Will the DLC and it's boosters ever admit

[jaysunb]

that the 50 State strategy is/was a winner ? I don't expect them to ever admit that Howard Dean was right all along ( including in 04 )?

I doubt it, but I hope some MSM journalist will mention this in their post mortem of this election.

[orestes]

1. Hell, not only will they admit it, they'll do all they can to steal the credit

[jaysunb]

7. Check

I recall the aftermath of the 06 cycle when, the media hailed Schumer & Emmanuel as heros for getting a majority in both houses. They failed to mention Obama and other 50 State stategist dug in in Virgina,Montana and Misssori to actually make it happen.

[Doremus]

15. Not only did they NOT give credit where it was due, they actually panned Dean!

Amidst all the jubilation, Carville came out with a venomous attack against Dean, accusing him of almost losing it for them and other vicious lies.

Carville and the DLC are snakes. I so hope Obama marginalizes them out of existence.

[Starlight]

32. Carville = Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

He'll do whatever he can to destroy the Democratic party.

[...of J.Temperance]

37. James Carvillle gave us the first Democratic President since 1976

Bill Clinton in 1992, James Carville got President Clinton returned to office in 1996, the first time since FDR that one of our side got elected to a second term.

So your comments about Carville are just plain absurd and totally inaccurate.

[Doremus]

41. Carville does what's good for Carville. And my remarks were NOT inaccurate.

Are you denying he threw Dean under the bus after the midterms? Are you denying he threw Kerry under the bus in '04?

You can disagree with my opinion of him, but you can't disagree with FACTS.

[Starlight]

44. I certainly do remember. I'll never forget.

[...of J.Temperance]

52. Are you denying that Carville ran Clinton's two campaigns and gave us

In 1992 the first Democratic President since 1976 and in 1996 the first Democratic President to be re-elected since FDR?

Senator Kerry was a poor candidate, Kerry didn't even have the passion and fire to defend himself against OUTRIGHT lies and smears from the Swift Boat bastards....he sat there and said nothing while they went on the TV day after day and smeared him, and Kerry never said a thing to defend himself....so don't blame Carville for Senator Kerry not having the fight.

On Edit: Dammit spelling error

[Doremus]

82. Nice straw man.

Why don't you just answer the questions instead of distracting us into unrelated territory:

Are you denying he threw Dean under the bus after the midterms?
Are you denying he threw Kerry under the bus in '04?

Because if you are, you are unequivocally, irrefutably WRONG.

[...of J.Temperance]

86. No straw man, no unrelated territory, it's YOU that's offering the straw man

I responded to post # 32 where that poster said that Carville will do anything to destroy the Democratic Party.

My response, Carville helped give us the first Democratic President since 1976 in 1992, Carville then helped get that President re-elected in 1996, the first time a Democratic President had been re-elected since FDR.

Is that what you call doing "anything to destroy the Democratic Party"?

I repeat Kerry in 2004 was a very poor candidate, Kerry basically threw himself under the bus when he FAILED to defend himself against outright lies and smears by the Swift Boat crowd, Kerry, while a good man, was a weak candidate, Kerry's failings were Kerry's fault, not Carville's fault.

[dansolo]

92. And that Democratic president nearly destroyed the Democratic Party

Bill Clinton's legacy was that he did serious damage to the Democratic Party, so yes, I would blame Carville for that if you really want to give him credit for getting Bill Clinton elected. Clinton's disastrous early policies led to the Republicans gaining a majority in the House for the first time in over 40 years and getting a majority in the Senate as well. Then he passed a whole bunch of Republican backed legislation. And then he has the whole Monica Lewinsky affair that made it impossible to get anything done for the last two years of his presidency, and harmed Al Gore's chances.

[wyldwolf]

94. Are you referring to FDR? Because, by your reasoning...

..HE nearly destroyed the Democratic party - 1938 - Dems lost 72 House seats and 6 Senate seats.

And, if you'll recall (or perhaps you can't) those 'disasterous' early policies of Clinton's were bread and butter "progressive" issues.

[MarthaMyDear]

50. I agree...

...but I could be influenced by Hunter S. Thompson's relationship with Mr. Carville...I really love reading about the Clinton campaign, etc. via Thompson's writings...

[...of J.Temperance]

53. I haven't read the Thompson stuff about the Clinton campaign

I'll have to put it on my list to read, thanks

[JaneQPublic]

139. Carville was NOT responsible for Bill Clinton's presidency...

Bill Clinton was responsible for Carville's career.

The Big Dog would've won regardless of who was on his team; Carville just claimed credit and got rich doing so.

[VenusRising]

13. 100% Correct n/t

[ScreamingMeemie]

2. They will never admit it. Not ever.

But we know. We know.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. What Happened To The DLC?

