Does Hillary Clinton support the neoconservative manifesto the Project for the New American Century?

[Swamp Rat]

Hillary Clinton is a team leader of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), who has praised the work of DLC and Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) founders, specifically with regard to their work in transforming the Democratic Party in the manner in which they proscribed. The founders of the DLC and PPI are members of or ideologically associated with PNAC; These DLC founders want to transform the Democratic Party making it compatible with neo-liberalism/neo-conservatism.

________________

Hillary Clinton is a DLC team leader:

The DLC Leadership Team
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

________________

Hillary Clinton praises the work of Will Marshall and Al From, among others:


DLC | Speech | July 26, 2005
Remarks of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to the 2005 DLC National Conversation

(snip)

"So I would like to start by thanking Al From and Will Marshall, Bruce Reed, and all of the people at the DLC and the PPI, not only for the rich legacy of your ideas, which have helped to transform our party and reinvigorate our country, but for your determination to stay focused on the future, laying the groundwork for the next great era of Democratic leadership."

(snip)

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=137&subid=900111&contentid=253482

________________


The co-founder of the DLC is a member of PNAC: Will Marshall

Will Marshall:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

(snip)

With Al From, in 1985 Marshall cofounded the DLC, an important bastion of center-right Democrats that was once chaired by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT). In 1989, Marshall founded the PPI, a think tank that is affiliated with the DLC. Both organizations are sometimes described as neoconservative for their foreign policy positions. In an analysis of the two groups' stance on the Israeli offensive against Hezbollah in summer 2006, Tom Barry wrote: "In practice, though, DLC/PPI positions differ little from that of the Bush administration. As Israel rained bombs down on Lebanon, the DLC's New Dem Dispatch echoed the neoconservative camp in its plea for the Bush administration to avoid the supposed shame of appeasement in the Middle East. Adopting the same line taken by the Bush administration and the Israeli government, the newsletter recommended that the war be taken to Tehran and Damascus, which 'have become clear threats to regional and world peace, and must be isolated and sanctioned, not appeased.'"

(snip)

Marshall was one of 15 analysts who co-wrote the PPI's October 2003 foreign policy blueprint, "Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy." Using language that closely mirrors that of the neoconservative-led Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the PPI hailed the "tough-minded internationalism" of past Democratic presidents such as Harry Truman. Like PNAC, which in its founding statement warned of grave present dangers confronting America, the PPI strategy declared that, "Today America is threatened once again" and is in need of assertive individuals committed to strong leadership. The authors' observation that, "like the Cold War, the struggle we face today is likely to last not years but decades," echoes both neoconservative and Bush administration national security assessments. As the "Progressive Internationalism" authors explain, the PPI endorsed the invasion of Iraq "because the previous policy of containment was failing, because Saddam posed a grave danger to America as well as to his own brutalized people, and because his blatant defiance of more than a decade's worth of UN Security Council resolutions was undermining both collective security and international law."

(snip)

Although Marshall calls himself a "centrist," he has associated himself with neoconservative organizations and their radical foreign policy agendas. At the onset of the Iraq invasion, Marshall signed statements issued by the Project for the New American Century calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein, advocating that NATO help "secure and destroy all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," and arguing that the invasion "can contribute decisively to the democratization of the Middle East."

Marshall's credentials as a liberal hawk have been well established by his affinity for other PNAC-associated groups, including the U.S. Committee on NATO and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Marshall served on the board of directors of the U.S. Committee on NATO alongside such leading neoconservative figures as Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, Randy Scheunemann, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley, Peter Rodman, Jeffrey Gedmin, Gary Schmitt, and the committee's founder and president Bruce Jackson. At the request of the Bush administration, Jackson also formed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which, with former DLC chairman Joseph Lieberman serving as co-chair with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), aimed to build bipartisan support for the liberation, occupation, and democratization of Iraq. Marshall, together with former Democratic Sen. Robert Kerrey of Nebraska (who coauthored "Progressive Internationalism"), represented the liberal hawk wing of the Democratic Party on the committee's neocon-dominated advisory board. Other advisers included James Woolsey, Eliot Cohen, Newt Gingrich, William Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Joshua Muravchik, Chris Williams, and Richard Perle.

On February 25, 2003, Marshall joined an array of neoconservatives marshaled by the Social Democrats/USA (SD/USA)—a wellspring of neoconservative strategy—to sign a letter to Bush calling for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall and others asked the president to "act alone if that proves necessary" and then, as a follow-up to a military-induced regime change in Iraq, to implement a democratization plan. The SD/USA letter urged the president to commit his administration to "maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning." Others signing the SD/USA letter included Jackson, Kagan, Woolsey, Hillel Fradkin, Rachelle Horowitz, Penn Kemble, Nina Shea, Michael Novak, Clifford May, and Ben Wattenberg.

(snip)

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

________________


http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463

Democratic Leadership Council

(snip)

The DLC was established in the wake of President Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide victory, in which he won 49 states, over Democrat Walter Mondale. During the Democratic convention in San Francisco, Mondale had successfully beat back a challenge from Gary Hart, who predicted that unless the Democratic Party adopted a new image it would be decisively defeated. Mondale proved unable to respond effectively to charges from the Republican right and neoconservative Democrats that the Democratic Party was the party of progressives-which Jeane Kirkpatrick variously labeled as the "San Francisco Democrats" and the "blame America first" Democrats-who were out of touch with mainstream America. As Dan Balz and Ronald Brownstein concluded in their book Storming the Gates, "Mondale's landslide defeat exposed as a dead end the vision of regaining the White House by mobilizing an army of the disaffected with a message of unreconstructed liberalism."

