HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Hillary, DLC/Third Way, N...

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 01:51 PM

Hillary, DLC/Third Way, Neocons, PNAC, Etc.

Preamble

Not long ago, a DUer chastised me for having "labeled" Hillary as "Third Way." Other DUers have criticized other DUers and me for referring to the Democratic Leadership Council ("DLC" or DLCers, on the ground that the DLC corporation dissolved (giving its papers to the Clinton Presidential Library).

One of the purposes of this post is to show that the legal technicality of corporate dissolution of the DLC far from ended the spirit, philosophy and influence of the DLC, which is amply represented within the Democratic Party by New Democrats, some of whom call themselves progressives, and also represented in Democratic think tanks like the Progressive Policy Institute, Third Way, No Labels, etc. And, the legal technicality of corporate dissolution of the DLC erase the history of who was and was not a DLCer and who did or did not embrace the DLC philosophy and goals.

Another purpose of this post is to show that referring to Hillary as Third Wayer and/or a DLCer is both factual and consequential.

I hope that this post also at least implies why references to "progressive" Democrats and "progressive" policies may not always mean what seems to be frequently assumed: "Progressive" is not necessarily a synonym for either "liberal" or "left." This is relevant to Hillary because she has sometimes referred to the policies that she supports as "progressive" policies.

Now, a disclosure: I decided in 2007 that I would support Obama in the Democratic Presidential primary. Among other things, I thought Obama was the one likeliest of the 2008 primary field to win a general. Obviously, I thought an African American would have to overcome biases (and so does a woman). Nonetheless, I thought all others in the field, including Biden and Hillary, were more vulnerable than Obama. (I thought Hillary vulnerable because of Iraq, the Clinton baggage and other reasons.)

Since then, it seems to me that a lot of money and power has been put behind insulating Hillary from primary challenge. However, nothing can insulate her from challenge in a general. I believe her to be even more vulnerable now in a general than I believed her to be in 2008, including because of her "racially tinged" 2008 campaign against Obama. So, although I do not yet know whom I will support in the next Democratic Presidential primary, I do know that I will not support Hillary in that primary.



Facts and Observations

(All bolding is mine.)


The DLC started as a group of forty-three elected officials and two staffers, Al From and Will Marshall, and shared their predecessor's goal of reclaiming the Democratic Party from the left's influence prevalent since the late 1960s.......

The DLC's affiliated think tank is the Progressive Policy Institute. Democrats who adhere to the DLC's philosophy often call themselves New Democrats. This term is also used by other groups who have similar views on where the party should go in the future, like NDN[2] and Third Way.[3]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council


The model for the DLC was Coalition for a Democratic Majority ("CDM", a group formed in 1972 in which cold war warriors/war hawk neocons predominated.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=coalition_for_a_democratic_majority_1; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Jackson

(Google for images of Hillary with Kissinger through the years, if you are interested.)



Ironically, the history commons article linked above states that the CDM paved the way for the "disastrous" McGovern candidacy, while DLC historians claim that the "disastrous" McGovern candidacy paved the way for formation of the DLC. (IMO, New Democrats rejected a hell of a lot more of the Democratic Party than only McCarthy and the 1960s.)


The wiki of the Democratic Leadership Council once named both Bill and Hillary among the founding members of the DLC, along with Lieberman, Gore, Robb, Warner and others. (Predominating among the DLC's founding members were Southern white males, many of whom had, or have since, been named in connection with possible Presidential runs.) However, a search today of the DLC's wiki, using Mozilla's "Find," could not pick up that fact about Hillary and Bill. Either I missed it, or someone has edited relatively recently.


I did, however, find in Al From's wiki a description of Hillary's unique role in the DLC--as of this morning, anyway. (Perhaps it, too, will soon be edited?) Much of the material in Al From's wiki used to appear on the DLC website, almost verbatim, so I assume From had, at a minimum, some role in writing it:


Today, many of the ideas that comprise the core of the Democratic Party's agenda come from work done under From's leadership at the DLC. National service, an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, welfare reform, charter schools, community policing, expanded trade and re-inventing government were all championed by scholars and analysts at the DLC before becoming public policy.[14]

In 1998, with First Lady Hillary Clinton, From began a dialogue with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other world leaders, and the DLC brand – known as The Third Way – became a model for resurgent liberal governments around the globe.

In April 1999, he hosted an historic Third Way forum in Washington with President Clinton, Prime Minister Blair, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Prime Ministers Wim Kok of the Netherlands and Massimo D'Alema of Italy.[16]

......

From is a controversial figure in the Democratic Party, drawing criticism in liberal circles and from blogs like DailyKos.com and MyDD.com among others. In 1991, the Reverend Jesse Jackson called the DLC “Democrats for the Leisure Class,” and in 2003, former Democratic National Committee Chair and Vermont Governor Howard Dean* sharply criticized From and the DLC as the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.[18][19]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_From


The DLC gave strong support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Prior to the war, Will Marshall co-signed a letter to President Bush from the Project for the New American Century endorsing military action against Saddam Hussein. During the 2004 Primary campaign the DLC attacked Presidential candidate Howard Dean as an out-of-touch liberal because of Dean's anti-war stance. The DLC dismissed other critics of the Iraq invasion such as filmmaker Michael Moore as members of the "loony left".[14] Even as domestic support for the Iraq War plummeted in 2004 and 2005, Marshall called upon Democrats to balance their criticism of Bush's handling of the Iraq War with praise for the President's achievements and cautioned "Democrats need to be choosier about the political company they keep, distancing themselves from the pacifist and anti-American fringe."[15]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

(Lately, it is not only Birchers or Marshall echoing the lie that criticism of a President is anti-American.)

Will Marshall is one of the founders of the New Democrat movement,** which aims to steer the US Democratic Party toward a more conservative orientation. Since its founding in 1989, he has been president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).

He served on the board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an organization chaired by Joe Lieberman (I) and John McCain (R) designed to build support for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall also signed, at the outset of the war, a letter issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) expressing support for the invasion.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Marshall


Given the above, it is not necessarily surprising, though it may be shocking, that Hillary gave a speech urging support for Bush's invasion of Iraq, and without reading the 90-page NIE. (In fairness, she was far from alone in not reading it, which I find physically nauseating, given all the blood and treasure and unintended consequences that hung in the balance.)










*Howard Dean, not only once dubbed the DLCers the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, but also identified himself as belonging to the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. However, there is money to be earned, politicians evolve and Dean is now a professional spokesperson, pundit and lobbyist, and has already endorsed Hillary for 2016. (He recently explained this on TV as people being worried and therefore likely to want someone familiar. The flip side of that, of course, is Clinton fatigue and also that, yes, we are all too familiar with Hillary.)

In a January 2009 interview with the Associated Press, Dean indicated he would enter the private sector after 30 years in politics. Dean told the AP he would deliver speeches and share ideas about campaigns and technology with center-left political parties around the world. ......Dean is a contributor to the news network MSNBC in shows such as The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell. He has also guest hosted Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The Rachel Maddow Show. He is on the board of the National Democratic Institute.[68]

Dean has also spent time as a Senior Strategic Advisor and Independent Consultant for the Government Affairs practice at McKenna, Long & Aldridge.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKenna_Long_%26_Aldridge


However, Democracy for America, which Howard Dean founded and turned over to his brother Jim once Howard was named chair of the DNC, has been urging Senator Warren to run.

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/blog/865-final-results-draft-elizabeth-warren-87-6-vote-yes

**Note: "New Democrat Movement," not "New Democratic Movement." A DUer once called me out for using "New Democrat Caucus," rather than "New Democratic Caucus." However, New Democrat Caucus is indeed the correct name of the New Democrat Caucus and I am not the one who named it. So, for example, when I emailed MSNBC to chastise Chuck Toad for referring to the "Democrat Party," I knew, but did not spell out, that my position is not as strong as it might have been, sans the New Democrat Movement. But, I guess, if you are going to lead what Howard Dean once called the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, why not use "Democrat" the way Republicans do when they are trying to insult Democrats?

