The DLC Response to today's WP Article on the Left

[Khephra]

< New Democrats Online: http://www.ndol.org >

A Third of a Third

As a front-page article in today's Washington Post indicates, the
Democratic Left is feeling its oats these days, all full of
energy and anger and populist swagger.

The energy is a good thing. Maybe we don't always agree with the
policy views of the people who run or participate in MoveOn.org,
which held a self-designated Internet "primary" recently, but
there's no question the Democratic Party needs all the tools it
can get to attract new people into the political process. And
maybe we don't always see eye-to-eye with former Vermont Gov.
Howard Dean (though we are gratified he seems to have dropped his
offensive "I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic
Party" applause line from his speeches). Yet his success in
using the Internet to mobilize support and raise money is another
development that will benefit all Democrats in the long run.

But it's important to remember that energy and excitement and all
the other subjective factors in politics are no more than means
to an end: obtaining the power to govern, and then governing
well. And the Democratic Party's only recently successful
formula for doing either one remains that of President Bill
Clinton.

Those on the Left who want to veer away from that formula have
every right to their opinion, and there's nothing wrong -- much
less "divisive" -- about debating how progressives pursue their
common values and reflect their common tradition in current
political circumstances.

The idea, however, that the Left has some inherent superior claim
to Democratic tradition or principle, as self-appointed
representatives of the Democratic "base," is questionable at
best. Most actual rank-and-file Democrats, as a matter of fact,
don't view themselves as aligned with the self-conscious Left.

---

Here's a link to the original WP article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35640-2003Jul9.html

Among Democrats, The Energy Seems To Be on the Left


By David Von Drehle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 10, 2003; Page A01


Ten years after Bill Clinton proclaimed a centrist "New Democrat" revolution, the left is once again a driving force in the party.

They do not call themselves "liberals" anymore; the preferred term today is "progressives." But in other ways, they are much the same slice of the electorate that dominated the Democratic Party from 1972 to the late 1980s: antiwar, pro-environment, suspicious of corporations and supportive of federal social services.

In recent weeks, the progressive left has: lifted a one-time dark-horse presidential candidate, former Vermont governor Howard Dean, into near-front-runner status; dominated the first serious Internet "primary"; and convened the largest gathering of liberal activists in decades.

The liberal MoveOn.org is the fastest-growing political action committee in the Democratic Party. Left-leaning labor leaders, such as Andrew L. Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, are taking a more assertive part in mapping the all-important union role in party operations.

[jpgray]

1. More respectful than previously

Doubtless the fundraising has something to do with that. ;-)

[mhr]

2. The DLC

will be the death of the democratic party.

[revcarol]

3. A condescending insulting article!!

AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGH! There, I feel a LITTLE better., But not much.

[roughsatori]

5. Don't you love the "but" half-way in to their response?

the word "but" negates everything that comes before. It was so condescending that I groaned while reading it.

[dolstein]

15. As opposed to Dean's condescending and insulting candidacy?

Sorry, but I for one was insulted by Dean's repeated claims of representing the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" -- as if the majority of Democrats who don't identify themselves as liberals simply don't matter.

[jos]

31. Not liberals, populists

The Democratic party has always been, at least up to the DLC, an economically populist party. It's not a matter of being liberal. In fact, the DLC are social liberals, while moderate Republican on economics. It is the DLC and its followers that seek to betray the populist tradition the Democratic party has stood for. That's why Dean's statement is right on.

[dolstein]

38. You need to get your history straight

Because the statement that the Democratic Party has always been an economically populist party ignores the fact that the Party's Southern wing (a very powerful force within the party up through the 60's) was anything but populist, not to mention the substantial Wall Street influence on the party (presidential nominees John Davis and Al Smith would never be mistaken for William Jennings Bryan). Hell, FDR's ecopnomic platform in 1932 didn't resemble anything like what emerged as the New Deal -- he was still talking about balancing the budget. And let's also not forget the fact that, historically, it was the Republican Party, not the Democrats, who favored higher tarriffs and more protectionist trade policies.

