Kerry supporters: is John Kerry a member of the DLC?

[k_jerome]

it is hard to find a straight answer on this, and I would like to here from his actual supporters.

[TheDonkey]

1. I'm pretty sure he was/is

even though he's got a much more progressive record and ideology than DLC targets.

[illinoisprogressive]

2. I wonder if there is a member list you could google.

Like the other person, I think he at least was. Don't know if he is now.

[k_jerome]

3. can't find a current member list....

thought maybe there was a document or interview.

[katsy]

4. I tried the dlc website.

They don't like admitting they're part of the group or something because there's no list.

They have the leadership on there... no members.

:shrug:

[Trajan]

5. I am an actual John Kerry Supporter

I actually voted for him in 2004 .... Like most of us here ...

John Kerry is a member of the Senate New Democrat Coalition, which was founded in 2000.

The DLC, which was founded in 1984, is an allied, umbrella organization that has associations with the Senate New Democrat Coalition, but it is still a legally separate entity ...

So the correct answer is ... no .... he is not ....

If John Kerry were to, against all odds, be nominated once more as the Democratic Party candidate ... He will get my vote, and support, as he did before ....

I support all the Democratic party hopefuls ... Dont you ?

[wyldwolf]

27. based on that reasoning, then...

the only true DLCers are those who hold leadership positions or are paid staffers.

Which means Joe Lieberman, for example, is not a member of the DLC.

[Trajan]

57. What precisely IS a DLCer ?

Is that an official designation ? ... or shorthand for an official member ?

Someone who is enthusiastic about the policies but otherwise unassociated ?

I like the NY Yankees, and I wear a hat with NY Yankee insignia .... Does that mean I am a Yankee ?

Either you ARE a Yankee, or you are not .....

Either you are a member of the DLC, or you are not ....

[wyldwolf]

58. simply put...

Members of the House and Senate New Dem coalitions = DLC.
Various elected state and local officials, including governors, who've joined = DLC.
DLC staffers and organization leaders = DLC.
Members of the electorate who who sent in dues (currently about 25,000 people) = DLC.

The DLC was the first organizational arm of the New Democrat movement - a philosophy that is liberal/moderate on social issue and moderate/conservative on economic and foreign policy issues.

[Trajan]

60. OK .... you win ....

Now I hate John Kerry ....

You are a complete success ....

[LittleClarkie]

6. I'll give his Senate office a jingle tomorrow and ask

Otherwise I don't know. There is no proper list from the DLC to refer to.

[silverlib]

7. I recall a post a while back

that stated the DLC did, at one time, list their members and because of dropped memberships, they pulled the list down.

I don't have time to look for it and would not be sure of how to look. Obviously, DLC as a keyword would pull up a lot of posts.

[pennylane100]

8. I wonder how many candidates are also members.

I believe Hillary Clinton is, and maybe Christopher Dodd. I hope Edwards is not because I am on the verge of supporting him in spite of the fact that he voted for the war. Because he now recognizes that he made a mistake. Also, I think Clarke was against the war.

[MH1]

22. Hillary is currently pictured on their Leadership page. Kerry is not mentioned

on that page, or any other current page that I can find.

[MADem]

9. List of DLC/New Democrats, here

http://www.nndb.com/group/269/000093987/

Scroll down.

[k_jerome]

14. is this list claiming Edwards and Gore are members?....

i have not heard this before.

[MADem]

40. They both were NEW DEMOCRATS, a subsidiary of the DLC

Edwards was a founding member. You can find that info on the DLC website. I posted a link to it elswehere on this thread.

[LittleClarkie]

15. I want a primary source, but there isn't one anymore

I don't want to take another organization's word for it, esp when their info might be out of date.

[MADem]

16. Clump around on their website, you'll find what you seek

You might have to hunt and peck, but eventually you can make the connections. The Democratic Leadership Council (www.DLC.org), a non-profit 501(c)(4) organization founded in 1984 -- the original home and leading edge of the movement. Under the leadership of its founder and chief executive officer, Al From, the DLC seeks to define and galvanize popular political support for a new public philosophy built on progressive ideals, mainstream values, and innovative, nonbureaucratic solutions. (Click here to learn more about the DLC's affiliated think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute, www.ppionline.org.)