529 replies, 39803 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 529 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hillary, DLC/Third Way, Neocons, PNAC, Etc. (Original post)
merrily Feb 2015 OP
Gman Feb 2015 #1
merrily Feb 2015 #2
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #20
Phlem Feb 2015 #29
merrily Feb 2015 #115
Phlem Feb 2015 #121
merrily Feb 2015 #201
jeff47 Feb 2015 #32
merrily Feb 2015 #137
Phlem Feb 2015 #123
merrily Feb 2015 #124
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #131
rhett o rick Feb 2015 #11
merrily Feb 2015 #14
rhett o rick Feb 2015 #51
merrily Feb 2015 #117
antigop Feb 2015 #118
merrily Feb 2015 #125
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #76
villager Feb 2015 #77
merrily Feb 2015 #202
HappyMe Feb 2015 #12
joshcryer Feb 2015 #19
cui bono Feb 2015 #92
joshcryer Feb 2015 #101
cui bono Feb 2015 #107
joshcryer Feb 2015 #206
cui bono Feb 2015 #251
joshcryer Feb 2015 #260
merrily Feb 2015 #412
joshcryer Feb 2015 #415
merrily Feb 2015 #423
joshcryer Feb 2015 #426
merrily Feb 2015 #445
joshcryer Feb 2015 #460
cui bono Feb 2015 #475
cui bono Feb 2015 #474
merrily Feb 2015 #411
cui bono Feb 2015 #476
rhett o rick Feb 2015 #144
sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #205
Gman Feb 2015 #215
rhett o rick Feb 2015 #228
Gman Feb 2015 #235
rhett o rick Feb 2015 #238
Gman Feb 2015 #241
cascadiance Feb 2015 #248
InAbLuEsTaTe Feb 2015 #459
Maedhros Feb 2015 #287
Gman Feb 2015 #290
merrily Feb 2015 #318
rhett o rick Feb 2015 #462
Gman Feb 2015 #481
rhett o rick Feb 2015 #486
Gman Feb 2015 #488
rhett o rick Feb 2015 #489
Gman Feb 2015 #496
rhett o rick Feb 2015 #499
Gman Feb 2015 #504
InAbLuEsTaTe Feb 2015 #458
wildbilln864 Feb 2015 #240
Gman Feb 2015 #244
wildbilln864 Feb 2015 #245
cascadiance Feb 2015 #252
Mnpaul Feb 2015 #246
merrily Feb 2015 #414
Mnpaul Feb 2015 #425
merrily Feb 2015 #427
Caretha Feb 2015 #258
merrily Feb 2015 #416
InAbLuEsTaTe Feb 2015 #461
merrily Feb 2015 #413
Caretha Feb 2015 #255
merrily Feb 2015 #417
billhicks76 Feb 2015 #300
Enthusiast Feb 2015 #319
merrily Feb 2015 #418
Orsino Feb 2015 #447
peacebird Jul 2015 #528
madfloridian Feb 2015 #3
merrily Feb 2015 #4
antigop Feb 2015 #122
hedda_foil Feb 2015 #352
madfloridian Feb 2015 #359
hedda_foil Feb 2015 #362
madfloridian Feb 2015 #364
hedda_foil Feb 2015 #366
madfloridian Feb 2015 #373
hedda_foil Feb 2015 #389
merrily Feb 2015 #419
Kermitt Gribble Feb 2015 #5
merrily Feb 2015 #6
cascadiance Feb 2015 #7
merrily Feb 2015 #9
bvar22 Feb 2015 #167
merrily Feb 2015 #203
1000words Feb 2015 #8
merrily Feb 2015 #10
JaneyVee Feb 2015 #13
merrily Feb 2015 #15
JaneyVee Feb 2015 #16
merrily Feb 2015 #18
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #21
merrily Feb 2015 #39
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #74
merrily Feb 2015 #79
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #80
merrily Feb 2015 #84
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #129
merrily Feb 2015 #153
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #161
JaneyVee Feb 2015 #23
HappyMe Feb 2015 #33
JaneyVee Feb 2015 #37
merrily Feb 2015 #52
davidpdx Feb 2015 #313
rhett o rick Feb 2015 #127
merrily Feb 2015 #135
rhett o rick Feb 2015 #141
merrily Feb 2015 #208
bvar22 Feb 2015 #207
merrily Feb 2015 #212
rhett o rick Feb 2015 #227
merrily Feb 2015 #420
rhett o rick Feb 2015 #451
merrily Feb 2015 #452
HappyMe Feb 2015 #22
JaneyVee Feb 2015 #25
HappyMe Feb 2015 #27
JaneyVee Feb 2015 #31
HappyMe Feb 2015 #35
JaneyVee Feb 2015 #40
HappyMe Feb 2015 #44
Enthusiast Feb 2015 #327
hedda_foil Feb 2015 #354
merrily Feb 2015 #46
Caretha Feb 2015 #266
davidpdx Feb 2015 #314
merrily Feb 2015 #421
merrily Feb 2015 #41
JaneyVee Feb 2015 #49
merrily Feb 2015 #54
davidpdx Feb 2015 #315
merrily Feb 2015 #333
HappyMe Feb 2015 #334
davidpdx Feb 2015 #395
rhett o rick Feb 2015 #234
HappyMe Feb 2015 #332
InAbLuEsTaTe Feb 2015 #95
merrily Feb 2015 #128
InAbLuEsTaTe Feb 2015 #178
jeff47 Feb 2015 #55
hedda_foil Feb 2015 #360
cui bono Feb 2015 #150
840high Feb 2015 #213
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #17
joshcryer Feb 2015 #24
merrily Feb 2015 #42
joshcryer Feb 2015 #89
BeanMusical Feb 2015 #94
merrily Feb 2015 #106
Marr Feb 2015 #163
cui bono Feb 2015 #311
joshcryer Feb 2015 #312
brooklynite Feb 2015 #26
merrily Feb 2015 #48
LondonReign2 Feb 2015 #70
Marr Feb 2015 #165
rhett o rick Feb 2015 #230
Enthusiast Feb 2015 #329
merrily Feb 2015 #28
Phlem Feb 2015 #34
merrily Feb 2015 #58
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #67
joshcryer Feb 2015 #90
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #132
merrily Feb 2015 #142
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #145
merrily Feb 2015 #149
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #164
merrily Feb 2015 #177
merrily Feb 2015 #136
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #146
merrily Feb 2015 #157
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #158
ieoeja Feb 2015 #353
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #377
merrily Feb 2015 #424
ieoeja Feb 2015 #472
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #477
merrily Feb 2015 #93
Lordquinton Feb 2015 #105
merrily Feb 2015 #109
HappyMe Feb 2015 #110
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #147
merrily Feb 2015 #155
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #159
merrily Feb 2015 #166
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #172
merrily Feb 2015 #175
eridani Feb 2015 #59
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #72
merrily Feb 2015 #170
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #174
merrily Feb 2015 #176
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #180
joshcryer Feb 2015 #263
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #265
merrily Feb 2015 #326
joshcryer Feb 2015 #328
merrily Feb 2015 #331
joshcryer Feb 2015 #340
merrily Feb 2015 #139
msongs Feb 2015 #30
merrily Feb 2015 #50
JoePhilly Feb 2015 #53
merrily Feb 2015 #60
rhett o rick Feb 2015 #232
Dragonfli Feb 2015 #299
AgingAmerican Feb 2015 #126
Phlem Feb 2015 #36
merrily Feb 2015 #61
Rex Feb 2015 #38
1000words Feb 2015 #47
merrily Feb 2015 #62
annabanana Feb 2015 #96
on point Feb 2015 #43
benz380 Feb 2015 #45
LineReply .
stonecutter357 Feb 2015 #56
zeemike Feb 2015 #57
merrily Feb 2015 #66
randome Feb 2015 #63
merrily Feb 2015 #64
randome Feb 2015 #69
Beacool Feb 2015 #65
merrily Feb 2015 #71
antigop Feb 2015 #116
merrily Feb 2015 #160
antigop Feb 2015 #295
merrily Feb 2015 #297
Beacool Feb 2015 #303
merrily Feb 2015 #322
Beacool Feb 2015 #368
merrily Feb 2015 #428
Beacool Feb 2015 #479
antigop Feb 2015 #336
merrily Feb 2015 #341
Beacool Feb 2015 #302
LondonReign2 Feb 2015 #73
HappyMe Feb 2015 #78
Beacool Feb 2015 #304
HappyMe Feb 2015 #330
Beacool Feb 2015 #370
merrily Feb 2015 #429
jeff47 Feb 2015 #140
merrily Feb 2015 #148
jeff47 Feb 2015 #190
Marr Feb 2015 #169
merrily Feb 2015 #198
Beacool Feb 2015 #301
merrily Feb 2015 #430
BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #379
Beacool Feb 2015 #382
BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #473
Beacool Feb 2015 #480
BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #483
Beacool Feb 2015 #487
merrily Feb 2015 #432
Beacool Feb 2015 #482
McCamy Taylor Feb 2015 #68
merrily Feb 2015 #75
Beacool Feb 2015 #305
merrily Feb 2015 #321
Beacool Feb 2015 #371
merrily Feb 2015 #376
AtomicKitten Feb 2015 #86
merrily Feb 2015 #100
AtomicKitten Feb 2015 #111
merrily Feb 2015 #119
randys1 Feb 2015 #209
merrily Feb 2015 #363
valerief Feb 2015 #81
great white snark Feb 2015 #82
Exultant Democracy Feb 2015 #87
HappyMe Feb 2015 #88
Rex Feb 2015 #102
HappyMe Feb 2015 #108
brooklynite Feb 2015 #112
MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #501
brooklynite Feb 2015 #505
merrily Feb 2015 #156
HappyMe Feb 2015 #162
merrily Feb 2015 #171
HappyMe Feb 2015 #179
merrily Feb 2015 #194
merrily Feb 2015 #103
Exultant Democracy Feb 2015 #83
appalachiablue Feb 2015 #85
merrily Feb 2015 #152
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2015 #91
merrily Feb 2015 #173
LiberalLovinLug Feb 2015 #97
billh58 Feb 2015 #98
jeff47 Feb 2015 #143
merrily Feb 2015 #181
billh58 Feb 2015 #195
merrily Feb 2015 #204
billh58 Feb 2015 #225
merrily Feb 2015 #226
Marr Feb 2015 #308
merrily Feb 2015 #316
hedda_foil Feb 2015 #356
merrily Feb 2015 #369
merrily Feb 2015 #317
turbinetree Feb 2015 #99
merrily Feb 2015 #185
leveymg Feb 2015 #104
antigop Feb 2015 #113
Phlem Feb 2015 #138
merrily Feb 2015 #114
leveymg Feb 2015 #120
merrily Feb 2015 #186
antigop Feb 2015 #130
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #134
cui bono Feb 2015 #151
merrily Feb 2015 #188
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #197
merrily Feb 2015 #200
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #257
merrily Feb 2015 #259
wyldwolf Feb 2015 #264
merrily Feb 2015 #269
LondonReign2 Feb 2015 #242
merrily Feb 2015 #187
Geronimoe Feb 2015 #133
merrily Feb 2015 #189
mother earth Feb 2015 #154
reddread Feb 2015 #338
KamaAina Feb 2015 #168
merrily Feb 2015 #191
ReRe Feb 2015 #182
Thinkingabout Feb 2015 #183
Phlem Feb 2015 #184
merrily Feb 2015 #192
neverforget Feb 2015 #298
merrily Feb 2015 #323
hedda_foil Feb 2015 #365
Thinkingabout Feb 2015 #375
merrily Feb 2015 #433
Thinkingabout Feb 2015 #468
KamaAina Feb 2015 #193
Oilwellian Feb 2015 #196
merrily Feb 2015 #199
bvar22 Feb 2015 #210
merrily Feb 2015 #218
cascadiance Feb 2015 #243
merrily Feb 2015 #270
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #211
merrily Feb 2015 #214
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #216
merrily Feb 2015 #217
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #219
merrily Feb 2015 #220
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #229
rhett o rick Feb 2015 #237
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #253
rhett o rick Feb 2015 #283
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #285
DonCoquixote Feb 2015 #343
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #347
ieoeja Feb 2015 #361
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #374
DonCoquixote Feb 2015 #391
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #393
LondonReign2 Feb 2015 #247
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #254
LondonReign2 Feb 2015 #256
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #262
merrily Feb 2015 #268
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #271
merrily Feb 2015 #275
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #277
merrily Feb 2015 #279
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #280
merrily Feb 2015 #282
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #284
merrily Feb 2015 #288
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #291
merrily Feb 2015 #293
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #294
DonCoquixote Feb 2015 #345
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #348
DonCoquixote Feb 2015 #400
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #404
LondonReign2 Feb 2015 #385
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #386
LondonReign2 Feb 2015 #390
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #392
LondonReign2 Feb 2015 #396
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #398
DonCoquixote Feb 2015 #401
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #402
DonCoquixote Feb 2015 #406
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #439
DonCoquixote Feb 2015 #508
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #510
LondonReign2 Feb 2015 #455
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #463
LondonReign2 Feb 2015 #467
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #470
merrily Feb 2015 #267
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #272
merrily Feb 2015 #273
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #274
merrily Feb 2015 #281
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #286
merrily Feb 2015 #289
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #292
Exultant Democracy Feb 2015 #384
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #387
Exultant Democracy Feb 2015 #409
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #440
LondonReign2 Feb 2015 #456
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #466
Exultant Democracy Feb 2015 #485
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #490
Exultant Democracy Feb 2015 #383
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #388
Exultant Democracy Feb 2015 #394
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #397
Exultant Democracy Feb 2015 #408
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #441
Exultant Democracy Feb 2015 #484
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #491
Exultant Democracy Feb 2015 #493
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #494
merrily Feb 2015 #434
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #443
merrily Feb 2015 #450
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #464
Guy Whitey Corngood Feb 2015 #497
merrily Feb 2015 #498
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #500
Guy Whitey Corngood Feb 2015 #506
merrily Feb 2015 #507
DonCoquixote Feb 2015 #399
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #403
DonCoquixote Feb 2015 #405
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #444
LondonReign2 Feb 2015 #457
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #465
LondonReign2 Feb 2015 #469
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #471
LondonReign2 Feb 2015 #478
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #492
merrily Feb 2015 #435
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #446
DonCoquixote Feb 2015 #509
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #511
DonCoquixote Feb 2015 #512
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #513
DonCoquixote Feb 2015 #516
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #517
DonCoquixote Feb 2015 #518
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #519
DonCoquixote Feb 2015 #520
DonCoquixote Feb 2015 #521
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #523
One of the 99 Feb 2015 #522
MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #221
merrily Feb 2015 #222
2banon Feb 2015 #223
merrily Feb 2015 #224
L0oniX Feb 2015 #231
merrily Feb 2015 #233
YOHABLO Feb 2015 #236
woo me with science Feb 2015 #239
Ramses Feb 2015 #249
merrily Feb 2015 #250
GoneFishin Feb 2015 #261
LineReply ,
blkmusclmachine Feb 2015 #276
merrily Feb 2015 #278
raouldukelives Feb 2015 #296
dreamnightwind Feb 2015 #306
merrily Feb 2015 #324
Dragonfli Feb 2015 #307
merrily Feb 2015 #320
mrdmk Feb 2015 #309
merrily Feb 2015 #325
mrdmk Feb 2015 #367
Spitfire of ATJ Feb 2015 #310
Enthusiast Feb 2015 #335
RiverLover Feb 2015 #337
merrily Feb 2015 #349
RiverLover Feb 2015 #422
merrily Feb 2015 #342
Enthusiast Feb 2015 #350
sendero Feb 2015 #339
merrily Feb 2015 #346
whereisjustice Feb 2015 #344
merrily Feb 2015 #351
BrainDrain Feb 2015 #355
merrily Feb 2015 #357
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #358
BrainDrain Feb 2015 #372
merrily Feb 2015 #437
madfloridian Feb 2015 #378
merrily Feb 2015 #380
DonCoquixote Feb 2015 #407
merrily Feb 2015 #410
madfloridian Feb 2015 #381
reddread Feb 2015 #431
merrily Feb 2015 #436
reddread Feb 2015 #438
LineLineLineLineReply .
merrily Feb 2015 #442
madokie Feb 2015 #448
merrily Feb 2015 #449
madokie Feb 2015 #453
merrily Feb 2015 #454
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2015 #495
MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #502
merrily Feb 2015 #503
woo me with science Feb 2015 #514
merrily Feb 2015 #515
KoKo Mar 2015 #524
dreamnightwind Jul 2015 #525
HassleCat Jul 2015 #526
merrily Jul 2015 #527
SamKnause Jul 2015 #529

Response to merrily (Original post)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 02:06 PM

1. I guess we can start calling stuff like this what is

Hillary truther stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 02:10 PM

2. Yeah, don't let all those direct quotes and links fool ya! Which fact do you claim is erroneous?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:05 PM

20. you have a couple of errors, omissions and subjective opinions in your OP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:17 PM

29. of course she does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phlem (Reply #29)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 04:50 PM

115. Thanks again, Phlem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #115)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 04:58 PM

121. What are friends for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phlem (Reply #121)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 07:12 PM

201. aw, ya called me friend. thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:19 PM

32. Great. List them. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #32)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 05:17 PM

137. He tried. Please see my Replies 28, 79, 84 and 93.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 04:59 PM

123. Next!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 05:00 PM

124. You have a subjective view of errors and there is a heading in my OP in bold and underlined,

indicating that, in the OP, I gave both facts and observations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #124)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 05:07 PM

131. Let's repeat again.

The "predecessor" referred to above was Coalition for a Democratic Majority ("CDM", a group formed in 1972 in which cold war warriors/war hawk neocons predominated.


