Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Hillary, DLC/Third Way, Neocons, PNAC, Etc. [View all]
PreambleNot 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]
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]
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.
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.
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?
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
529 replies, 59718 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (155)
ReplyReply to this post
529 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Yeah, don't let all those direct quotes and links fool ya! Which fact do you claim is erroneous?
merrily
Feb 2015
#2
You have a subjective view of errors and there is a heading in my OP in bold and underlined,
merrily
Feb 2015
#124
Thanks. If the poster had a real response or refutation, he or she would probably have posted it?
merrily
Feb 2015
#14
IMO, she's obviously been the anointee since 2012, if not earlier. I've never seen anything like it
merrily
Feb 2015
#117
Because you reponded to someone who referred to the OP as "Hillary truther" by saying
cui bono
Feb 2015
#107
Of course, you totally do know what you were implying. And you also know it's bs.
merrily
Feb 2015
#412
And you have the gall to claim MY posts are substance free personal insults? Project much?
merrily
Feb 2015
#423
Nail joshcryer on one thing and he'll change the subject. Again and again. Bet on it.
merrily
Feb 2015
#445
You're either calling her a right winger or saying she doesn't know anything.
cui bono
Feb 2015
#474
Which part are you disputing? Hillary is NOT a Third Way candidate? The Third Way doesn't exist?
sabrina 1
Feb 2015
#205
Are you claiming that HRC isn't aligned with the DLC/Third Way? Or is name calling all
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#228
You may be right that HRC will be the next president. The common folks will have a hard time
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#238
To claim that Hillary isn't a corporatist and supports American workers is what is "trutherism"...
cascadiance
Feb 2015
#248
You nailed that lyin corporatist again. We need to keep exposing Hillary. Go Bernie!
InAbLuEsTaTe
Feb 2015
#459
"Naive"?? I would welcome your attempts to justify or rationalize HRC promotion of the IWar.
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#462
So your best rationalization for her selling out her party is that she just wanted to "get it over
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#486
She has the backing of the Oligarchs so she will probably be the next President.
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#489
And there it is. Those with principles are responsible for the hundreds of thousands of
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#499
Which "we" are we talking about, is the we you are identifying with the 1%?
cascadiance
Feb 2015
#252
Most never heard of Third Way. I keep telling this story, so pardon me if you've read it before.
merrily
Feb 2015
#427
I thought only the Republican Party did the "whose turn is it to be POTUS" nonsense.
merrily
Feb 2015
#416
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!
InAbLuEsTaTe
Feb 2015
#461
The OP covered both those points. You might try reading something before you post canards. Or not.
merrily
Feb 2015
#413
All the links and direct quotes threw him off. That lot used to fact-free posting.
merrily
Feb 2015
#418
Why is any criticism of Hillary, regardless of how well and painstakingly linked, is viewed as hate?
peacebird
Jul 2015
#528
And remember that Hillary chaired the DLC before she last ran for president. DLC funding is from:
hedda_foil
Feb 2015
#352
Let's also not forget that the Koch Brothers also helped build up the DLC in its earlier days...
cascadiance
Feb 2015
#7
Yep. Right about the time they conceived of the Tea Party, too. (Do we know they stopped donating?)
merrily
Feb 2015
#9
Wow. I did not know that. I bookmarked. Thanks. Nice photo of Hills on "the DLC team" too.
merrily
Feb 2015
#203
Disgusting and low comment about an OP that is full of links, but I won't alert.
merrily
Feb 2015
#18
Another low and disgusting comment. The quotes are copied and pasted. The links are there.
merrily
Feb 2015
#39
Again, if you have refutation of anything in the OP, I'd welcome it, especially if (a) it
merrily
Feb 2015
#79
I've already refuted several things. Pretending I didn't doesn't mean I didn't.
wyldwolf
Feb 2015
#80
LOL. No, you mentioned 3 things per the description in my reply 79 and were wrong on all 3 per my
merrily
Feb 2015
#84
No, for your low down and utterly baseless comparison to a lynch mob. But, you knew that.
merrily
Feb 2015
#52
Disagreeing with Hillary Clinton and pointing out the reasons why are bashing?
davidpdx
Feb 2015
#313
Yes Hillary's current wealth makes her a member of the 1%, which is remarkable since she was broke
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#141
Nice to have a chance to interact with you. I don't think I've done that in a while.
merrily
Feb 2015
#208
As you know, "dead broke" to the 1% does not mean the same as "dead broke" to the
merrily
Feb 2015
#212
I think the Clintons held a benefit. Some brought casseroles, some second hand furniture,
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#227
She's more than viable for the primary because the fix seems to have been in for years, best I can
merrily
Feb 2015
#421
Too bad you think stating facts is smearing. It isn't. You comments about me, however, are smears.
merrily
Feb 2015
#54
What facts? HRC supports don't state any facts. Here's a fact, HRC not only supported
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#234
Yes. Thank you. And founding member of the DLC = more than a Third Way leaning.
merrily
Feb 2015
#128
Yup yup. Hillary's Iraq vote doomed her in '08; will be her undoing in '16.