Pondering the Mondale defeat, a gathering coalition of Southern Democrats and northern neoliberals expressed concerns that the Democratic Party faced extinction, particularly in the South and West, if the party continued to rely on its New Deal message of government intervention and kept catering to traditional constituencies of labor, minorities, and anti-war progressives. In 1985, Al From, an aide to Rep. Gillis Long (D-LA), took the lead in formulating a new messaging strategy for the party's centrists, neoliberals, and conservatives. Will Marshall, at that time Long's policy analyst and speechwriter, worked closely with From to establish the DLC and then became its first policy director.

In his "Saving the Democratic Party" memo of January 1985, From advocated the formation of a "governing council" that would draft a "blueprint" for reforming the party. According to From, the new leadership should aim to create distance from "the new bosses"-organized labor, feminists, and other progressive constituency groups-that were keeping the party from modernizing. From's memo sparked the formation of the Democratic Leadership Council in early 1985. According to Balz and Brownstein, "Within a few weeks, it counted 75 members, primarily governors and members of Congress, most of them from the Sunbelt, and almost all of them white; liberal critics instantly dubbed the group 'the white male caucus.'"

(snip)

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463

________________


http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1534.html

Progressive Policy Institute

"Don't look now, but neoconservatism is making a comeback-and not among the Republicans who have made it famous, but in the Democratic Party," declared writer Jacob Heilbrunn in a May 28, 2006 op-ed for the Los Angeles Times. In "Neocons in the Democratic Party," Heilbrunn argued that a new generation of Democratic "pundits and young national security experts" are trying to revive the Cold War precepts of President Harry S. Truman and apply them to the war on terror. "The fledgling neocons of the left are based at places such as the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), whose president, Will Marshall, has just released a volume of doctrine called With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty . Their political champions include Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman and such likely presidential candidates as former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)."

(snip)

PPI, founded in 1989 by Marshall and Al From, is a project of the Third Way Foundation, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization. As the think tank for the Democratic Leadership Council, the PPI says its mission "arises from the belief that America is ill-served by an obsolete left-right debate that is out of step with the powerful forces reshaping our society and economy." PPI claims to advocate "a philosophy that adapts the progressive tradition in American politics to the realities of the information age and points to a 'third way' beyond the liberal impulse to defend the bureaucratic status quo and the conservative bid to simply dismantle government."

Marshall and From have long advocated for a "third way" in the political debate that consists of free-market principles that largely echo the right-wing platform, making their organization's name misleading. Indeed, one of PPI's five strategies includes "confronting global disorder by building enduring new international structures of economic and political freedom" (PPI Overview, June 1, 1998).

Marshall is president of the Third Way Foundation and of PPI, and From is the foundation's chairman. Paul Weinstein is the institute's chief operating officer. In fiscal 2004, Third Way board members included Linda Peek Schacht, Charles Alston, William Budinger, William Galston, and Susan Hothem, according to the IRS Form 990 provided at GuideStar.org. PPI staff includes Marshall, Steven Nider (expert in foreign and security studies), Michele Stockwell (education and social policy), David Kendall (health), Edward Gresser (trade), and Jan Mazurek (energy and environment). PPI senior fellows include Weinstein, Andrew Rotherham, Marshall Wittmann, and Fred Siegel. PPI operates on an annual budget approaching $3 million. Seymour Martin Lipset, a leading neoconservative political sociologist, is a former PPI board member, according to a 2002 report by Capital Research Center.

The core principles of the "third way movement" are set forth in the DLC/PPI's 1996 publication, The New Progressive Declaration: A Political Philosophy for the Information Age. As the New Democrats explain, the enduring progressive values must be adapted to the information age, which translates into policy recommendations that are very close to policies articulated by the administration of George W. Bush: uncompromising support for free market and free trade economics, a strong military with a global presence, an end to the politics of entitlement, rejection of affirmative action, and an embrace of competitive enterprise while at the same time rejecting a key role for government in development policy. Expressing the opinion of many progressive Democrats, Robert Kuttner, American Prospect editor, wrote that the political approach of the DLC amounts to "splitting the difference with a Republican administration" (American Prospect, July 7, 2002).

(snip)

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1534.html

________________


Will a vote for the DLC candidate enable the destruction of the Democratic Party?

Will a vote for the DLC candidate empower them to continue to use our government, hence our good name, to commit and/or condone mass murder and theft on a global scale?

Should we support people who have openly stated they will reshape our democracy to conform to the mission principles of the PNAC manifesto?

Will this lead to a permanent police state, governed by and for an elite ruling class, thus transforming the United States of America into an empire?

Can we stop what they already started?

YES WE CAN!!!

[G_j]

1. yep, serious business, serious questions, Rec

[Swamp Rat]

4. Yet here we are, distracted by inane rants about preachers, and the ravings of the uninformed.

Meanwhile, another Iraqi family has been "obliterated."

Now, which of our candidates voted for the IWR?

[G_j]

49. war is a racket

$$$$$$$$$$$

just see who is connected..

[billyoc]

2. The DLC are much farther to the right than the Neocons could ever dream of being.

[Lerkfish]

7. don't think that's true: Instead, I think the DLC is the stealth more progressive arm

of the neocons: same agenda, but willing to seem more palatable while accomplishing it.
For example, Hillary has never said Iraq war was wrong, just that it wasn't executed competently.

[Swamp Rat]

11. The DLC = The Left Arm of PNAC

Which of our candidates voted for the IWR?

[billyoc]

24. No.

Neoliberalism views the corporate welfare and protectionism of neocons as a terrible impediment to their free-for-all trade policies.

[Cleita]

3. K&R

[sellitman]

5. I wonder what the "Clintonistas" think of this?

It pretty damming.

[Swamp Rat]

9. They absolutely hate this truth.

Just watch the responses... or maybe they will run away from it.

Meanwhile, another soldier lost a limb.

