone who wouldn't have sold out the party to corporate interests and who would have prosecuted GWH Bush for Iran-Contra.

If that had been done, we never would have got Junior.

[sabbat hunter]

22. unfortunately

there was nothing that came out of the iran-contra hearings that would have enabled a prosecutor to get a grand jury indictment against bush I.

remember this is the law we are talking about you need solid proof, not rumors, hearsay, etc to get a true case. not even circumstantial evidence of bush being involved with iran-contra exists. hells considering that alzheimers was probably starting to grip him even then i would be surprised if Reagan knew what was going on, never mind his VP.

[Hart2008]

25. Reagan never pardoned anyone for Iran Contra. Bush did.

Right, Reagan didn't know what was happening, but if Bush was truly "out of the loop" as he said, then why was he dishing out pardons?

Bush sabotaged the prosecutions through the pardons of people who could implicate him.

Reagan didn't know about Iran-contra, but Bush most certainly did, and history will judge him accordingly.

[sabbat hunter]

36. if he pardoned them

they could then testify against him without fear of prosecution for their actions. if it was felt that they had information against bush, they could have been called to testify against him. if he felt that they had something to use agaisnt him, he could have let them take the fall, go to jail.


presidents issue pardons all the time for various reasons. usually a pardon is for "crimes they may or may not have committed" and are fairly general. Clinton issued a number of these as well.

[Hart2008]

38. No Bush DID pardon them. No IF. Why would they volunteer to trash themselves?

What benefit would they have for testifying against Bush?
They would ruin their careers!

They may very well have been paid or rewarded for their silence, and they may very well have feared for their safety had they gone public against Bush.

Iran-Contra also had connections in Arkansas.

You assume Clinton wanted to prosecute anyone for anything regarding Iran-Contra.

He clearly didn't.

[sabbat hunter]

55. are you implying

that clinton was involved with iran-contra?

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. That just proves that a bad democrat is better than any republican.

He had some successes, but welfare reform, NAFTA, health care reform, Don't Ask/Don't Tell were NOT among them.

The welfare reform pushed people into jobs with no benefits at the same time that it removed them from medicare/medicaid, and increased the numbers of homeless. NAFTA did not hold to the promised side agreements that would have prevented outsourcing American jobs to countries that went cheap on wages and environmental protections so US companies could not compete, incidentally increasing the homeless population. Don't Ask/Don't Tell was supposed to prevent the military from actively trying to root out gays, but did nothing to prevent civil rights abuses of gays while turning a blind eye to the deliberate outing of gay service members. And, as other posters have mentioned, the health-care reform deservedly went down in flames because it catered to the insurance industry, not to patients. The ranks of the uninsured continued to grow, while uncounted numbers of americans were forced into bankruptcy by the insurance-sponsored health care system, also contributing to the homeless situation.

[sabbat hunter]

20. dont ask dont tell

was a step in the right direction. Bill Clinton's administration tossed around the idea of allowing openly gay personnel in the military, but in the end compromised with the dont ask/dont tell policy.


if the former welfare people got jobs that didnt give benefits they were/still are eligible for medicaid for workers. (medicare is for retired adults)

the number of homeless people (at least here in NYC) went down significantly under bill clinton as well. (the economy doing better, more/better paying jobs a big reason for that)

[RaleighNCDUer]

35. Re: welfare, that is not correct.

(btw, thanks for clarifying medicare/medicaid - for some reason I can never remember which is which so I tend to list both, knowing they are very different programs).

Many, many people wound up with jobs with no benefits, but who made too much to be eligible for medicaid. Sure, they could buy their own health and dental insurance for several hundred a month - not easy to do when your take-home is $900,00. About the only thing they did NOT get cut off was WIC, and that was reduced. Section 8, food stamps, medicaid all went away with a minimum wage, no benefits job - at least out in the flyover states. Maybe it was different in the blue states.

As for DA/DT, if it was a genuine effort it was hopelessly naive - a fellow serviceman was not supposed to be able to ask if someone was gay, and as long as the gay serviceman said nothing to his buddies he was supposed to be safe. But that didn't stop a commander from having the CID watch gay bars to see if any of their men dropped by. Aggressive investigation was supposed to be forbidden, but no officer was EVER disciplined for trying to root out gays in his command. Clinton supported gay rights in the military in the campaign, but once in office all he came up with was DA/DT, which was instantly recognised as being toothless.