Incorrect. The "predecessor" referred to above was The CPE - Committee on Party Effectiveness. See complete excerpt below:

In the early 1980s, some of the youngest members of Congress, including Representative William Gray of Pennsylvania, Tim Wirth of Colorado, Al Gore of Tennessee, Richard Gephardt of Missouri, and Gillis Long of Louisiana helped found the House Democratic Caucus' Committee on Party Effectiveness. Formed by Long and his allies after the 1980 presidential election, the CPE hoped to become the main vehicle for the rejuvenation of the Democratic Party.[7] The CPE has been called "the first organizational embodiment of the New Democrats."[8]

The DLC started as a group of forty-three elected officials and two staffers, Al From and Will Marshall, and shared their predecessor's goal


As to when the CDM was formed, I cannot help what the commons article to which I linked said.

But here was your attempted deception:

Ironically, the history commons article linked above states that the CDM paved the way for the "disastrous" McGovern candidacy, while DLC historians claim that the "disastrous" McGovern candidacy paved the way for formation of the DLC.


There is no irony there. The History Commons link is incorrect as any Google search will tell you. Further, the wiki link was not written by 'DLC historians.' That was an attempt by you to cast doubt on the actual historic occurrence. McGovern lost in epic fashion, then the CDM was formed to stir the party in another direction. It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest a small and inconsequential centrist group like the CDM could cause a liberal candidate to lose. But you attempted to do just that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 02:52 PM

11. I am curious whether you think that name calling is a real response?

 

If you think the info posted is not true, then share with us, but it seems all you have is that "truther" attempt at insult.

I am also curious as to what you see in HRC. Do you think she is a strong authoritative leader and you don't care that she carries water for Wall Street and the 1%? If that's your leaning, come on out and say so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 02:57 PM

14. Thanks. If the poster had a real response or refutation, he or she would probably have posted it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #14)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:32 PM

51. I think trying to guess why people support HRC is an interesting topic.

 

About the only justifications I've heard are that "she's electable", like that trumps having integrity, or "she is progressive on social issues". While I don't want to diminish progress on social issues, the advances we gain can quickly undone if we lose our liberties and freedoms or if we end up in the poor farm.

The battle between good and evil has changed from a battle of Dems (good) and Repubs (evil). The Powers That Be are smart enough to recognize that they can buy influence in the Democratic Party, hence the DLC or Third Way. This makes it tough for those that totally rely on D vs. R when they make their decisions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #51)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 04:54 PM

117. IMO, she's obviously been the anointee since 2012, if not earlier. I've never seen anything like it

in my life.

So many politicians dream of the opportunity to run for President some day. Yet, before Obama even got re-elected, every anchor on MSNBC was acting like Hillary was the 2016 nominee. And, not only that, but that no Democrat would even bother to run, if she declared. And, oh, look, so far, almost everyone does seem to be waiting for Queen Hillary to deign to announce whether she'll run or not.

One of the fishiest things I've seen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #51)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 04:56 PM

118. they benefit from the status quo. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #118)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 05:01 PM

125. Yep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:58 PM

76. what name calling?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:59 PM

77. It's the only response most of them know.

 

Or have been schooled in making.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #77)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 07:14 PM

202. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 02:55 PM

12. Go ahead and try to refute it then.

We'll wait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:04 PM

19. +1

The Grand Right Wing Conspiracy is real.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #19)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 04:19 PM

92. You calling merrily a right winger? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #92)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 04:28 PM

101. Nope.

Why do you ask?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #101)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 04:36 PM

107. Because you reponded to someone who referred to the OP as "Hillary truther" by saying

"The grand right wing conspiracy is real."

So by following the conversation, you are implying that the OP is right wing conspiracy material.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #107)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 07:26 PM

206. The grand right wing conspiracy is powerful.

It can exploit the left and right equally. The best tool it has at its disposal is that it makes people not know anything, it throws so much total shit out there that it's impossible to prove anything or to know anything. Debating any minor point results in circular reasoning and mouthing off and insults.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017243490

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #206)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 09:44 PM

251. So you *are* calling her a right winger and using word salad to justify it.

I see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #251)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 10:05 PM

260. I don't know that.

But, I've been called a right winger before by people who throw out right wing talking points about leading Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #260)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 06:58 AM

412. Of course, you totally do know what you were implying. And you also know it's bs.

Here's a clue. RWers never say Hillary is too far right for them.

I could go on, but let's see first if you and your friends can finally grasp The Difference Between a RW Talking Point and LW Criticism 101 and, at long last, give the uttrly false equivalencies a very well-deserved rest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #412)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 07:27 AM

415. Hahaha, cluelessness.

Utter cluelessness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #415)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 08:29 AM

423. And you have the gall to claim MY posts are substance free personal insults? Project much?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #423)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 08:46 AM

426. "FOX News Hillary Clinton"

Google it. On any given day the bullshit is parroted by the left. Guaranteed. They are kings at twisting the narrative. The Grand Right Wing Conspiracy is very much real.

That you're clueless about this is by no fault of my own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #426)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 09:59 AM

445. Nail joshcryer on one thing and he'll change the subject. Again and again. Bet on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #445)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 10:50 AM

460. Anything to add?

Other than personality insults?

Re-read your nasty subject line and realize that you're the insulting one here.

It's so easy to find Fox News smears against Clinton that "leftists" parrot it's not even funny.

The most notable example is the "dead broke" moment. The right wing exploded with it, even though they should defend someone with money.

Romney is a multimillionaire saying he "earned it" Fox News lets it go. Hillary Clinton correctly says that she and Bill were in debt due to Kenn Star's $71 million dollar multiyear prosecution (and had to take a lone out from McAuliffe) when they left office, she's out of touch. When that shit dropped, the right wing was all over it.

I'm providing substance here, merrily, but yet you trash and trash me. The nastiness never ends.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #460)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 01:07 PM

475. Did you really just say: "Anything to add? Other than personality insults?"

Hilarious.

Short memory, huh? Or just no self-awareness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #260)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 01:03 PM

474. You're either calling her a right winger or saying she doesn't know anything.

Either way, you're resorting to name-calling/insults rather than debating the substance of the OP.

Hm... now what group of people consistently does that?

And it's funny that you will take the time to justify this behavior yet you claim you don't have time to debate the actual topic. That's rich. Again, what group of people consistently does that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #251)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 06:55 AM

411. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #411)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 01:09 PM

476. Yw. Thank you for all the info you provide.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #92)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 05:33 PM

144. They have nothing but snarky comments. No substance. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 07:23 PM

205. Which part are you disputing? Hillary is NOT a Third Way candidate? The Third Way doesn't exist?

Could you explain what your comment is referring to so we can discuss it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 07:46 PM

215. All these responses sound like the same things

911 Truthers and even Benghazi Truthers ask. A striking similarity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #215)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 08:27 PM

228. Are you claiming that HRC isn't aligned with the DLC/Third Way? Or is name calling all

 

you got.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #228)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 08:53 PM

235. The DLC has been gone for many years

And WTF is this third way that no one else talks about except here. It doesn't matter anyway. She's the next prez. It's her turn. And all the trutherism about her wont change that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #235)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 09:24 PM

238. You may be right that HRC will be the next president. The common folks will have a hard time

 

trying to fight the big bucks. The oligarchs love her, probably more than Jeb. Sad that the 99% will be the losers.

You like to use the word "truther" in a pejorative manner. Here is a truth for you, HRC betrayed her party, betray her country when she bowed down to King George and help sell the REPUBLICAN Iraq War. She shares the responsibility of the consequences of that war. That's the truth. The fact that you still prefer her over the many other choices is very strange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #238)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 09:30 PM

241. That is so very naive to say that about her vote for the IWR

to the point of ignoring the situation. If you don't remember the words "September is a good time to roll out a new product." Or know the context then your just spouting.

Truther is not a pejorative. It is a person who insists wild conspiracy theories are true. That's all this talk about HRC is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #241)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 09:40 PM

248. To claim that Hillary isn't a corporatist and supports American workers is what is "trutherism"...

 

Watch her own words here, and tell me that H-1B and her support for it is GOOD for the American workforce. Only those in denial with their "trutherism" will be able to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #248)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 10:46 AM

459. You nailed that lyin corporatist again. We need to keep exposing Hillary. Go Bernie!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #241)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 11:14 PM

287. You've got nothing.

 

Your posts are empty nonsense, delivered petulantly from a false sense of superiority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #287)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 11:27 PM

290. Got nothing?

My candidate will be the next president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #287)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 07:12 AM

318. Apparently, he or she does have a new talking point. So there's that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #241)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 11:09 AM

462. "Naive"?? I would welcome your attempts to justify or rationalize HRC promotion of the IWar.

 

The IWar was a horrible disaster and we shouldn't reward anyone that supported it or worse, PROMOTED it, with the presidency. The Democratic Party has a lot of honest, qualified people that have integrity and wouldn't sell out to the Republicons.

As far as "truther" goes let's look at a definition from Wikipedia: "The "truthers", as they are, sometimes pejoratively,[1][2] called, dispute the commonly accepted account that Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four airliners,...."

What "talk about HRC" is about CT? What theories have been espoused? She promoted the IWar, she has taken large cash payments from Goldman-Sachs, etc. Which are CT?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #462)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 01:52 PM

481. Yes, naive

Like anything including a no vote was going to stop the war. Hillary was wise to vote yes and just get it over so we could focus on the election. As it turned out by October it was too late. The neocons had focused too much on the war and the 02 election was a disaster.

Truther is a title, not a perjorative. Wikipedia as a reference for political definitions is only as good as the last person to do an edit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #481)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 02:58 PM

486. So your best rationalization for her selling out her party is that she just wanted to "get it over

 

so we could focus on the election."?? And you call me naive? She didn't reluctantly vote yes, she helped promote the war. People looked to her for honesty knowing the Bush and the Republicons lie. Her, repeating the Bush lies gave them a credence that the Republicons couldn't get by themselves. Besides, she has since admitted it was a mistake. You naively think she did it for expedience but she has since admitted it as a mistake. The only question that remains is, was she fooled by Bush? Or did she chose the Republcon war because she believed in it? In either case she demonstrated a lake of integrity.