[JackRiddler]

71. The followers of "Our Lady of Peace" think?

[Evergreen Emerald]

6. all you have to do is look at her record to answer resoundingly "NO"

[Lerkfish]

8. um, I think he WAS looking at her record.

[Evergreen Emerald]

10. That is simply silly. Her record is nothing like those neo-cons

it is more bullshit designed to continue the dehumanization of Clinton so you can all sleep at night well justified in your bizarre, hateful behavior.

[Swamp Rat]

12. A million Iraqis are sleeping forever, thanks to those who voted for the IWR.

[Evergreen Emerald]

15. including Obama who voted for it every chance he got while in the Senate

And don't give me the BS that he voted for the war to "protect the troops" The voted for the war because he did not want to do anything that could upset his chance at the Presidency. He voted for whatever the political wind told him to.

[Swamp Rat]

17. Since your answers are completely false and irrational, I will assume you either support PNAC, or

something else is troubling you.

:hi:

[Evergreen Emerald]

25. The double standard is "troubling" that you will make up

shit about a candidate to continue your hate while ignoring the very same behavior from another.

[Swamp Rat]

26. Generals gathered in their masses

Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of death's construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds
Oh lord yeah!

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to poor

Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait 'til their judgement day comes
Yeah!

Now in darkness world stops turning
Ashes where the bodies burning
No more war pigs have the power
Hand of God has struck the hour
Day of judgement, God is calling
On their knees the war pig's crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan laughing spreads his wings
All right now!

[FatDave]

57. Much as I like that song...

it always bugged me that they rhymed "masses" with "masses". And right off the bat, too. Couldn't those generals have worn dark glasses? Or had nerve gasses? Or big asses? Burned the world to ashes?

I'm sorry, that's waaaaayyyyy off topic, so I'll just add: FUCK THE DLC! Imagine you're Karl Rove. Now shake it off. But would infiltrating your opposition's party with ringers NOT have occurred to you? Just sayin....

[Swamp Rat]

59. LOL!

Why do you hate America... and Ozzy? :D

[FlaGranny]

67. Some refuse to believe the

truth when it hits them in the nose. Obama voted for funding the troops. You know, giving them vehicles, armour, food, clothing, weapons, etc. - you know, the soldiers who were already IN Irac?

[Lerkfish]

21. talk about an out of proportion response.

how is saying "um he was looking at her record" equivalent to "it is more bullshit designed to continue the dehumanization of Clinton so you can all sleep at night well justified in your bizarre, hateful behavior."?

maybe when this is all over, you can sit back, have a few beers and reflect on just how your reactions appears to more rational people online.

[Swamp Rat]

28. I considered posting photos of burned and dismembered Iraqi children as a response.

Should I ramp it up to the next level?

I wonder how IWR supporters can sleep at night. :(

[Lerkfish]

31. In fairness, I actually don't think HRC supporters ever think about the IWR vote

or its consequences. I don't think they ever think about the Kyl-lieberman vote, nor its consequences.

so, therefore, I think they sleep just fine at night.

I don't think that makes them evil. I think it makes them intentionally in denial so they don't have to think about it. And, actually, that's probably healthy since they had nothing to do with her vote, and couldn't really deal with the issue head on without completely losing it.

[Swamp Rat]

34. Well, they should think about how their actions might help elect a man who supports torture and

endless war.

Whether they are "evil" or not, is irrelevant (and I am not insinuating they are); humans are suffering at this moment due to the IWR.

[Lerkfish]

41. you and I are sympatico, I'm saying that they are not drinking from the same cup of reality

we share.

that is not excusing them.

I liken it to the hardline religious fundies in my family. Normally, they are good, salt of the earth people, but they are naive and brainwashed into believe certain things by their leadership.
the real evil is their leadership, because in a way, ONCE you surrender your will completely, as they did, I have a harder time believing they continue to discriminantly examine what they are being asked to do.
its still wrong, but I think its a defense mechanism PRECISELY to allow them to sleep at night.

[glitch]

69. Surrendering your will completely is a form of evil. Passive, fearful evil, but still evil. nt

[Lerkfish]

85. valid point. Passive is perhaps the word I need here.

[Evergreen Emerald]

37. You would be wrong with regard to THIS supporter

I blame all of Congress. I blame Obama and Clinton and Edwards and Pelosi.

They could have ended it and chose not to. We gave them a majority so they could end the war. They continued to support the war. OBAMA CONTINUED THE WAR.

If you are blaming people for IWR it is hypocritical to give Obama a free pass.

[Lerkfish]

40. we disagree on definitions, then.

personally, I was against IWR, but I"m against underfunding our fighting men and women once they are there. Since I view those two things as separate issues, I do not view my stands as hypocritical.

[Evergreen Emerald]

43. I guess you and I agree to disagree

But remember, that is how Vietnam ended. It was a stupid right-wing argument to "support the troops once they are there." Without funding they would not be bulletless, naked sitting around a campfire with no tent. They would have been home.

[Lerkfish]

45. we do indeed disagree. Underfunding without a committment to withdrawal would

have only resulted in endangering the troops.

as long as the commander in chief was not going to withdraw, the funding issue was inadequate to bring about the desired result.

the vietnam comparison is moot, since the CIC was pressured to withdraw the troops completely separate from funding.

[Evergreen Emerald]

47. No. That is simply silly. "underfunding?" No: STOP funding

Do you see how silly that argument is? The troops would not have been endangered because we did not supply them with bullets. No one would have left them in Iraq with no funding. That was a right-wing argument.

[Lerkfish]

50. then we drastically disagree again. cutting funding would NOT bring them home

as long as Bush was committed to the insane war. What needed to happen was impeachment or enough pressure for him to withdrawal.
As we SHOULD HAVE LEARNED from the iran-contra affair, if a CIC wants a war, they will have one, even if they have to fund it through blackops.