InAbLuEsTaTe
Feb 2015
#178
The thing is that nobody, absolutely nobody who votes alligns with the pit.
hedda_foil
Feb 2015
#360
lmao!!! Yeah, so you used it to imply that merrily is a right winger in that vast conspiracy.
cui bono
Feb 2015
#311
Interesting as well that apparently anyone not as progressive as Bernie Sanders is now a "rightist"
brooklynite
Feb 2015
#26
No but those to the right of Sen Warren are clearly conservative. 30 years ago HRC would have
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#230
The policies Bernie promotes are dead on centrist. He is right where the American people are.
Enthusiast
Feb 2015
#329
I know and I'm fine with his having issues. Not so fine with his attempts to smear me, though, but
merrily
Feb 2015
#58
"a circular argument... refuting the dishonest false portrayals of things" Funny thing about history
wyldwolf
Feb 2015
#132
That circle would start with refutation which you have not accomplished, except that you proved
merrily
Feb 2015
#142
Repetititon does not alter the fact that those points, though immaterial, have been responded to
merrily
Feb 2015
#149
Absolutely not. But, prithee, to what end would I spin something that has nothing to do with
merrily
Feb 2015
#177
No, Josh. His refutations, though immaterial, have been refuted and you don't have any.
merrily
Feb 2015
#136
Seems thuggish, bullying and intentionally disruptive, doesn't it? Especially when Cryer joins in.
merrily
Feb 2015
#424
Yes. I was somewhat shocked at his response to me. I was not expecting a total dick.
ieoeja
Feb 2015
#472
Ah, you are quibbling wholly immaterially over "model" vs. "embodiment" and claiming a deception.
merrily
Feb 2015
#93
Words matter. facts matter. Historical accuracy matters. Errors by omission matter
wyldwolf
Feb 2015
#147
Do words and facts really matter to you? Because I told you that I would change "predecessor"
merrily
Feb 2015
#155
And you pulled that right out of your ear. Untrue and stinks of earwax to boot.
merrily
Feb 2015
#175
The McGovern "disaster" could not possibly have been due to active support of Nixon by
eridani
Feb 2015
#59
Yep, this is one of those times, but not before I thank you for proving my point.
merrily
Feb 2015
#331
Yep. Also Eagleton combined with a short run (RFK assassination), early opposition from Ted
merrily
Feb 2015
#139
hillary is Obama 2 for the most part. if you love obama you will love hillary nt
msongs
Feb 2015
#30
Why debate that? Obama will never run again. Hillary seems as though she might.
merrily
Feb 2015
#50
And if you hate Obama ... you'll spend 8 more years complaining about Hillary on DU.
JoePhilly
Feb 2015
#53
Doubtful that she will win the general so probably much closeer to 8 months than 8 years.
merrily
Feb 2015
#60
As we say goodbye to the middle class. Why don't you guys admit you support the 1%?
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#232
Thanks, Rex. So far, they seem to have error and ugly smears. But, I always hope for substantive
merrily
Feb 2015
#62
Leopard can't change it's spots, no matter how many corps they dissolve. HRH still 3rd way / DLC
on point
Feb 2015
#43
The flag burning amendment is usually red meat (R)'s throw to their base, so I agree.
merrily
Feb 2015
#66
All the blathering from the Left is not going to matter one iota in Hillary's decision to run.
Beacool
Feb 2015
#65
My OP was full of quotes and links. And the right has proven its "blathering" skills often.
merrily
Feb 2015
#71
Speaking of bull, I never said, and never would say, that all Hillary supporters are PUMAs.
merrily
Feb 2015
#428
No clue. I think a lot of the so-called PUMAs were Republicans to begin with, but I als know some
merrily
Feb 2015
#341
"I cringe to think what would happen to the country if the Republicans get to control Congress AND
LondonReign2
Feb 2015
#73
Speaking of bullcrap, if you imagined you saw it in my OP, you probably should
merrily
Feb 2015
#429
Another straw man. No one said she has no right to run in the primary, not the OP, not a single post
merrily
Feb 2015
#430
A lot of Anti-Hillary people on DU these days. They'd rather have a Republican win
BlueCaliDem
Feb 2015
#473
The fact that so many here equate a Hillary presidency to that of a Republican one
Beacool
Feb 2015
#480
It would require an enormous suspension of disbelief! I know that anyone who is to the right of
BlueCaliDem
Feb 2015
#483
Except it was 2008 and there was audio and video of all the events that got to me.
merrily
Feb 2015
#321
There is no denying they did the race baiting, it was wrong and it didnt help them, it hurt them.
randys1
Feb 2015
#209
No, you don't have to believe that. And, it's pretty unlikely that she is going to make any
merrily
Feb 2015
#363
Odd you choose to spend so much time on defaming and not promoting your candidate.
great white snark
Feb 2015
#82
None of this is defaming anyone, it is just the facts, and they are imporatant.