You don't like the Wiki definition so you give an ad himinem attack, but you didn't provide an alternative source that you will accept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #486)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 04:30 PM

488. Clearly you don't care about facts

And I don't like wasting time. She's the next prez. Get used to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #488)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 05:12 PM

489. She has the backing of the Oligarchs so she will probably be the next President.

 

The people will suffer the consequences. Seems you like to side with a winner more than worry about principles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #489)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 11:09 PM

496. Absolutely

Sure do. Learned long ago principles don't put food on the table. And you get on board with a winner asap. Voting principles is foolish. Voting principles instead of Gore is what got us Bush, 911, 2 wars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #496)

Sat Feb 14, 2015, 01:12 AM

499. And there it is. Those with principles are responsible for the hundreds of thousands of

 

dead in the IWar. Of all the wicked and crooked things that happened to get George Bush in the White House and you choose to blame those that have principles. Do you consider yourself a "politically liberal" person?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #499)

Sat Feb 14, 2015, 09:21 AM

504. I am what we call a yellow dog Democrat

I vote for the Democrat. And my issues revolve around organized labor. Labor's issues are my issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #238)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 10:43 AM

458. Can never forgive HILLIARY for her IWR vote - that's when she lost me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #235)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 09:29 PM

240. "It's her turn."

 


No it's not!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildbilln864 (Reply #240)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 09:31 PM

244. It is because we want it to be

And there's not a whole lot anybody can go about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #244)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 09:35 PM

245. we shall see. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #244)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 09:44 PM

252. Which "we" are we talking about, is the we you are identifying with the 1%?

 

Maybe you feel that way, because the 1% "we" has BOUGHT our government from *WE* the people, and tried to redefine bribery as not being a crime any more the way our founders would see it.

Yes, when the head of the mafia dies off, then one of his sons will say it is "their turn" to lead it. But Americans don't want a dictatorship to tell them who will run their lives, we want a voice in determining who will do so. That "we" is FAR from wanting Clinton to be a leader because it is "her turn".

Too many people now have glasses to see the truth that has been held back from us for so long...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #235)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 09:35 PM

246. Yeah, we know they are no longer using that name

We now know them as Obama's Cabinet.

Gee, I wonder why the corporate owed media makes no mention of the corporate wing of the Democrat party.

Do I really have to explain this to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mnpaul (Reply #246)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 07:23 AM

414. +1 Boom! And transitioning to Hillary's campaign advisors, even as we speak.

Last edited Fri Feb 13, 2015, 08:49 AM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #414)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 08:42 AM

425. Most Americans aren't paying attention

They are more concerned with who won American Idol. Even many here don't know how badly the Third Way policies have failed. They seem to think electing another Clinton will bring the 90's back(it won't). I don't see how any Democrat can support someone who associates with that pig Larry Summers. It's a cult of personality. I fear it will have to get much worse before people take notice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mnpaul (Reply #425)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 08:49 AM

427. Most never heard of Third Way. I keep telling this story, so pardon me if you've read it before.

I know a woman. Lifelong Dem. Valedictorian of her high school graduating class. Summa cum laude graduate of Barnard, one of only 3 that year. Reads tons of magazines and two newspapers a day. A couple of years ago, I mention the Democratic Leadership Council to her. She'd never heard of it. Why would she? Did media ever make a big deal of it?

BTW, I guess I wasn't paying attention either. I didn't mean to paste that stuff in my post. I meant to paste something else, but I'll be dipped if I now remember what it was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #235)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 09:56 PM

258. OMFG ROFLMFAO OMG

 

Did you really say "It's her turn".

Why yes you did!

Gman says:

And WTF is this third way that no one else talks about except here. It doesn't matter anyway. She's the next prez. It's her turn. And all the trutherism about her wont change that.


Don't forget to stomp your foot & hold your breath

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Caretha (Reply #258)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 07:28 AM

416. I thought only the Republican Party did the "whose turn is it to be POTUS" nonsense.

And they accuse the left of being like the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Caretha (Reply #258)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 10:51 AM

461. It's her turn 2 line the pockets of the 1%, yes, includin her own. Bernie will Xspose Hillary 4 who she really is-can't wait!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #235)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 07:21 AM

413. The OP covered both those points. You might try reading something before you post canards. Or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #215)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 09:48 PM

255. Smear

 

that's it? you got no other legs to stand on besides innuendo and being nasty?

If you do....go right ahead and let 'er loose....we are all waiting with bated breath

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Caretha (Reply #255)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 07:30 AM

417. Thank you so much. If he had substance, he probably would have posted it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 02:44 AM

300. HAHAHA...Hillary Is As Bas As Jeb Bush

 

Truth hurts I guess. And you're overreaching with the Truther label. We covered up Saudi involvement in 911 and God knows what else. You do know that before 1960 it was people like you labeling anyone who believed the Mafia existed as a conspiracy nut kook truther. Well the coincidence theorists lost that one, huh? It's accepted fact now. As far as Bush loving Clinton and all the sheep who support her just because she has a D next to her name...well your biggest argument was that she is the inevitable candidate(nice one...our democracy based on we can change anything so just give in?) and too far ahead in the polls. Well, today the your hallowed polls show Warren ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire. Oh well... there goes your only talking point. Send the war monger packing.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/shock-poll-warren-leads-clinton-in-iowa-n.h./article/2560098

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 07:51 AM

319. Why would you refer to facts as "truther stuff"?

Maybe you should address each assertion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enthusiast (Reply #319)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 07:34 AM

418. All the links and direct quotes threw him off. That lot used to fact-free posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 10:01 AM

447. It's way bigger than any one Clinton.

But it does rather highlight our heir presumptive as a follower, not a leader.

The DLC may technically be gone, but its stench lingers and taints our party's work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 3, 2015, 05:02 PM

528. Why is any criticism of Hillary, regardless of how well and painstakingly linked, is viewed as hate?

What the OP said is the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Original post)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 02:17 PM

3. New Democrat Coalition is their own name for themselves.

http://newdemocratcoalition-kind.house.gov/

Yes, the Clintons and Tony Blair were founders of the Third Way.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/7777

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 02:23 PM

4. Thank you. I agree with both you and wiki on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 04:59 PM

122. article by Thomas Frank

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/02/tom_frank_bill_clinton_was_so_not_down_with_thomas_piketty/

It feels like some history might be in order here. Clinton ran as the candidate of the Democratic Leadership Council, whose goal was to push the Democrats to the center after the defeats of Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis, to embrace business and the markets, to step actively away from the word “liberal.” Howard Dean called them the “Republican wing of the Democratic Party.” So is the new spin, apparently, that the DLC was simply progressivism of the 1990s?

What the DLC was most famous for, after its relentless pushing to make the Democrats into the other conservative party, was that they would say absolutely anything to advance themselves as the leadership faction of the party. In truth both Mondale and Dukakis were perfect DLC candidates in almost every way, but of course the DLC had to distance itself from them because they lost, and the DLC knows that you only get ahead in Washington by being identified as a winner. So, if progressives are winning these days, then hell yeah, the DLC were the real progressives back in the 1990s. Why not? They would undoubtedly turn out to be the real socialists, too, if “socialism” was what the kids were going for nowadays.

The grand historical significance of the Clinton administration, and of the DLC to a lesser degree, is that they are what cemented the neoliberal era. It’s that air of complete, ironclad consensus about matters economic. That sense that, there is only one way to run an economy and we know what it is. So you can have Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher making the big turn toward laissez-faire, but it’s not really “neoliberalism” until the other party capitulates, until you have the famous handshake between Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, and until you have Clinton announcing “the era of big government is over.” In the 1990s they called this the “Washington Consensus,” but today we hip and cognizant people know to call it “neoliberalism.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 11:46 AM

352. And remember that Hillary chaired the DLC before she last ran for president. DLC funding is from:

This refers to the 2000 campaign:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Democratic_Leadership_Council


Among the DLC's biggest benefactors last year (contributions of between $50,000 and $100,000) were ARCO, Chevron and the drug giant Merck. Other big underwriters include Du Pont, Microsoft and Philip Morris (which has kicked in $500,000 since Lieberman became DLC chairman). There is no evidence that the DLC ha?s trimmed policies to accommodate its patrons, but Koch Industries, the firm that is also a big GOP donor.



The American Prospect wrote in 2001
http://prospect.org/article/how-dlc-does-it

A Business-Led Party

Freeing Democrats from being, well, Democrats has been the Democratic Leadership Council's mission since its founding 16 years ago by Al Gore, Chuck Robb, and a handful of other conservative, mostly southern Dems as a rump faction of disaffected elected officials and party activists. Producing and directing the DLC is Al From, its founder and CEO, who's been the leader, visionary, and energizing force behind the New Democrat movement since Day One. A veteran of the Carter White House and Capitol Hill, where he'd worked for Louisiana Representative Gillis Long and served as executive director of the House Democratic Caucus, From helped build the Committee on Party Effectiveness, a forerunner of the DLC, in the early 1980s. To From, a key rationale for establishing the DLC in those days was to protect the Democrats' eroding bastion in the South against mounting Republican gains, and indeed one of the DLC's chief projects in the 1980s was to create and promote the Super Tuesday primary across the South, aimed at enhancing the clout of southern Dems in selecting presidential candidates.

Privately funded and operating as an extraparty organization without official Democratic sanction, and calling themselves "New Democrats," the DLC sought nothing less than the miraculous: the transubstantiation of America's oldest political party. Though the DLC painted itself using the palette of the liberal left--as "an effort to revive the Democratic Party's progressive tradition," with New Democrats being the "trustees of the real tradition of the Democratic Party"--its mission was far more confrontational. With few resources, and taking heavy flak from the big guns of the Democratic left, the DLC proclaimed its intention, Mighty Mouse–style, to rescue the Democratic Party from _the influence of 1960s-era activists and the AFL-CIO, to ease its identification with hot-button social issues, and, perhaps most centrally, to reinvent the party as one pledged to fiscal restraint, less government, and a probusiness, pro–free market outlook.


<snip>

The DLC board of trustees is an elite body whose membership is reserved for major donors, and many of the trustees are financial wheeler-dealers who run investment companies and capital management firms--though senior executives from a handful of corporations, such as Koch, Aetna, and Coca-Cola, are included. Some donate enormous amounts of money, such as Bernard Schwartz, the chairman and CEO of Loral Space and Communications, who single-handedly finances the entire publication of Blueprint, the DLC's retooled monthly that replaced The New Democrat. "I sought them out, after talking to Michael Steinhardt," says Schwartz. "I like them because the DLC gives resonance to positions on issues that perhaps candidates cannot commit to."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedda_foil (Reply #352)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 12:36 PM

359. Hey there hedda...good to see you around.

Yes, you are right. Both Clintons were right in the middle of the rightward movement.

I am looking through some old files now seeing if anything interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #359)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 12:41 PM

362. Even better to see you, madfloridian

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedda_foil (Reply #362)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 12:46 PM

364. How many years...

have we been posting? Even before the Dean campaign I think. Long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #364)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 12:55 PM

366. Very long time, mf. I've been posting since 2001.

Last one out, turn off the lights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedda_foil (Reply #366)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 01:26 PM

373. 2002 for me.



I left for a year but came back. Do you twitter?

Me:

https://twitter.com/madfloridian

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #373)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 07:02 PM

389. I'm afraid I never got into twitter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedda_foil (Reply #366)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 07:37 AM

419. Who you calling mf? She's a great poster. Why, I oughtta....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Original post)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 02:31 PM

5. Excellent post!

Thanks for the very important info, merrily. K&R!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kermitt Gribble (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 02:34 PM

6. Thank you and you are welcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Original post)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 02:35 PM

7. Let's also not forget that the Koch Brothers also helped build up the DLC in its earlier days...

 

... which when this was exposed a little more in recent times when it became a bigger liability, was likely another reason why the DLC was dissolved and replaced in function and spirit with the likes of the Third Way and other similar organizations, which serve the same purposes and the same masters, albeit in less direct ways today that Citizen's United, and other more recent court decisions allow more for.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/177437/gop-donors-and-k-street-fuel-third-ways-advice-democratic-party#

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 02:46 PM

9. Yep. Right about the time they conceived of the Tea Party, too. (Do we know they stopped donating?)

The DLC was then a rightist faction within the Democratic Party. Perhaps it gave them the idea to create a rightist faction within the Republican Party?

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789 (The Koch donation).