[MonkeyFunk]

38. It would be welcome relief from

your "art".

[Lerkfish]

42. hey, I love his/her "art"

your partisanship has blinded you to its value.

as a fellow artist, I'm in complete support of their art, and I find it petty of you to trash it simply because you support clinton.

[Swamp Rat]

52. Thanks

I call what I do fotovandalism, but thanks for calling it "art." :D

[Mezzo]

64. that record that 95% like your guy? lol

[Yotun]

13. Dude, if it gets her votes, she's for it, if it will cost her, she's not. She has no principles-

and she has no values herself.

[Swamp Rat]

20. I think she has "values," but apparently they are different than mine.

peace

[jazzjunkysue]

58. Hillary Is Borg.

Anyone with their eyes open can plainly see that.

[BobbyVan]

14. Francis Fukuyama, an original member of PNAC, supports Obama

I wonder why

[Swamp Rat]

16. Maybe he wants a pardon, or simply, salvation?

After all, he participated in over a million deaths.

[BobbyVan]

19. Maybe he knows something about Obama we don't

Obama is now the candidate of General Electric.

[Swamp Rat]

23. "Obama is now the candidate of General Electric." Incorrect. McNuts is GE's man.

[stillcool]

33. Everyone is the candidate of GE

Is there any industry on the planet that GE does not have a piece of? By the way, are you from the Hamptons?

[stillcool]

30. And Al Gore was a member...

way back when.

[RichardRay]

44. How much of Fukuyama's work have you read?

Any? If you prefer the Cliff Notes I'll be glad to suggest a couple of chapters of America at the Crossroads.

[undergroundpanther]

80. Everytime I see Fukuyama's name

I think "Fuck yo Mamma".I dunno why.Maybe it's how it sounds and knowing he was a neocon fascist pig...

Anyways bad joke aside...

Remember the other fucked up "philosophers" neocons adore..

Leo Strauss,and Erik Vogelin!!

IMMANENTIZE THIS GOP!

[JackRiddler]

72. Fukuyama renounced neo-conservatism and PNAC.

Opportunist or no, that's a fact.

Next.

[Swamp Rat]

83. Next neocon?

[invictus]

18. K & R

[JFN1]

22. Nice analysis

Sure sounds like you've nailed it. And ultimately no surprise - Clinton did vote for the neocon's war in Iraq...

[madrchsod]

27. hillary is a neo-liberal with a neo-conservative chaser

[Swamp Rat]

29. Why did she support the IWR when we already knew Bushler is insane?

[madrchsod]

35. no matter the cost war is good if it effects change

she knows what the people want even though she never asked them. i`m not sure how barack is going to do but i`m willing to take that chance because i do know what hillary will do.

[KoKo]

32. I don't believe she does...in her heart, Swampy....

But, I don't believe she's the best candidate for President in THESE TIMES, either.

I won't tar her with that one. But, I realize I'm "way in the minority" in my "humble opinion on this."
:shrug: whatever...I answered you honestly...with what I think..

[Swamp Rat]

36. Thank you.

We are so focused on ourselves and our needs that we are forgetting the consequences of our collective actions, i.e. the IWR.

This reality bit me on the rear about an hour or two hours ago... it was the memory of an Iraqi child who had lost all four limbs and was suffering terribly. :cry:

[KoKo]

46. I know...

So many of us here on DU...who don't seem "on the same page," anymore are forgetting that we REALLY ARE on the same page. I watch those I know who "have heart" here on DU..and however angry we get with each other...I still know which folks I can trust if "some terrible thing happens" as to who I would go to in a "time of need." Even if we don't always agree...you are on my very "fragile" list. You can come here too...just saying... for what it's worth in these "mudslinging/ vicious times."

whatever..

[berni_mccoy]

39. Fine piece of work, Swamprat! K&R

[Tippy]

48. I hate what the DLC stands for....every one of them is a republican lite

The DLC blames the DNC for everything, the should have called themselves Republican Lites. They don't even resemble Real Democrats and their votes reflect that...Who is not a member.....Ted Kennedy. He knew all the players and knew their agenda. DLC wants all progressive Democrats OUT

[harun]

51. Of course she does, everyone knows that.

[DerekJ]

53. I still have your first thread about this topic bookmarked :)

[lisainmilo]

54. Hey Swamp Rat.....Great read...

Thank you for posting it, very nice work!

[Swamp Rat]

56. Hey lisainmilo!

Send 'em tea bags. ;)

[Swamp Rat]

55. "Democratic Leadership Council drafts right-wing platform for coming elections"

Democratic Leadership Council drafts right-wing platform for coming elections

By Joseph Kay
28 July 2005

(snip)

The main speaker at the convention was New York senator and former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. Clinton accepted a post to head the council’s new “American Dream Initiative,” in which capacity she will travel the country promoting the DLC’s views. This positions her as the frontrunner for the party’s nomination in 2008. In courting the DLC, Clinton is following in the footsteps of her husband, who chaired the council from 1990 to 1991, before running for office.

Amid speculation that she could seek the same path to the White House, Hillary Clinton used her speech at the convention to dispel any notion that she would ever run as a “liberal” candidate. In using the DLC platform to call for a “cease fire” among the Democratic Party’s different factions, Clinton was sending a clear signal to left forces within the party, such as Moveon.org: Even the slightest nod to anti-war sentiment will be opposed by the party leadership.

(snip)

Clinton emphasized her commitment to creating “a unified, coherent strategy focused on eliminating terrorists wherever we find them” and “improving homeland defense.” She envisioned a future society in which “we’ve put more troops in uniform, we’ve equipped them better, and we’ve trained them to face today’s stress, not yesterday’s.” In calling for more troops, she repeated the main criticism that Democrats have directed against Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq—that not enough forces were committed to guarantee victory.