The House New Democrat Coalition, a group of 74 moderate, pro-growth members of the House of Representatives working to find mainstream, bipartisan solutions to our nation's problems. The NDC was founded in 1997 by Representatives Cal Dooley (CA), Jim Moran (VA), and Tim Roemer (IN). More About the House NDC

The Senate New Democrat Coalition, a group of 20 moderate, pro-growth members of the United States Senate, founded in the spring of 2000 by Senators Joe Lieberman (CT), Evan Bayh (IN), Mary Laundrieu (LA), John Edwards (NC), John Breaux (LA), Chuck Robb (VA), Blanche Lambert Lincoln (AR), Bob Kerrey (NE) and Bob Graham (FL).

The New Democrat Network (www.ndn.org), a political action committee founded in 1996, which gives financial support to New Democrat candidates and elected officials. The NDN's president and founder is Simon Rosenberg. The NDN is not affiliated with the DLC.
For an in-depth history of the New Democrat movement, read Reinventing Democrats (University Press of Kansas, 2000), by Kenneth Baer.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=85&subid=109&contentid=894

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=103

[LittleClarkie]

24. I have, and it's not there anymore. So I went to the source.

Kerry's office. No, he is not a member of the DLC.

[MADem]

32. People who find his associations problematic point out his affiliation with the NEW DEMOCRATS

who are a partially-owned subsidiary of the DLC. Money flows to them from the mother organization, provided they advance the DLC agenda. Edwards was in that club, too--in fact, Edwards was a founding member of the ND.

THe DLC is a small club of seniors who direct a specific agenda, the ND are the foot soldiers who take the message forward. The ND is a bit more fluid than the DLC, in that they can pick, choose and refuse, but it's not realistic to deny an association between the two outfits.

Here's a rant about JFK and his close affiliation with the ND organization (FWIW, I don't endorse the angst and excitement associated with ND-DLC membership--it's a free country, people can associate as they choose and I don't give a damn so long as their ideas advance a positive agenda for the nation; frankly, I suspect the agendas of those who get so twitchy about it as to lose their ability to argue constructively): http://www.counterpunch.org/hand02182004.html

[Mass]

20. The list is obsolete and the DLC does not publish any uptodate list.

[MH1]

21. What is the date of that list? It no longer exists on NDOL site.

I believe it is not current. NNDB is not an open or reliable source either. (Who runs the site? Can you tell me?)

[MADem]

33. The list consists of DLC "and" New Democrats and it is accurate in that

at some point in time, everyone named was one or the other. You can find those names scattered throughout the DLC website, often under the NEW DEMOCRAT articles.

The New Democrat outfit is a loosely federated subsidiary of the DLC. If you look here, you'll see the DLC leadership. http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137 These are the people who sit on the cash, determine what's important in terms of the agenda, and formulate an overall strategy about how they are going to advance the things that are important to them, the things that they believe will help them gain and keep power in elected venues at the federal, state and local level. And below them, are cute articles entitled "New Dem of the Week" highlighting the foot soldiers, the New Democrats, of the DLC.

Kerry ran his campaign through the New Democrats. They organized his meetups, helped with people, money and so forth, so it's no secret that he was affiliated with the organization at the working level. Elsewhere on this thread I posted a Counterpunch 'screed' about how Kerry's campaign was closely affiliated with the ND organizations.

But all that is what it is....the real question is this: Why do you care? What does his affiliation prove, or disprove, about him? That he's no fool? That he's gonna curry favor with the people who have a shit load of money that he needed to run his campaign? I worry far more about what people say, not what political subsidiary caucus they affiliate with--unless you buy off on that whacky conspiracy-theory concept that the DLC/ND organization is somehow satanic, and they drink babyblood cocktails at midnight with the PNAC putzes?

The idea that people can't be "cafeteria DLCers" or "cafeteria New Democrats" is just silly. It implies that these astute politicians who have spent no small amount of time and energy climbing the ladder and building their reputations somehow lack the ability to reason for themselves because they fall under the spell of the DLC/ND.

It costs MONEY to be a politician. And even if one is personally rich, it's a helluva huge bill with all the TV time, print media, internet, paid staff, volunteer perks, and so forth. If you can find convergence with an outfit that agrees with you on the big issues, you'd be a FOOL not to affiliate with them.

[snowbear]

10. The picture on your avatar is part of the DLC too K_j

You know what? ...Regardless of who our '08 candidate is --- once they've won the nomination, you'll never see DLC verses DNC brought up here during the General.

Wait.. and you'll see.

It becomes a non-factor.

[k_jerome]

11. i am aware of that...

these are positives for me, not negatives.

[snowbear]

12. Good for you....

I find that argument such a complete waste of time here...

[k_jerome]

13. what argument? DLC = bad? nt.

[snowbear]

17. Well...

It's just that it's only an issue during primaries..

