You've got to read that to believe it (DLC blogger claims Clinton is anti-establishment)

[Mass]

I have a great respect for Ed Kilgore, but you have to read that to believe it.

http://newdonkey.blogspot.com/2007/01/netroots-and-clintonism.html

The Netroots and Clintonism
The discussion at TPMCafe on the netroots took a strange turn yesterday, when Scott Winship of Democratic Strategist, a rare post-Clintonian self-described New Democrat, did a post that immediately got demonized and dismissed in a way that failed to come to grips with what he was trying to say.

Best I could tell, Scott was suggesting that Netroots Progressives had bought into a revisionist take on Clintonism that was, well, inaccurate and strategically misleading. But partly because Scott plunged into a discussion that had earlier been skewed by Max Sawicky's blunt argument that the Internet Left was ignorant and ideologically empty, he got definitively bashed, not just at TPMCafe, but over at MyDD, by Chris Bowers, for suggesting that Netroots Lefties didn't know their history.

But in skewering Scott for his alleged disrespecting of netroots intelligence and knowledge, Chris and others didn't come to grips with Scott's underlying argument about the anti-Clinton worldview of the Netroots Left. And that's a shame.

There's little question that many if not most Left Netroots folk buy into the some variation on the following take on the Clinton legacy:
...

Throughout and beyond the Clinton years, there persisted an enduring hostility to Clintonism in the establishment DC Democratic Party. It was evident in congressional (especially in the House) Democratic opposition to many of Clinton's signature initiatives; it got traction in Al Gore's rejection of Clintonism and everyone connected with it in his 2000 campaign; and reached fruition in 2002, when Democrats went forward with the anti-Clinton, Bob Shrum-driven message that we were "fighting" for prescription drug benefits at a time when the country was absorbed with national security concerns.

Indeed, the primacy of Shrum--the only major Democratic strategist with no involvement in either of Clinton's' campaigns--in the 2000, 2002, and 2004 Democratic campaigns, is a good example of how the hated DC Democratic Establishment hasn't been Clintonian for a good while.
...

Yes, the DLC is claiming that the Clinton were opposed by the establisment and that the following campaign (except 2006, I guess) have nothing to do with Clinton.

[wisteria]

1. A big LOL! What nonsense. This must be a new inroads tactic to

gain sympathy and acceptance of the Clintonians. Shrum? Baloney. The problem is there is too much Clintonian control, we don't need more, we need a hell of a lot less! I don't know whether to laugh or get raging angry at the very suggestion.

[sandnsea]

2. o-kaaay

:crazy:

I'm literally speechless.

[ProSense]

3. Pathetic, but hilarious!

What about Big-mouth Begala, Chuckie Carville and Terribly McAwful?

[karynnj]

4. The Senate sure seems to give a lot of power to the DLC