(snip)

In the lead article, “How America Can Win Again,” Al From, the DLC’s founder and CEO, and Bruce Reed, its president, voiced full support for the Bush administration’s escalation of militarism under the pretext of a “war on terror.” After September 11, the pair wrote, “for a brief, shining moment, country—not party—was all that mattered.... Four years later, we have won some important victories against terror and tyranny, in Afghanistan and Iraq. But the duty we owe to the victims of Sept. 11—and to the cause of freedom—has not been fulfilled.”

In the event of a Democratic electoral victory, the war would not merely continue; it would escalate. The authors criticized the administration for having “failed to arm us economically and militarily for a war that could go on for decades.... Iraq isn’t the last war we’ll have to fight, and we need a bigger army.” They called for 100,000 additional troops in the US military—a demand that was repeated at the convention itself. This echoes a recent bill introduced by Senate Democrats, including Clinton and former vice-presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman, for an additional 80,000 troops.

(snip)

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jul2005/dlc-j28.shtml

[AntiFascist]

60. K&R...

I have to give the PPI credit for toning down their rhetoric in recent years and making it sound less like the Democratic version of PNAC. Regardless, they are still pro-aggression and wish to marginalize the left, as evidenced in this document:

http://www.ppionline.org/documents/Progressive_Internationalism_1003.pdf

...

4. Transform the Military and Use it More Effectively

...

We reject the left’s perennial complaint
that America spends too much on the military.
This is no time to cut the Pentagon’s budget.
But neither is it time to indulge the
Republicans’ habit of cutting the Pentagon
blank checks. Rather than embrace the Bush
administration’s huge and unsustainable projected
increases in military spending, Democrats
will dismantle obsolete Cold War infrastructure,
streamline the bloated defense bureaucracy,
and end wasteful business practices
to make room for investments that will sustain
America’s military superiority into the future.

[G_j]

61. kick

[phrigndumass]

62. Hillary Clinton will NOT be fully vetted until she answers the questions about her PNAC involvement!

K/R

:kick: :thumbsup: :hi:

[Mezzo]

63. actually it's OBama's press guy who is married to the rahm emmanuel's right hand, anybody who knows

anything knows that.

Just sub Obama for Hillary and y'all have it right. and you know it.

[Swamp Rat]

65. Cognitive dissonance is a hellava thang!

[OzarkDem]

82. Rahm is the power behind Obama's "throne"

so to speak. Old Chicago buddies.

[Swamp Rat]

66. THE NEW REPUBLIC - Family Ties: Hillary Clinton's evangelical cabal.

THE NEW REPUBLIC
Family Ties
by Jeff Sharlet
Hillary Clinton's evangelical cabal.
Post Date Wednesday, May 28, 2008

(snip)

Clinton, an evangelically inclined Methodist, is by far the most religiously rooted and theologically astute of the three candidates, a Christian intellectual schooled in the cold war religion of Reinhold Niebuhr's post-leftist years. Don Jones, her youth pastor and a lifelong spiritual mentor, calls the faith he instructed her in then and which they still share a third way between old-school fundamentalism and liberal Christianity. It's not centrism, though; Jones describes it in terms of Burkean conservatism, after the eighteenth-century reactionary philosopher's belief that change should be slow and come without the sort of "social leveling" that offends class hierarchy.

That's the crux of the conflict between the progressive Christianity that's broad enough to encompass both Jeremiah Wright and Jimmy Carter, and the elitist variation long embraced by Hillary: The former dreams always, if imperfectly, of challenging power, while the latter works to reaffirm it. Clinton's faith is not the liberal version of Christianity that Democratic leaders have traditionally invoked--instead, her version, exemplified by her alliance with a shadowy network of powerful conservative Christians, is steeped in the kind of establishmentarianism that she has otherwise tried to distance herself from throughout the primary season.

Clinton's formal introduction to the publicity-shy network of mostly evangelical elites in government, military, and business known to the world as The Fellowship--and to its adherents as The Family--came at a lunch organized on her behalf in February 1993 at the Cedars, "an estate on the Potomac that serves as the headquarters for the National Prayer Breakfast and the prayer groups it has spawned around the world," as she wrote in Living History. "Doug Coe, the longtime National Prayer Breakfast organizer"--and the de facto leader of the The Family, dubbed by Time the "Stealth Persuader"--"is a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God."

Or with the kind of politically useful friends one might not make otherwise. For the eight years she lived in the White House, Clinton met regularly with a gathering of women who put aside political differences to seek--for themselves, for their husbands' careers--an even greater power. Among Clinton's prayer partners were Susan Baker, the wife of Bush consigliere James and a former board member of James Dobson's Focus on the Family; Joanne Kemp, the wife of conservative icon Jack, responsible for introducing the political theology of fundamentalist guru Francis Schaeffer to Washington; Eileen Bakke, a leading activist for charter schools based on "character" and the wife of Dennis Bakke, then the CEO of AES, one of the world's largest power companies; and Janet Hall, the wife of Representative Tony Hall, once a socially liberal Democrat from Ohio who, in The Family's care, became pro-life, anti-gay rights, and simply confused about the separation of church and state. Hillary's "prayer warriors," as she called them, sent her daily Scripture verses to study, and Baker provided Clinton with spiritual counsel during "political storms."

When Clinton moved to the Senate, she became a regular at a weekly Senate prayer meeting led by Coe, and rumor spread among evangelical elites that she was seeking individual spiritual counsel with Coe. "She needs that nucleus of energy that the Coe camp produces," the Reverend Rob Schenck, president of another elite Capitol Hill ministry called Faith and Action, says. "Washington right now is a town where, if you're going to be powerful, you need religion."

