Indictment of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).

[illinoisprogressive]

Hillary Clinton's enabling of the Iraq war disaster, and her subsequent refusal to apologize for it, has by far been the left's biggest gripe the presidential candidate, and understandably so. Her role in enabling this painfully misguided war is a stain on her record, and on this country.

But her view on Iraq, however unforgivable, only represents part of the reason why progressives should oppose a Clinton candidacy with vigor. And even if she were to get down on her knees, admit her foreign policy follies, and beg us to accept her apology for the infamous 2002 vote to authorize Bush to go to war, it would be a huge mistake for the left to support her candidacy.


The other reason? It's her affiliation with the Democratic Leadership Council, stupid!

The DLC--best known for its sketchy alliance with big-business, its McCartyite attacks on the anti-war left, its loving admiration for Joe Lieberman, and its hawkish stances on foreign policy--has been trying to take the liberalism out of the Democratic Party for more than two decades now, and in many ways has succeeded.

It was when the DLC was at it its most influential that Bill Clinton began his "era of big government is over" campaign, and passed historical cuts to welfare. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, which has led to a drastic increase in media consolidation, was also another unfortunate byproduct of the DLC president's capitulations.

The group has founder has made a habit out of attacking anti-war candidates, as seen in 2003 when founder Al From along with Bruce Reed, attacked the Howard Dean campaign, saying it was from the "McGovern/Mondale wing" of the Democratic Party "defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest group elitism at home." When Ned Lamont was running against Lieberman in the Connecticut primary, the DLC lamented what they called return of "liberal fundamentalism."

In short, the main reasons why Democrats were elected in November--sharp condemnation of the war, and a push against our neoliberal trade policies--are dismissed by the DLC as losing issues that ought to be permanently abandoned by the Democratic Party. Their reaction to the 2006 midterm was to declare victory for the vital center (pointing largely to Lieberman's victory, which resorted to taking a de-facto endorsement from the RNC) and urging Democrats to, among other things, "exercise self-restraint in promoting new public-sector activism."

And Now that Tom Vilsack, who chaired the DLC from 2005-2007, is out of the race, there is simply no doubt that Clinton is the DLC candidate.

Her picture rotates among the top of their web site where she is prominently touted as a member of their "leadership team," along with From and new DLC Chair Harold Ford, who disgracefully voted for the Military Commissions Act, which effectively legitimized torture and killed habeas corpus.

To be sure, Clinton has worn the DLC hat well. On top of her support for the war in Iraq, she has supported free trade agreements like NAFTA; voted for the Patriot Act--twice; given speeches at AIPAC events with aggressive rhetoric on Iran; cosponsored flag burning legislation and said she would support torture in the case of an "imminent threat to millions of Americans."

Contrarily, other Democrats who could serve as possible alternatives to Clinton as a nominee have been running away from the DLC. John Edwards, once closely affiliated with the group has taken a decidedly more populist tone on the budget, trade and Iraq. Al Gore, a founding member of the DLC, has been straying from them ever since he made his 2000 convention speech. He advocated for a single-payer health care in 2002, endorsed Dean in 2003, and gave unambiguously strong critiques of Bush's war long before it became politically fashionable to do so. In 2003 Barack Obama, upon learning that the DLC listed him as one of "100 New Democrats to Watch," promptly asked for his name to be removed.

Cleary Democrats are running away from the DLC, if not due to personal opposition to its policies, than at least due to an understanding that its platform is no longer palatable to winning elections.

Moreover, the Bush nightmare has enlivened a spirit of change in this country, a small hint of which was seen in the 2006 election where a new Democratic majority was won largely on populist, anti-war platforms. Consider Sen. Jim Webb's response to Bush's State of the Union which, contrary to the DLC line, spoke of only two things: income inequality, and leaving Iraq. This momentum could provide a chance for the party to break free from what has been an Iron grip of triangulation.

A Clinton presidency, however, would be a huge blow to such an effort, and a huge boost to the DLC. If triumphant in 2008, they would be able to claim that they--not the netroots, union workers, or its political base--have been behind the only two Democratic presidents since 1976. Surely, they point to this as evidence that and that a run-to-the right electoral strategy is indeed the only path to success and continue the Party down the road that has already failed them once before.

For too long now the Democratic Party has been woeful in representing working class Americans, weak and compliant in the face of Republican power, and a chief enabler the grossly misguided and amoral invasion of Iraq and the loss of liberty that has come with it.

Clinton, and her DLC brethren are not part of the solution--but rather, part of the problem.

[MannyGoldstein]

You Are a Republican That Hates Powerful Women

:sarcasm:

[LaPera]

171. K&R

[MannyGoldstein]

1. You Are a Republican That Hates Powerful Women

:sarcasm:

[Breeze54]

12. You can say that again!

:rofl:

[PhilipShore]

2. If I had known Bill Clinton was DLC --- I would of never voted for him twice --n/t

[Gman]

5. Did you even know anything about the of the DLC in 1992 and 6?

Funny, no one had a gripe with the DLC back then.

[Gloria]

7. Weren't the terms "Third Way" and "New Democrat" being used

at the time?

Oh, I had a gripe....the welfare "reform" package.

[salin]

9. was about to post the same... between 84 and 87/88

the language was about "new democrats" - fiscally pragmatic but socially liberal - and the figure head of the term was equated with Gary Hart. This morphed into the DLC - which seems to be far more conservative than the ideas espoused by Hart and those who called themselves (at least in DC - where I lived/worked in the mid-eighties) as "new democrats". While I am not sure that in reality the 'new democrats' morphed into the dlc (as in - if it was the same people) but the impression to those only lightly following national politics during non election years - the DLC was an outgrowth (or a 'formalization' of the views) of the "new democrats". But over the years there is very little resemblence between the Hart years (up to the Donna Rice scandal tanked his career) "new democrats" and the DLC. But initially as the DLC thrived they were perceived by many as the outgrowth of the earlier movement. I thnk that mental association between the two groups/movements gave early "legitimacy" to the DLC.

[Gman]

18. {wiping away the cobwebs...}

The New Democrats: Man, I'd have to make a couple of phone calls to jog the memory here. I know they were an emerging coalition but I forget where they came from. You mention Gary Hart and I'm sure the New Democrats first came about in '84, but I'm thinking they emerged out of the Jesse Jackson campaign in '84, or am I thinking of another group (not the Rainbow Coalition) that came out of the JJ campaign. I just know there were a lot of people walking around calling theirselves "New Democrats".

I first became aware of the DLC around '87. They were having local meetings in upscale lunch places and recruiting members of the business community. The whole idea was to push the party back toward the middle as a way to try to bring back the Reagan Democrats as well as increase the fundraising base. I never went to a meeting, although I was invited a couple of times.

[salin]

30. maybe "Operation Push"?

that was tied to JJ - but I think it was more an effort in Chicago to serve folks than a political movement.

I associate the New Democrats term with Hart who I was very enthusiastic about as a college student during his first run.

As part of the young crowd in and around the hill in the mid-eighties - the term ND was claimed by many. I think another off-shoot from that term (often self-claimed more than an official group) was the "Blue Dog" democrats - who glombed onto the principles of Grahm-Rudman (the idea was to make all new proposed spending - budget neutral - but the automatic mechanisms to do so were deemed unconstitutional as the 'cuts' and 'decisions' would be automatic rather than be voted upon by congress and, thus, iirc, taking the 'power of the purse' away from congress.)

I left DC in mid/late 1987 - had not been aware of the DLC at the time - so the 'starting up' around that time makes sense to me.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. The "New Democrats" had NOTHING to do with Jesse Jackson's campaign

except to oppose it.

People who voted for Jackson in the primaries (as I did in 1988) were the ones who were sick and tired of the Democrats rolling over and playing dead for Reagan and the military-industrial complex.

[Gman]

85. I'm thinking of the original Progressive Democrats from the 1984

Jackson campaign, not the new Democrats. I think Salin's correct that the New Democrats did form out of the Gary Hart campaign.

I didn't think New Democrats sounded right for the '84 Jackson supporters, but I wasn't sure.

[wyldwolf]

87. you're correct about Gary Hart

Hart was in on most of the early New Democrat organizational meetings.

[Gman]

210. As a side note...

we met with Gary Hart in the fall of '83. However, being members of organized labor at the time, our hands were tied because we knew the national AFL-CIO was about to endorse Mondale. We were pissed, but supported Mondale like good soldiers. Damn Lane Kirkland.

Labor pissed off a lot of members in '84 and said they'd never do that again. Haven't since.

[salin]

215. some days I feel like I can't remember five minutes ago

*work is exceptionally hectic* - glad to know that my long-term memory is still going strong (per Hart and the New Democrats, and that the impression that this was a precursor to the DLC.