This New Yorker article that says, among many other things, that the Koch brothers first conceived of the Tea Party in the 1980s.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/08/30/covert-operations?currentPage=all

The DLC was incorporated in the mid-ninteen eighties--1985, I think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 06:13 PM

167. The Koch Brothers had representatives...

..that sat on the DLC Executive Council.

Koch Industries gave funding to the DLC and served on its Executive Council
http://americablog.com/2010/08/koch-industries-gave-funding-to-the-dlc-and-served-on-its-executive-council.html


[font size=5]
The DLC New Team
[/font]

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #167)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 07:18 PM

203. Wow. I did not know that. I bookmarked. Thanks. Nice photo of Hills on "the DLC team" too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Original post)


Response to 1000words (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 02:47 PM

10. Thank you for the compliment and the rec.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Original post)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 02:56 PM

13. President Jeb Bush has a nice ring to it, huh?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 02:59 PM

15. The primary hasn't even begun yet, let alone the general.

Democrats don't have to nominate a Third Wayer who ran a "racially tinged" campaign against the first African American who looked like he had a shot at the nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #15)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:01 PM

16. And Hillary hasn't even announced, yet...

 

The lynch mob is out in full force.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:04 PM

18. Disgusting and low comment about an OP that is full of links, but I won't alert.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #18)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:07 PM

21. Full of links that you've intentionally misquoted

Lynchings were often done on no, madeup or exaggerated evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #21)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:23 PM

39. Another low and disgusting comment. The quotes are copied and pasted. The links are there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #39)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:57 PM

74. then you make assumptions about the links

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #74)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 04:00 PM

79. Again, if you have refutation of anything in the OP, I'd welcome it, especially if (a) it

actually pertains to Hillary; (b) is not some nitpicky and erroneous comment about some factoid that doesn't matter anyway; and (c) is not already refuted by the OP itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #79)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 04:03 PM

80. I've already refuted several things. Pretending I didn't doesn't mean I didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #80)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 04:11 PM

84. LOL. No, you mentioned 3 things per the description in my reply 79 and were wrong on all 3 per my

reply 28. Still, even that failed attempt at refutation was more interesting and substantive than a lot of the other posts on this thread from DU's right .So kudos, I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #84)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 05:07 PM

129. Let's repeat again.

The "predecessor" referred to above was Coalition for a Democratic Majority ("CDM", a group formed in 1972 in which cold war warriors/war hawk neocons predominated.


Incorrect. The "predecessor" referred to above was The CPE - Committee on Party Effectiveness. See complete excerpt below:

In the early 1980s, some of the youngest members of Congress, including Representative William Gray of Pennsylvania, Tim Wirth of Colorado, Al Gore of Tennessee, Richard Gephardt of Missouri, and Gillis Long of Louisiana helped found the House Democratic Caucus' Committee on Party Effectiveness. Formed by Long and his allies after the 1980 presidential election, the CPE hoped to become the main vehicle for the rejuvenation of the Democratic Party.[7] The CPE has been called "the first organizational embodiment of the New Democrats."[8]

The DLC started as a group of forty-three elected officials and two staffers, Al From and Will Marshall, and shared their predecessor's goal


As to when the CDM was formed, I cannot help what the commons article to which I linked said.

But here was your attempted deception:

Ironically, the history commons article linked above states that the CDM paved the way for the "disastrous" McGovern candidacy, while DLC historians claim that the "disastrous" McGovern candidacy paved the way for formation of the DLC.


There is no irony there. The History Commons link is incorrect as any Google search will tell you. Further, the wiki link was not written by 'DLC historians.' That was an attempt by you to cast doubt on the actual historic occurrence. McGovern lost in epic fashion, then the CDM was formed to stir the party in another direction. It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest a small and inconsequential centrist group like the CDM could cause a liberal candidate to lose. But you attempted to do just that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #129)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 05:46 PM

153. Sure. See Reply 149 again. Even better, Reply 155.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #153)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 06:04 PM

161. Your spin

The "predecessor" referred to above was Coalition for a Democratic Majority ("CDM", a group formed in 1972 in which cold war warriors/war hawk neocons predominated.


Incorrect. The "predecessor" referred to above was The CPE - Committee on Party Effectiveness. See complete excerpt below:

In the early 1980s, some of the youngest members of Congress, including Representative William Gray of Pennsylvania, Tim Wirth of Colorado, Al Gore of Tennessee, Richard Gephardt of Missouri, and Gillis Long of Louisiana helped found the House Democratic Caucus' Committee on Party Effectiveness. Formed by Long and his allies after the 1980 presidential election, the CPE hoped to become the main vehicle for the rejuvenation of the Democratic Party.[7] The CPE has been called "the first organizational embodiment of the New Democrats."[8]

The DLC started as a group of forty-three elected officials and two staffers, Al From and Will Marshall, and shared their predecessor's goal


As to when the CDM was formed, I cannot help what the commons article to which I linked said.

But here was your attempted deception:

Ironically, the history commons article linked above states that the CDM paved the way for the "disastrous" McGovern candidacy, while DLC historians claim that the "disastrous" McGovern candidacy paved the way for formation of the DLC.


There is no irony there. The History Commons link is incorrect as any Google search will tell you. Further, the wiki link was not written by 'DLC historians.' That was an attempt by you to cast doubt on the actual historic occurrence. McGovern lost in epic fashion, then the CDM was formed to stir the party in another direction. It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest a small and inconsequential centrist group like the CDM could cause a liberal candidate to lose. But you attempted to do just that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #18)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:09 PM

23. Alert for what, pointing out the strange DU obsession with...

 

Hillary bashing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #23)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:20 PM

33. People bash the President all the time.

Why is she so precious?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #33)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:22 PM

37. You won't find me reccing those threads either.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #23)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:33 PM

52. No, for your low down and utterly baseless comparison to a lynch mob. But, you knew that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #23)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 05:48 AM

313. Disagreeing with Hillary Clinton and pointing out the reasons why are bashing?

Seriously? Fucking get a grip!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 05:04 PM

127. The OP is about how HRC is in league with the 1%. Can you refute that?

 

We desperately need change and HRC doesn't represent that change. She may be progressive on some social issues, but she is a hard line hawk on foreign policy (remember the Iraq War) and totally in with Wall Street.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #127)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 05:11 PM

135. Hillary is probably a member of the 1%,

but that was not my reason for the OP. Her DLC, Third Way, Progressive Policy Institute connections were the reason.

Those policies do support the 1%, who sure did okay on things like "ending welfare as we know it", NAFTA, repeal of Glass Steagall, etc., products of Bubba's administration. However, that was not my goal in writing the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #135)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 05:29 PM

141. Yes Hillary's current wealth makes her a member of the 1%, which is remarkable since she was broke

 

not all that long ago. Nice having friends like Goldman-Sachs and the big banks.

Yes I understood your reason and took a little blog-license to imply that her DLC connection in fact supports the 1%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #141)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 07:30 PM

208. Nice to have a chance to interact with you. I don't think I've done that in a while.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #135)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 07:29 PM

207. How could HIllary be a 1%er?

She said she was dead broke when they left the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #207)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 07:34 PM

212. As you know, "dead broke" to the 1% does not mean the same as "dead broke" to the

as "dead broke" to the poor unemployed.

I once lent $5 to someone who turned out to be a drug addict. On hearing that, a co-worker remarked, "Then you'll never be broke, because he will forever owe you."


And I still own the asset of that $5 debt to me, though I think the statute of limitations on collecting it has run out.

But I digress. Point is, there's broke and then there's broke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #207)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 08:23 PM

227. I think the Clintons held a benefit. Some brought casseroles, some second hand furniture,

 

and some brought bags of money. It's nice to have wealthy friends.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #227)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 07:40 AM

420. I bet you didn't even try to connect her with a food pantry, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #420)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 10:15 AM

451. She was already signed up for meals on jets. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #451)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 10:17 AM

452. She doesn't fly commercial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #15)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:08 PM

22. Why are people peeved about the facts?




Are we really expected to just dumbly follow the herd before any announcements are made? I guess we need to get some big damn brooms to sweep everything under the carpet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #22)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:12 PM

25. I'm all for facts, but you're preaching to the choir.

 

Why is DU trying to take down one of Dems most viable candidates?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #25)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:15 PM

27. She's not the candidate yet.

She hasn't even announced yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #27)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:19 PM

31. I said viable candidate.

 

But hey, lets keep giving the rightwing fodder until Jeb Bush marches right into the WH. I'm sure that will make everyone here super happy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #31)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:22 PM

35. Ah yes, the President Bush!!1 threat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #35)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:24 PM

40. Now I'm "threatening"? Nope, just living in reality.

 

Take your pick: Walker, Bush, Paul, Christie. Same goes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #40)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:28 PM

44. I would like someone other than Hillary from our side.

Sorry, but I have hopes for a primary. I am a bit disgusted with having her shoved down my throat for the past year and a half.

Where the hell were all the staunch Democratic candidate supporters last November?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #44)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 08:37 AM

327. Me too. Someone else.

Being correct on social issues is no longer good enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enthusiast (Reply #327)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 12:07 PM

354. ^^^Being correct on social issues is no longer good enough.^^^

Thanks, Enthusiast. That describes it perfectly.

And don't lets forget that the DLC and their heirs weren't too keen on social issues either until very recently. After all, those are librul ideas.

These are the folks who pinned their candidates' losses on liberals being too far left for the it precious swing voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #31)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:29 PM

46. what tripe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #31)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 10:08 PM

266. Nope

 

You would be correct if you said "viable potential candidate". But you didn't say that....

Words do mean something you know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Caretha (Reply #266)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 05:51 AM

314. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Caretha (Reply #266)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 07:49 AM

421. She's more than viable for the primary because the fix seems to have been in for years, best I can

tell. IMO, if she is the candidate, she will very likely lose the general. I thought she might have had a shot against Romney. Both old news, both lost a national in the past, both hundred millionaires, both fans of Heritage Foundation Care, but she's a woman and not a Mormon and I think those thing might have given her an edge.

Against Bush, also a lot of similarities, down to close relatives who had been President, but I think Jeb might pass the "Who would you want to have a beer with" test more easily and he might also have an edge in campaigning, esp. if dirty tricks Rove is on board.

Against Walker, I don't know. How many elections did he win to get and keep his seat? That was impressive. And he's new blood. I do think the nation has Clinton Bush fatigue at this point.

I think the meme here that she'll win the general in a cake walk is delusional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #25)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:25 PM

41. I think she'll lose the general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #41)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:30 PM

49. I'm all for a wide open primary...

 

I'm looking forward to it. But we shouldn't be smearing and taking down our own without even hearing her current positions, we'll get enough of that from the rightwing. The only thing we should be concerned with is who will share our vision for America more closely, a Dem candidate or a Republican candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #49)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:37 PM

54. Too bad you think stating facts is smearing. It isn't. You comments about me, however, are smears.

The only thing we should be concerned with is who will share our vision for America more closely, a Dem candidate or a Republican candidate.
Response to:


You can decide what YOU should be concerned with. You don't get to decide that for all of DU. Right now, I am concerned with better and better Democrats running in a Democratic primary that is actually democratic, not with anointing another fucker Third Wayer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #54)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 05:52 AM

315. Well put

As for those who are screaming "you're smearing Hillary" they are the same people who are calling people the Tealeft and other things because they won't bow down and support her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #315)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 09:05 AM

333. ah, yes, the good ole "TeaLeft" talking point lie.

Another iteration of "left is right."

(Ar any of their talking points honest and sensible?)

IMO, it more than earns a "TeaLeft, my ass" reply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #333)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 09:11 AM

334. That TeaLeft howling

always gives me a chuckle. Along with Independent Lefty BargleDerp!!1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #334)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 10:21 PM

395. Yep, two of the board bullies

Their rants are infamous as well as borderline psychotic. (note: I have not mentioned any names)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #22)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 08:45 PM

234. What facts? HRC supports don't state any facts. Here's a fact, HRC not only supported

 

the worst president in history, she helped him sell his horrible war. That's a fact. The idea some can overlook her responsibility for that disaster that cost hundreds of thousands of lives amazes me. The Democratic Party has many other people that actually have integrity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #234)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 08:54 AM

332. Lives needlessly lost.

Veterans maimed in body and spirit. All for what?