Don't get me wrong - I like the Big Dawg and voted for him twice, would have again if given the chance, but I would like to see a real progressive at the reins, someone who is as good a fighter as Clinton was a compromiser.

[sabbat hunter]

50. dont ask dont tell

lets not forget that bill clinton needed congressional approval for dont ask dont tell. it was a compromise. it wasnt perfect but then no compromise is.

[Capn Sunshine]

21. Yeah but that was THEN

The unique confluence of events and economy that elected Bill Clinton cannot be duplicated just by wishing it so. The DLC still thinks we need to appeal to this mysterious middle voter by watering down the message. The result is an appearance of weakness in the face of Republicans that loses election after election.

The harsh reality of the DLC's pandering to corporations who profit off the misbegotten Iraq occupation is something to consider; that was not the original goal of Clinton's DLC. I was a member then.

The DLC's decision to take money from Olin and Coors, two notorious rightwing foundations, was not in keeping with the Clinton era.

And the DLC's Hillary Clinton's coziness and funding from Rupert Murdoch is something we could never have imagined.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

26. How is Obama's platform different than HRC's, who is the poster child of the DLC?

The only significant difference between the two is HRC says she will support universal health care while Obama favors a DLC Third Way type health care plan that will leave--even under the rosiest scenario--15 million Americans uninsured.

==The DLC still thinks we need to appeal to this mysterious middle voter by watering down the message.==

Obama takes it a step further. He thinks we need to go beyond appealing to the middle and appeal to Republicans. How else can you achieve "unity"? If you thought Clinton's Third Way was bad, Obama will have Third Way on steroids due to his fetish (assuming it is not just a political ploy straight out of the Rove playbook...) for "unity."

Speaking of the Third Way and appealing to the middle, read Obama's praise for Clinton's Third Way governance on pg. 34 of his book...

[Capn Sunshine]

30. Obama's not the issue.

The DLC is slavering over Hillary, and does not support Obama. Period. Obama had to specifically request in writing that his name be removed from the DLC's "list of supporters".

Getting the republicans up for grabs as Howard Dean has talked about for years now, is NOT about triangulation. It's about the progressive values espoused by the base actually being in line with the best interests of these folks.

But None of you understand that because of your lack of outside the beltway experience.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

34. He is as much an issue as HRC and the DLC. He is a Third Way Trojan Horse

==The DLC is slavering over Hillary, and does not support Obama. Period. Obama had to specifically request in writing that his name be removed from the DLC's "list of supporters".==

We know the DLC loves HRC. That makes it all the more telling that Obama's platform is essentially the same as HRC's--and far less progressive on the primary domestic issue in this election.

==Getting the republicans up for grabs as Howard Dean has talked about for years now, is NOT about triangulation. It's about the progressive values espoused by the base actually being in line with the best interests of these folks.==

What Dean has spoken of and what Obama is running on are two different things. Dean was not afraid to state where the Republicans were wrong. He was very critical of them. While attacking the Republicans he would also try to win repuke and independent support by arguing that it was in their interest to support Democrats. Obama, on the other hand, is running on the theme of "unity." Let's think about what that requires. That requires working with repukes in Congress. That requires consensus. That requires abandoning progressive values to achieve the necessary consensus. "Unity" also requires playing nice with the repukes, for you cannot caustically attack them on Monday and then show up on Tuesday and try to create a consensus with the same people. This is all a stark contrast to what a President Dean would do.

[Capn Sunshine]

44. So you're saying Obama doesn't criticize the republicans?

what a specious load of nonsense. Trojan horse lol. Compared to whom?

[ShortnFiery]

61. Hint: HRC's image is plastered all over the DLC website. n/t

[William769]

27. When was the last time we had a progressive in the White House?

Thats what I thought.

[Capn Sunshine]

31. Your lack of comprehension of this issue will lose the election

That's what I know.

You think Clinton was elected with the support of the progressives?
You think LBJ was?
You think Kennedy Was?

That's what I thought.