[PhilipShore]

15. No, no idea

I would just watch the MSM media at the time, and I never heard any anti-liberal campaign speeches, so I just assumed he was like any traditional Democrat -- not liberal in philosophy -- but then again not intolerant of liberal Democrats, the way it has always been in the Democratic Party.

I don't know what the cause is? Rush Limbaugh types, causing some in the party to panic about elections, if so fine - the politicians should say their concerns to liberals like me - then modify your message a bit. I don't care if the DLC could of been a sort of Democratic psyops political operation, but then again I am just conjecturing, if in fact it ever was envisioned as that.

[greendog]

25. No one had a gripe?

In both '92 and '96 Perot ran against the trade policies supported by both DLC Democrats and Republicans. A lot of people agreed with him.

Nader first ran in '96.

By November of '99 more than 40,000 people were in the streets of Seattle to protest the WTO (a DLC favorite).

[Gman]

29. Name just one instance in which

Perot specifically mentioned the DLC.

[greendog]

35. Why?

And why would Perot mention, what was then, a fairly obscure organization?

If a bad smell is drifting through your kitchen window you don't have to name it to know that it stinks. From that point, it's a fairly easy matter to follow your nose down the street to the source of the smell. Then you name it.

Perot mentioned Trade quite often. "Giant Sucking Sound" ring any bells?

By this point, everyone who pays attention to these things associates the DLC with the disastrous trade policies that were enthusiastically supported by the Clinton administration and the DLC members of congress.

Once it became obvious that that these folks were organized to WORK AGAINST US and once it became obvious that the DLC was responsible for third party defections leading to significant losses on election day some people began to organize against the DLC.

Perot talked about the stink. Now we talk about to source of the stink. DLC skunk.

[wyldwolf]

39. well, for one thing, it wasn't a fairly obscure organization

[greendog]

41. It's "intentions" were certainly obscure.

If, at the time, they were upfront about their intention to favor corporations over workers and drive down the value of American labor a lot of folks would have acquired a negative impression of the DLC early on.

[wyldwolf]

44. they've always made their intentions known... what was lacking in '92...

... was a paranoid subset of the party seeing neocons behind every moderate Democrat.

But, of course, what you've written has never been their stated intentions - it is a wholly created myth of the left.

[redqueen]

60. They made their intentions known, huh?

Show me where. Did they write a "PNAC" style plan, too? Talking about how they planned to betray labor, kowtow to corporate sponsors, and triangulate themselves into the good graces of the M$M?

[wyldwolf]

67. ok

They made their intentions known, huh? Show me where.

From 1990: http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=194&contentid=878

Did they write a "PNAC" style plan, too?

No

Talking about how they planned to betray labor

How did they betray labor?

kowtow to corporate sponsors

How have the done this?

triangulate themselves into the good graces of the M$M?

LOL! Ask the Clintons, Al Gore, and John Kerry if the DLC is in the good graces of the MSM.

[redqueen]

78. That's a bunch of hoo hah...

No clear policy goals outlined in that... feel-good rhetoric, pure and simple.

You really don't know how they betrayed labor? Kerry may be a member, but from what I recall, he tried to temper NAFTA with PROTECTIONS for labor. Remember? The amendments that didn't get passed?

You really don't know that they kowtow to corporate sponsors? With the Telecom Act, their support of the nasty provisions of the Bankruptcy bill, etc?

IMO the Clintons play ball with them... good cop/bad cop.

Al Gore left them. Kerry seems to enjoy playing both sides, and for that reason some trust him, some don't.

[wyldwolf]

81. then PROVE it is hoo-hah

You really don't know how they betrayed labor?

No, that is why I asked you.

Kerry may be a member, but from what I recall, he tried to temper NAFTA with PROTECTIONS for labor. Remember? The amendments that didn't get passed?

You mean the the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC)that DID get passed? If not, which ones?

You really don't know that they kowtow to corporate sponsors?

No, that is why I asked you.

Al Gore left them.

Al Gore left public office. Al Gore is still a New Democrat.

[redqueen]

95. No, I don't mean that feel-good BS.

Sure, it gives lip-service to collective bargaining and equal pay... but look at reality. It's laughable that that joke of an organization is held up as something comparable to a law which would require companies to adhere to those principles. You don't know how they betray labor... un-frickin-real... Wal Mart is the biggest employer and what do they get away with? Milking the public sector for subsidies to provide for their employees. It's astounding that you consider that joke of an organization as anything but that -- a joke.

It seems to me that you're being disingenuous. The Telecom Act and the Bankruptcy bill are two glaring examples of DLC influence watering down the way this party defends the public interest... not that either party has ever done much of a job of that to begin with... the DLC just makes it officially a goal of the party to serve corporations over people.

So Al's still affiliated, huh? I guess it's not so surprising that Al goes around talking about the need for responsible trade... hot air I guess. Just like Clinton's.

Sickening.

[wyldwolf]

99. post after post, you rationalize your claims without ever proving them

Then, you throw in a few insults and some grandstanding phrases like "un-frickin-real" to disguise that fact.

By the way, here's Al Gore from last summer on Larry King:

You know, during the Clinton-Gore administration, we faced a couple of big challenges on that front. There was a financial crisis in Mexico and we took the bold step (NAFTA) of shoring them up. And then when it came to this agreement (NAFTA) to try to strengthen their economy and get more good jobs down there to slow down the flow of immigration, I think we did the right thing.

I think other developments in the aftermath of those years, principally the rise of China and the movement of jobs from Mexico to China and to other Asian countries, made the situation worse than it would have otherwise been. But without the agreement (NAFTA) that was made and without the shoring up of their economy back then, it could have been much worse still.

[redqueen]

105. Your opinions are yours, and you're welcome to them.

I'm not attempting to disguise anything with my disgust. It's just disgust.

Al Gore can spout the talking points he chooses to, but that agreement didn't slow down immigration at all. His proclamation that things would have been worse without it are amusing at best, insulting at worst.

I could provide you with snips and links to show you how devastating that act was to Mexico's rural farmers, and how they ended up working in maquiladores and later trying to get here when those factories were shut down as the jobs moved overseas, but you know what? I honestly don't think you care at all. This shit isn't happening behind a shield, so that people can claim ignorance. Well, I suppose the general public could get away with that excuse.

But if people HERE don't know it it's because they CHOOSE not to.

[wyldwolf]

108. well, if you're so disgusted that you can't bring yourself to list anything but...

leftist "truthiness," then that is your right, as well.

[redqueen]

110. Yup, you don't care.

Not surprising at all. Not one bit. For one to support the DLC so blindly, I guess such willful ignorance is required.

[Forkboy]

111. Sometimes it's tough for them to see.

[redqueen]

113. What is?

The undermining of rural farmers in Mexico? The flood of immigration that resulted?

The simple fact that all those other pesky facts prove all the DLC's feel-good hot air to be just that?

[wyldwolf]

114. well, that's something coming from someone who spouts anti-DLC myths so blindly

[redqueen]

117. What myths?

And why do you continually ignore the betrayal of the Telecom Act and the Bankruptcy bill?

Why do you ignore the fact that Al so blatantly lied on that ridiculous TV show?

Don't you hate being lied to? I know I sure as hell do.

[wyldwolf]

122. The myths I've continously asked you prove in this thread

[redqueen]

127. Yeah.

This is familiar. Ignore questions asked of you and instead proceed to chase your own tail and try to get others to join in the fun...

Have a nice day.

[wyldwolf]

129. the one ignoring the questions is you. Should I list the questions you ignored?

Responding to questions with other questions isn't "answering."

[ProudDad]

188. Here you go

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles7/Nader_DLC.htm

[wyldwolf]

191. "dissidentvoice" and "Ralph Nader." LOL!

[Greyhound]

63. Very good, you've earned you kibble for today, now go lay down

and be quiet before we have to chain you outside in the yard. :sarcasm:(included for the benefit of the particularly dense)

[wyldwolf]

66. no, I think I'll stay up a little longer.

[greendog]

98. They've stated their intentions by thier voting record.

Look at NAFTA. Look at GATT/WTO. Look at telecom deregulation. Look at welfare reform.

See which Democrats voted for that stuff.

Look at the DLC roster.

Bet you find a pretty close correlation.

[wyldwolf]

104. sorry, a think tank holds no votes in Congress

Do you want to take a look at all the Democrats who supported those bills? Pull your Congressional voting record on those and meet me back here.

[greendog]

120. The Congressional members of a "think tank'...

...can, and certainly do, vote in Congress.

What percentage of DLCers voted against those bills?

Sure, after a bit of arm-twisting and payola they got a few others on board to vote against their constituents. I'm aware of that. I'm not aware of any actual DLC members who voted against those bills. Are there a few?

[wyldwolf]

126. Unfounded smears

after a bit of arm-twisting and payola they got a few others on board to vote against their constituents.

So that's how you explain non-DLC Dems voting that way?