They seemed to have shriveled up and died, like PNAC. It would be great if they were gone for good.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

6. They are hibernating with the RNC.

[...of J.Temperance]

14. No we are still living

And wanting Obama/Biden elected next Tuesday.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

55. small giggle. nt

[...of J.Temperance]

4. 50 State strategy isn't a winner

Because you'd have to include Alabama, Idaho, Utah and those sort of beyond hope states.

And I DON'T see WHY you feel the need to start some thread specifically designed to bash the DLC at THIS particular time.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. So We're Actually Losing Now?

The DLC are/were classical Republicans that are phenomenal at losing elections.

[...of J.Temperance]

16. We are not losing, but the 50 state strategy isn't happening

If it were, then how do you explain Alabama and Idaho for example?

[donco6]

19. You don't really need someone to actually say that . . .

. . . the 50 state strategy wasn't about actually winning all 50 states, do you? Really?

[ScreamingMeemie]

22. Yes, this person really does.

Funny how that happens, eh. Sigh...

[Starlight]

36. apparently

[MannyGoldstein]

25. It Means We're Active In 50 States, Not Winning In 50 States

Which is why we're picking up all sorts of states that wouldn't normally go Democratic. The DLC's strategy was to pour all money only into the few states that were thought to be battleground states. As soon as the DLC controlled the DNC, we lost both houses of Congresses. As soon as a non-DLCer (Dean) took the reign at the DNC, we won back both houses of Congress.

[...of J.Temperance]

31. I can give Howard Dean credit where credit is due, so if I can show that respect to Dean then I'd

Wish people could at least respond in kind to the DLC in a similar manner.

And the campaign to win Congress btw was run by Rahm Emmanuel, a DLCer and Congressman.

We CAN work together, why? Because we are ALL Democrats, we are IN the same political party.

I can give Howard Dean credit, and I expect people to give Rahm Emmanuel credit.

[Starlight]

46. No, apparently you can't. See #4.

[CreekDog]

91. changing the subject from your misreprestation of the 50-state strategy?

[LooseWilly]

112. Just so long as you don't ask that I give any credit to Schumer.

Between him and Feinstein... I can't bring myself to give money to the DSCC.
Money via Kerry or Boxer's private networks, sure. Schumer... not so much.

In fact, Feinstein has pissed me off so much that I'll be Liebermann'ing her when she next comes up for election in Cali. Even if it means I have to vote for Schwarzenegger over her... because she's gone so far right that I think Schwarzenegger is more liberal than she these days.

Emmanuel did a fine job of only being mildly toxic to a liberal sensibility.

Ohh, and Kerry is the reason I'm no longer voting for Cthulu for president. Just saying, so the Kerry haters have something to chew on...

[FatDave]

115. Correct. It's about building the party in those dark red states.

We may not be winning in the deep south, but we are making inroads. We are building there. You gotta think long term. Look how close Georgia is. Look at Indiana. And would anybody other than Obama/Dean have even tried in North Carolina?

50 State Strategy is a winner today and a bigger winner tomorrow.

[CreekDog]

89. that you are arguing this reveals that you are dishonest or ignorant of the 50-state strategy

which one is it?

[jaysunb]

9. Can you tell me when the appropriate time is ?

Because, I won't be changing my mind on the original subject.

[...of J.Temperance]

21. After the election

Right now we have ONE week to go, we as a party are UNITED....and united we win, divided we fall.

We go forward during this week as ONE united front, and with that, we can't go wrong.

The GOP would love nothing more than us all getting divided now, so why should anyone give the GOP what they want?

[donco6]

29. Well, then, you'd better get on the train.

Cuz that DLC engine plumb fell off the tracks.

[BlooInBloo]

12. (facepalm)

[Bucky]

62. best reply

[donco6]

17. You've got to be kidding.

And, by the way, the DLC is dead.

[...of J.Temperance]

26. DLC is dead? Dunno, just checked my pulse, so this one is still alive

[Ikonoklast]

30. You'll be in a museum soon.

Right next to the DINOsaurs.

[...of J.Temperance]

40. It's a good thing that Senator Obama doesn't think like you do

If everyone had that mindset, our political party would have 10 Senate seats and 50 Congresspeople forever more.

Thank goodness the MAJORITY of our party believe in The Big Tent....and NOT The Small Tent.

[Ikonoklast]

47. Congratulations on your victory.

Rahm's 50 state strategy did it all, right? He took all the credit for it, the weasel.

Oh, wait, that's right. He fought Dr. Dean tooth and nail on that.

Spare me.

We will move forward and leave the corporatists behind.
It's a sad devotion to a failed religion.

The Party is changing. Deal with it.

[Sebastian Doyle]

85. If NOBODY had the DLC mindset

We never would have lost the majority in Congress to begin with.