[William769]

32. Ok so don't answer the question.

[Capn Sunshine]

42. straw man is not the issue

continually flailing away at this point serves what exactly?

IMO I'd say Lyndon Johnson, unless you view the largest antipoverty program in history and the Federal enforcement of Civil rights laws the province of Corporate thinking.

By artificially framing things in this way you remove the progressive nature of middle American republicans from your construct.

Oh wait, that's what you're trying to do, isn't it?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

43. "progressive nature of middle American republicans"

What? I hope Obama himself doesn't believe this. How can we defeat the other side if we don't understand them?

[Capn Sunshine]

45. talked to any lately?

Been to Iowa, Kansas, Idaho, Michigan or other farming areas in California? I have. Recently. If you don't think rural republicans are progressive , you have a shitload of baggage.

But that's not surprising seeing who you're backing.

[ulysses]

33. when was the last time we had a president who at least did progressive things

in office?

Hell, I'd be happy with LBJ.

[ulysses]

29. certainly wasn't the worst president,

and was fine in ways. On the other hand, after 12 years of Reagan/Bush pere, I had in mind taking back some of the ground we'd lost instead of giving them more, just more slowly.

[flpoljunkie]

46. Clinton's Monica daliance and impeachment made Gore's quest for the presidency more difficult.

[Capn Sunshine]

47. Absolutely. Now, the same folks who ran Gore's campaign are working for Hillary

does not bode well to me.

[flpoljunkie]

48. Hillary's pollster Mark Penn wrote this for the DLC, blaming Gore for losing the race in 2000...

Mark Penn was brought to the White House to work for the Clinton's by Dick Morris. Penn also worked on Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign, and is, of course, her chief pollster now. Evidently, Penn did not work for Gore.

His wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Penn

DLC | Poll | January 21, 2001

Turning A Win Into a Draw
By Mark J. Penn

In a time of unprecedented peace and prosperity, the 2000 presidential election was Al Gore's to lose. As the sitting vice president, Gore should have won by 55 percent to 45 percent in the view of many political observers. Yet the election was decided by fewer than 1,000 votes in Florida. Nationally, each candidate won 48 percent of the vote. How did this happen? That's the question we set out to answer in a poll conducted by Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates on November 11-12, 2000. We interviewed 1,200 Americans who voted in the presidential election.

The highlights of the survey include:

While Al Gore won on the individual issues of the campaign, he lost on the broader meta-themes of the election. George W. Bush's central messages of smaller government and of changing the tone in Washington were able to overcome his deficiency on the issues and position him closer to the center, at least rhetorically. The vice president failed to build on President Clinton's winning formula of fiscal responsibility and support for a smaller, activist government. Consequently, Gore was vulnerable to attacks as an old-style, big-government liberal like Michael Dukakis -- the very image that brought down Dukakis in his 1988 race against Bush's father.

Instead of running as a New Economy Democrat, Al Gore used an old-style populism that reduced his appeal rather than expanded it. The message prevented him from reaching the swing voters who could have pushed him over the top. Gore narrowly won the popular vote with this message by piling up large wins in states like California, where extra votes fail to count. But the message sent him tumbling backward in key border states, in his home state and, finally, in the electoral college. Liberal positions on social issues along with populism and big government positions took what could have been a substantial win and turned it into a draw. Had Gore combined his positions of conscience on social issues with a new vision of the role of government, he would have carried a larger percentage of upwardly mobile, socially tolerant suburban men that would have helped him win.

While the vice president realized he had to reach the 1996 targets of soccer moms, he missed the new target of the 21st century -- the wired workers. The last group of voters Al Gore could have reached were the those who finally chose Bush in the campaign's final month -- primarily middle class, white suburban males, many of whom had voted for Clinton in the past. While Gore did well with better-educated, higher-income, pro-choice white women, he performed poorly among upscale white men -- 20 percent of the electorate. In our poll, they voted against him by 29 percent to 57 percent. They were attracted to Bush's message of smaller government and greater economic freedom; they were turned off by populism. In the next election, Democrats need to own the New Economy and the new bargain for success that these workers seek. This new bargain includes proposals like pension portability and health care portability.