[Dhalgren]

43. You are positively wrong about the southern democrats

not being populists prior to the 1960's. All the leading southern democrats were populists, just within a segregationist framework. They were "rabble rousers", that the effete republicans called crass and demogogic. Jim Folsom, THE major Alabama governor of the '50's brought a pig on stage with him tied to rope and would kick the pig and squeel that he was gonna kick those fat boys away from the trough! No the "democrats" of the south lost their populism when it began to be associated with civil rights and not before.


edit: phrasing

[jos]

44. You need to get your history straight

Ever hear of Andrew Jackson? Sam Rayburn? Wright Patman? These Democrats, among other Southerners, were leading populists. It is true that there have been ebbs and flows. There have been the Grover Clevelands and such. And the South is certainly no longer populist, for the most part. But take away the populism from the Democratic party, which is what the DLC seeks to do, and you'd just have two wings of the Republican party.

[Voltaire]

4. They still try to dictate the terms of membership in the Party

I will not apologize for being leftist. I will not change my belief, until proven otherwise, that our ideas are the most moral ones and the best for the nation in particular and the world as a whole. I will not be dictated to and lectured at by the DLC who continue to tout their ragged bonafides as if they were the only folks keeping this party afloat. I see our struggle as two-fold, to smash the DLC on the rocks and to imprison George Bush and the excretable gang who control him. So it does not matter to me if they moderate their tone on Howard Dean or the left, I want them gone. They are no better than the Republicans. If that makes me an intransigent leftist...so be it.

I said that without swearing. I am getting better.

[sangh0]

20. It's not just the DLC that wants to purge the party

Plenty of "liberal activists" are in favor of a purge

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=19165&mesg_id=19165&page=2#19541

[Dhalgren]

45. Hear! Hear!

And I, for one, would not castigate you for cursing.

[CWebster]

6. How this pair sneers at the base

Time to drum them out of town along with the Republican zealots of a similar stripe, since it is THEM who are the "NEW" Democrats who regard the party and what it represents as "the old religion", while they emulate business-friendly Republicans.

[Q]

8. But the DLC wants to 'attract new votes' at the expense of the base...

- If you study their website...they've practically written off the poor and blue collar workers.

- The 'left' has always been the heart of the party.

[midnitemoleman]

7. Question: How can the party represent all Democrats ?

I cannot see any way that the party can represent all Democrats. I created a information net to help the party grow from the base up (starting at the city & County and moving out). That would keep a select group of ideal's for the party (these are not set and should be voted on, I did not choose them). This involves the party binding as one. One county help's the next with getting the candidate elected. Same for the state level, say a candidate in Ohio needs people at a rally. We in Indiana would help, in return they help us and so on. Till we see group's in every state helping each other. This help candidates with name popularity. It can also take a candidate nation wide with sign's, shirt's and so on. But to date no candidate or party rep's have ever returned a call or e-mail. So I can only think they do not want unity. I say that because I created the program to help all candidates that the party would want to push (NOT ME). And thats a shame, it's like they don't care about the party only their intrest!

And that's sad!!!

[w4rma]

9. Because no Democrat gets all of what we want ever

And Democrats get even less of what we want when we are in the minority.

Note, I see the DLC as a lobbyist group for the specific big buisnesses that contribute to the DLC. These buisnesses often lie about their intentions because those intentions are unpopular. They do however have quite a bit of money to thow around to politicians who are willing to accept that money to promote policy that makes the folks associated with those corporations more wealthy.

[Dems2002]

10. Ha Ha - Definitely been cowed

Well, all I can say is, these guys were definitely cowed by the letters they were inundated with post their "activist elites" comments. Now they may still believe that, but they've discovered it may not be the smartest thing to say.

Honestly, since these guys are the real "wimps" of the party, I think it might be easier than we think to force them out of the decision making processes.

Best,

Dems

[dolstein]

11. You left out the most important paragraph

<<The Gallup Organization, which has been measuring the partisan and ideological self-image of American voters longer than anybody, recently published a survey showing that among self-identified Democrats, 33 percent consider themselves liberals, 43 percent consider themselves moderates, and 23 percent consider themselves conservatives. Self-identified liberals, in other words, represent a third of a party "base" that in turn represents about a third of American voters. That's a lot of folks, but it's a far cry from a majority, and no matter how excited, energized, stoked and psyched you are, you only get to vote once.>>

This is something the Dean folks simply refuse to deal with. No matter how excited and enthusiastic Dean supporters are, they only get to vote once. Is it good to have the left wing of the Democratic Party energized? Of course. Is it enough to win an election? Not by a long shot. In order to win, Dean would not only have to get overwhemling support from moderate and conservative Democrats, who he's been openly contemptuous of, but since Democrats represent only around a third of the electorate, he'd also need to do very well among independents and also pick off some Republican votes here and there.