And let me remind everybody what Al From and Will Marshall, founders of the DLC, said about the Repuke takeover of Congress in 1994.

They celebrated it, claiming that it allowed the Democratic party to "liberate" itself from the legacy of FDR.

Well, on the edge of another Great Depression, partially enabled by DLC'ers who willingly played along with Repuke corporatist fascists, how's that working out for ya?

The mission for 2008 is take down the Repukes. The mission for 2010 is cut this fucking cancerous DLC completely out of our party.

[CreekDog]

87. you are saying we shouldn't have ANY presence in the states you mention?

[Arugula Latte]

109. Um, 'cuz the DLC sucks and should be drowned in a bathtub?

[KingFlorez]

110. It's not all about the presidential race

It's about other races too. Right now, Republicans are having to fund congressional incumbents in very red states. Democrats could end up with 60 seats in the Senate and in the House increased majorities. So, the Presidential race isn't the only reason to focus on all states.

[PVnRT]

121. Except that there are people in those states right now...

Kentucky is solid red at this point, yet I see Obama ads. Under the DLC, that would never happen.

Mind telling us how the 50-state strategy is a loser when states like Colorado, North Carolina and Indiana are up for grabs this elections cycle? Or do you prefer just cherry-picking?

[Overseas]

133. 50 State Strategy IS A BIG WINNER and I have been thrilled to see it.

It was painful election after election with the old DLC strategy to watch for our few blue states and see all the red, knowing there were lots of Democrats in there.

I have been thrilled to see all those states being won over through clear arguments about their best interests and the common good.

I have seen both styles and strongly prefer the Howard Dean DNC approach of 2008.

[cynatnite]

5. Howard Dean convinced Bill Clinton a few years back about it...

I haven't heard any DLCer say otherwise.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Rahm Emanuel And Jim Carville Were Apoplectic At Dean Two Years Ago

Remember when Carville claimed that the 2006 election represented a failure by Dean of "Rumsfeldian" proportions? And not a peep to the contrary by The Clintons?

[cynatnite]

20. I do remember Carville turned into a first rate asshole over all that...

I don't see why the Clintons would need to respond since Carville buried himself in how he conducted himself. I just remember how pleased I was that Bill Clinton came around after he and Howard Dean met.

Carville's good for parties. That's the only use I've got for the man.

[MannyGoldstein]

27. Carville Was Widely Seen As A Clinton Proxy

And The Clintons did nothing to dispell that.

[cynatnite]

33. I have no reason to believe he was acting on their behalf...

He made an ass of himself and he lost. For folks as politically minds as the Clintons are, I wasn't surprised at how they kept their distance from him.

It's old history and doesn't matter anymore.

[...of J.Temperance]

61. Emmanuel won back Congress for us and Carville helped get Pres. Clinton elected twice

These are facts.

[madfloridian]

84. Dead Wrong. Your facts are wrong. Here are the correct ones.

Carville has his facts wrong....he needs to apologize.

There are several sets of facts in that link.

Here is more, and there was long post at Daily Kos and Hotline proving Carville was wrong.

From MyDD

Why did the DCCC lose eight of its top fifteen targets?

[...of J.Temperance]

90. Emmanuel ran the Congressional Campaign in 2006 that resulted in our regaining Congress

Rahm Emmanuel RAN that campaign.

James Carville ran President Clinton's campaigns in 1992 and 1996.

So how am I wrong?

[madfloridian]

95. That's what my posts are about. You did not read them.

Please do not comment until you read them.

Hotline blog and others did some digging, and there were only a few races where more money from Dean would have mattered.

They did not have their facts straight or else they did not give bloggers credit for intelligence.

[Richard Steele]

111. Emmanual recruits lifelong Repubs to run with a (D) after their name.

And that's a fact. Fuck him, and the sycophants he rode in on.

[FatDave]

116. Emmanuel did no such fucking thing.

If you compare the margins of centrist and progressive democrats elected in 2006, progressives won by wider margins. Howard Dean won back congress and nobody else.

But you are correct about Carville re: the Clintons. He was influential in getting Bill elected twice, and I will gladly give him credit for that.

However, the problem with him comes that he has stayed fiercely devoted to the Clintons, not the democratic party. He was wearing Puma sneakers at the convention! This year's convention! He cannot be trusted.

[wyldwolf]

124. sure he did

DLC and Blue Dog Dems accounted for over half the new seats won in '06. No brag, just fact.

[...of J.Temperance]

10. This is NOT the time for such a thread designed to DIVIDE people

We are one week away from the election, we are ALL Democrats, we are in this TOGETHER, we ALL have the same hope and aim, and thats to get the Obama/Biden ticket elected next Tuesday.

We do not need this sort of divisive thread/topic like in the OP, designed to start another round of DLC bashing.

[jaysunb]

18. This is a, "conversation " not an attack .

Families have these kind of talks all the time, why can't we ?