[greendog]

133. Their constituents were writing letters asking them to vote for those bills?

And please address the other side of the equation. Did any DLCers vote against that stuff?

[wyldwolf]

137. Is that how you define "payola and arm twisting."

And please address the other side of the equation.

Funny practice on the left. You ignore all manner of calls for proof, pretend questions were never asked, but sure want your questions answered.

[greendog]

145. Well, lets just agree...

...that the reason you can't see the "elephant in the living room" is that you are sitting on it.

Please, when you're through here today and it's time for you to go home, remember that when the elephant (or whatever YOU call it) stands up you need to duck your head.

Wouldn't want you to get a bump on your noggin.

"You on the left" indeed.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[wyldwolf]

147. I don't think we'll agree on that. We might agree that...

...the reason you see an elephant in the room is that your leftist kool-aid has an extra kick. Red elephants... wow.

[ProudDad]

192. Wolf's posts are worthless flame-bait

just ignore it...maybe it'll go away... :shrug:

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[dpbrown]

214. Flamebait is right...

...the DLC and its failed corporatist stance has cost the Democrats too many elections. Dean has proven that populism wins elections.

[onenote]

159. since you asked: yes

On the 1996 Welfare Reform legislation -- Pryor, Dodd and Feinstein all voted no....

[greendog]

207. Good on them!

It was an odious piece of legislation.

[onenote]

144. Feingold took payola?

He voted for the welfare reform bill in 1996. Somebody call the cops!

Oh, and the "few others" that voted for the telecommunications bill in 1996? Well, in the Senate, only four Democrats voted against the final bill in the Senate. In the House, it was 15 Democrats against and 178 for...that's a lot of twisted arms and payola....

[greendog]

149. Wow, I didn't realize that...

...about the telecom bill.

Makes those third party defections in 2000 just a little bit more understandable, doesn't it?

And I think that Feingold occasionally surprises all of us. Shame on ya Russ.

[Greyhound]

130. The DLC is going the way of PNAC, and they're formalizing their alliance

in another organization, cynically called http://defenddemocracy.com/">the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

You might be interested in the http://www.defenddemocracy.org/biographies/biographies.htm">biographies page, where many of the conspirators are listed, it is quite enlightening, check it out.

[Warren Stupidity]

46. No one?

You talked to all of us? I voted for Clinton reluctantly in 92 and out of spite in 96. He was certainly not my choice at primary time. I have despised the corporatist corruption the DLC and its candidates represent right from the start. The only thing that has changed is that after fourteen years of this crap it has now become painfully obvious to far more of us that the Democratic Party has to choose to either represent working families or represent corporate corruption, but it cannot do both.

Aren't you tired of being lied to by both parties? Of being played for a fool? Isn't it about time that government was run for the people?

[Greyhound]

52. Umm, excuse me... there were indeed more than a few of us that had major problems with them

then, and tried to warn people. Your mistaken impression that we didn't exist is a testament to how effective their corporate masters are.

GATT, NAFTA, WTO, T-Com act, welfare "reform", a moribund and utterly ineffective NLRB, and on and on, are all the direct result of electing a Corporatist in Democratic clothing. Now there are so many here that want to repeat the mistakes of yesterday. The question is, do they expect different results, or do they want to relegate us to a lifetime of servitude for the benefit of the ruling class?
:kick: & R

[WorldResident]

216. You seriously did not know Clinton was in the DLC?

And who would you have voted for ... Bush? Dole? Perot?

[wyldwolf]

3. what are "McCartyite attacks?"

What I always find interesting about these types of rants (no attribution is given for this one, did you write it?) is that they accuse the DLC of doing to the left the exact same things the left does to them and other moderates.

After all, when did the DLC say they were going to make anyone "radioactive?" When did the DLC list a Democratic House hit list for their members to vote against or, as KOS said, "take out?"

Further, and I could write all night on this but I won't, there are several gross factual inaccuracies here. "Sharp condemnation of the war, and a push against our 'neoliberal' trade policies" were NOT the top reasons people listed for voting Democrat last November. Iraq was #2 after issues of ethics. "Trade policies" as a concern was nowhere to be found.

The DLC gained 16 House members last November, accounting for over half of the new seats picked up. Bill Richardson, whose presidential stock has been rising, is as DLC as they come. Hillary Clinton currently leads in all National polls. In 2005, Tim Kaine (DLC) won the governor's house in VA. That doesn't sound like people are running away from them.

Finally, as anti-DLC diatribes go, this isn't even a particularly good one. It reads more like a parody - someone making fun of "progressives" by writing a satirical piece full of all the leftist cliches.

[SaveElmer]

10. You gave that POS rant way more pixels....

Than I would have....

[blossomstar]

17. True that.

[DancingBear]

57. Don't worry

You can write nice about Hillary next time, OK?

<hands SE a tissue....>

[Name removed]

194. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cascadiance]

21. If ethics was the #1 issue, that also is something the DLC falls down on...

The PRIMARY reason we have problems with ethics is the system of institutionalized bribery that we have in place now called campaign financing. If the DLC were TRULY about cleaning up Washington, then they'd endorse public campaign financing to provide voters with ways to vote for people that aren't OWNED by special interests. Unfortunately special interest lobbyist pandering is what distinguishes the DLC from the rest of the Dems. If we were to put in place public campaign financing, the DLC would be rendered useless and they know it. That's why Hillary in RECORD time dropped the existing system of public campaign financing (lame and compromised as it is), which will have the net effect of escalating the costs of the primary campaigns that much more, and make lobbyist influence that much more too.

If the public voted for both ethics cleanup and to end the Iraq War, they were voting FOR the grass roots on both counts and not the DLC!

[wyldwolf]

28. yet, it wasn't DLCers who were stung by ethics problems in Congress - go figure!

[redqueen]

61. Are you saying NO DLCers have ethics issues?

Is that so?

[wyldwolf]

68. nope. I'm saying they have no more than "progressive" Dems do

[redqueen]

79. Gee, you mean they're all human

and equally fallible?

Imagine that.

[wyldwolf]

82. of course, so distinquishing the DLC on ethics problems is at best a red herring

[redqueen]

107. Yeah, I don't know about that.

We're all imperfect... but some are more corrupt than others. I'd have to see a breakdown of numbers before I'd agree DLCers were no worse than progressive democrats.

[wyldwolf]

112. think of Democrats who have had questions of impropriety directed at them

Compare the names. Alcee L. Hastings. William Jefferson. etc.

[redqueen]

121. Questions of impropriety?

Sorry, that sounds to me like a waste of time.

If it's such a red herring, let it go and defend Al Gore's lies about NAFTA's effect on immigration.

[wyldwolf]

124. did I misspell it?

[redqueen]

125. Nah...

not worth it...

[wyldwolf]

128. I didn't think so.

[SaveElmer]

154. Their responses have become so robotic...so ingrained in their thought processes...

That they just use their own rhetoric as the proof you ask for...

Just shows how vapid and bankrupt these ridiculous anti-DLC talking points really are...

[cascadiance]

94. I'm talking about the SYSTEM that creates ethics problems...

If you say that bribery is legal as long as its done certain ways, its going to make certain people more powerful and make them look like they're "ethical" because they "aren't breaking the rules" that are in place that are set up to not call them unethical, when an outsider able to look at the specifics of the problem might think otherwise based on their own set of values.

I might argue that Hillary Clinton is MORE unethical because she's that much more willing than others to go into the system of bribery before other candidates are to get elected (throwing out matching public financing). Of course the system says she has the right to do this and that she's just playing by the rules, and therefore she's not unethical. But I'm saying the system that lets her "legitimately" get bribes that basically allow special interests to curry favor with her agenda (aka Rupert Murdoch, etc.), is broken. The DLC will be the first ones to tell you that the current system and its rules is what they want and they want to continue to use it. It allows them to continue to be bribed and call themselves "ethical" where I say that the system rewards unethical people by let them hiding under it.

That's why for every candidate in this election, wherever and whenever we get the chance, the question should be posed to them on whether they will support public "Clean Elections" style public financing. As this strikes a core towards fixing the system back towards a system where unethical influence peddling can allow us to call such individuals unethical again, and allow ethical politicians another avenue to get to congress.

If you take a wealthy individual and an unwealthy individual trying to run for political office. Which one do you think might more likely get themselves in trouble for getting into "ethics" problems trying to get enough money to get into office. I would say the less wealthy person, as they have to play the "game" more that at some point might expose them.

If you take these same individuals running under clean elections, it should be more even, as the wealthy person won't be allowed to use their own money to finance their campaign. They will have to raise the base amounts needed along with signatures just like the less wealthy individual. We then have a more even playing field, and those that break the rules will truly be more "unethical" in trying to break the rules to get ahead.

