Is Obama being honest about his connection with the DLC?

[rudy23]

Please, someone educate me about this. It seems like, so far, Obama has surrounded himself with the DLC all-star team.

Maybe he was just astute enough during the campaign to realize that DLC is a toxic brand to those of us on the internets who pay attention.

Right now---I don't see a difference. Please, someone talk me down, and tell me why I'm overreacting.

[IndianaJones]

1. he shares many many of their positions...and that is good. nt.

[rudy23]

6. In what ways do you see it as good?

Educate me.

[yurbud]

15. there positions are designed to either help corporations or not offend them

[brentspeak]

43. The DLC and the GOP are one and the same.

So where does that place you?

[IndianaJones]

44. with Joe Momma. nt

[ogneopasno]

2. Funny, because during the campaign, I thought he was very moderate and was surprised so many self-

described progressives thought he was the bestest ever. So far, I haven't been too terribly surprised by his picks.

[Uzybone]

3. Is the DLC a terrorist group or something?

Not sure why you say he is not being honest with his connection to the DLC. Even DU Darling Kuchinich has connections to the DLC.

Here we go again with Obama and his "connections".

Maybe the better question is "is Obama going to enact mostly DLC policies". I don't think so.

[rudy23]

4. Honest about the degree of involvement, I should say.

You're right, "connections" is too vague a word.

[Enrique]

12. I heard Obama pals around with New Democrats

:scared:

[rudy23]

16. That's also a ridiculous strawman. I'm not calling the DLC "terrorists"

as much as I'm calling them "Republicans".

[Individualist]

29. BS!

Here's what Kucinich had to say about DLC:

"The Democratic Leadership Council's agenda is indistinguishable from the Republican Neoconservative agenda," http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Kucinich_DLC_agenda_undistinguishable_from_Neocon_0813.html

From Huffington Post:

This is why the DLC is dangerous. For all their claims of supposedly wanting to help Democrats, they employ people like Marshall Wittman who specifically try to undermine the Democratic Party, even if it means he has to publicly defecate out the most rank and easily-debunkable lies. They reguarly give credence to the right wing's agenda and its worst, most unsupportable lies.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/why-the-dlc-is-so-dangero_b_13640.html

[Uzybone]

37. Kucinich has never recieved funds from a DLC member?

or raised funds for one? Or campaigned for one? Or crafted legislation with one? Or voted for one? Or endorsed one? Or been otherwise "associated" or "connected" with one?

[Individualist]

42. Your attempt at spin is laughable

considering what Kucinich has said about DLC.

Damn the subversive DLC!

[Uzybone]

45. Is it that you can't read

or blinded by Kuch love? Kuch is a great guy but dont let that block your common sense.

The OP asked if Obama is being honest abut "connections" with the DLC. I countered by pointing out that all elected democrats have "connections" with the DLC. Hey the DLC sucks, no argument there. But to act as if being connected with the DLC is a big deal is stupid.

[Individualist]

46. See post #42

Would you care to point out where you specifically said "all elected democrats have "connections"..?!

Obviously I'm not the one who has a problem with reading comprehension.

[tritsofme]

5. All your DLC is belong to us.

I think its just great, personally.

[Sebastian Doyle]

7. FUCK the DLC!

This thread needed that. Too many suckups in here so far.

[AtomicKitten]

8. He's not DLC but some of his nominations/appointments are which makes people nervous

and for good reason. The DLC championed the US's catastrophic, illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq and corporate-friendly domestic policy.

:scared:

[dmallind]

9. Yeah god save us from results like the last DLC-connected president!

I mean we don't need 23 million new jobs, millions lifted out of poverty, a balanced budget, American prestige throughout the world and all that nefarious crap do we?

[rudy23]

11. NAFTA, trickle down economics, deregulation, media consolidation, escalation of the drug war

Don't forget those. Those are the kinds of results I do want to be saved from.

[EFerrari]

14. You forgot rendition. n/t

[dmallind]

19. Funny that none of those are objectively measurable on a discrete basis like mine. NT

[rudy23]

30. You mean concrete?

Actually, they are.

[mod mom]

23. His short term gains from policies such as free trade, MF Trade Status w china, repeal of Glass-

Steagall (banking deregulation) and Telecom act of '96 all contributed to the huge mess we are currently living. Some times policies take years to feel the effect. The last 28 years have been devastating!