I suspect your objections are an attempt to make this thread a candidate to be locked.

[ScreamingMeemie]

24. Agreed.

Here's to People Powered Howard!!!!

[...of J.Temperance]

45. Okay, I'm cool with a "conversation", I just would prefer no attacking happen

Sorry, us DLCer's are just so used to things going downhill in threads pertaining to the DLC, that I suppose, we kind of expect it, even if the intention was just to have a "conversation"

I'm all for a "conversation", I just don't see why SOME people would feel the need to launch attacks, not saying you, but maybe other people would or might.

[Starlight]

42. See reply #4.

[Doremus]

23. I said it upthread and I'll say it again: I hope the DLC is marginalized out of existence.

Forever. Right along with all the rest of their fellow corporatists.

[Laelth]

28. The only question I have is ...

Will the DLC split of from us and form their own, pro-corporate party, or will we split off from them? For the moment, it looks like they'll have to split off from us, and that is a comforting thought.

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.



-Laelth

[jaysunb]

34. They'll coattail and try to take credit

as someone mentioned up thread.

Just like most reversable clothing, they'll always be ready to tack back to their true colors.

[polichick]

35. Once we rid ourselves of Republicans, we'll have to rid outselves of the DLC.

[cynatnite]

So we get rid of all those who don't think or believe like us? n/t

[polichick]

39. If that's what you call voting.

[cynatnite]

43. Just threw me seeing in how it was worded...

Sorry.

[polichick]

48. No problem. :)

[wyldwolf]

69. so, are you going to vote out 20+ Dem senators, 60+ house members...

... and about 1/2 of the Democratic governors?

[polichick]

70. Most of them will fade into the woodwork on their own...

No point running for reelection when you can read the writing on the wall.

[...of J.Temperance]

71. What writing on the wall would that be?

And your comment suggests that you'd be happy to see a loss of 20 Senators? WTF?

[wyldwolf]

74. that would be her high school bathroom wall

If she hasn't noticed, the house and senate Democratic forces are becoming MORE centrist, not less. The numbers don't lie.

[...of J.Temperance]

78. Lol for the first comment

I don't think she has noticed that the House and Senate are becoming more Centrist, in 2006 the majority of newly-elected Democrats to Congress were Centrist, they gave us our majority, and I can't see too many of them losing their re-election races.

As you pointed out downthread, the Senate races that are going to put us VERY near the 60 Senate seat mark are ALL involving Centrist Democrats.

On Edit: Dammit spelling error

[cascadiance]

81. The problem is with a fillibuster majority, DLC and Blue dogs lose their "excuse"!

They can no longer blame the Republicans any more for failures to pass legislation in Congress, if in the Senate, if they voted as a block (at least on important issues to the American people) there would be no more Republican filibusters.

If they continue to sabotage the Democratic majority with a 60 seat senate majority, then THEY will be exposed as the problem more nakedly instead of the Republicans that are being blamed now.

I think after the election, provided we get the majorities that would warrant this, I'll work on t-shirts/bumper stickers that will say something like:

"Blue Dogs / DLC, in 2010 the primaries WILL be the election for change then. Don't forget that when you vote the next two years!! We'll be watching YOU!"

[polichick]

120. A primary to look forward to - especially now that we've registered...

...so many new voters.

[wyldwolf]

125. you make some wild assumptions

1. you assume the majority of new voters registered fit into your definition of "progressive."
2. you assume "progressives" are the only ones registering voters.

[polichick]

75. Writing on the wall: THE DLC DAYS ARE OVER...

Yes, I'd be happy to see a loss of 20 DLC Senators in favor of 20 true progressive Dems ~ obviously it'll take time.

[wyldwolf]

76. that explains why they're padding the senate (and the house again) this year

[...of J.Temperance]

79. Whatever

Sorry I DON'T want to lose 20 Democratic Senators EVER, I want us to keep building on our Senate Majority, I never want the GOP in control of the Senate or the House ever again actually, they've created enough damage and destruction already.

Time for the grown-up's to keep hold of the ball.

[Beacool]

108. Some people on the LW blogs are as nutty as the ones on the extreme right.

[polichick]

117. I think you missed the point...

It's not a matter of voting for Republicans, but choosing more progressive Dems candidate to run against them.

[genna]

126. This is kind of amazing...so the grassroots are taking the center back to the left

And the left is giving the center DLC NOTICE act left or ELSE!

I thought I had caught that vibe in the primaries and was screaming YES! I read and subscribed to alot of DLC stuff during the Clinton years, but I started wondering while reading whether or not they would reverse all the Great Society good works by saying they had a third way. I never felt good about Clinton's welfare/Sister Souljah/Don't Ask Don't Tell policies.