Fighting ethics problems in Washington isn't just about going after the symptoms (prosecuting individuals like Bob Ney, etc.) but also about fixing the system to isolate those unethical individuals more. I want someone that wants to fix the system, not just the symptoms. That can only be done with presidential and congressional leadership wanting to do so, which we don't have now, and perhaps won't in the future if we let the DLC have their way.

[wyldwolf]

106. whose system is it?

The Dems held power in Congress for most of 40 years before the DLC was even formed. And the party excesses of the 70s and 80s (before the DLC was formed) is well known.

In the last 10 years, more non-DLC Dems have been busted for ethics problems than DLC Dems.

[cascadiance]

123. I think that it is the "corporatist" party's system (Republicans AND the DLC)

that have been in power from Gingrich years onward. Even former chief justice Rehnquist rejected "corporate personhood" at times when it came before SCOTUS. Do you think that the corporatist packed court of today would have Roberts or any from its conservative majority who would do the same?

This is a problem even more so for the Republicans, but it is more visible in the Democratic Party, which is SUPPOSED to represent people, not corporate special interests. But the DLC has been complict along with the Republicans when a majority in power to put together new legislation which have facilitated laws that reduced our effective means of minimizing or getting rid of these laws that allow for institutionalized bribery that we have in place (i.e. the fairness doctrine going away in the 1980's, the telecomm act in the 90's that Clinton signed, but both Wellstone and Feingold voted against, etc.

We now have a system where the voice of opposition can't be heard, and in order for it to heard has to play this big bribery game for political ads. The corporate interests know this, and they use the influence peddling of money to get these ads aired to buy their influence, and there is noone in the media now that is able to effectively question it. It is only through a thorough grass roots effort that sees through this minefield where we will vote in folks that will change it. I see people like Russ Feingold as one of those trying to represent that grass roots effort and give it power. We need more like him that will fight off the media anc corporate interests to put back in a fair system where it will catch those that are being bribed "legitimately" now (because they are playing the corporatists' game) versus those that are being bribed and caught outside of these protected rules (that aren't necessarily in the corporatists' camp).

African Americans will also tell you that it is for similar reasons that more of them are in prison too. That the laws governing crimes and penalties as well as the law enforcement infrastructure are more set up to go after them than white folk, even if white folk may in many cases be committing acts that looked at individually in a color blind fashion would be seen as just as wrong as those that African Americans are being punished for.

[wyldwolf]

131. then why are more non-DLC Dems having ethics problems?

[cascadiance]

138. AGAIN, it's the rules that go after those people instead of those of the DLC...

Why do you think those like Hillary Clinton, etc. don't get caught with loads of cash in their refrigerators? Because they can "legitimately" take money from influence peddlers like Rupert Murdoch and NOT have it called illegal by today's bribery standards (or LACK thereof of bribery standards). The system is fixed in their direction. Why do you think there are so many more people of color in prison. Are you going to say that its in their genetic makeup that they are more apt to commit crimes? Or is it more that there are other issues in society that are the problem (the rules, enforcement, culture, their economic status, etc.)? I would say the latter. Likewise, it isn't that someone isn't a member of the DLC that is why they are more apt to be guilty of "ethics violations", if in fact what you allege to be true is true. But that the rules of the game targets them more than others and legitimizes what those in control (the DLC and other corporatists like the Republicans) do than they do.

Do I have to repeat that again?

[wyldwolf]

140. oh, the victim card. Investigations just aren't meted out equally. Riiiight.

[cascadiance]

141. I think that's what Iglesias is hinting to now...

That's not a DLC problem necessarily, but it is a corporatist problem (on the Republican side with Gonzales and company outing all of those prosecutors for going after Republican lawmakers instead of Democrats). You can bet there's influence peddling also going on there too by corporate interests. Just look at the prosecutor in San Francisco that was trying to investigate CEO stock optinos back dating, etc. that was being fired. The newer rules of the Patriot Act passed without sufficient scrutiny at the time in congress allowed Bushco's justice department apparatus to get away with this.

[wyldwolf]

143. It isn't a DLC problem at all.

[cascadiance]

146. Just like it isn't an enabling wife's problem of a drunk beating his kids too...

Just as it is a responsibility of a mother to pull out of a marriage that is damaging her kids lives or bear part of the responsibility of what happens to them, it is the DLC's responsibility to either pull out of this corporate influence game or bear responsibility for it. Whether it is the actions of the corporatist enabled Republicans or their own actions that is to blame. The core of the problem is that corporate influence over all aspects of our government is at the root of so many problems today, and the DLC is at the core of continuing to enable this happening, whether they claim to be a part of the opposition party to the core of the corporatist party (the Republicans) or not.

Ultimately kids in familes like those leave both parents and go off on their own to regain their sanity. Destroying a family like that is a tragedy, but may be necessary if the wife doesn't stop enabling the drunk and disorderly husband somehow. The same needs to happen with the DLC. They need to stop enabling the corporatists or get the hell out of the way and let us move away from them.

[wyldwolf]

148. I don't think domestic violence is a good comparison .

...and "the DLC is at the core of continuing to enable corporate influence" is leftwing truthiness. Seems non-DLCers hold the top leadership positions in the party.

[cascadiance]

151. It isn't domestic violence that is the point of comparison...

It is that there is shared responsibilty of both parents for their kids when they control the rules and resources the kids grow up under. If part of that system is flawed, one of them can't just keep pointing the finger to the other and say "it's that person's fault" when they have the power to leave that other person if they have to to end the problem at hand, whether it be domestic violence or some other severe problem.

I'm likening that to the Republicans and the DLC arm of the Democratic Party both supporting the rules of legitimizing bribery to allow more corporate control of our government which winds up costing the people (ie. the kids) our future by rewarding the corporatinons' agendas at our expense. If the wife (aka the DLC) wants to say that it isn't her responsibility that the kids are getting beat up, then she needs to do more than just say that, she needs to either get the husband to fix his ways, or to leave the husband so that the kids can at least have some degree of decent life growing up under her leadership).

Even though the kids getting beaten isn't the same thing as us losing jobs or losing our voice in the media, etc. that isn't the point. The point is that the rules are in place by those in control that we pay the price for, and either the system is going to have to be fixed, or us "the kids", will leave that system.

The DLC needs to recognize that the rules in place now that govern who is called "corrupt" and having problems with ethics is broken and demand it be fixed instead of enabling it for their own power, or bear responsibility for those using it to wield damage on us (Bush and the Republicans that are in power).

They aren't from where I can see them, so therefore, like the kids, I don't want to continually endure abuse, and therefore will look to find another parent or go out on my own.

[wyldwolf]

156. ok, so again I point out...

...it isn't DLC democrats getting called on ethics issues. So perhaps I should use your model and create an analogy. If the Republicans and the DLC arm of the Democratic Party both supportthe rules of legitimizing bribery to allow more corporate control of our government which winds up costing the people (ie. the kids) our future by rewarding the corporatinons' agendas at our expense, then the non-DLC dems are like kids who get drunk on that booze while the DLC know how to hold their liquor.

...and I point out again: non-DLCers hold the top leadership positions in the party. Why won't Dean/Reid/Pelosi reign it in?

[cascadiance]

169. AGAIN it is the RULES who defines who gets called out on ethics issues!

I'm not saying that kids don't get drunk. Both the husband and wife could be getting drunk, and only the husband is beating the kids. Heck, it could be that the husband and wife getting drunk is what is contributing to the kids getting drunk. The point is, if both the husband and wife look the other way when they drink and say it isn't a problem, and yet take their kids to task for having a sip and then say that THEY are the problem because it is THEY who are getting drunk, because it is THEY that can establish the rules of who gets called drunk and who isn't, then there is something wrong with that picture.

In my book, when Hillary Clinton throws away public financing earlier than just about any other Dem candidate and jumps on the BRIBERY campaign of special interests to get more money into her campaign, I feel she's guilty of ethics violations, even if she says and other DLC people say that the laws say she isn't.

Just like the Ace of spades saying that isn't a spade becasue it has the ability to say it isn't in a card game. I still seed a spade and I'll call a spade a spade, whether the rules says oo or not! If I don't like the game that makes up such stupid rulss, I'll not play it. I think we still have the option of not playing this corporate bribery game that's in place now that the DLC enables. But we need to put our foot down. Will you put your foot down and stop corporate influence peddling? Haven't seen you take a position on that yet.

[wyldwolf]

172. ok... so the rules state that no DLCers can be called out?

:shrug:

Again - nonDLC dems are the ones who keep getting caught in ethics violations.

[cascadiance]

208. You don't have any explicit laws that say that whites can't be prosecuted...

... but you have many rules/laws infrastructure in place that prejudicially give more advantage to whites than people of color in many places to avoid breaking the law or being prosecuted for it, which are just as not explicit. No, there aren't any laws that explicitly say that DLC members aren't to be called out. But there are many infrastructural things that might do so, and the rules may implicitly be those that single out more those that don't have means provided by the added money, etc. that the DLC gets from corporate lobbyists that would make them more "exposed".