This will be conveniently swept under the carpet. Along with the "sniper fire", "dead broke", and her Wall Street buddies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #15)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 04:22 PM

95. Hillary's Turd Way leanings are well documented.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to InAbLuEsTaTe (Reply #95)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 05:06 PM

128. Yes. Thank you. And founding member of the DLC = more than a Third Way leaning.

So was her advocacy for the invasion of Iraq.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #128)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 06:25 PM

178. Yup yup. Hillary's Iraq vote doomed her in '08; will be her undoing in '16.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:37 PM

55. There's no reason to believe that is impossible with Clinton as our candidate.

(Using "Jeb" as a proxy for whatever Republican establishment candidate wins the Republican nomination. The whackjobs won't win the primary)

Yes, she's doing well in early polling. But early polling said 2008 would be Clinton vs Giuliani.

DLC-style politics is predicated on the distribution of voters on a left-right graph looking like an upside-down V. That there's a big lump in the middle, tapering off as you get more extreme.

It isn't. Republican insanity has dragged the "right" side off into it's own peak. Voter distribution now looks like an upside-down W. A left peak and a right peak.

Republicans are aiming at the right peak. DLC-style democrats are aiming for the middle....which is now a pit between the peaks. At the same time, these positions turn off the "left" end of the party, so they don't show up. That's why turnout is abysmal in GenX and Millennials - they trend far more liberal, but don't feel like they have a candidate if the election is DLC-style versus Republican. Such as the 2010 and 2014 elections.

If Clinton runs a DLC-style campaign, we get a base-versus-base election. With the Republicans catering to their base, and Clinton catering to the pit in the middle. That makes it a lot closer of an election. Close enough for the Republican candidate to win (or "win".

If Clinton runs a "hope and change" campaign, she has a much better chance of getting out those GenX and Millennials. But I have severe doubts that Clinton can pull that off. First, it goes against her entire political history. Second, those "marginally attached voters" feel they've been burned by Obama, and a candidate who ran to the right of Obama in 2008 isn't going to be able to credibly claim to be to the left of Obama.

We need to be concerned about 2016. Not acting like Clinton has already won. We can easily lose this - just ask not-Senator/not-governor Coakley.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #55)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 12:39 PM

360. The thing is that nobody, absolutely nobody who votes alligns with the pit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 05:40 PM

150. How did Obama beat Hillary, huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 07:39 PM

213. Oh please - not this again.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Original post)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:03 PM

17. I found two 'errors' in your cut and paste analysis almost immediately

The "predecessor" referred to above was Coalition for a Democratic Majority ("CDM", a group formed in 1972 in which cold war warriors/war hawk neocons predominated.


No, the predecessor was Al Gore's and Richard Richard Gephardt's Committee on Party Effectiveness in the early 80s. Your links plainly state that.

Ironically, the history commons article linked above states that the CDM paved the way for the "disastrous" McGovern candidacy, while DLC historians claim that the "disastrous" McGovern candidacy paved the way for formation of the DLC.


Not surprisingly, you haven't done your research. The CDM was formed one month after McGovern's campaign. And it was a disastrous campaign.

Your post is a great example or 'progressive' historical revisionism. These facts are easily found. But like most of your post, you're trying to inject some doubt.

Did you also fail to mention Howard Dean has endorsed Hillary?

I know there aren't many on DU who are interested in the history of the Democratic party - preferring to continue with the 'progressive' fairy tales you 'grew up with' on the internet. But for those who really want to read the New Democratic history, I suggest:

Reinventing Democrats by Kenneth S. Baer

http://www.amazon.com/Reinventing-Democrats-Kenneth-S-Baer/dp/070061009X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1423680690&sr=8-1&keywords=Reinventing+Democrats

I would also suggest Matt Stoller's excellent review of Al From's book The New Democrats and the Return to Power.

http://bit.ly/1zybePv

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #17)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:10 PM

24. This entire post is easily refuted.

People seem to forget the vast power ALEC built and the Reaganomic hard shift to the right the country endured.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #24)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:28 PM

42. Then refute it.

People seem to forget the vast power ALEC built and the Reaganomic hard shift to the right the country endured.


That is no refutation and , nope, I didn't forget. The success of the DLC, esp. after Bill Clinton was elected, was part of the reason that shift to the right did not get reversed.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #42)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 04:15 PM

89. Not a chance in hell.

My time is more valuable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #89)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 04:22 PM

94. Lol, right.

You should have stopped at "Not a chance in hell".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #89)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 04:36 PM

106. LOL! It would have been more credible if you stopped at the subject line.

Most of us have seen you go back and forth ad infinitum over things a lot less important. I've had those conversations with you myself and I imagine others have had as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #89)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 06:05 PM

163. That was pathetic. /nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #89)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 04:05 AM

311. lmao!!! Yeah, so you used it to imply that merrily is a right winger in that vast conspiracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #311)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 04:30 AM

312. Not going to get into circular 3 day long spats.

I learned. It's pointless.

It's unfortunate but the right wing has become masterful at repurposing "left wing" talking points and calling it their own. Remember Romney saying he was a working boy and earned his way to the top? Or maybe the catfood commissions saying Obama was going to take away benefits which was the sole reason for the rise of the tea party? That crap was copy-tested and deployed in social media. It was real.

I busted my ass for Mark Udall but he lost to a lying scumbag POS. But not a word of lamentation here in GD for Mark Udall because he was "Third Way." Good riddance, etc. 'cept he led the calls against NSA. Literally led the calls, even before Snowden came around, but no one cared.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #17)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:13 PM

26. Interesting as well that apparently anyone not as progressive as Bernie Sanders is now a "rightist"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #26)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:30 PM

48. bs straw man

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #26)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:51 PM

70. No, but the person that is to the right

of the President who describes his own economic policies as mainstream 1980's Republican and admits that in many ways Nixon was more liberal than he is surely IS a "rightest".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LondonReign2 (Reply #70)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 06:06 PM

165. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #26)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 08:37 PM

230. No but those to the right of Sen Warren are clearly conservative. 30 years ago HRC would have

 

been a Republicon. Now that the Democratic Party has opened their tent to the conservatives that don't want to be with the extreme right, like Arlen Specter, we have the DLC/Third Way/New Democrats.

Do you agree that the DLC/Third Way/New Democrats are conservative? Do you agree that HRC is aligned with the DLC/Third Way/New Democrats. Or are you content to support the 1% and call others that don't, names.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #26)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 08:45 AM

329. The policies Bernie promotes are dead on centrist. He is right where the American people are.

So, yeah, if you are to the right of Bernie you are probably also to the right of center.

Look at it, issue by issue. What I am saying is true, whether the Democratic Party establishment wants it told or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #17)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:16 PM

28. No. My link said Coalition for a Democratic Majority.

Founding and early history

The DLC was founded by Al From in 1985 in the wake of Democratic candidate and former Vice President Walter Mondale's landslide defeat to incumbent President Ronald Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. Other founders include Democratic Governors Chuck Robb (Virginia), Bruce Babbitt (Arizona) and Lawton Chiles (Florida), Senator Sam Nunn (Georgia) and Representative Dick Gephardt (Missouri).[6]

The model on which the Democratic Leadership Council was built was the Coalition for a Democratic Majority. Founded by "Scoop" Jackson Democrats in response to George McGovern's massive loss to Richard Nixon in 1972, the CDM was dismayed by two presidential election losses and the organization's goal was to steer the party away from the New Left influence that had permeated the Democratic party since the late 1960s and back to the policies that made the FDR coalition electorally successful for close to 40 years. Although Senator Jackson declined to endorse the organization, believing the timing was "inappropriate", future DLC founders and early members were involved like Sen. Sam Nunn and Sen. Charles S. Robb.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council'

The quote in my OP that mentioned "predecessor" was this wiki article.



As to when the CDM was formed, I cannot help what the commons article to which I linked said. I stated clearly that it was the article's comment and I never said when the CDM was formed. Moreover, I noted it only because it amused me, in an ironic way. In any event, the date the CDM was formed is not material to Hillary.



Dean's endorsement is noted right there in the OP. An asterisk, indicating a footnote is next to Dean's name, the first or second time it appears in the OP and the footnote mentions the endorsement, along with what Dean is now getting paid to do.



Your post is a great example or 'progressive' historical revisionism.


Same question as for the author of Reply 1. Which fact do you claim I revised?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #28)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:21 PM

34. WyldWolf will always have an issue with anyone critical of Hillary.

It's as certain as day and night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phlem (Reply #34)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:38 PM

58. I know and I'm fine with his having issues. Not so fine with his attempts to smear me, though, but

I'm used to those tactics from that side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #28)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:50 PM

67. Let me quote you AGAIN

The "predecessor" referred to above was Coalition for a Democratic Majority ("CDM", a group formed in 1972 in which cold war warriors/war hawk neocons predominated.


Incorrect. The "predecessor" referred to above was The CPE - Committee on Party Effectiveness. See complete excerpt below:

In the early 1980s, some of the youngest members of Congress, including Representative William Gray of Pennsylvania, Tim Wirth of Colorado, Al Gore of Tennessee, Richard Gephardt of Missouri, and Gillis Long of Louisiana helped found the House Democratic Caucus' Committee on Party Effectiveness. Formed by Long and his allies after the 1980 presidential election, the CPE hoped to become the main vehicle for the rejuvenation of the Democratic Party.[7] The CPE has been called "the first organizational embodiment of the New Democrats."[8]

The DLC started as a group of forty-three elected officials and two staffers, Al From and Will Marshall, and shared their predecessor's goal


As to when the CDM was formed, I cannot help what the commons article to which I linked said.

But here was your attempted deception:

Ironically, the history commons article linked above states that the CDM paved the way for the "disastrous" McGovern candidacy, while DLC historians claim that the "disastrous" McGovern candidacy paved the way for formation of the DLC.


There is no irony there. The History Commons link is incorrect as any Google search will tell you. Further, the wiki link was not written by 'DLC historians.' That was an attempt by you to cast doubt on the actual historic occurrence. McGovern lost in epic fashion, then the CDM was formed to stir the party in another direction. It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest a small and inconsequential centrist group like the CDM could cause a liberal candidate to lose. But you attempted to do just that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #67)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 04:17 PM

90. This is why I don't bother.

It just becomes a circular argument where merrily has to have the last word and if you spend even ten minutes refuting the dishonest false portrayals of things, it'll just be glossed over and repetitive goading will commence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #90)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 05:10 PM

132. "a circular argument... refuting the dishonest false portrayals of things" Funny thing about history

It's often well documented. What's hysterical is the number of 'progressives' who fall down the rabbit hole with her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #132)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 05:30 PM

142. That circle would start with refutation which you have not accomplished, except that you proved

that the CDM was the model for the DLC, rather than the first "embodiment." And, if I had called it the first embodiment of the DLC, you would probably have pointed out that something formed before the DLC could not have been the embodiment of the DLC, or some other equally immaterial nonsense.

Not a thing you pointed out was anything but your desperately looking for nits to pick and none of them was the least bit material to the fact that Hillary is DLC/Third Way.

Sorry your alert didn't work, but when you falsely accuse someone of deliberate deception over and over again, you have to expect a bs call.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #142)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 05:35 PM

145. Let's repeat again

The "predecessor" referred to above was Coalition for a Democratic Majority ("CDM", a group formed in 1972 in which cold war warriors/war hawk neocons predominated.


Incorrect. The "predecessor" referred to above was The CPE - Committee on Party Effectiveness. See complete excerpt below:

In the early 1980s, some of the youngest members of Congress, including Representative William Gray of Pennsylvania, Tim Wirth of Colorado, Al Gore of Tennessee, Richard Gephardt of Missouri, and Gillis Long of Louisiana helped found the House Democratic Caucus' Committee on Party Effectiveness. Formed by Long and his allies after the 1980 presidential election, the CPE hoped to become the main vehicle for the rejuvenation of the Democratic Party.[7] The CPE has been called "the first organizational embodiment of the New Democrats."[8]

The DLC started as a group of forty-three elected officials and two staffers, Al From and Will Marshall, and shared their predecessor's goal


As to when the CDM was formed, I cannot help what the commons article to which I linked said.