(snip)

http://tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=816d53a2-3564-4b49-9664-9d294f9087b1

[ClayZ]

68. Right on, Swamp Rat!

K R ... Bookmarked...and sent to some folks I know who are BAMBOOZLED!

[NorthCarolina]

70. I'm hoping Dems begin to vote against DLC members at every opportunity

it's time to take the Democratic Party back from conservatives. I personally will never support a DLC Dem.

[AtomicKitten]

73. She's their huckleberry.

[undergroundpanther]

74. hillary is a neocon,The DLC isn't democratic anymore

Nobody would tolerate hearing that Hillary is a betrayer of democratic principles and the DLC has been infiltrated 6,7,8 months ago.I got all sorts of shit for saying it.

But now here it on the greatest page and the problem is spelled out for all to see. So hopefully more people will understand this ideology problem with Hillary VS Democracy and what the DLC has become now they are infiltrated by right wing 'fifth columnists' slowly turning the left to the right by manipulating their "values" and way of 'believing in how 'the people' are Via a projection in republican arrogance in hubris so easy for wealth and career insulated politicians to believe these lies once they get out of touch with the reality of the homeless,disenfranchised,the poor,and the working people struggling in this country. When real liberals out in this world learn EXACTLY what the CORE democratic ideals ARE and understand WHY these ideals are self evident,they can begin to discern a real democrat,and a true liberal from DINO's or republican playing as if they were a democrat easily.Being aware of what being a liberal really MEANS,and why the republicans fear us and hate us, then true liberal hearted people will be able much faster to see through the manipulations and perversions of democratic ideals with right wing ideology,doublespeak, lies,networks and corruption and not mistakenly from ignorance about what DEMOCRACY means, and vote for republicans in democrat clothing anymore.Yes,Democratic party is a big tent but certain beliefs ideologies and personalities are incompatible with equality,generosity,community,sharing,democracy,freedom,justice, fairness and human rights.


This part of this post will be reposted in GD so more people will see it..
What is the difference?


Republican core values:
"ordered liberty." Basically a hierarchical CLASS based order.
Some are entitled to be more free than others.

This is justified by:
#1 A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society.

Another way of saying, "The Divine right of Kings". That divine bullshit was one reason some people came to this country to form a new and fairer(it has flaws some corrected some not yet) form of King-less government.

#2 Traditional life is filled with variety and mystery while most radical systems are characterized by a narrowing uniformity ..

Can you see this is a PROJECTION the right wing is VERY conformist and Authoritarian?
Because the right wing is class based and believes in orders,from a "divine source" it is by nature very intolerant of diversity.Intolerant of non-mainstream, non-christian religions, intolerant of non-heterosexual sexual orientations and gender variations,and some right wing believers are hostile to non white races,still after all these years.Th right wing demands social conformity from every individual because how else do they maintain control over this UNFAIR, UNJUST, top down order they think is divine in origin and enforced by god's chosen leaders?

#3 Civilized society requires orders and classes.

Poor stay poor because god thinks they are inferior rich are rich because god blesses the rich and places them higher in the social order because they are entitled to that life because god created these 'orders and classes' so they think, self servingly.

#4 Property(private) and freedom are inseparably connected.
This is not true.
http://ranprieur.com/readings/jensenbox.html
http://members.aol.com/trajcom/private/commons.htm

#5 Man must control his will and his appetite, knowing that he is governed more by emotion than by reason.

Apparently the Republicans because of thier "high class status" feel no need to do this,if they can hide it from the lower classes.They expect this behavior however out of all the classes beneath them.
Because republican values include lying, hypocrasy and a two faced 'double lifestyle' one face is an upstanding church going, pillar of society,as for the other..well..click the link.
http://www.armchairsubversive.org/


And republicans knowing how exploitable people governed by human emotions and appetities are, The right wing to maintain orders and classes do manipulate the lower classes through human emotions and appitites and shut down reason.Just look at talk radio,Rush,Savage,Coulter?..Need I say more?

#6 Society must alter itself slowly.

Slowly the republicans insist,but only when democrats are in power,they are the gridlock that prevents a better life for all,and the safety net is stagnated and people in need "fall through the cracks" and social welfare services for the general welfare languish.If you wonder why,remember the republican conservative"values"orders and classes,so they must be maintained at all cost because god says it it must be made so) ... But funny, when republicans get in power they forget this tenet,in 8 years Bush has destroyed so much of the hard fought liberal and human rights advancements in this society and turned society back to a darker time in 8 short years..

Empathy is antithetical to control, which is why control systems demand psychopathy as the standard mode of function. It keeps hierarchy, authority and contractual obligations in a dominating position, always overriding the urge of care, compassion, and a heartfelt connection and empathy for all forms of life. That psychopathy and hared of empathy is what is at the heart of "compassionate conservatism."

In short Conservatives fail at governance and at leadership because of thier unrealistic ,and unfair beliefs,thier duplicity and corruption, thier lack of ethical understanding of what the bill of rights means,thier petty bigotries,hypocraisy, and sometimes thier personality types in of themselves are why Republicans cannot be trusted to govern anything..

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.wolfe.html
http://jmooneyham.com/enormous-costs-to-society-of-right-wing-governance-reference.html
http://www.unknownnews.org/060502a-Panther.html
http://ponerology.blogspot.com/2005/12/political-ponerology-science-on-nature.html
http://www.irregulartimes.com/realgop.html
http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/2007/10/09/schip/

Democratic Core Values...

Civil liberties.

Equality(the opposite of divine decreed "orders and classes")

Civil rights
Protecting the weak,poor and disenfranchized,standing up for"the little guy" realizing each person has value and one is not superior to the others.

The rule of law and Social Justice
Human rights and the law apply equally to all humans.
(there is no exceptions (upper class)or exclusions (lower class))

Enviromental respect,against cruelty to animals,torture of people,and destruction of the land air and water..