We already know that Iglesias was asked to indict A Democrat before the election to aid the Republican opponent in that race. I also have reason to believe from talking to Duncan Hunter's opponent in last election that he might have had an indictment actually delayed until after the election that was likely in the Cunningham investigations, and might be shelved permanently now with the firing of Carol Lam. Now no, Duncan Hunter isn't DLC, but you see how this influence peddling works, and it isn't hard to extrapolate that rules by themselves and whether someone is "caught" or not don't necessarily make the sole point of judgement for us to judge different Dems by. Some "play by the rules" more and in my estimation, by doing so, make them less likely to "get caught", than those that don't.

[Greyhound]

152. "Our current system of campaign finance is nothing more than legalized bribery" - Bill Moyers

This is what has caused our nation to be ruled by unscrupulous thugs and avaricious lackeys for so long.

It was Audre Lorde that observed, "the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house." Explaining at once, both wyldwolf, and the forlorn hope that Congress will fix this obscenity.

[MsMagnificent]

202. What's the population?

That argument ("more non-DLC Dems have been busted for ethics problems than DLC Dems") would be valid only if the population of non-DLC Dems was 50% (or less) and the population of DLC Dems was 50% (or more).

Got any ratios to prove your contention?
And why are you limiting time to 'the last ten years'?

[SOS]

76. Re: McCarthyite attacks

by Will Marshall, posted on the NDOL site:

"Take Iraq. It's one thing to say, as many thoughtful Democrats do, that the war in Iraq was a mistake. But it's quite another to depict it as the expression of a new U.S. imperialism, or as a Bush family vendetta, or as a plot to grab Middle East oil, or, most ludicrously of all, as a pretext to enrich Halliburton. What leftish elites smugly imagine is a sophisticated view of their country's flaws strikes much of America as a false and malicious cartoon. And while heartland voters may be too reluctant to hear reasoned criticism of U.S. policies, they are essentially right in believing that America has mostly been an indispensable force for good in the world. So let the glitterati in Hollywood and Cannes fawn over Michael Moore; Democrats should have no truck with the rancid anti-Americanism of the conspiracy-mongering left."

http://www.ndol.org/print.cfm?contentid=253055

So...If you entertain the notion that the attack on Iraq might possibly have been influenced by "a new U.S. imperialism, or a Bush family vendetta, or a plot to grab Middle East oil, or, most ludicrously of all, a pretext to enrich Halliburton" DLCer Marshall labels you a "smug, malicious, rancid, anti-American, conspiracy-mongering leftist".

McCarthyism: figurative - any practice that endorses the use of unfair allegations

Marshall fits the figurative definition of McCarthyism perfectly.

[wyldwolf]

92. now, should I list the neverending screeds by Sirota, KOS, etc...

... who's tone and rhetoric make anything the DLC say sound like hearts and flowers?

[SOS]

101. Not necessary

You asked "what are McCarthyite attacks" and an example was provided.

Although being labeled a "smug, malicious, rancid, anti-American, conspiracy-mongering leftist" for daring to question President Cheney's motives seems rather far from "hearts and flowers".

[wyldwolf]

119. oh, I assure you the Marxist revolutionary rhetoric of Sirota and the profanity -laced spew of KOS..

...makes anything the DLC has written look like a gentle correction.

[SOS]

150. "Marxist revolutionary"

Sirota has been a senior strategist for Montana governor Brian Schweitzer, consultant for Ned Lamont and worked for Sherrod Brown's successful Senate run.

To call him a Marxist revolutionary is so far off base it's funny.

You ask for an example of McCarthyism and then proceed to practice it yourself.
Perfect.

"Mr. Sirota, are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?"

:rofl:

[wyldwolf]

153. LOL!

To call him a Marxist revolutionary is so far off base it's funny.

I didn't call him a Marxist revolutionary. I said he used that style of rhetoric. But sure, his work does read like a college newspaper writer going through a Marxist or logical positivist phase: to the author it speaks of revolution; to the reader it resonates immaturity.

[dysfunctional press]

4. "part" of the problem...?

they are ENTIRELY the problem.

[Gman]

6. Good grief... give it up already

another DLC rant. The DLC serves a very useful purpose in the party. Mainly electing presidents including the greatest president in the second half of the 20th century. Hillary will make a fine president and organized labor will be tickled pink to have her.

[newburgh]

24. Organized labor? Walmart-style?

Guess she changed that tune when she decided to become a Democrat. Just like all of a sudden her Iraq stance is changing to fit her campaign.

Finally saw the US vs. John Lennon this evening. She reminds me of Nixon campaigning that he had a secret plan to end the war. There is NO excuse for anyone who voted for the occupation of Iraq. NONE.

[Greyhound]

65. What organized labor are you talking about?

I live in a heavily unionized neighborhood in a very strong union town (as strong as exists anymore thanks, in large part, to the corporatist DLC), and nobody here has anything good to say about her. What I'm hearing is, won't vote or third party.

[magellan]

8. Hear hear!

:applause:

[Madspirit]

11. K&R!

[Breeze54]

13. Applause!!

:applause: :applause:

:kick: & Recommended!

[Jcrowley]

14. Militarists- Corporatists

K&R

[Hippo_Tron]

16. Trade has hurt workers in certain industries since the beginning of time

I wish that we had negotiated NAFTA to force Mexico to allow workers to unionize but Clinton gets far too much heat on DU for NAFTA.

[ProudDad]

196. Hell I wish they'd negotiated NAFTA to force

THE FREAKING UNITED STATES to allow workers to unionize as well!!!!!

[Hippo_Tron]

199. You make a good point, sir

Ever since Raygun, we can't really claim to be superior on the front of workers' rights.

[Kurovski]

19. I went to look for the link...but you wrote it, illinoisprogressive, and it's

excellent!

K&R. Solid writing.

[k_jerome]

20. Obama supports free trade agreements. an admirable stance. nt.

[cascadiance]

22. It's this "manufactured" final between Hillary and Obama that is a problem...

... which is why many of us are laughing at the "rush to judgement" that the DLC is trying to get us to do before Al Gore enters the race. And just wait, he will be later when the time is right!

[k_jerome]

23. it must suck to be in constant fear of the DLC...

kinda like the terrorists that are gonna get us all.

as i said, i like Obama's stance on free trade, which he shares with Clinton.

[w4rma]

32. If that's true, I won't be supporting Obama, either. (nt)

[k_jerome]

176. you may want to look at John Edwards....

he rejected free trade agreements when in the Senate.

[w4rma]

177. I already support Edwards of the candidates currently running. (nt)

[cascadiance]

88. The operative word should be FAIR trade, which I want my president in 2008 to support!

Which would try to not only level the playing field for corporations globally, but also try to level the playing field for the working people of the world too! Only that way are you going to prevent the race to the bottom which institutionalizes global feudalism.

[ProudDad]

197. I'm not afraid of the DLC

they represent a dead end for human civilization.

We're either going to create a society that's beyond DLC capitalist "values" and free of its excesses or there will be NO human race soon.

Either way, no DLC...no worries!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[k_jerome]

200. yeah...you are. nt.

[eridani]

26. Exactly what do we have to be "strong" enough to do abroad?

Destroy the infrastructure of any country that isn't behind dollar a day labor and handing over its resources to international corporations? What does having 700+ military bases abroad have to do with defending American soil? Nothing whatsoever, sez I.

[tavalon]

27. I despise the DLC

And this is just one of many reasons I don't support HRC.

[Liberal Dose]

31. Good post. I believe that DLC apologists are the cut from the same cloth as Bush apologists.

If you like Joe Lieberman, you'll LOVE the DLC!!!! Here's what Al From had to say about the midterm elections, "...That last point was underscored by Joe Lieberman's re-election victory in Connecticut, which helps solidify the Democratic Party's credentials as a broad, inclusive coalition able to compete for the vital center of American politics." http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=84&contentid=254099
WOW! Who wouldn't throw their support to the DLC? If they have it their way, EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT IN THE UNITED STATES WILL BE EXACTLY LIKE JOE LIEBERMAN! :sarcasm:

I was always suspicious of the DLC because it seemed to me that their slogan was, "If you want to be electable, try to look as Republican as possible." If I want a Republican in office, I'll vote for a real one, not an impersonator.
I began despising the DLC in 2003, when Al From and Bruce Reed defined the "real soul" of the Democratic Party with their list of "myths":
In their vicious attack against Howard Dean, the DLC also attacked those of us who opposed the war in Iraq.
"...Unlike Gov. Howard Dean, we never forget to give the late Sen. Paul Wellstone credit for coining the phrase, "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." We often disagreed with Sen. Wellstone on the issues, but we always knew he was fighting for the little guy.