I thought Joe Lieberman losing the Democratic primary was an anomaly. Now, I believe from my time this year on DU that the grassroots are pushing for them to fly right or go away.


How is this really going to work?

[polichick]

128. I've been an activist for 30+ years, and imo more and more Dems are proudly reclaiming...

...the authentic Democratic principles that for so long have been denigrated, both by Republicans and by DLC types. Howard Dean's 50-state strategy has obviously been a success ~ and it's important that Dean and groups like Progressive Majority have been encouraging and supporting great progressive candidates all across the country. We need plenty of state and local progressives in order to move them up to Congress.

Check out http://www.progressivemajority.org

[PassingFair]

96. One at a time.

War enablers beware!

[polichick]

118. Yep.

[Moochy]

101. In full armor...

wyldwolf yelling from the parapets:



Go away, silly "progressives" or I shall taunt you a second time!

[polichick]

119. LOL - that obnoxious poster might as well be a Republican.

[wyldwolf]

123. LOL! such a naive little girl

[NorthCarolina]

38. Is the DLC as "yesterday" as the GOP will be in the wake of an Obama win?

I sure hope so

[mtnsnake]

49. The DLC as it exists today really sucks, but you are truly foolish

if you don't realize that one of the main reasons the DLC was formed was to adopt a more centrist policy, one that was meant to make our candidates attractive to all 50 states, duh.

One other thing...According to Barack's personal friend and DLC leader, Harold Ford, Barack has expressed a desire to find ways that he could work with the DLC, so before you go spouting off any other divisive threads like this one, you ought to think twice about what you're doing.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/01/fords_nex...

Like I said, the DLC sucks in many ways, but not for the way you implied in your post (the 50 state strategy).

[...of J.Temperance]

57. We can work together, we are the same party, and thank you for your

Sensible and thoughtful set of comments.

Yes, I'm a DLCer and I don;t agree with everything about the DLC, but my God, we're not The Devil Incarnate like some of the anti-DLC crowd think we are....we are and always were and always will be proud Democrats, we're just more Centrist is all.

[mtnsnake]

67. You are very welcome, and you are very right

We are all proud Democrats, period, and we all will do whatever it takes to put a Democrat in the WH. In many ways I'm a little more liberal leaning than centrist, and in others I'm probably not quite as much, but I do appreciate that it takes enough centrist values incorporated into any presidential campaign to win any election. Barack Obama is smart enough to know that, and that's one of the many reasons why he's running a near flawless campaign.

There are just too many people here who forget that it was people like Al Gore who practically started the DLC with the purpose of it being to win presidential elections, something that Democrats were having plenty of trouble doing at the time.

I hate threads like this that are just meant to be divisive. I don't think Obama would appreciate it, and I know Biden wouldn't.

[...of J.Temperance]

77. Exactly

This why Senator Obama is doing so well, because he's got just about the most perfect Liberal-Centrist mix of values in his campaign, which of course is appealing to Democrats and the crucial block of Independents.

Yes Al Gore was one of the first batch of DLCers when the DLC began, it's amazing that many people either have forgotten this or choose to pretend that Gore never had an association with the DLC.

We've lost some, like in 2004, but we have won some too since the DLC was created, 1992, 1996 and yes we won in 2000 but it was taken away from us as we know.

The DLC can't be blamed for everything, the fact is, you win some, you lose some, and I think in Presidential Elections we have quite a good record, we hadn't won an election nationally since 1976, the DLC was created, we won for the first time in 1992.

I know Senator Obama and Senator Biden wouldn't like this sort of divisive situation, where we literally have people URGING that a great portion of Democrats get basically purged from the Democratic Party....the fact is, we're Democrats too, this is our party too, we have never demanded that those who are more to the Left of us get purged from the party, we believe in the Big Tent, we can accomodate ALL sections in this party, because that's one of the things that makes us Democrats to begin with, we are diverse and inclusive to ALL.

[PassingFair]

97. Senator Obama is doing well because he didn't vote for the war.

Open your eyes.

He was on record as being against the IWR
in the run-up to the war.

Hillary, Kerry and Edwards were fatally flawed.

[jaysunb]

100. I know exactly who the founding members of the DLC are and

were.
The ideas it was founded on was a " stopgap" strategy in response to the Reagan victory and the advent of what's now called Reagan Democrats.

Like all ideas and concepts,in order to be viable they must meet the needs of that time, and mature with it's core values intact.

An honest look at the times says that Democrats correctly adapted a strategy to win ( moving center right )but it only went so far because that's not where the base of the Democratic party is. As Dr Dean stated," I'm from the Democratic wing of the Democrat party."

The DLC strategy was a necessary course correction in 1981,and it's basic concepts are not evil or nefarious, and actually expands the big tent that all progressives claim to want. I myself would probably be more to the center than most people here, but I believe in honest dialog that acknowledges facts. The fact is, trying to meet Republicans ( present day ) half way did not work.

