Bush is just a patsy.

[Code_Name_D]

Bush is just a patsy.
The "any one but Bush" crowed has it wrong. Bush is just a figure head, a disposable figure head at that. Defeating Bush in the General election dose NOT automatically mean PNAC has been derailed. I remind you that Clinton beat Sr. Bush, but yet here we are, right back in Iraq where Sr. Bush left us. Almost as if the past 8 years never happened. This is because Clinton did nothing to challenge the power of the GOP, and even went along with it on many occasions. If Clark is the same way, if he will only agree to compromise with the GOP, or at best, be neutral like a good little centrist Democrat, than the GOP is still in charge.

What is wrong with the DLC?
To answer that question, you have to have a better understanding of the DLC and what makes it tick. There is some argument on whether Clinton made the DLC, or whether the DLC made Clinton. But such chicken before the egg questions are moot in hind sight. The fact is that the Dems at the time adopted a model of "centrist politics." At the time, the terms "liberal" and "progressive" were being turned into dirty words, so the Democrats worked real hard to disassociate themselves from these schools of thinking. To do that, they had to adopts a "moderated" version of the conservative agenda. The kind that appeals to the "Regan democrats." And thus was born the reality known to the American voter as "the lesser of two evils."

It's hard to motivate voters with such a lack luster campaign platform. So they had to "sell it" using advertising strategies using TV time that became more and more expensive over time. To get the money they needed, the DLC turned to large corporate donation. Ironically, the exact same donators that the Republicans were courting. They were able to do so because at the time, corporations were playing both sides of the fence.

But to keep these donations coming, the Democrats had to give a little back to the corporations first. If they dragged their feed a little too slowly in meeting corporate wishes, than the money might not be their come the next campaign cycle. So they had to serve the corporate interest first, and thus were relegated only to campaign issues that the corporations didn't care about. Things like civil rights, education, tuff on crime, and smoking, ... well, it's a short list. But corporations don't care about these things, so the Dems have a free hand to sell these issues.

Thus was born "retail politics," the art of meeting the wants of the corporations, then selling this to the voters. And lying about it wasn't above the pale. That is how Clinton came to sign the NAFTA GATT agreements. This is also how we got Ashcroft, and were so easily stampeded into signing onto the USA Patriot Act.

Now this strategy did work, but only technically. Over time it became less effective each year as the voters were increasingly tuning out the Democratic message, and just staying home, requiring more and more money. To make maters worse, the cost of TV time was going up, resulting in a double whammy. Those that didn't were still forced to vote for the lesser of two evils, and voted for the Democrats only because they were voting against the Republicans. And as the differences between the two shrank, it became harder and harder to do even that.

They money well dries up.
This is the Democrats 9-11, and the refuse to see the damage done. Before, most of the Democratic campaign funds came from corporations willing to play both sides of the fence. But all of this change in 2000. The Republicans swept all branches of the federal government. The Democrats were no longer in a position to grant the corporations wishes, and so they quit donating. Why waste money on some one who doesn't have any power. The DLC's subsequent attacking of Dean and the core Democratic supporters, was more of an effort to go chasing after the corporate donations.

But, the 2004 might change this for the DLC, IF they can get a candidate who is ready to play ball with the corporations. And the DLC is not about to permit any one onto the field who doesn't first hold a loyalty to the corporations. Clark's affiliation with the DLC, is a good indications of such a bargain with the devil.

The Smell in the voting booth is getting too strong.
Another problem that we saw in 2002 is that being the lesser of two evils is no longer a selling points. As the Democrats drift further and further to the right, they are increasingly out of touch with the people. The people now vote against both Democrats and republicans because now even the lesser of the too evils, is too even for some to pull the handle for. Its like the difference in between voting for Hitler and Mussolini.

The DLC apologists continue to berate us with "If Leabermen get the nomination, you must vote for him!" But why? If you give the people the choice of voting for a Republican, or a Republican, they will vote for a Republican every time. Leabermen is just such an example of this.

But there is a strategy of "not voting." It is hoped that this will create a power vacuum of sufficient size that the first liberal or progressive candidate that comes around, and take them straight to the top. Clearly, Dean is that candidate, and that is why he is proving to be so powerful at this point in the campaign. If you have to sell your soul to win, did you ever really win.

[RichM]

1. I agree with much of this. Most imp't point, IMO: simply gaining the White

House does not remotely guarantee a successful outcome, if it does not result in major dismantling of right wing power. Clinton, as you point out, is a perfect example of this: He won the election, yet the entire RW agenda proceeded apace, with Clinton himself often HELPING it along. "Another such victory, and we are undone," as the saying goes.

I also agree that Clark seems to be just the kind of figure that could win the presidency without doing a single thing to curtail or diminish the power of the RW.