But the great myth of the current cycle is the misguided notion that the hopes and dreams of activists represent the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. Real Democrats are real people, not activist elites. The mission of the Democratic Party, as Bill Clinton pledged in 1992, is to provide "real answers to the real problems of real people." Real Democrats who champion the mainstream values, national pride, and economic aspirations of middle-class and working people are the real soul of the Democratic Party, not activists and interest groups with narrow agendas..."

"...What activists like Dean call the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is an aberration: the McGovern-Mondale wing, defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home. That's the wing that lost 49 states in two elections, and transformed Democrats from a strong national party into a much weaker regional one..."

"...Not only is the activist wing out of line with Democratic tradition, but it is badly out of touch with the Democratic rank-and-file..."

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251690&kaid=1

I think Wikipedia's definition is accurate:
"...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..."

If you're not disgusted yet, go here to read more of Al From's puke inducing drivel:
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_sub.cfm?kaid=86&subid=84

DLC: Wolves in Democrats' Clothing
by Harley Sorensen
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0105-07.htm
"...Mr. From would argue with my description of him, but I'd describe him as a kind of agent provocateur, a plant inserted by the Republicans into the leadership of the Democrat Party. His goal: Wreck the party, turn it into the Republican Lite Party..."

[Lurking Dem]

33. What absolute bullshit.

I wish people here would spend as much time bitching about Republicans as they do other Democrats.

Putting up the Big Scary Evil Joe Lieberman as the poster child for DLC philosophy and policy is so disingenuous as to make me wonder your motive.

[Usrename]

37. Do you know what you are talking about?

I just have to wonder how you come forward with your opinion. Do you have any facts that contradict what is being claimed by the other posters (I have never heard of anyone that disputes the facts)?

But maybe you are right, and everyone else is just plain wrong. Where does your opinion come from? What is your alternative theory? Who told you this stuff?




Neocons in the Democratic Party

By Jacob Heilbrunn, Jacob Heilbrunn, a former Times editorial writer, is writing a book on neoconservatism.
May 28, 2006


DON'T LOOK now, but neoconservatism is making a comeback — and not among the Republicans who have made it famous but in the Democratic Party.

A host of pundits and young national security experts associated with the party are calling for a return to the Cold War precepts of President Truman to wage a war against terror that New Republic Editor Peter Beinart, in the title of his provocative new book, calls "The Good Fight."

The fledgling neocons of the left are based at places such as the Progressive Policy Institute, whose president, Will Marshall, has just released a volume of doctrine called "With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty." Beinart's book is subtitled "Why Liberals — and Only Liberals — Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again." Their political champions include Connecticut Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman and such likely presidential candidates as former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council.

-- more --

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-heilbrunn28may28,0,6411415.story?coll=la-home-commentary

[wyldwolf]

38. I have facts that contradict what is being claimed by the other posters

Set them up and I'll knock them down.

[Liberal Dose]

223. I haven't seen you "knock down" anything with facts yet. What are you waiting for? nt

[SOS]

224. As of Saturday 3/3 at 12:30 pm EST

He has posted 52 replies to this thread.
So far he's provided exactly one link to back up his assertions: A 17 year-old policy paper posted at NDOL.
There will be no facts or links forthcoming.

[Liberal Dose]

226. LOL! I should've known better than to respond. nt

:shrug: :hi:

[Greyhound]

69. "Neocons in the Democratic Party"

Just look at the names in the "new PNAC";

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/biographies/biographies.htm

"Ignore what they say, look at what they do"

[Liberal Dose]

221. Do you have a real reply? The fact that you cannot properly address my post makes me wonder about

YOUR motives. I'm not the one who made LIEberman the poster child for DLC philosophy. Got a problem with that? Take your whining to Al From.

[Larkspur]

34. The DLC are dying. The 2006 election improved the ranks of the progressives

There are 71 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and most Democratic candidates who ran opposed the DLC's Free Trade and pro-Iraq war mantra.

[wyldwolf]

36. "Progressives" have been saying that for years. Just more wishful thinking on their part.

[SOS]

62. Straight question re: wishful thinking

Which group has more members in the House today?

A) The Congressional Progressive Caucus
B) The New Democrat Coalition

[wyldwolf]

73. that wasn' t the point

Saying an organization that is adding members and winning elections year after year is "dying" isn't grounded in reality.

By the way, The Congressional Progressive Caucus has a total of 6 more members than the House New Democrat Coalition. 69 to 63. Statistically, that is a dead heat. So, the CPC must be dying, too.

[mod mom]

42. Not soon enough. They were met by Progressive Dems carrying a giant backbone

when they held their convention in Ohio last year. We need to come out loud and strong against their policies that are shifting the party away from it's base.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. Maybe they'll find a home with their RINO brethren in the "Unity Party".

Then they won't have to pretend to be liberal Democrats anymore.

[Bitwit1234]

43. Why do people supposed to be Democratic

continue to bash Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton voted for the war as well as 77 senators. Why is her vote the only one that people are complaining about......She has said over and over and over and over and over, if she knew then what she knows now about the information she would not have voted for bush to go to war. Every time she has a speech goes campaigning, some asshole reporter sticks a mike in her face and says WHY DID YOU VOTE FOR THE WAR....What more can she say. It is sickening for people to go over and over this stuff. If they don't like Hillary because she is a woman, have the guts to say that's why you don't like her. If you look at her voting record for the state of New York, you will see she has done a pretty darn good job of supporting them.

But the most of those who don't want a woman to be president are just as cowardly to admit it as bush was not to go to fight to defend his country during Viet Nam. No difference.

[wyldwolf]

45. because she won't kowtow and kiss the asses of the left.

[DancingBear]

96. How can she?

She'd have to take her head out the asses of the centrists first.

Oh, and congrats on your use of the term "the left."

Tells us everything we need to know.

As if we didn't know it already.

[wyldwolf]

100. better question: WHY would she?

The left isn't worthy of being pandered to.

[Name removed]

201. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DancingBear]

204. Truer words and all that

:yourock:

[ConservativeDemocrat]

206. Hi, I'm ProudDad

and I represent the bitter ex-Communist wing of the... well, OK, I hate most Democrats, so I'm not really a member. I represent the bitter wing of the nearly entirely disbanded American Communist party.

The important thing is that I'm so far to the fringe left, I can't tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans. From my perspective, way way waaaay out here, Al Gore/George Bush look both the same. Both are members of the democrat/republican party. Their policies are practically identical!

But the ONE thing I know is that ad-hominem attacks against other DUers is something that is completely tolerated by DU moderation policies - so long as it's a Democratic-Party-hating fringe leftist doing it. IOKIYAS (It's OK If You're A Socialist) is our equivalent of IOKIYAR (It's OK If You're A Republican). So when I get frustrated by my inability to actually back any of my broad smears with solid fact, I know I can just fall back on engaging in personal attacks, knowing they can't repond in kind.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[nolabels]

48. There is way more than a million answers to that question

Other than being the wife of a president who practiced marginalization by triangularization on democratic policies and philosophies, her accomplishments stand basically nil would be my answer.

[ecstatic]

54. It's a foolish strategy. America loves her

Hell, I used to love her. She went on Oprah and all the ladies seemed to be in awe of her. She would have had my vote in the primaries were it not for me finally realizing that the IWR vote was unacceptable and borderline criminal.

[redqueen]

56. America loves her?

What makes you think so?

[ecstatic]

102. I think so because I deal with a lot of mainstreamers

What is said on Fox News and freeper sites (and even DU sometimes) does not represent mainstream thought in this country. The catch is, we need to start tearing down Giuliani/ McCain instead of people from our own side.

[redqueen]

109. "Tearing down" is a loaded term.

How about we just discuss her faults instead of pretending they don't exist, and that everybody in this country loves her. That is a patently ridiculous assertion.

[PhilipShore]

47. Tweedle DLC=Tweedle GOP

[redqueen]

58. Great cartoon!

:thumbsup:

[Individualist]

59. Excellent cartoon!

DLC wants to turn the party into a submissive branch of the republican party. I detest that organization and anyone who supports them.

[leftchick]

64. woo hoo!

Excellent!

[guruoo]

89. Perfect!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[bonito]

49. You got my vote!

Truth be known.:kick:

[ecstatic]

51. The only pure guy so far is Obama

And Kucinich, of course. Clinton, Kerry, and Gore are all tainted from the IWR and NAFTA. I'm sure people are anxiously wanting to give a pass to Gore though...

[dkofos]

53. How true. I won't vote for her either.

[redqueen]

55. FANTASTIC post!

:applause:

:woohoo:

Tell it!

[Stephanie]

74. second that!

well said! :hi:

[G_j]

70. thanks, k&r

[SaveElmer]

71. Hey look behind you.....it's the DLC...

BOOO!!!