Course correction is now in progress.

[Beacool]

136. Great post.

Thanks for pointing it out. I'm sick of people on the LW blogs trashing half of the party and Bill's administration in the process. Maybe they preferred that Bush Sr. had won the 1992 election. Geez........

[Samantha]

98. The fatal flaw

When rumors were flying hot and heavy here in DC that Al Gore would run in 2004, members of the DLC publicly stepped out and asked him not to run. I wrote a thread here and posted a link at that time. I already had a very dim view of the DLC, but I was aghast at that. And one of the main complaints about Gore was that he had run too populist a campaign in 2000. Really? What does the DLC think of the campaign Obama has run this year? It is his populist threads that have sewn together a winning message for the Democrats this election season, DLC-sanctioned or not.

The DLC is defunct. It should just fade into the sunset, along with McCain, after this election.

I came to this site in 2001 railing against the DLC, and I have not seen any contribution this organization has made to make me regret that.

Sam

[Fluffdaddy]

51. Some of yous should be on your knees thanking the DLC for wining back both houses

You know I'm right

[...of J.Temperance]

54. We won back Congress because of Rahm Emmanuel's strategy

That some or all of the above people are in TOTAL denial of this is just staggering.

We CONTROL Congress because of the strategy of Rahm Emmanuel.

Hello fellow DLCer

[Fluffdaddy]

58. OMG................I am not alone

[...of J.Temperance]

59. Well

I've always had the DLC avatar, I changed it for a Hillary one during Primary, now it's been an Obama one since he got the nomination.

I will have the DLC avatar again after next Tuesday

And yes, there are even more of us, I know of at least....20 of us here, so hello

[ulysses]

72. more than that, I'd bet.

Game's back on on 11/5, but I'm not going to engage on this now.

[...of J.Temperance]

80. Well yes, as ever I was being modest

Games back on 11/5 okay, that's fine....I have no problem with that, we have one week to go, lets just kick McNut and McNuttier where the sun don't shine, that's the most important thing, a united strategy.

[dionysus]

134. ROFL.... put.. the crack pipe...down....

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

56. Kick & REC.

[OmahaBlueDog]

60. Can we wait at least 5 minutes after Barack is sworn-in to start eating our own?

Just wondering....

[...of J.Temperance]

64. Thank you, this is what I've been saying in this thread

We have the GOP eating their own already.

We are united, we have one week to go, lets stay united and get rid of those GOP critters.

[progressivebydesign]

66. yep.. second ugly thread tonight that's threatening our unity.

Some people seem to be allergic to victory.

I'm going to try and take the happy, pretty, bunny, mentality for the next week... lest I lose my manners.

[wyldwolf]

63. Here's an answer

Not at all to detract from the brilliant campaign of Barack Obama - but Obama would lose in 2004. 2008 is a watershed year, the GOP brand is in the toilet.

The battleground state strategy employed in the last seven presidential elections was a product of a shifting electorate in which voters were moving away from the Democratic party in mass numbers. The bile spilled by the GOP in the last six years or so has contributed to this election cycle as much as anything Howard Dean and the Democratic party has done. The 50 state strategy is a winner only because the political climate has been ripe for such a strategy. Even Dean admitted in 2006 that the strategy was a long term one, not expected to produce results for six or eight years.

Again - not taking anything away from Dean for having the balls to do it - but to say the preceeding battleground strategy was a mistake is naive.

As for the status of the DLC - remember the numerous threads here during the primaries here on Obama and the DLC? He 'borrowed' the bulk of his policy proposals from them as documented in "Audacity of Hope." Many of his advisors are DLC.

Finally, here's a quiz for you: What do these people all have in common?

Mark Warner
Tom Udall
Jeanne Shaheen
Mark Udall
Mark Begich

Other than being Democratic senate candidates expected to win, they're all New Democrats (DLC) and will give the DLC it's biggest presence in the Senate since... well.. ever.

[...of J.Temperance]

65. Thank you Wyldwolf

Fluffdaddy and I were feeling lonely

Your points are all correct, hopefully people can see that.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

129. Let's look at their states.

Warner- Virginia, Chimp 2000, 2004
T. Udall- New Mexico, Chimp 2004
Shaheen- New Hampshire, Chimp 2000
M. Udall- Colorado, Chimp 2000, 2004
Begich- Alaska, Chimp 2000, 2004

First we turn them from Republicans to DLC.
Second we turn them from DLC to "progressive."

It may take a generation.




eta: changed 2008 to 2004

[wyldwolf]

130. Except for one minor detail

The average voter in these states have not a clue who or what the DLC is. All they see is a Democrat they like. I doubt these states would ever elect Kucinich-style Democrats or Sanders-style Democratic Socialists even after a generation has passed.