There's 3 types of DU'ers here.. Those that hate the DLC. Those that like the DLC. And those that could give a crap whether the candidate is DLC, DNC, DCCC, or Triple DDD-Cupped.

Then after the primary when we have ONE nominee.

No one cares whether our candidate is DLC, DNC, DCCC, D-Cupped... or all of the above.

That's all. ~~~~~~~

[MADem]

31. You've got that down to a science. I'm one of those in the "who gives a crap"

club. Frankly, if subsets of Democrats want to congregate in sub-organizations for the purposes of advancing their agendas, that's fine with me.

[blm]

18. Yes he was, and maintained his progressive voting record throughout.

I am glad Kerry was there to hear them out and add his two cents to the mix. Imagine if NO left voices were involved with the DLC these past years - they would be even further right than they are now.

[Mass]

19. No clue - But the DLC seems to think he is not.

For the last two years, they have been avoiding to speak of him as a member (not even including him as a potential 2008 DLC candidate in 2005), and recently, one of the DLC blog maintained the DLC had nothing to do with his campaign.

This said, the DLC has not published a list of his members since 2005, so the better question is why the DLC does not publish a list.

There is no doubt Kerry has been, at some point, a member, as have Dean, Edwards, and Gore. It is more difficult to state his statute now with certainty.

[MADem]

36. Dean, Edwards and Gore were New Democrats, not DLC

It's a difference in tier--there are very few people who are actually DLC--it's a small group, that directs policy, rounds up cash, wheels and deals. The New Democrats are affiliated with the DLC, but the terms really aren't interchangeable. It's the difference between being a boss and a worker bee.

Here is a good article that describes the set-up. It is long as hell, but it gives one a good sense of how the outfits are set up:

http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

[LittleClarkie]

23. I called his office and got a straight answer

No, he is not a member of the Democratic Leadership Council. I asked twice, just to be sure.

[Generator]

35. Thank you

Anybody that's being paying attention can see that Kerry's problem is not being a member of the club. Clearly he's always been a loner (which I understand and respect- being one) and they don't like that in the halls of power. I expect him to do great things as a Senator while as a president he never really had the full support of the whole party. Say the Carville branch for instance- ahem.

I just realized I called him a president. Well there you go. My reality is always a little different. But I can live with that. ;)

[MADem]

37. Call back and ask about his affiliation with the NEW DEMOCRATS

You might not like the answer, IF the whole DLC/ND thing actually matters to you. It doesn't to me, frankly. There are only a few people actually ON the DLC; their critical mass is the "New Democrats" which is a loose subsidiary of the DLC.

I don't endorse the thesis of this article, but this sort of thing is what people are frantic about and use as "proof" that the sky is falling: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HAN403A.html

Just because a politician makes a strategic decision to affiliate with an organization with whom they agree on many issues, and that has a nice warchest, organization, and fundraising arm, doesn't mean that they lose ability to think for themselves. Politics is expensive. It demonstrates a practical approach, nothing more.

[Dr Fate]

43. He sounds A LOT more like a Grass-roots DEM nowadays than any open DLCer.

n/t

[MADem]

44. Affiliation with the ND, and the DLC is really about access to corporate cash

Politicians can't run campaigns on love alone. They need money, and the DLC can open doors so they can get it. What the DLC does best is get cash out of corporations, just like the Republicans used to be able to do--the GOP is still a bit better at it than we are, but what do you want to bet the playing field is leveled by 08???

We have a new HQ because of the DLC talent for parting cash from corporations. And we needed one, because the old one was way too easy to bug!!!

As for the DLC/New Democrats groups, look at Gore. A New Democrat all the way, who trended left at the convention that nominated him. They don't "own" anyone. They can exert some influence to shape the agenda, but they pay for that privlege. They are only as powerful as the cash they bring to the table, and when the candidate wins, then he or she can shape the DLC in his or her image. It's a rather fluid relationship, there's no "cast in stone" attitude there at all.

[Dr Fate]

49. $$ is great so long as we dont have to lean far-right- but I'm speaking strictly about issues. n/t

n/t

[MADem]

56. It's the winners that shape the organization, not the organization that shapes the winners

Or, as some musical whizkid once wrote, "Nothing succeeds like success!"

We saw that with Gore. And we'll see it with others who take DLC/ND dough and organizational backing, and then go on and win. The winners will determine the future of the outfit. I wouldn't expect them to ever go hard left, because that's just not where the numbers are. They'll probably hover somewhere in the great mushy middle, where the majority of America hangs out.