:rofl:

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

75. LOL! Let's look at the "liberal" record of presidential victories post 1964...

... when the far left started yapping.

[Greyhound]

77. Those liberals that you are so fond of pointing to were both torpedoed

by their own Party. The bottom line is that "our party leaders" would rather see a republican in the White House, than risk losing their stranglehold on The Party and losing some of their power.

For anyone interested in learning what happened, as opposed to doing their job of pushing corporate propaganda, watch this film
http://imdb.com/title/tt0468528/">One Bright Shining Moment

[wyldwolf]

80. Both? There is certainly more than 2

McGovern - electoral disaster.
Carter (1980), after bowing to pressure from the left in the party platform - electoral disaster.
Walter "never met a special interest I didn't like" Mondale - electoral disaster.
Dukakis - electoral disaster.

Want to talk about being torpedoed? The left torpedoed Humphry in '68 (after trying it with Truman in '48 and Kennedy in '60.) Then they torpedoed Al Gore in 2000.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

86. ...only from their perspective

They certainly weren't right in '48 for opposing Truman's Soviet policies. Their candidate, Henry Wallace, admitted in in his memoirs. They certainly weren't right in '68 for sitting out the election. Hello, Richard Nixon!

They certainly weren't right in 2000 with their "no dime's worth of difference" take on Gore and Bush. Biggest "progressive" blunder of all time.

[Greyhound]

97. In both '68 and '00, it was the failure of the Democratic Party to accommodate

the liberal base, they made it clear that we weren't wanted nor appreciated and that our issues would not be dealt with, and we all payed the price. But nice try to spin it to your wrong-headed (the nicest adjective I could think of right now) notions. George Santayana had some advise for you and those like you, though I'm sure you'll ignore that too.

BTW, Jesus Christ was a liberal, Mahatma Gandhi was a liberal, Martin Luther and his later namesake Martin Luther King were liberals, Magna Carta was a radically liberal concept, this country was founded on another wildly radical liberal concept, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

In every case throughout history the liberals have, sooner or later, been proved right, while and the conservatives, moderates, centrists, or whatever label they try to hide behind, have been wrong and caused nothing but misery and despair.

[wyldwolf]

103. so, it isn't the party's responsibility to accomodate anyone. The left isn't the base...

...they weren't in 2000 and they sure as hell weren't even close in '68.

[Greyhound]

116. More reactionary idiocy, and four posts in a row where you ignore the issue,

trying to turn the point around to support your mindless rhetoric. It is the Party's only responsibility to accommodate its constituents, not the other way around. We, the Democratic voters, owe nothing to The Party, The Party owes us its existence.

I've been on to you since shortly after finding DU, and only reply to your nonsense for the entertainment, and hopefully the edification, of others that may be reading this. You are wasting your time trying to lie your way out of what is readily apparent to anyone with any knowledge of history or politics. It is traitors like you that gave us the mess we have today, congratulations, there will be an extra portion of kibble in your dish tonight.

[Seabiscuit]

132. Spot on.

It's DLC'ers like this that almost make the neocons look "liberal".

[Greyhound]

155. It is my contention that these are neocons, pretending to be democratic.

They are almost certainly Democrats, since the only requirement is to register as such, but they are here, and in the Party, only serve their corporate masters.

[Seabiscuit]

189. You may be on to something... Joe Loserman's a case in point.

His lips are so firmly locked around Shrub's sphincter that it's impossible to tell where his face ends and Shrub's arse begins.

That must be where Joe got that shit-eating grin of his. :)

[wyldwolf]

134. right.

Looks like your issue keeps getting deleted. :shrug:

The party certainly doesn't owe the far left it's existance.

[Greyhound]

157. 5

[wyldwolf]

158. 5 - the number of elections the far left have screwed up for the Democrats

[Greyhound]

161. 6

[wyldwolf]

162. 6 - if 2008 gets added to that list.

[Greyhound]

163. 7, going for a record here folks...

[wyldwolf]

164. well, let's hope the left doesn't set a record of dooming us to GOP presidents

[Greyhound]

165. 8, how long can he keep it up, the contortions and spinning have got to be tiring...

[wyldwolf]

167. greyhound1966 chases the lure again!

[Greyhound]

173. 9! 9 times he has ignored the issue, we're witnessing history here today.

If this keep up we'll have to bring in Count Count to keep up the tally.

[wyldwolf]

174. ... I believe he thinks it's a real rabbit! What he calls "the real issue" (Post 72) was Deleted!

It must have been one big pile of greyhound manure!

[Greyhound]

178. Pretending ignorance, could this be the end of the streak? Count, what have

you got to say?

"Well Brent, the officials are still examining the instant reply and consulting the rulebook..."

"OK then, we'll take this break and be right back with the ruling after this word from our sponsors"

[wyldwolf]

179. greyhound1966 comes around the outside track looking for his point.

OH! Another one deleted!!!

[Greyhound]

182. "Welcome back fans, it appears the corporate lapdog has resorted to the

alert key and conceded without ever addressing the issue..." "it's to bad too ,because it really looked like we were going to see a new record set here today. Count?"

"Yes Brent, it was rather disappointing the kid gave it his best but just came up a little short, back to you."

"thanks Count, in other news it appears the the DLC is losing favor at an alarming rate, it seems that people just aren't as stupid they thought. Well that's all the time we have today, thanks for joining us and don't forget to tune in next week for another episode of 'Spinning for Dollars'"

[wyldwolf]

183. greyhound1966 seems confused. His lost focus on the lure and is looking for his point...

"Bob, I don't think he has a point."
"Well, Stu, if he ever did, it's gone now. No one seems to know what it was, if it ever really existed..."
"Good point, Bob. At least YOU have one."

[Greyhound]

185. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, thank you. n/t

[wyldwolf]

190. ...now greyhound has run off the track! He's barking at the officials...

"Stu, I think he's saying the officials are corporatists who robbed him of his point."
"That's exactly what he's yapping about, Bob. Now he's yipping that one day greyhounds will rise up in a glorious revolution and depose all the officials..."
"Never a dull moment at the races, Stu. But now he's out of the race...."

[Dr Fate]

198. LOL! We have a declared winner.

Style, humor and originality win the day over the usual net-bullying.

Thanks for the laughs!!!

[MsMagnificent]

203. LOL

Right on target, greyhound!

[MGKrebs]

115. That's pretty funny when it's the anti-DLCers who

are promising to not vote for the polling leaders.

If we want progressive candidates, we have to build a progressive constituency. Until we have that, shutting out any particular candidate for being too "mainstream" (which is what the DLC is all about anyway) is pretty much shooting ourselves in the foot. Can you say "Nader"? When the smoke clears, and we have to choose between a DLC candidate or Mitt Romney, will you regret having promised not to vote for a Dem?

[cascadiance]

136. I'm not against those that have more conservative views on many issues...

I welcome true "moderates" into the party. What I don't like is continuing to allow the corporatist minority in this country to have a disproportionate amount of representation and control over our government and its members than the rest of us have and a Democracy should allow that's in place now through institutionalized influence peddling. If the DLC will move away from this effort, I'll likely support them as a "moderating" influence over our party. But that's not their real agenda. Their real agenda is to perpetuate a one party corporatist agenda over the rest of us, which is causing our wealth divide to get deeper and deeper, us to lose more and more jobs, us to get more involved in war profiteering efforts, etc. This needs to stop. And the core constituency of the Democratic Party needs to demand that it stop.

That's why I'm not advocating that the DLC jump ship without explaining the details of why I want them to jump ship. I want them to answer the hard questions that attack the core of what I believe to be their true agenda and either commit to a mainstream set of goals that the people want, or be forced to admit what they've wanted and be relegated to a minority non-controlling part of the party as they should be and let other "moderates" more for Democratic principles to step forward in their place to keep us in touch with mainstream American values and not be too skewed left or right.

That is why I'll repeat again, that it is up to us to work through the corporate media filters and ask those unasked questions of our candidates about where they stand on "Clean Elections" public campaign financing, "corporate personhood" judicial activism stances in judicial selections, etc. that attack the core of what corporatists really want, and not keep going after the issues that divide us the people, but which don't have any direct effect on them.

[MGKrebs]

166. I don't know, it just seems like so many "activists" consider

elections as their litmus test of "progressivity", as if hard core idealogue activists are going to change the types of candidates we get at the last minute. By the time the campaign season rolls around, it's too late. The electorate is where they are and the viable candidates are going to respond to that. We might not like it, but they HAVE TO. They will have to represent everybody and they have to get their votes first, and if we haven't done our job between elections teaching everybody what progressivism means and why they should support it, then we are going to continue to get DLC type candidates. And making dramatic "I'll never vote for X" statements does nothing to change that. It only makes Mitt Romney more viable.