Privacy
Citizens have a right to privacy in communication,in thier lives,homes,communities...
Rights to privacy that the government and corporations, being non persons are NOT entitled to.

Transparency in government
Protection for whistle blowers that ensure it's transparency.



Government has a role for good
The rights of private citizens over those of corporations
U.S. as a responsible member of the world community

Values the commmunity over the corporate,seeking to protect the general welfare, keep the commons there for everyone, and the recognition of our inherent interdependency.

A recognition of our self soverignity, the right to human dignity,the reality of diversity and personal uniqueness without over valuing the individual to the point the community loses it's cohesive power and political will.


Government has a role for providing for the general welfare.
One duty of government is to provide for the needs of society that powerful private interests cannot (or more honestly CHOOSE to not) provide.)Liberal Democrats recognize that government solutions to problems (be it health care, safe and affordable housing housing, education, basic financial security are nessesary for society to function). The imperfect solutions that arise to address these issues are far better than ignoring or denying real needs. . Liberals/Democrats know it is unfair for the powerful and wealthy to yammer on about "personal responsibility"using it as an excuse to neglect basic human needs,and social services that many are denied.Like education, oppurtunity,material help,emergency services,transporation, safety from crime in thier neighborhoods, access to the resources necessary to realize thier potential and live.

Seperation of Church and State.

The rights of private citizens over those of corporations.
Labor rights over corporate exploitation of human rights for profits.

U.S. as a responsible member of the world community
International Cooperation and Leadership
War should not used according to liberal /democratic values a profit maker for the few and it is not used as a threatening deadly tool of corporations or the 'leaders' of this country to exploit or bully other countries into doing what the corporations or'leaders'want.

(The true purpose of leadership is not to create followers for the leader to exploit or use like a posse ,but to create leaders that will lead themselves,and lead others to know how to lead themselves.)

Democrats and liberals desire people to be educated,exposed to diverse ideas, people and beliefs.To be resonable,wiser,less bigoted or afraid, informed to wisely participate in public civic life, stand up together to secure our democracy and protect human rights from those who would want them destroyed.(see repulican"values" above) .

[undergroundpanther]

75. Hillary is no longer a Democrat

Nobody would tolerate hearing that Hillary is a betrayer of democratic principles and the DLC has been infiltrated 6,7,8 months ago.I got all sorts of shit for saying it.

But now here it on the greatest page and the problem is spelled out for all to see. So hopefully more people will understand this ideology problem with Hillary VS Democracy and what the DLC has become now they are infiltrated by right wing 'fifth columnists' slowly turning the left to the right by manipulating their "values" and way of 'believing in how 'the people' are Via a projection in republican arrogance in hubris so easy for wealth and career insulated politicians to believe these lies once they get out of touch with the reality of the homeless,disenfranchised,the poor,and the working people struggling in this country. When real liberals out in this world learn EXACTLY what the CORE democratic ideals ARE and understand WHY these ideals are self evident,they can begin to discern a real democrat,and a true liberal from DINO's or republican playing as if they were a democrat easily.Being aware of what being a liberal really MEANS,and why the republicans fear us and hate us, then true liberal hearted people will be able much faster to see through the manipulations and perversions of democratic ideals with right wing ideology,doublespeak, lies,networks and corruption and not mistakenly from ignorance about what DEMOCRACY means, and vote for republicans in democrat clothing anymore.Yes,Democratic party is a big tent but certain beliefs ideologies and personalities are incompatible with equality,generosity,community,sharing,democracy,freedom,justice, fairness and human rights.


This part of this post will be reposted in GD so more people will see it..
What is the difference?


Republican core values:
"ordered liberty." Basically a hierarchical CLASS based order.
Some are entitled to be more free than others.

This is justified by:
#1 A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society.

Another way of saying, "The Divine right of Kings". That divine bullshit was one reason some people came to this country to form a new and fairer(it has flaws some corrected some not yet) form of King-less government.

#2 Traditional life is filled with variety and mystery while most radical systems are characterized by a narrowing uniformity ..

Can you see this is a PROJECTION the right wing is VERY conformist and Authoritarian?
Because the right wing is class based and believes in orders,from a "divine source" it is by nature very intolerant of diversity.Intolerant of non-mainstream, non-christian religions, intolerant of non-heterosexual sexual orientations and gender variations,and some right wing believers are hostile to non white races,still after all these years.Th right wing demands social conformity from every individual because how else do they maintain control over this UNFAIR, UNJUST, top down order they think is divine in origin and enforced by god's chosen leaders?

#3 Civilized society requires orders and classes.

Poor stay poor because god thinks they are inferior rich are rich because god blesses the rich and places them higher in the social order because they are entitled to that life because god created these 'orders and classes' so they think, self serving-ly.

#4 Property(private) and freedom are inseparably connected.
This is not true.
http://ranprieur.com/readings/jensenbox.html
http://members.aol.com/trajcom/private/commons.htm

#5 Man must control his will and his appetite, knowing that he is governed more by emotion than by reason.

Apparently the Republicans because of their "high class status" feel no need to do this,if they can hide it from the lower classes.They expect this behavior however out of all the classes beneath them.
Because republican values include lying, hypocrisy and a two faced 'double lifestyle' one face is an upstanding church going, pillar of society,as for the other..well..click the link.
http://www.armchairsubversive.org/


And republicans knowing how exploitable people governed by human emotions and appetites are, The right wing to maintain orders and classes do manipulate the lower classes through human emotions and appetites and shut down reason.Just look at talk radio,Rush,Savage,Coulter?..Need I say more?

#6 Society must alter itself slowly.