[wyldwolf]

25. By all indications, he is.

It doesn't matter that there is no updated list. Until such a time there is, or until there is a quote from him stating otherwise, Kerry is a member of the DLC.

(and anyone can claim to have called his office :eyes:)

In addition, one does not have to hold elected office to be a member of the DLC. Consequently, there is no evidence that Edwards and Gore are no longer members, either. All it takes is yearly dues.

[Dr Fate]

41. By your standards, John Conyers and Babs Boxer are probably secret DLC members too.

After all, the DLC refuses to list their members now-a-days and Conyers nor Babs ever said they were NOT in the DLC-either- in public or by verified phone contact. ;)

What specific "indications" would lead anyone to believe that Kerry, Gore & Edwards are more in line w/ Hillary, Bullmoose/Lieberman & Carville than they are with say, Dean and the Grassroots DEMS?

[wyldwolf]

55. My standards? Have either ever appeared on a DLC members list?

[Tellurian]

45. I Just Posted this on a Kerry thread...

I think it will strike a cord with some-

This was in response to a poster asking, why she should TRUST Hillary:


we never really know what goes on behind the scenes. Whatever is public knowledge is nothing more than the tip of the iceberg, 3/4 of that berg is buried beneath the ocean. We don't know how big and expansive it is, what is involved, what intricacies exist that we are not aware of... Or question, do the means justify the ends.
I try not to Judge, unless I know ALL the facts. I try not to worry about things like that because I'm not a vindictive person, it's not my thing. What I do worry about is "our" future and the future of our children.

Some people on this board have a myopic view of the World like their pursuits are of the only importance on this earth. They never grow, they just dwell in the external pursuit of power. The power to inflict revenge or they call it justice.. Theres nothing positive about that energy and not something I'm interested in pursuing.

In spite of the persecution suffered by the Clintons, they still managed to take care of the people in this country. They gave us undeniable Peace and Prosperity. In fact, last night, a certain poster here asked me to provide a link proving when Clinton was in office, he destroyed the WMD in Iraq in 98'...and therefore, Hillary had no business voting for the War in Iraq.. because SHE was supposed to have some kind of clairvoyant power, that 4 yrs later Hussein, couldn't have manufactured WMD because Hillary knew they were destroyed in 98'... So, therefore, Hillary was trying to curry favor with Bush by voting for the War and she should apologize for selling us out!

Can you believe someone saying this when they are privy to vast amounts of real information coming through this board?

This is the stilted thinking that exists on this board..from the sublime to the ridiculous in one breath.

In closing, what struck me was the transcript from President Clinton, announcing (to the people,) the need for the the US to challenge Hussein's resolve once again and if he chose to remain out of compliance with the UNSCOM protocols, we have no choice than to protect the people of this country sending our armed forces with air-strikes to destroy any possibility of WMD harming the people of the United States.

With the Clinton Administration, we were always made part of the process. I think, I miss that most of all.

Here is a look back at the government we used to have run by the Clinton Administration:
..

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.


Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to


protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.


http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

[Tellurian]

47. Yep, I really MISS the dialog with the People... we had with the Clintons..

Bush is on tv 24/7... 365/yr..

[Dr Fate]

50. Reads like the old "They know better & more than we do" argument

After seeing so many Democrats go along with Bush on the war, while ignoring and distancing themsleves with the people who had morals and facts on their side on the issue of invading Iraq, It is difficult to swallow that line now.

[Tellurian]

52. The only problem with your theory is..

Bush Lied to Congress.
And the American People,
about the NEED to go to war..

How can you forget that?
There is a trial going on right now w/Cheney..
What do your think thats about?

focus your disappointment on Bush..

[Dr Fate]

54. Wrong- no problem at all- there was plenty of time to publicaly demand a new debate & vote.

Show me where the DLC members or the top DEM leaders, DLC or not, with all their gravitas and media access loudly and publicaly made this demand, once it was known that Powell presented various fake info, and I will retract my argument.

Any one with "google" and 15 spare minutes could find out about not one, not two, but many "untruths" presented by Powell at the UN- BEFORE the invasion- most famously is the forged Niger Documents. And from major U.S. & International media outlets such as CNN too- not just obscure websites.

Hell, show me where they even merely asked, in public- "WHO forged the documents and WHY?, or casted doubt on his "home run" presentation, before the invasion.

Sorry- but I EXPECT Bush to lie us into a war, I expect the good guys to stop that kind of thing, so pardon me for also focusing on the good guys who fell down on the job.