Trying to change what sort of candidates we get by voting for ones who have no chance is "top down" grassroots, which makes little sense. Grassroots is a "bottom up" movement, and the candidates we need will be there and they will win when we have delivered a constituency that will vote for them.

Having said all that, I encourage all to vote their conscience in the primaries, but let's accept (even if we have to swallow hard to do so) the winner and nominee as the best available voice for progressive causes. Whoever it is will almost certainly be better than any Repub.

[Greyhound]

84. Oh my, in all the excitement, I'd forgotten to recommend this.

Well, better late than never.

Kudos:thumbsup:

[guruoo]

90. K&R

[guruoo]

91. K&R

[BuyingThyme]

93. The candidate for those of you whose support for torture

is qualified.

Hurray Hillary!

[Seabiscuit]

118. Bearing fruit...

My use of the "ignore" function, particularly where DLCers have been involved, is paying off. There are now 29 message in this thread that I don't have to look at. THAT's progress!

Now, if the entire country could just put Hillary on "ignore" we'd really be getting somewhere! :)

[Greyhound]

135. LOL! I understand your feelings, but ignoring them is dangerous.

Like an infection, they fester and grow when they can avoid exposure to the cleansing light of observation.
:hi::rofl:

[Seabiscuit]

195. Yeah, shining cleansing lights is an ugly job, and someone's got to do it.

It's just that I've already paid my dues, and am enjoying a well-deserved vacation. :)

[Individualist]

142. I also ignore them

DLC cheerleaders having nothing to say that's worth reading. I have no interest in overused talking points, smokescreens nor strawmen.

[Seabiscuit]

184. Yup...

I find it the only rational approach to the problem. And so much easier on the eyballs!!! :)

[porphyrian]

139. Funny how many people seem to agree. Is anyone listening? - n/t

[GreenTea]

225. They have the corporate money to make their voice arrogantly louder

[madfloridian]

160. BUT....they say they are the "Real Soul of the Party"..read this.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=900056&contentid=251690

"But the great myth of the current cycle is the misguided notion that the hopes and dreams of activists represent the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. Real Democrats are real people, not activist elites. The mission of the Democratic Party, as Bill Clinton pledged in 1992, is to provide "real answers to the real problems of real people." Real Democrats who champion the mainstream values, national pride, and economic aspirations of middle-class and working people are the real soul of the Democratic Party, not activists and interest groups with narrow agendas."

[mod mom]

170. activist elites? WTF? we're the folks supporting the troops and working people and NOT

the *bu$h corporate cronies.

[GreenTea]

168. This is excellent...Finally some real truth about the fucking DLC!!!

http://vichydems.blogspot.com/2006/03/enemy-without-obstructionists-within.html

In California and across the nation the DCCC and the DSCC had
searched for DLC candidates to run against Progressives in the
primaries. They were more worried about the fire in the Party than the
Republican opposition. They publicly attempted to orchestrate a
victory that would give them more DLC and less Progressive members in
the new congress. In the end, they failed. The result in the house was
more Progressives elected and joining the Progressive caucus to make
it the largest caucus in the house. The Establishment DLC Democrats
did succeed to some degree in the senate. However, even the senate was
won by the expansive Progressive Liberal Democratic turnout and the
Republican self-immolation.

http://blog.pdamerica.org/?p=1002

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stan-goff/unmasking-the-dlc_b_39287.html

[UpInArms]

175. well said!

the DLC should be dismantled the ground upon which it was built burned and salted.

[Dr Fate]

180. Their support & defense of Joe Lieberman put the final nail in the coffin for me.

Before that, I was willing to accept them as people who though I disagree with- I could work with...

[Seabiscuit]

186. Funny. It was during that fiasco

that I finally put entire threadsful of them on "ignore". Life has been good since.

[Dr Fate]

193. If you took them off ignore- you would find that they all pretend to never have supported Joe.

I guess they figured that "far left wackos" (AKA progressives & moderates who are against supporting Bush's wars based on lies) have poor memories.

[Seabiscuit]

217. Now why would I want to upchuck a perfectly good meal reading that kind of garbage?

I'll keep them all on "ignore", thank you very much. :)

[keepCAblue]

181. DLC's Bill Clinton...

From M. Moore's "Stupid White Men":

He has signed a bill providing for federal funds to be distributed to "faith-based" charitable organizations.

He has expanded the number of federal crimes for which the death penalty can be given to a total of sixty.

He has signed a bill outlawing gay marriages and has taken out ads on Christian radio stations touting his opposition to any form of legal same-sex couplings.

In a short span of time, he has been able to kick ten million people off welfare-that's ten million out of fourteen million total recipients.

He has promised states "bonus funds" if they can reduce their welfare numbers further, and made it easier to get these funds by not requiring the states to help the ex-welfare recipients find jobs.

He has introduced a plan that would bar any assistance to teenage parents if they drop out of school or leave their parents' home.

Though he is careful not to draw attention to it, he supports many of the old provisions of Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America," including lowering the capital gains tax.

In spite of calls from Republican governors like George Ryan of Illinois to support a moratorium on capital punishment, he rejected all efforts to slow down the number of executions even after it was revealed that there are dozens of people on death row who are innocent.

He has released funds for local communities to hire over a hundred thousand new police officers and supports laws that put people behind bars for life after committing three crimes-even if those crimes were shoplifting or not paying for a pizza.

There are now more people in America without health insurance than when he took office.
He has signed orders prohibiting any form of health care to poor people who are in the United States illegally.

He supports a ban on late-term abortions and promised to sign the first bill to cross his desk that includes an exemption only if the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

He has signed an order prohibiting any U.S. funds going to any country to be used in helping women secure an abortion.

He signed a one-year gag order that prohibits using any federal funds in foreign countries where birth control agencies mention abortion as an option to pregnant women.

He has refused to sign the international Land Mine Ban Treaty already signed by 137 nations-but not by Iraq, Libya, North Korea, or the United States.

He has scuttled the Kyoto Protocol by insisting that "sinks" (e.g., farmlands and forests) be counted toward the U.S. percentage of emissions reductions, thus making a mockery of the whole treaty (which was written primarily to reduce the carbon dioxide pollution from cars and factories).

He has accelerated drilling for gas and oil on federal lands at a pace that matches, and in some areas exceeds, the production level during the Reagan administration.

He has approved the sale of one California oil field in the largest privatization deal in American history, and he opened the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (something even Reagan wasn't able to do).

And he became the first President since Richard Nixon not to force the auto manufacturers to improve their mileage per gallon-which would have saved millions of barrels of oil each day.

Yes, you'd have to agree, considering all of his above accomplishments, that Bill Clinton was one of the best Republican Presidents we've ever had.

[me b zola]

187. k&r

:applause:

[Joanne98]

205. DLC= NAFTA, Globalization/ deregulation of banking, energy, and telecom

NOT TO MENTION, the covering up of a trillion dollars that was embezzled by GHW Bush thru the HUD department during his presidency. THAT Catherine Austin Fitts told the Clintons when she was a "holdover" secretary.

THE CLINTONS COVER-UPED THE CRIMES OF BUSH ONE. THEY WILL COVER OF CRIMES OF BUSH TWO.
:)
AL GORE 2008

[Czolgosz]

209. If you don't like the DLC, please consider a candidate other than Bill Richardson

"DLC New Dem of the Week: Bill Richardson" - http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251963&kaid=104&subid=116

"Keynote Address of Gov. Bill Richardson to the 2003 DLC" - http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=106&subid=122&contentid=251978

"DLC: New Mexico: State of the State Address by Gov. Bill Richardson" - http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=106&subid=122&contentid=253678

[Morgana LaFey]

211. And if that's not enough

(good post, btw)

Here's more about the DLC, something EVERY DUer should know, and a thread every DUer should bookmark:

***** Who Funds The DLC??
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x173238


There's no room in the Democratic Party for the likes of these people -- I don't care HOW big the damn tent is supposed to be.

[Arugula Latte]

212. K&R. F*** the DLC.

Oh, and Hillary, the more your supporters try to push you on me, the less tolerance I have for you.

[Porcupine]

213. K&R Tired of having no traction in congress.

The DLC is the GOP's money telling the base to go away.

[Morereason]

219. Yep, the DLC has been exposed. Like repubs they can't hide anymore

[Morereason]

218. wyldwolf, You are a one man marketer for the DLC

[jaysunb]

220. * ALERT*Are you the same person that authored this article here ?

By Michael Corcoran
The Other Reason To Oppose Hillary Clinton
This article argues that Hillary Clinton's affiliation with the DLC is reason enough to oppose her candidacy.


http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_michael__070227_the_other_reason_to_.htm

cause if you're not.....well you get my drift, it's plagerism.

BTW, I'm in agreement with every word of both articles, no matter who wrote it.

[mdmc]

222. obey HRC

she has a posse