Only sporadically did Al Gore talk about progress, prosperity, and the Clinton administration's achievements on the economy. This message could have been GoreUs greatest asset, but he resisted it. Though he stood atop one of the greatest Democratic achievements since Franklin Roosevelt -- an economic boom, a balanced budget, government surpluses -- he failed to use it effectively. Fully 34 percent of those voting for Gore said progress and prosperity was the top reason they voted for him; but 41 percent of Bush supporters named a smaller, better government as their top reason for choosing their candidate. If Gore had used progress and prosperity consistently rather than sporadically, he would have achieved far greater clarity with voters and would have won more of those voters who said things were moving "on the right track." Gore won about 60 percent of "right track" voters. In 1996, Clinton won 69 percent of "right track" voters -- a 9 percent difference that would easily have given Gore the election.

Both candidates failed to occupy the decisive center of the American electorate. This is not surprising given the failure of either candidate to break 50 percent. Voters see Gore as substantially left of center and Bush as right of center. By running as a social and big government liberal, Gore was perceived as being to the left of the Democratic Party. In contrast, Bush was viewed as being more to the center than the Republican Party; that was perhaps the single most important element of his success.

Now the tables are turned, and it is Bush who must reach out to Gore's voters to build a new coalition of support or he will fail in governing. Bush must now put together a coalition greater than the 48 percent he received. The voters Bush needs to reach are the DLC Democrats -- concerned about the size of government, but firmly committed to progress on major issues like health care, education, family, and crime. They want government that will give people the tools they need to succeed in the 21st century. They are looking for a president and Congress that will continue the job started by President Clinton.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=269&contentid=2922

[Gloria]

49. Billary and the DLC have mutated....they are now elite wheeler-

dealers and hobnob well with Bushco.

[AtomicKitten]

56. how heart-warming to read the RW epithet "Biliary" here at DU

:sarcasm:

[Generator]

51. Yes the Bush/Republican menace

just came out of NOWHERE. It had NOTHING do to with anything the sainted Clinton did. This idea that history has nothing to do with anything before it just points out the endless stupidity of Americans.

NAFTA. Welfare reform. Constant triangulation and capitulation on EVERY fucking thing to the Republicans. There is a reason real progressives voted for the dude once. Once was ENOUGH. And every nightmare about NAFTA is reality. That ALONE was the end of the working lower middle class. Thank your sainted Clinton for that! Oh those were the happy days true, BEFORE Clinton started the long long road of the "opposition" party giving the evil menace everything it wants.

[mitchum]

53. Fuck Bill Clinton and his Third Way water carrying...just fuck him

[eridani]

54. Media consolidation, doubling of our prison population,

--declining share of income for people who actually work, welfare "reform", NAFTA, continued destruction of our manufacuring capability. Sure, he blocked some of the worst Repub initiatives, but I want better if I can get it.

[Totally Committed]

57. The DLC is POISON to this Party...

A cancer that needs to be cut out of our body politic. But, you all know how I feel about that, so I'll move on.

Was Bill Clinton a good President:

We've got to stop kidding ourselves about Clinton
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Totally%20Committed/29

From Welfare To Poverty: In Direct Rebuttal to President Clinton's NYT Op-Ed
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Totally%20Committed/9


TC

[derby378]

58. You forget that Clinton handed Congress to the Repukes in 1994...

To do that, he had to leave the door wide open for the neo-cons and the Religious Reich.

[AtomicKitten]

59. the vitriol expressed in this thread is misleading

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3322740&mesg_id=3322740

[ShortnFiery]

60. Yes, he passed NAFTA and Welfare Reform - the economy was good then - he looked good.

No, if it wasn't for my better half, I would have wrote in another democrat in 1996. Bill Clinton served during an excellent economic cycle. I know ... I know that you'll say that's a right wing talking point - but it is also A FACT.

NOW, although the stock market is up, MIDDLE CLASS Americans are slipping into increasing debt.

No, the DLC equates to "Corporations first and foremost: Scraps for the Workers."

To be honest, Bill Clinton was always "too smooth" for me. However, hell, the economy was good - what was I to complain? :shrug:

But didn't their daughter, Chelsea, go into the Peace Corps caring on the great Clinton tradition of service to others? Oh wait! :P