But here was your attempted deception:

Ironically, the history commons article linked above states that the CDM paved the way for the "disastrous" McGovern candidacy, while DLC historians claim that the "disastrous" McGovern candidacy paved the way for formation of the DLC.


There is no irony there. The History Commons link is incorrect as any Google search will tell you. Further, the wiki link was not written by 'DLC historians.' That was an attempt by you to cast doubt on the actual historic occurrence. McGovern lost in epic fashion, then the CDM was formed to stir the party in another direction. It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest a small and inconsequential centrist group like the CDM could cause a liberal candidate to lose. But you attempted to do just that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #145)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 05:39 PM

149. Repetititon does not alter the fact that those points, though immaterial, have been responded to

several times. But, if it makes you feel better, keep repeating them.

I'm not a conservative, but I am compassionate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #149)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 06:06 PM

164. They have been spun

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #164)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 06:24 PM

177. Absolutely not. But, prithee, to what end would I spin something that has nothing to do with

anything of importance? If I were to spin deliberately, I sure wouldn't do it with the meaningless, dumbass nits you keep repeating.

You really should have a lot more to go on if you are going to post for hours that a fellow DUer is a deceptive and whatever else you've been accusing me of all day. But that would take ethics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #90)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 05:15 PM

136. No, Josh. His refutations, though immaterial, have been refuted and you don't have any.

That's why you didn't bother.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #136)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 05:35 PM

146. Let's repeat again.

The "predecessor" referred to above was Coalition for a Democratic Majority ("CDM", a group formed in 1972 in which cold war warriors/war hawk neocons predominated.


Incorrect. The "predecessor" referred to above was The CPE - Committee on Party Effectiveness. See complete excerpt below:

In the early 1980s, some of the youngest members of Congress, including Representative William Gray of Pennsylvania, Tim Wirth of Colorado, Al Gore of Tennessee, Richard Gephardt of Missouri, and Gillis Long of Louisiana helped found the House Democratic Caucus' Committee on Party Effectiveness. Formed by Long and his allies after the 1980 presidential election, the CPE hoped to become the main vehicle for the rejuvenation of the Democratic Party.[7] The CPE has been called "the first organizational embodiment of the New Democrats."[8]

The DLC started as a group of forty-three elected officials and two staffers, Al From and Will Marshall, and shared their predecessor's goal


As to when the CDM was formed, I cannot help what the commons article to which I linked said.

But here was your attempted deception:

Ironically, the history commons article linked above states that the CDM paved the way for the "disastrous" McGovern candidacy, while DLC historians claim that the "disastrous" McGovern candidacy paved the way for formation of the DLC.


There is no irony there. The History Commons link is incorrect as any Google search will tell you. Further, the wiki link was not written by 'DLC historians.' That was an attempt by you to cast doubt on the actual historic occurrence. McGovern lost in epic fashion, then the CDM was formed to stir the party in another direction. It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest a small and inconsequential centrist group like the CDM could cause a liberal candidate to lose. But you attempted to do just that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #146)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 05:58 PM

157. Sure. See Replies 149 and 155 again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #157)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 06:02 PM

158. Your spin

The "predecessor" referred to above was Coalition for a Democratic Majority ("CDM", a group formed in 1972 in which cold war warriors/war hawk neocons predominated.


Incorrect. The "predecessor" referred to above was The CPE - Committee on Party Effectiveness. See complete excerpt below:

In the early 1980s, some of the youngest members of Congress, including Representative William Gray of Pennsylvania, Tim Wirth of Colorado, Al Gore of Tennessee, Richard Gephardt of Missouri, and Gillis Long of Louisiana helped found the House Democratic Caucus' Committee on Party Effectiveness. Formed by Long and his allies after the 1980 presidential election, the CPE hoped to become the main vehicle for the rejuvenation of the Democratic Party.[7] The CPE has been called "the first organizational embodiment of the New Democrats."[8]

The DLC started as a group of forty-three elected officials and two staffers, Al From and Will Marshall, and shared their predecessor's goal


As to when the CDM was formed, I cannot help what the commons article to which I linked said.

But here was your attempted deception:

Ironically, the history commons article linked above states that the CDM paved the way for the "disastrous" McGovern candidacy, while DLC historians claim that the "disastrous" McGovern candidacy paved the way for formation of the DLC.


There is no irony there. The History Commons link is incorrect as any Google search will tell you. Further, the wiki link was not written by 'DLC historians.' That was an attempt by you to cast doubt on the actual historic occurrence. McGovern lost in epic fashion, then the CDM was formed to stir the party in another direction. It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest a small and inconsequential centrist group like the CDM could cause a liberal candidate to lose. But you attempted to do just that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #158)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 11:59 AM

353. Do you not realize that posting the same thing over and over again ...

 


1. Rather blatantly makes you look like a propagandist since that is exactly what professional propagandists do, and

2. Makes you look like a really stupid such propagandist since most such professionals at least the ability to switch around the wording occasionally in an attempt to make it appear they are actually thinking about what they are posting instead of mindlessly pushing the propaganda.

Keep up the good work!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ieoeja (Reply #353)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 02:06 PM

377. Do you not realize

I don't care about your opinion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ieoeja (Reply #353)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 08:31 AM

424. Seems thuggish, bullying and intentionally disruptive, doesn't it? Especially when Cryer joins in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #424)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 12:24 PM

472. Yes. I was somewhat shocked at his response to me. I was not expecting a total dick.

 


But I'll take that over One Of The 99's idiotic ramblings. That one's nonsense reminds of what the Right passes off as "intellectual" to their adherents.

"You're not getting my point," has been his reply to every poster who has pointed out his inconsistencies and faulty logic. Which means he thinks each and every person he talks to is just not smart enough to understand him. I find that in the real world with a lot of Righties. You'd think constantly being told they're not making any sense would cause them to rethink what they're saying.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ieoeja (Reply #472)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 01:10 PM

477. You seemed to have missed the point too

Get out of your ideological bubble and take off your blinders to see the bigger picture. There is no faulty logic in anything I'm saying. Stop demonizing people just because they don't argree with you 100% on every single issue. I don't understand why that simple idea of a more tolerant additude is so threatening to some here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #67)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 04:21 PM

93. Ah, you are quibbling wholly immaterially over "model" vs. "embodiment" and claiming a deception.

OK. I will change predecessor in the OP to words about having been modeled on the CDM, which probably makes the language to which you object even worse.

You and your friends need to stop lying about alleged attempted deceptions. I found the comment ironic. Further, the wiki link was not written by 'DLC historians.'



Really? People who write the history of the DLC are not DLC historians? However, I never said I was referring to wiki.

Are you actually disagreeing that people claim the MCGovern loss paved the way for the DLC? If so, you are very wrong.

Or are you just nitpicking in a lame and false attempt to show my Op is intentionally deceptive? Because it sure seems like the latter.

That was an attempt by you to cast doubt on the actual historic occurrence.
Bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #93)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 04:36 PM

105. Just a heads up.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Bullshit?????? Disagree without calling someone's argument "bullshit." That's hurtful, rude, insensitive, OTT and inappropriate. No one likes to be told their opinion is "bullshit." It's a disruptive and abusive way to discuss a topic. If you can't argue civilly there's a problem and it needs to be corrected.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Feb 11, 2015, 12:34 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter, grow up. People call bullshit on silly posts all the time around here. If you're that thin skinned, drop politics and take up scrapbooking.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't believe that Miss Manners is a member here and the language is consistent with other DU posts...in fact it is quite erudite compared with some.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Calling Bullshit is a personal attack? BULLSHIT!
Also, this is another tit for tat alert where 2 posters insult each other, but only one gets alerted on. I never hide those.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Harsh, but not overstepping, this feels like an attempt to get someone locked out of their own thread.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #105)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 04:38 PM

109. Thank you! But no alert or objection from this alerter on a poster

implying that I am part of a lynch mob, simply because I wrote the OP of this thread?

No much of a double standard for that alerter, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #105)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 04:41 PM

110. Oh my!

Seems as though somebody has nothing left but to pull out the alert card.

Good job, jury.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #93)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 05:36 PM

147. Words matter. facts matter. Historical accuracy matters. Errors by omission matter

The "predecessor" referred to above was Coalition for a Democratic Majority ("CDM", a group formed in 1972 in which cold war warriors/war hawk neocons predominated.


Incorrect. The "predecessor" referred to above was The CPE - Committee on Party Effectiveness. See complete excerpt below:

In the early 1980s, some of the youngest members of Congress, including Representative William Gray of Pennsylvania, Tim Wirth of Colorado, Al Gore of Tennessee, Richard Gephardt of Missouri, and Gillis Long of Louisiana helped found the House Democratic Caucus' Committee on Party Effectiveness. Formed by Long and his allies after the 1980 presidential election, the CPE hoped to become the main vehicle for the rejuvenation of the Democratic Party.[7] The CPE has been called "the first organizational embodiment of the New Democrats."[8]

The DLC started as a group of forty-three elected officials and two staffers, Al From and Will Marshall, and shared their predecessor's goal


As to when the CDM was formed, I cannot help what the commons article to which I linked said.

But here was your attempted deception:

Ironically, the history commons article linked above states that the CDM paved the way for the "disastrous" McGovern candidacy, while DLC historians claim that the "disastrous" McGovern candidacy paved the way for formation of the DLC.


There is no irony there. The History Commons link is incorrect as any Google search will tell you. Further, the wiki link was not written by 'DLC historians.' That was an attempt by you to cast doubt on the actual historic occurrence. McGovern lost in epic fashion, then the CDM was formed to stir the party in another direction. It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest a small and inconsequential centrist group like the CDM could cause a liberal candidate to lose. But you attempted to do just that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #147)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 05:55 PM

155. Do words and facts really matter to you? Because I told you that I would change "predecessor"

to model in the Op, and the fact is that I did. Yet you still keep posting the predecessor point--a distinction without a difference anyway.

Your other points are wrong. And there has been no deliberate deception, which I have posted and which I am pretty sure you knew from the jump. Nor have you even attempted to show that this alleged deliberate deception had a thing to do with Hillary.

See also, Replies 28, 79, 84, 93 and 149.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #155)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 06:03 PM

159. The fact it was there at all shows shoddy research

The "predecessor" referred to above was Coalition for a Democratic Majority ("CDM", a group formed in 1972 in which cold war warriors/war hawk neocons predominated.


Incorrect. The "predecessor" referred to above was The CPE - Committee on Party Effectiveness. See complete excerpt below:

In the early 1980s, some of the youngest members of Congress, including Representative William Gray of Pennsylvania, Tim Wirth of Colorado, Al Gore of Tennessee, Richard Gephardt of Missouri, and Gillis Long of Louisiana helped found the House Democratic Caucus' Committee on Party Effectiveness. Formed by Long and his allies after the 1980 presidential election, the CPE hoped to become the main vehicle for the rejuvenation of the Democratic Party.[7] The CPE has been called "the first organizational embodiment of the New Democrats."[8]

The DLC started as a group of forty-three elected officials and two staffers, Al From and Will Marshall, and shared their predecessor's goal


As to when the CDM was formed, I cannot help what the commons article to which I linked said.

But here was your attempted deception:

Ironically, the history commons article linked above states that the CDM paved the way for the "disastrous" McGovern candidacy, while DLC historians claim that the "disastrous" McGovern candidacy paved the way for formation of the DLC.


There is no irony there. The History Commons link is incorrect as any Google search will tell you. Further, the wiki link was not written by 'DLC historians.' That was an attempt by you to cast doubt on the actual historic occurrence. McGovern lost in epic fashion, then the CDM was formed to stir the party in another direction. It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest a small and inconsequential centrist group like the CDM could cause a liberal candidate to lose. But you attempted to do just that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #159)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 06:10 PM

166. No. The only source either you or I needed on that one was the wiki I cited.

So, calling it shoddy research is wrong. Odd from someone who purports words and facts are important who has nitpicked immaterial wording all day.