In fact, all the Democrats have to do (and this includes "progressives") is push an agenda too far left for their tastes and these states will go running back into the arms of the GOP.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

132. I agree they don't know who the DLC is.

They also know remarkably little about the issues. What is too far left? A 90% top marginal tax rate? I'd venture to guess that the vast majority of voters have no clue that that was the rate for 30 years. I often ask my right-leaning friends and family in which decade America was at it's peak. Almost universally they say the mid-50's. When asked what they think the TMTR was in the 50's they usually guess 30-40%. This is indicative of the fact that they know what they want but have been propagandized to the point of losing touch with the policies that give them those results.

Socialized medicine, too far left? Medicare is one of the most popular programs in the country.

Regulation of industry, too far left? People are clamoring for it now in the financial sector.

The wealthy paying 67% of taxes, too far left? Do they know they own 80+% of the wealth? No.

Unions, too far left? Do they know a 1/3 of jobs were union in post-WWII America and it is now just 12%? Yet America boomed in those post-war years and is busting now.


I suggest that it isn't "too far left" but "too little information" that is creating the center-right ideology. On the merits, people generally agree with "too far left" policies. Perhaps you can tell me what "too far left" is because maybe I'm missing your point.

[Beacool]

137. Exactly, in 2004 he probably wouldn't have even gotten the nomination.

This is a Democratic year, after 8 years of Chimpy people are ready for a change. The economic crisis is also manna from heaven for the Democrats. Good for us, bad for the Republicans.

[texasleo]

68. Worked great for Howard Dean in 2004

oops!

[Forkboy]

73. The DLC and the Left both need each other, and the sooner we all realize that the better.

And people who know me here know I'm no fan of the DLC, but the center and the left need to stop fighting over which one is right, and start talking about the numerous things we do have in common. Almost all of us on both sides of the equation share the same goal. The argument arises over how to get there.

Different tactics and strategies will work at different times. Right now Dean's strategy has been excellent and is paying off, but that's far from the only reason we're in the position we are right now.

[Hardrada]

83. If you change the definition of "Left" to dishwatery liberal

and "centrist" to corporate capitalist neoliberal imperialists (i.e. historical failures) then you might have a case.

[madfloridian]

88. I don't think anyone claims that's the only reason.

But the DLC is still setting policy completely. That disturbs me. It's why we are in Iraq, and it's why we are in this financial mess.

They went along to get along on the advice of that group.

[Sebastian Doyle]

93. Let's not confuse actual moderates with artificial (corporate) "centrism"

We don't need the corporatist DLC to have moderate Democrats in the party.

[mvd]

104. Correct Forkboy - we must coexist

Insults from both sides won't help us any. I still say we have lost too much fight and too many progressive ideals since the DLC started having so much influence. It seems even Pelosi got weak. But, if we need a centrist Dem to win a district or Senate seat, it's better than a Repuke. And I see Obama as a mixture of DLC and progressive, which is maybe why he's doing so well.

[Forkboy]

106. While I would totally prefer to have a further left candidate...

...I think that Obama is what the country needs the most right now, psychologically if nothing else. I think a sharp jump from far right to far left wouldn't work in this atmosphere where people are sick of mega partisan politics.

My fear is that we have a real shitstorm coming down the pike at us in the next few decades, and we need something bolder than a centrist will be (by their very nature), and I fear we'll need it soon. I feel the time for baby steps on some issues is rapidly ending.

But for now, Obama is a big step in the right direction, and we won't get anywhere near what I feel we need without this step first.

[mvd]

113. I see what you mean

We are not going to have Kucinich as President right away, even though that's what I want. I do think Obama will be a little to the left of Clinton and more liberal than his talk during the campaign, though. For instance, I think he'd fix the FISA law completely.

[Hippo_Tron]

107. IMO the DLC is going to pass steadily into irrelevance

Conventional wisdom was that you could only elect someone with the DLC's praise in red states. But if Obama wins in a blowout then the actual number of these red states is going to get smaller. Take Indiana for example. If Indiana becomes a blue state then the conventional wisdom that only centrists like Evan Bayh gets shattered. Furthermore I bet we see people like Bayh who used to be centrists voting more and more to the left.

Now I'm not saying we're going to be headed extremely far to the left. What I do think will happen is that Obama is going to write a new book that's more economically populist than what the DLC has offered. I also think we will start to see the end of "liberal" being a bad word. Furthermore I think that the vast majority of Democrats whether they were DLC or not are going to start following Obama's path. Yes there will be some to the right of it like Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson and some to the left of it like Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold. But in places like North Carolina and Virginia we're not only going to elect new Democratic Senators (Kay Hagan and Mark Warner) we're also turning these states blue. That means that Hagan and Warner can be reliable to vote with Obama on more issues than they otherwise would.