Slowly the republicans insist,but only when democrats are in power,they are the gridlock that prevents a better life for all,and the safety net is stagnated and people in need "fall through the cracks" and social welfare services for the general welfare languish.If you wonder why,remember the republican conservative"values"orders and classes,so they must be maintained at all cost because god says it it must be made so) ... But funny, when republicans get in power they forget this tenet,in 8 years Bush has destroyed so much of the hard fought liberal and human rights advancements in this society and turned society back to a darker time in 8 short years..

Empathy is antithetical to control, which is why control systems demand psychopathy as the standard mode of function. It keeps hierarchy, authority and contractual obligations in a dominating position, always overriding the urge of care, compassion, and a heartfelt connection and empathy for all forms of life. That psychopathy and hared of empathy is what is at the heart of "compassionate conservatism."

In short Conservatives fail at governance and at leadership because of their unrealistic ,and unfair beliefs,their duplicity and corruption, their lack of ethical understanding of what the bill of rights means,their petty bigotries,hypocrisy, and sometimes their personality types in of themselves are why Republicans cannot be trusted to govern anything..

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.wolfe.html
http://jmooneyham.com/enormous-costs-to-society-of-right-wing-governance-reference.html
http://www.unknownnews.org/060502a-Panther.html
http://ponerology.blogspot.com/2005/12/political-ponerology-science-on-nature.html
http://www.irregulartimes.com/realgop.html
http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/2007/10/09/schip/

Democratic Core Values...

Civil liberties.

Equality(the opposite of divine decreed "orders and classes")

Civil rights
Protecting the weak,poor and disenfranchised,standing up for"the little guy" realizing each person has value and one is not superior to the others.

The rule of law and Social Justice
Human rights and the law apply equally to all humans.
(there is no exceptions (upper class)or exclusions (lower class))

Environmental respect,against cruelty to animals,torture of people,and destruction of the land air and water..

Privacy
Citizens have a right to privacy in communication,in their lives,homes,communities...
Rights to privacy that the government and corporations, being non persons are NOT entitled to.

Transparency in government
Protection for whistle blowers that ensure it's transparency.



Government has a role for good
The rights of private citizens over those of corporations
U.S. as a responsible member of the world community

Values the community over the corporate,seeking to protect the general welfare, keep the commons there for everyone, and the recognition of our inherent interdependency.

A recognition of our self sovereignty, the right to human dignity,the reality of diversity and personal uniqueness without over valuing the individual to the point the community loses it's cohesive power and political will.


Government has a role for providing for the general welfare.
One duty of government is to provide for the needs of society that powerful private interests cannot (or more honestly CHOOSE to not) provide.)Liberal Democrats recognize that government solutions to problems (be it health care, safe and affordable housing housing, education, basic financial security are necessary for society to function). The imperfect solutions that arise to address these issues are far better than ignoring or denying real needs. . Liberals/Democrats know it is unfair for the powerful and wealthy to yammer on about "personal responsibility"using it as an excuse to neglect basic human needs,and social services that many are denied.Like education, opportunity,material help,emergency services, public transportation, safety from crime in their neighborhoods, access to the resources necessary to realize their potential and live.

Separation of Church and State.

The rights of private citizens over those of corporations.
Labor rights over corporate exploitation of human rights for profits.

U.S. as a responsible member of the world community
International Cooperation and Leadership
War should not used according to liberal /democratic values a profit maker for the few and it is not used as a threatening deadly tool of corporations or the 'leaders' of this country to exploit or bully other countries into doing what the corporations or'leaders'want.

(The true purpose of leadership is not to create followers for the leader to exploit or use like a posse ,but to create leaders that will lead themselves,and lead others to know how to lead themselves.)

Democrats and liberals desire people to be educated,exposed to diverse ideas, people and beliefs.To be reasonable,wiser,less bigoted or afraid, informed to wisely participate in public civic life, stand up together to secure our democracy and protect human rights from those who would want them destroyed.(see Republican"values" above) .

[Swamp Rat]

76. Nice to see you in this forum.

:hi:

Check out my other thread. Already disturbed about the mixture of religion with politics, I find Hillary Clinton's connections to the 'religious' neocons very disturbing:

"THE NEW REPUBLIC - Family Ties: Hillary Clinton's evangelical cabal"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6226162&mesg_id=6226162

[undergroundpanther]

79. Hey you ol rat!

Good to see you too. I'm gonna be stepping out inna minute to get some chow, but,I'll be back later tonight to light up some of that DLC swamp/methane gas that smells of shit stuck under the rug wafting around the confused people that refuse to see something stinky is coming from Hillary...Got a match? Lets Explode this thing!!
Hehe..harrr..

[Swamp Rat]

84. Boom!

:nuke:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

77. She supports the more fashionable, but just as evil, Neo-Lib version of it.

The difference being that the Neo-Libs claim to be sorry about the "collateral damage" they enable.

[autorank]

78. K*R Excellent post, research. She's a member of The Money Party, isnt she?

A majority of Congress are members. Despite the logic and truth of any situation, they serve their own interests, which is to say, the interests of their masters. Fall in line or feel the lash.

It's all the say all the time for those with privilege and position. They are loyal but not to us.

:toast:

[OzarkDem]

81. Do you still beat your wife?

Of course not. Tell me you're better than to engage in these kinds of idiotic smear campaigns.

Do you see her name here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#Signatories_to_Statement_of_Principles

Or here?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century#Original_25_signatories_were:

Recall her husband, Bill Clinton, didn't buy into their plan.

[annabanana]

86. The DLC will have to follow, for awhile...if they

want to remain with the Democrats..

[mod mom]

87. Sorry I missed the time frame to recommend this thread. Thanks Swamp Rat!

[Swamp Rat]

88. Shades of 2000 - Do we want another DLCer as a VP candidate?

What happened when Lieberman was on the ticket?

What is he doing now?