[Eloriel]

22. Dean folks include

Greens, Dems of all stripes, Independents, Libertarians, even some Republicans AND gobs of people who have never been involved in politics before, some of whom have never even voted before -- and no, not because they were too young to vote.

There is NO candidate that is bringing in NEW VOTERS like Dean is. NO candidate who is bringing in people from across the political spectrum.

He must be doing something right -- and it's NOT by following a decade+ old Bill Clinton formula minus Bill Clinton's charisma and campaign skills.

Get a clue, folks.

Eloriel

[dolstein]

25. Got any numbers?

You say that Dean is bringing GOBS of nonvoters into the process. Can you be a little more specific?

Here's a number for you: 51 million. That's the number of votes it will take to win the next presidential election. And judging from the performance of liberal nominees over the past thirty years, I'd say that Dean's a good 10-15 million votes short of that.

[ulysses]

28. is Dean a liberal?

I keep thinking that you were of the "ha, ha, he's a centrist" camp, dolstein, at least at one time. Even if he is a liberal, how accurate is it to base his presumptive performance on the performances of past nominees?

[dolstein]

39. He's running as a liberal

He may have been a centrist governor (although in Vermont, even a centrist is pretty liberal). But he's running as a liberal. Having adopted the liberal label, I don't think he can simply shed if for the general election.

As for how to predict his performance in a general election, the past performance of northern liberals (McGovern, Mondale, Dukaksi) is all we have to go on. Sure, Dean's supporters will insist that Dean's a different candidate, and that past elections are no indication of how he'll do. But I'm sure that Dukakis' supporters were saying the same thing in 1988, and Mondale's supporters were saying the same thing in 1984. No Democrat candidate is actually going to admit that their electoral chances are on par with McGovern's. A candidates supportesr always predict victory in the fall, but obviously these predictions cannot always be correct.

[ulysses]

40. well

(although in Vermont, even a centrist is pretty liberal)

Nice backhanded shot at the northeast, but the fact that the man was the DLC poster boy as governor sort of gives the lie to the idea that he'd have been mistaken for a liberal outside Vermont.

But he's running as a liberal.

How? Other than offending your tender sensibilities with the old Wellstone line, how is he running as a liberal? Or does making *any* attempt to attract the left instantly make a candidate a liberal in your mind?

But I'm sure that Dukakis' supporters were saying the same thing in 1988, and Mondale's supporters were saying the same thing in 1984.

Sorry if I'm not inclined to accept speculation from someone who's always demanding hard numbers from others. The attempts to make liberal = loser despite all the other factors that went into the defeats of McGovern et al isn't any more convincing now than it ever has been.

[jiacinto]

52. I will say this much

Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern, Humprhey, and Carter in 1980 were all soundly rejected by the electorate.

[sendero]

26. you seem to be buying into....

... the assertions of the right that Dean is some kind of crazy leftist. There is simply no truth to that, he has a few left positions and many more moderate ones.

Everyone to the left of Leiberman is not a flaming liberal.

[Bandit]

34. It is considered "Left" if you tell the truth

That is what is getting people's attention. Dean is spouting off the "Truth" and because everyone else is afraid to say the truth he is labeled some radical leftist. People are so used to hearing Bullshit from all the candidates when truth is spoken the howls become unbearable. The truth is Dean has a record and that record is moderate to conservative but these DLCers consistantly put out this "leftist" bullshit which is just more bullshit they are used to. The Record speaks volumns.

[TheBigGuy]

27. Excellent point, Dolstein.

This is really key, IMO:

In order to win, Dean would not only have to get overwhemling support from moderate and conservative Democrats, who he's been openly contemptuous of, but since Democrats represent only around a third of the electorate, he'd also need to do very well among independents and also pick off some Republican votes here and there.

Dean has been playing a good game here in energizing this activist crowd, but he cant alienate the rest of the electorate, either. So, this jazzing up the antiwar leftys is just one part of what he needs to do to go beyond just winning the primarys...

