Reply #231: In your opinion, perhaps.

[No Elephants]

As to the first quote from the DLC's eck wiki, you make the same mistake as did Pro Sense. this is about Kerry and the DLC, not Dean or, for heaven's sake, Gephardt or anything else you went on about. My point in including it was only to show that was the DLC was anti-Dean, not merely pro-Kerry after Kerry became the Party's nominee, as the second quote from wiki, standing alone, might imply.

That second quoce from wiki speaks for iself:

"Senator John Kerry won the Democratic primary and chose primary contender Senator John Edwards as his running mate. Both Senators are members of the Senate New Democrat Coalition, and the DLC anticipated that they would win the general election. In a March 3, 2004 dispatch, they suggested voters would appreciate Kerry's centrist viewpoints, imagining voters to say "If this is a waffle, bring on the syrup." <24>"

And just in case it does not speak for itself: "The Senate New Democrat Coalition was founded in the spring of 2000 by Senators Evan Bayh (Indiana), Bob Graham (Florida), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Joe Lieberman (Connecticut), and Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas).<2>" (Zell Miller, HRC and Chuck Robb are among former members.) Much more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrat_Coalition

The link 'to Donahue was 'to show 'the DLC's financing of Kerry's campaign. (Not "claims" about who gave Kerry money, as you tried to frame it. As you very well know, who gave Kerry's campaign money is a matter of public record.)

And no, you don't fill your campaign--or your administration with DLC members for no reason. You surround yourself with like minded folk with whom you are simpatico politically, with maybe a few gadflies to keep you on your toes. And no, as of 2004, it hadn't "always" happened that Democratic Presidential candidates surrounded themselves with DLCers (or former Clintonites). Don't know how you is ludicould even make that claim with a straight face.

And, if we must automatically discount everything a Dean supporter says or writes about Dean or Kerry, whether actually true or not, why not also discount everything said or written about Kerry by someone who defends Kerry to the hilt at every turn, but never seems to have a single criticism of him? Someone like you, for example.


"The fact that this writer, who hadn't liked Kerry in the primaries and clearly took no time to consider what his history and what he said meant he would do as President argued that he would be a "Bill Clinton" has no more merit than me saying - he wouldn't."

Disagree with that, too. You are a nameless, faceless poster who has nothing to lose IRL if you mess up on a message board. You are not identifiable IRL, and you are not trying to earn a living by making what you post here credible to Democrats in general, as opposed to supporters of only Dean or only Kerry.