The DLC's message with regard to the election?

[fujiyama]

What the hell is it? Do they have one? What are their differences with the admin. regarding the war? Do they simply want to do the same things, but do it more "diplomatically"?

Because from the few articles I've read from their newsletter, they seem clueless, harping about economic issues (which is good), but not making clear how they're better than Bush on them. It's pretty clear that regardless of the economy, the democrats must present a viable and sensible outlook on national security and how to fight terror. It's clear that Bush is doing it wrong, and what the DLC can't seem to admit is that Iraq shouldn't be the focal point of the war on terror (which seems to have been a failure).

[bluestateguy]

1. the DLC intellectualizes too much

Listening to them or reading their website gives one the feeling of being at an academic conference or a think tank symposium. They have no populist appeal and no ability to rally core Democratic constituencies. It would be nice to see a DLCer just call someone a son of a bitch out on the campaign stump sometime.

[fujiyama]

3. That's the feeling

I've had with many democrats in general. It seems as though they try too hard to pander to everyone. I understand democrats are in a tough situation with the war, catering to the liberal wing as well as conservative from the south, etc. but being more human wouldn't hurt. For example, Bush called Clymer an "ass hole" on the campaign trail in '00. Personally I find Bush to be the ass hole and I think his comment displayed his crudeness, and lack of intelligence in general, but hey, this kinda thing works with people once in a while (the key is using such phrases sparingly).

[Cascadian]

6. The DLC

They love to analyze, psycho-analyze, and micro-analyze everything. That is part of the problem. No passion and no appeal! The populists and progressives need to bring the Democratic Party back from the brink.

John

[La_Serpiente]

2. hahah

they made this whole bullshit about "progressive multilateralism" on their website. Basically, it is a bunch of turd to me.

You can read it here.


http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=207&contentid=252147

But basically, it looks exactly the same to Bush's foreign policy.

[w4rma]

4. I think the DLC's message is intentionally amorphous.

I think they don't want their message understood by most folks.

[Lexingtonian]

5. Why care?

Really. It's not supposed to impress any committed liberal or committed Democrat. Let 'em do what they need to do to survive with swing voters on their home turf. Better to get half a loaf than none at all as long as the conditions aren't too onerous.

Did you ever notice that Republicans don't criticize their Northeastern moderate brethren, even though they don't consider a whole lot of them "real Republicans" (iow, Southern conservatives)? It's worth regarding as a lesson- if you have no power to share, the discussion about doctrine is quite academic.

[fujiyama]

7. Oh don't get me wrong...

I'm all for the big tent. I even think the DLc serves a purpose and isn't all evil like some on this board believe. I just think they've been somewhat innefective in the midterm elections, and being that that's the wing of the party that seems to have the power, it's worthy of criticism.