What it actually shows is that you put more emphasis on technicality predecessor than on the fact that the model for the DLC was the CDM while I put more emphasis on model. Oh, and btw, the CDM having been formed long before the DLC was a predecessor of the DLC, if you look up what "predecessor" means.

Of course, you have yet to explain what vast significance of your nitpicks. Does the CDM having been the model for the DLC make the DLC any better than its having been the predecessor referred to in the quoted language?

See also replies 149 and 155.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #166)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 06:18 PM

172. You had a preconceived notion

And selectively cut and pasted to build your narrative. When the source said something that didn't fit the narrative you called them DLC historians. Lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #172)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 06:20 PM

175. And you pulled that right out of your ear. Untrue and stinks of earwax to boot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #17)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:38 PM

59. The McGovern "disaster" could not possibly have been due to active support of Nixon by

Dem leadership, now, could it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrats_for_Nixon

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #59)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:56 PM

72. irrelevant

I've not addressed the reasons for McGovern's defeat, only the timeline.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #72)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 06:16 PM

170. lol! Look who's talking about "irrelevant."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #170)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 06:19 PM

174. Another irrelevant reply from you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #174)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 06:22 PM

176. LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #176)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 06:27 PM

180. Lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #180)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 10:06 PM

263. They'll reply for DAYS.

Literally days. I played along one time, I think it went on for three whole days was the longest reply chain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #263)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 10:08 PM

265. Fortunately I have a few days off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #263)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 08:35 AM

326. Pretending only one person continues to reply, Josh? Typical.

Anyone who doesn't want me to reply can just stop making my My Post tab go yellow. Pretending people are not addressing me is just not something I was brought up to do.

BTW, it was far more than once with you, Josh. I remember telling you on a few occasions that the exchanges had become too tedious for me to continue and you were on your own. And each time, you'd reply to me again anyway.

No worries, though Josh. I get that being direct is not for everyone .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #326)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 08:44 AM

328. Is this one of those times?

Where you stop highlighting my yellow tab with incessantly irrelevant commentary?

Let's give it a test!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #328)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 08:50 AM

331. Yep, this is one of those times, but not before I thank you for proving my point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #331)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 10:21 AM

340. Guess not!

And here I was thinking the yellow tab represented a coherent, substantive, relevant reply!

Instead it was a complete waste of time!

And people wonder why I don't feel like bothering to reply.

Days and days of irrelevant commentary. It's pointless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #59)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 05:23 PM

139. Yep. Also Eagleton combined with a short run (RFK assassination), early opposition from Ted

Kennedy and a lot of things. Every election is itCs own story and often a complex one. Pretending that McGovern lost because he was lilberal and only because he was liberal is dishonest or incredibly naive. It's like discussing Clinton's wins without reference to Perot or Poppy's trip to buy socks and so many other things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Original post)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:18 PM

30. hillary is Obama 2 for the most part. if you love obama you will love hillary nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #30)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:32 PM

50. Why debate that? Obama will never run again. Hillary seems as though she might.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #30)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:35 PM

53. And if you hate Obama ... you'll spend 8 more years complaining about Hillary on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #53)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:40 PM

60. Doubtful that she will win the general so probably much closeer to 8 months than 8 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #53)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 08:42 PM

232. As we say goodbye to the middle class. Why don't you guys admit you support the 1%?

 

You hate everything about democracy. You hate OWS, Code Pink, protesters of all types, honest journalists, whistle-blowers, and anyone else that dares to rock you authoritarian boat. HRC does not support the 99%, but you guys don't care because apparently you also don't support the 99%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #232)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 02:34 AM

299. A little honesty from them WOULD be refreshing.

The typs of Democrats (and I am only referring to the registration not the Ideology) That support the thirdway vision fully support the Friedman model of economics and are just as fond of trickle down as Reagan, they are also mostly hawks, but I digress.

They are concerned only for the top tier financially (supply siders to the core) and are quick to offer cuts to social programs. They not only do not support the middle class, they don't even talk about the working and poor classes unless it is to trim the fat by screwing them with proposed "reforms".

They do as a matter of strategy support traditional Democratic social issues, largely as a ploy to keep a few blocks of key voters.

They are seldom honest about being actual conservatives on fiscal matters, Wildwolf used to be more honest about that, but lately... possibly they no longer admit to the fact in order to deceive votes out of those that they will screw, They were a bit more forthcoming early on but now they prefer to lie with their rhetoric while favoring those conservative fiscal value in action.

In politics, the Third Way is a position that tries to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies.[1][2] The Third Way was created as a serious re-evaluation of political policies within various centre-left progressive movements in response to international doubt regarding the economic viability of the state; economic interventionist policies that had previously been popularized by Keynesianism and contrasted with the corresponding rise of popularity for economic liberalism and the New Right.[3] The Third Way is promoted by some social democratic and social liberal movements.[4]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #30)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 05:03 PM

126. Except with bigger cajones

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Original post)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:22 PM

36. Most excellent post merrily.

I loved every bit of it. Thank You.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phlem (Reply #36)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:41 PM

61. Thank you, Phlem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Original post)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:23 PM

38. You have to excuse the 'centrists' and their lack of evidence to refute your OP.

 

They seem to love libertarians and the idea of free trade over fair trade. Their made up fantasy about the Third Way being a CT got mocked until they fled those threads. Their pathetic attempt to drown out others voices on the Third Way got mocked until they fled those threads too. Basically they have nothing to refute the evidence with, but LCD comments not worthy of a reply.

Really, you cannot expect much from people that are willing to back a libertarian think tank of investment bankers. Another reason to take everything they say with a grain of salt. If even that much. And it is amusing to watch them pretend to support a Dem like Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #38)


Response to Rex (Reply #38)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:43 PM

62. Thanks, Rex. So far, they seem to have error and ugly smears. But, I always hope for substantive

discussion. It's much less boring and could even be helpful.

Le sigh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #38)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 04:23 PM

96. spot on, Rex

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Original post)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:28 PM

43. Leopard can't change it's spots, no matter how many corps they dissolve. HRH still 3rd way / DLC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Original post)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:29 PM

45. KnR nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Original post)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:38 PM

56. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Original post)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:38 PM

57. Well I just watched Hillary's Iraq war speech.

And that is enough IMO to not vote for her.

But another fact I remember because it was a shock to me was the first bill she sponsored was a flag burning ammendment...that sent up red flags to me...it was like a sign to say "I am with you Conservatives"

No more third way...back to real democratic values is what will get people to vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #57)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:50 PM

66. The flag burning amendment is usually red meat (R)'s throw to their base, so I agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Original post)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:46 PM

63. What does 'Etc.' stand for? Everyone else who disagrees with you?

 

[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #63)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:49 PM

64. Does your post even make sense?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #64)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:51 PM

69. Possibly not.

 

Who can truly say?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Original post)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:50 PM

65. All the blathering from the Left is not going to matter one iota in Hillary's decision to run.

Neither will it matter to people like myself who like, respect her and hope that she does run.

I assume that in the primaries those who don't support her will vote for someone else. My only objection is to those who have announced that they refuse to vote for her in the GE if she's the nominee. That's beyond foolish and selfish. I would vote for any Democratic nominee. I cringe to think what would happen to the country if the Republicans get to control Congress AND the WH too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #65)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:53 PM

71. My OP was full of quotes and links. And the right has proven its "blathering" skills often.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to antigop (Reply #116)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 06:03 PM

160. Thanks! My, my I wonder if her state has an open primary?

I know PUMAs who switched in 2008. One of them kicked me off her board after Obama won because I had supported Obama so strongly, but not before she said her heart had softened for Dimson.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to antigop (Reply #295)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 12:08 AM

297. No clue, but thank you.

You are amazing, though!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #160)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 02:51 AM

303. Oh, the insulting PUMA term.

Please............

As for NJ, it has a closed primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #303)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 08:08 AM

322. Which term would you prefer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #322)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 01:10 PM

368. So, all Hillary supporters are PUMAS?

The bull in this place is endless. Most Hillary supporters voted for Obama, he wouldn't have won otherwise. Ever thought of that?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #368)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 08:54 AM

428. Speaking of bull, I never said, and never would say, that all Hillary supporters are PUMAs.

UnAnd please do try to get over the 2008 primary. I don't know anyone else who is still obsessing over it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #428)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 01:41 PM

479. Neither am I, sweets.

I barely show up on this site anymore since it has become as anti-Clinton as any RW site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #160)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 09:18 AM

336. how many PUMAs actually voted for Obama? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #336)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 10:36 AM

341. No clue. I think a lot of the so-called PUMAs were Republicans to begin with, but I als know some

of them were Dems who did change.

I started my voting life registered as a Dem. Then I got married and we moved to Massachusetts. My husband, who is more left than I made a case for registering as Indies. So I did. I changed back to Democratic registration in 2004, though, after Dimson won the second time. Doing nothing is easier. Something has to motivate you to change.

Operation Chaos-type voting is something to consider, too, if it appears that your favorite primary candidate will very definitely win or very definitely lose in your state, no matter how you vote. That's a motivation to go Indie in closed primary states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #116)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 02:50 AM

302. Psst, genius......

I may be a registered Independent, but I vote Democratic.

Who do you intend to vote for in the general election in 2016, the Republican nominee?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #65)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:57 PM

73. "I cringe to think what would happen to the country if the Republicans get to control Congress AND

the WH too"

Corporations would be given free reign to do as they please?

Oh, wait....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #65)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 03:59 PM

78. The OP is full of FACTS, not blathering.

Refute anything in the OP with actual facts, not whining about selfishness and cringing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #78)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 02:54 AM

304. I see a few facts then a lot of innuendos and bullcrap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #304)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 08:46 AM

330. Of course you don't see many facts.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Maybe she should run on the Glamour Ticket.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026215315

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #330)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 01:13 PM

370. Laugh all you want, but if Hillary runs she will win the nomination.

If she doesn't, I will respect her decision.

I'm not the one tearing at my hair and rending my vestments over Hillary. That seems to be the job of the Left. Although the constant attempts to tear down one of the party's most popular politicians is quite befuddling.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #304)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 08:57 AM

429. Speaking of bullcrap, if you imagined you saw it in my OP, you probably should

have posted to point it out. So far, the bull crap I've seen on this thread has not come from my OP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #65)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 05:27 PM

140. DLC-style politics has already created a mountain of shit for us to clean up.

A few more turds on the pile isn't going to make much of a difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #140)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 05:37 PM

148. Electability is supposed to be the justification, but has anyone compared

records of Dem wins between the New Deal and 1992 with Dem wins between 1992 and the present? Bearing in mind that some "folks" killed one of ours, who could have run as an incumbent and also one of our top Presidential candidates, who happened to be a sibling? Also bearing in mind that there are state and local offices and seats in Congress, not just the Oval Office?

I know loss of the South had a lot to do with it, but we did gain other states, notably, for the electoral vote, California.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #148)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 06:48 PM

190. IMO, it worked well in the 80's and 90's

but after 1994 the Republicans started going too far into insanity for it to keep working. Aiming for "the middle" started doing worse and worse.

However, I don't have data handy to back that up. It would be difficult to compile, since so much would depend on fuzzy concepts like how the campaign "felt".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #65)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 06:15 PM

169. Hatred of the left oozes from every comment by Hillary supporters.

 

It isn't surprising, but it does leave me wondering why you lot think your tiny faction should be leading the party when you despise the actual people who make it up.

We already have a right-wing party, and it's moved so far to the right in response to DLC rightward creeping, that it really seems like the Third Way types should just became the Republican Party's moderates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #169)

Wed Feb 11, 2015, 07:01 PM

198. Hatred of the left, while accusing the left of being the right.

If you are not careful, it could make you dizzy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #169)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 02:47 AM

301. No, we don't hate the Left.

We are just tired of all the bellyaching of that faction of the party when it comes to the Clintons. Hillary has as much right to run for president as anyone else in the party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #301)

Fri Feb 13, 2015, 08:59 AM

430. Another straw man. No one said she has no right to run in the primary, not the OP, not a single post

on this thread that I have seen so far and I've seen most of them more than once.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #65)

Thu Feb 12, 2015, 02:21 PM