[paulk]

26. I've always thought he was, even though he's moved to the

left of the DLC in the last few years. I think it's a good thing to have people who lean more to the left be part of that organization.

Kerry as a member of the DLC has always been something I saw as positive.

------------------


ps - you can stop with this whole line anyway, because Kerry isn't running.

[AtomicKitten]

28. oops

[AtomicKitten]

29. I find this conversation (slightly) amusing.

It appears some who spend 23/6 (hey, they've gotta eat & sleep, right?) on DU demonizing the DLC are feverishly tap-dancing to try to prove Kerry is NOT DLC. From my research, it appears he is when it suits him and not when it doesn't, and that is precisely one of his techniques in running his campaign that sunk him. And today apparently that question is m00t.

[paulk]

30. the weird thing is

that I don't recall it being that much of an issue amongst the Kerry supporters in the run up to the 2004 primary.

the denial that Kerry was DLC (or NDN) came later. And a lot of it came from Kerry supporters who joined DU after the election. I always found it pretty strange.


------------------------

[MADem]

34. The last time I checked.....

There was no requirement that people who affiliated themselves with either the DLC or the NDs were required to get a lobotomy or give up their ability to reason. The people who associate with these entities do so for two reasons: They find convergence with them on MAJOR issues, overall direction, and general principles; AND the DLC/NDs feel comfortable providing them with financial support, use of their organizational network, and their talented staff. One hand washes the other, with the goal of putting/keeping Democrats in office.

The people who make a big deal out it are spending a lot of time worrying over nothing, IMO. The associations are loose enough that they can be put to the side like a sweater on a warm day.

[paulk]

38. I've never really understood the anti-DLC bias of DU

other than that it is driven by a few posters who have the time and energy to make endless posts about it.

It's always seemed to me something of a tempest in a teapot.

You've laid out pretty well in this thread the reasons why politicians join organizations like the new democrats/dlc - I can't add anything to that.

One thing I know for sure - the DLC has been instrumental in turning CO from red to blue. That gets them my support.

[MADem]

39. I never could figure it out myself

You can't run a party on "love and pale moonlight" now, can ya? While it would be nice if we had public financing and no influence of corporations, our pals at the Supremes have ruled that money IS, in fact, speech, and those corporations and big money donors have the right to toss their speech around.

Of course, we can use OUR "speech" to patronize--or NOT--the corporations that support specific candidates. Walmart has felt that effect, not as much as they perhaps should, but they're aware of it.

Money greases the wheels of this nation, like it or not. It's tilting at windmills to deny that unfortunte fact.

[AtomicKitten]

42. it's used as a weapon

pure and simple

[Dr Fate]

48. True- but only when not accompanied by debate on strategy & issues.

Saying it is used merely as a weapon is a mere weapon in itself if you dont concede that many have honest disagreements with the DLC on issues & strategy.

[AtomicKitten]

51. many aren't as well versed on the debate

as you are, Dr. Fate, and it is simply rhetoric to them ... that's what I meant

[Dr Fate]

53. We agree- but I'm not sure I am as well versed as you say!!!

But I do make an attempt- thanks!!!

We will agree that saying "HE is DLC so he sucks" or "this is crazy far-left nut-roots" stuff w/o going to the heart of the issue at hand is counter-productive.

[Dr Fate]

46. Cast your mind back to how they treated the anti-war crowd before we invaded Iraq.

And then you should have no trouble understanding why many here do not trust them to make moral, fact based decisions.

My main problem with the DLC is also illustrated by how they treated Dean after the primaries- for them it is about power, not about who is right or wrong on strategy or the issues...

It was these DLC types who were the main DEM cheerleaders of Bush's attack on Iraq, even after it was public knowledge to anyone with "google" that Powell lied to the UN repeatedly. They were the main DEMS parroting Bush & FOX news by going around dissing the anti-war crowd as "Crazy Micheal Moore/ Move On people" instead of going with the facts.

At one point, Hillary labeled those who did not trust Bush's handling of the war as "naysayers."

Same thing when it came to Kerry's "troops" comments- the DLCers are always likely to go with whatever FOX and Rush says as opposed to attempting the more difficult, yet moral task of correcting false public perceptions.

And dont even get me started on certain DLC support for a conservative 3rd party candiate, Lieberman over the DEM nominee- hell- "Bulmoose"- a major DLC player now works for Lieberman.

Some of them are okay and dont fit in w/ my above accusations-but these things are why I dont trust many of them to be good leaders.

[Ninja Jordan]

59. Who cares. He isn't running. Give it a rest. Leave him alone.