[blm]

40. deep-sixing BCCI matters, Bush2, 9-11, this Iraq war.....worked out REALLY well for this nation

in the long run.

[dmallind]

48. what the hell could Clinton havce done about Bush2 and 9/11 for a start?

[blm]

49. dealt with BCCI matters honestly instead of protecting Bush1. There'd be no Bush2 or 9-11 if BCCI

matters concerning Bush1 and his network of global financiers and terrorists had not been deep-sixed by Clinton throughout the 90s.

[stillcool]

10. Do you mean the "Democratic Party"?

after all those of us on the internets were well aware that Al Gore, John Edwards, John Kerry, and oodles of other Democrats have actually been members. It is not the DLC, that is the problem it's the United States Government. Attack any group all you want, but it will not kick the can anywhere. The best thing that could happen is the complete collapse of our society. That is the only way there will be a 'populace' movement that can force change.

[rudy23]

13. The DLC and Democratic Party are not one in the same

Gore moved away from the DLC. I didn't think Kerry was--maybe I'm wrong. And it's not an "attack" on the DLC, just criticism.

[fascisthunter]

20. hell.... I'll attack the fascist sychophants

they sure as hell are not representing any Democratic Ideals. They can consider themselves democrats all they want, they aint fooling me, my friends nnor my family.

[stillcool]

24. "Moved away"? What does that mean?

the DLC is a Democratic Party organization. Our government requires the backing of corporate interests to play on the political field. I'm sure Al Gore found it refreshing to 'move away', now that he is no longer in government.

[karynnj]

36. Kerry was never a typical DLC member -

he joined with the New Democrats in the 1990s, but his votes were always out of line with theirs. Since 2004, it is clear that he is not with them - in 2005 and 2006, when From listed potential DLC candidates - he listed Vilsack, Bayh and Warner - all of whom polled well below Kerry - in addition to HRC - Kerry was not listed and he did not attend their conferences.

The organization has not had a members list - updated and posted since before 2004.

[FiveGoodMen]

17. There's no reason to believe that a democracy of any kind would rise from that collapse

[stillcool]

26. No..but there is more hope..

in that scenario than any other.

Lest such an observation be thought by provincials to give this exposition an unholy Marxist aura, let us in reverential solemnity quote such an austere Establishmentarian as Woodrow Wilson, who said (Franklin D. Roosevelt later concurring) in words as valid today as when first uttered:

"The masters of the government of the United States are the combined capitalists and manufacturers of the United States. It is written over every intimate page of the record of Congress, it is written all through the history of conferences at the White House, that the suggestions of economic policy in this country have come from one source, not from many sources. The benevolent guardians, the kind hearted trustees who have taken the troubles of government off our hands have become so conspicuous that almost anybody can write out a list of them. . . .

"Suppose you go to Washington and try to get at your government. You will always find that while you are politely listened to, the men really consulted are the men who have the biggest stake--the big bankers, the big manufacturers, the big masters of commerce, the heads of railroad corporations and of steamship corporations. . . . The government of the United States at present is a foster child of the special interests." 1

----------------------------------------------------------
Democrats, liberals and radicals, have wasted millions of words and hours of their time trying to arouse the people in their own interests either to electoral or to revolutionary assault, and always without avail. Marx predicted, erroneously, that factory operatives, the workers, would take the lead in an assault on the owners; such an assault has never taken place in any industrial country. Marxist parties have taken power only under conditions of war-induced general social collapse, as in agricultural Russia and China, with only the most meager of Marxist proletarian support. Non-Marxist peasants in both cases were the revolutionary instrument. (Marx, inter alia, detested the peasantry, which he saw as reactionary.)

[FiveGoodMen]

28. The trouble is that power (like nature) abhors a vacuum

The minute the current government is no longer in charge, every dictator wanna-be will be lined up to take over.

Where will the leadership, organization, communication come from to fight all of those off and instead institute a new government along the lines of the old one but with proper respect for civil rights and the (probably new) constitution.

There are things worse than revolution and its aftermath, but I doubt there are many.

I still think that repairing what we've got is a better plan. Of course, that'll only work if the public wakes up and takes responsibility for their situation. But if they can't be counted on to do that now, what makes anyone think they would once we have a complete breakdown?