Exultant Democracy
Feb 2015
#87
Facts are not defamation-but your claim I defamed might well be. And she is nobody's candidate yet,
merrily
Feb 2015
#103
The Clintons have given speachs about the virtures of third way politics. It is a dirty word
Exultant Democracy
Feb 2015
#83
For distinction, are true progressives supposed to adopt a new label/term? Hope not.
appalachiablue
Feb 2015
#85
Posting is not campaigning, but campaigning against several Democrats is exactly what should happen
merrily
Feb 2015
#204
Again, that comment applies to the general, not the primary, let alone the pre-primary.
merrily
Feb 2015
#226
You know, I think you've just nailed it on the hallowed cause of "electability."
hedda_foil
Feb 2015
#356
Dimson's administration and war may have done more to elect Democrats in 2006 and 2008
merrily
Feb 2015
#369
Great Source. Yeah, Ross Perot hailed Clinton as proof DLCers could win elections, too.
merrily
Feb 2015
#185
There are Democrats, and there are progressives. Hillary is not a progressive Democrat.
leveymg
Feb 2015
#104
I don't know about that. As the OP states, the term "progressive" is not necessarily a synonym of
merrily
Feb 2015
#114
To further complicate things, there are "liberal internationalists" and "humanitarian interventions"
leveymg
Feb 2015
#120
DU's right often quacks like Republican ducks, but never mind that. Define "progressive."
merrily
Feb 2015
#200
And anyone who posts like you do and denies being a 'progressive' lives in a fairy tale.
wyldwolf
Feb 2015
#257
So, no definition? Anyone who pretends the definition of "progressive" is self evident lives in a
merrily
Feb 2015
#259
No more centrists, no more Clinton/Bush....progressive candidates please. nt
mother earth
Feb 2015
#154
i would like to see you spend as much time on the positive aspects of the Democratic party as what
Thinkingabout
Feb 2015
#183
I fucking love the Democratic Party, which is exactly why I reject DLC/Third Way.
merrily
Feb 2015
#192
Hillary's family may have been upper middle class, she and Bill was not in the upper middle
Thinkingabout
Feb 2015
#375
Attorneys are considered professional class, not "working class" And two attorneys working, even
merrily
Feb 2015
#433
How does attorneys get paid, by having clients, if you do not have a client base then you do not get
Thinkingabout
Feb 2015
#468
Thank you. The calculation of how much the world's 1% profited from repeal of Glass Steagall is
merrily
Feb 2015
#199
You didn't read the OP very well, if at all. It addressed dissolution of the DLC very early on.
merrily
Feb 2015
#214
The DLC/Third Way/New Democrats are working to help the corporations steal the wealth from the
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#237
LOL. You think it is ideological rigid to say that the Democratic Party should
LondonReign2
Feb 2015
#385
Those advocating continuing to move the Democratic Oarty to the right to be
LondonReign2
Feb 2015
#390
Why would I keep an open mind about those advocating that the Democratic Party
LondonReign2
Feb 2015
#396
Again, there was no demonization. She is associated with the DLC/Third Way. It's a fact.
merrily
Feb 2015
#267
No, I simply keep trying to hold you to what you posted. And again, you are flinging accusations
merrily
Feb 2015
#289
"A true progressive is not threatened by other people's ideas." Another absurd statment
Exultant Democracy
Feb 2015
#384
Your blanket statement married to a true Scotsman fallacy make it absurd,
Exultant Democracy
Feb 2015
#409
Once again not an insult, just a factual note on style and rhetoric.
Exultant Democracy
Feb 2015
#485
Acorn was assasinated, the DLC metastasized.You stament is either stupid, misleading
Exultant Democracy
Feb 2015
#383
You compared ACORN to the DLC, there is no arguing logically with that type of nonsense.
Exultant Democracy
Feb 2015
#408
You seem not to understand I know what you are tyring to do, your just wrong in every way.
Exultant Democracy
Feb 2015
#493
Pot. Kettle. You insulted me mindlessly again and again and never made any argument at all,
merrily
Feb 2015
#434
No you didn't. You just kept accusing me of having demonized Hillary, which was pure 100 proof bs.
merrily
Feb 2015
#450
You my friend, have the patience of a saint. I don't know how you do it. There's not
Guy Whitey Corngood
Feb 2015
#497
Right back at 'cha. Not to take anything away from Skittles and risk her wrath. But
Guy Whitey Corngood
Feb 2015
#506
You prove my point. Your ideological blinder keep you from being open minded
LondonReign2
Feb 2015
#478
Bottom line is ...too many Dems are way too willing to suck up to the 1% oligarchy to win.
L0oniX
Feb 2015
#231
Why is it we need Hillary so badly? Yeah, she's had some experience, but where does her loyalty lie?
YOHABLO
Feb 2015
#236
aw, thank you so much! And, yes, we need a number of ideological alternatives in a primary.
merrily
Feb 2015
#324
I agree as to the fiscal policies. The goal seems to me to have been to get us to focus on social
merrily
Feb 2015
#320
The DLC has made a class war out of this society since its inception in the mid-eighties
mrdmk
Feb 2015
#309
Two political parties picking over bones of the middle class and below. They are never satisfied...
whereisjustice
Feb 2015
#344
The words of a DLC founder. Get corporate money then won't need the people.
madfloridian
Feb 2015
#378
Thanks. Unions were huge for my parents when I was growing up and that seems to have gotten them
merrily
Feb 2015
#410