The DLC's purpose was to adapt the Democratic Party to a place where it could win elections in the Reagan era. If things go as many expect them to next Tuesday night, the Reagan era may well be over.

[bvar22]

99. K&R

"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone





The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Metric System]

102. What is the point of this thread? Especially right now, 1 week before the election?

[LaPera]

103. Cheers to Howard Dean & the DNC - Fuck the DLC!

[Beacool]

105. Nice divisive thread you decided to post a week before the election.

The DLC is present, alive and kicking in all of us who consider ourselves moderates and not left wingers. Last time I checked we all belonged to one party, but if you prefer, maybe we should all stay home on the 4th since you are obviously implying that we are no longer needed.

Funny thing, for all his pretense to the contrary, I think that Obama will turn out to be another centrist like Clinton. I'll remind you of one issue on which many were disappointed: FISA.

[jaysunb]

135. see post # 100

n/t

[TheKentuckian]

114. Obama is running center

Its the Republiscum that want to push him to the fringes of the left. I hope he governs center left. There is no, or at least not much of a leftwing in this country.

I don't say this to offend anyone but its my interpretation that the DLC basically represents what the Republicans should be. Imagine if the GOP was sane and believed in government, what you come up with is roughly the DLC.

I think DLC'ers should have a little toleration, you guys forget that we've gone through a long period of time where a large group of people have felt they have had no representation. Its been pretty much the right wing and the center/center right party. Even now liberals and certainly no one to the left of me has many people they can feel at home with politically. This country is in dire need of a giant swing to the left.
There is no functional purpose for a fascist/theocratic/warmongering/racist wing of the political spectrum in America. I might not agree with Sanders or Kucinich but it is literally stupid that they be looked at as anything like the extreme left and have a mainstream party that I'm not sure the Taliban is to the right of.
Seriously, we've gotten way off track. McGollum is (stupidly) calling Obama the most liberal candidate (to the right of Kerry, imo) ever but in reality, he doesn't strike me as being much to the left of say Eisenhower. Then the we have to Republiscum calling McGollum a liberal and he seems pretty much in line with the Devil...Uhmmm...I mean Reagan, meanwhile his running mate is the most extreme candidate ever presented by a major party.

I don't see why self-identifying DLC'ers don't feel an urgent need to move this country to left. A liberal democracy just isn't that healthy too much to the right of you guys, maybe a notch or two. I can tolerate the Lugar's of the world but he should be the distant right of our spectum. Nothing is wrong with a right wing but the Reich wing needs to be obliterated and I wish you guys would get on board with that. Its past time to have a real change in the landscape and eventually (and far from immediately) I think the spiritual descendants of the DLC should with some absorption of the "intellectual-elite" portion of the modern day Republicans should evolve into America's new right.
This isn't to be rid of you or to be divisive but literally for the good of the country. We currently have a world class extreme right and at most a moderate party which is leading us into some dangerous territory. Our tent is so large at this point that there is no practical use to the GOP for governing and rather than fighting we should have a common goal of rebuilding "adult" discourse and debate on ideas, which means a shift.

This might even force some sane conservatives to come up with a rational party and we can break up the two party system that I also thinks to feed in to a war like state. One day we might pass on to our children several parties that actually fairly accurate represent a variety of beliefs versus the seemingly failed concept of two broad parties along with a more civil and principled conversation that is always acting with a singular purpose of serving The People of The United States of America. Then the ideas may conflict but not the actual purpose as we suffer with today.

[sampsonblk]

122. Not a chance

We know. I guess we will have to be satisfied with that.

In the meantime, our party has been almost remade over the past few years. Now we are fighting everywhere. Which means that 4 years from now, we will have even more opportunities for gains.

[MyNameGoesHere]

127. Seems like most of those DLC folks have moved on

to electing Obama and don't have time to renew infighting. But i suppose the flames must be kept fanned by someone.

[quakerboy]

131. The DLC will be happy to admit

that their 50 state strategy was an awesome winner and we all owe them big time for coming up with it.

[jaysunb]

140. LOL !

[ulysses]

138. I don't know that any of us really knows how Obama will govern.

On some issues, I'm not entirely sure that he even does. That he's no wild-eyed liberal is pretty well established, contrary to the "most liberal Senator" loopiness spouted from the other side, and even if he gets 60 in the Senate, a lot of the members of the Congressional majority will be thorough centrists. Then again, he *has* asked for input from all of us, and he has built this huge grassroots organization that 1) isn't likely to just vanish on 11/5 and 2) very likely leans more left than center. So, who knows? I suspect it'll be a mixed bag on both sides of the schism (such as it is these days).

It's going to be a bumpy ride. Do we need to learn to coexist, as Forkboy says upthread? Of course. That's going to take some work, though, from both sides.