[stillcool]

31. I don't know..I think it would be one thing...

if we had any kind of unity as a country, but we don't. I see the "United" States breaking up sooner or later. Then you might find 'unity', and a large enough percentage of the population that would find the impetus to invest in some kind of participatory government. As it is now, even if there were a serious crack, that would allow room for 'change', I don't think there is any consensus, or even a desire to build a consensus on any single issue.

[FiveGoodMen]

33. I think it's much more likely that the most powerful organizing force to survive the government's

collapse would take over.

That would be the Mega-churches.

[mmonk]

18. He seemed much more populist as a candidate. He talked about

a ground up recovery, talked about the forgotten, talked about he wanted to get rid of the mindset that led us into the war in Iraq, he talked about restoring the constitution, he talked about sitting down with our enemies as well as friends, he talked about how lobbyists would not play a big part in his administration, etc. The DLC doesn't really stand for any of that. So it does make one wonder why he seems to be appointing the DLC All-Star Team.

[OHdem10]

21. The elites, "ruling class" will only accept DLC.

No disrespect intended....It is very difficult to find the difference
between a DLCer and a Moderate Republican.

Never underestimate the power of business in this country.

[stillcool]

27. I think it is a mistake..

to fault members of the "DLC" for what our government is, and always has been. It is 'how it works'.

From Lincoln onward no more than two out of nineteen presidents are argued by anybody to have been oriented toward the popular interest and even those two are rejected by some experts as true paladins of the people. The people, very obviously, are not capable of wielding the electoral sword, thus accounting for the success of institutionalized overreaching and patronage. The rich, in plain fact, are rich because they cannot help it. They are playing marbles for big stakes against blind men, cannot help winning with little effort.

To the Marxists all these presidents were tools of the capitalist Establishment; but not to the people, to whom the Marxists look vainly as the instrument of social reconstruction. As to this, say the Marxists, the people are fooled by the mass media; but it is of the essence of politics, as of military affairs, not to be fooled. To be fooled in politics is to be conquered. In losing out so consistently by means of open elections the people, clearly, are being hoist by their own petard. They have not the least inkling what the elections are all about.
Ferdinand Lundberg 1968 "the Rich and the Super-rich"

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. My hope (and I'll give him six months to act on it) is that these appointments

utilize the considerable talents these DLCers have while keeping them from setting policy.
Hillary is plucked from the senate, where she would be voting for her agenda, and is put in the cabinet where she is responsible for enacting Obama's agenda.

Etc.

(I really, really hope.)

[mmonk]

25. Me too. I actually thought about that myself.

[paulk]

34. if Hillary's "agenda" was reflected in her "no" vote on FISA

as opposed to, say, Obama's support of the legislation, maybe we should all wish she'd stayed in the Senate...

[pmorlan1]

32. Obama was never a populist

He only seemed populist because he kept stealing lines from Edwards's campaign stump speech in order to get Edwards supporters to back him. Those of us who were Edwards' supporters precisely because of his policies commented at the time that Obama was practically channeling Edwards. Once Edwards was out of the race Obama started moving to the "center".

[Radical Activist]

38. Oh give me a break.

Obama was talking like a populist back in the state senate when Edwards was still the DLC Senate leader.

[paulk]

35. Obama was astute enough to understand that many

people are stupid and naive enough to be led around by their ignorant noses - all that's needed are a couple of catchy slogans...



a significant number of people who describe themselves as "progressives" fit into this camp.



---------

ps - Al Gore was a co founder of the DLC and, yes, John Kerry was a member.

[Radical Activist]

39. He has a diverse cabinet with many viewpoints.

There are a few high profile DLC appointments getting a lot of attention and even those people can be liberal on some issues. It's unrealistic to focus on a few appointments and pretend its an all-DLC cabinet.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

41. Welcome to my ignore list. Don't question Obama.

*sarcasm* (I really like hearing all points of view, I'm just making fun of those who don't).


I haven't liked several things Obama has done so far, but getting rid of Dean was the worst.



I'm still very excited about the next 4-8 years. I still have hope that change will come.

[bigwillq]

47. Dean said

he was going to step down after this election. Obama didn't get "rid of him"