This is key:

elf-identified liberals, in other words, represent a third of a party "base" that in turn represents about a third of American voters. That's a lot of folks, but it's a far cry from a majority

[buddhamama]

29. it IS enough to win

50% of the electorate doesn't vote.

how the Gallop poll reached the numbers it did(was it based on the voting electorate?) i don't know, but with that many non-voters Dean or any other candidate has a chance.

i'll add a personal opinion of my own. if these self identified democrats vote for Bush over any one of the candidates regardless of leaning than screw `em.

[geniph]

12. The DLC loves to blame the progressives

for any political losses the Democratic party may suffer, without ever considering that perhaps the true grassroots, the people who can be motivated and energized to vote and to become active in support of a candidate, are those very working-class folks that they've left behind. I have not yet left the Democratic party, but holy mother of god, how much faster can the DLC move it away from me?

Oh, and just for David Von Drehle's information, some of us call ourselves both progressives and liberals - sometimes even progressive liberals! Not everyone considers liberal a pejorative.

What matters most - raising corporate money or energizing the electorate? I'll give you a hint of where I stand - corporations do not vote. Money may talk, but it doesn't talk as loudly as masses of people who are really excited and positive about the electoral process. Just ask Bush the Elder, who lost in 1992 in large part due to people who traditionally didn't bother to vote - people who went to the polls en masse to vote for someone who got them interested and excited enough to do so. No, I'm not talking about the Big Dog - he got us - I'm talking about the people who voted for Perot. Perot's money didn't get those votes - Perot's appeal to the people who felt disenfranchised did.

It's time for the Democratic party to go back to the grassroots, develop a coherent strategy beginning at the local level to get the traditional Democratic base back into the voting booths. Let's give them a REASON to vote.

[Tinoire]

13. I had refrained from posting to this but

but now that I've finished :puke:....


Those on the Left who want to veer away from that formula have every right to their opinion, and there's nothing wrong -- much less "divisive" -- about debating how progressives pursue their common values and reflect their common tradition in current political circumstances. ((Do they seriously think anyone believes they're progressives??))

But it's important to remember that energy and excitement and all the other subjective factors in politics are no more than means to an end: obtaining the power to govern ((we the voters' job)), and then governing well (the DLC's job)). And the Democratic Party's only recently successful formula for doing either one remains that of President Bill Clinton. (read- that of the DLC, no not of Bill Clinton and his charisma or his intelligence but of the DLC! )


:wtf:

OUT. OUT! Out of our party you fascist, PNAC-enabling SCUM! Back to the Republican hell-hole from which you came!

[Eloriel]

23. GREAT RANT!

You go, girl!

Eloriel

[Tinoire]

33. lol :) Let's just keep ranting together!

Oh and by the way, Dean, Kucinich- may the best man win! I mean that sincerely but I want the DLC as far away from us as possible!

Peace :)

[Khephra]

55. I agree with that attitude

100%.

[indigo32]

60. couldn't agree with you gals more

EOM

[Dhalgren]

48. Yeah the DLC doesn't need a third party for themselves,

they just go home to the GOP.

[Fleshdancer]

14. what drives me nuts about the DLC

is that their entire strategy revolves around the idea that if it worked for them with Clinton, then it should work for them with anyone. Am I the only one who can see that the political climate in this country is completely different than it was back in 1992? Am I the only one who can see that Lieberman is not and never will be as popular as Clinton?

I'm not saying this just as a Dean supporter. I've read articles from this group that rips on every candidate running with, of course, the obvious exception of Lieberman. It doesn't get anymore divisive than that.

With friends like the DLC, who needs Rove?

[FightinNewDem]

35. Facts are stubborn things, volume XXVIII

First, the DLC does not "rip on every candidate running". In recent months, they have run complimentary pieces on John Edwards, John Kerry, and, yes, Joe Lieberman. In years past, they spoke highly of Howard Dean's tenure as governor; if you search the DLC web site, you will find that one of Dean's state-of-the-state speeches is archived, as an example of good state-level governance.

Second, most of the (few) big wins for the Democrats over the last few years were won by unabashed DLCers:

Mary Landrieu? Co-chair of the New Democrat Network.
Bill Richardson? Frequent speaker at DLC events.
Mark Warner? Hosted DLC "rising stars" at his home in Alexandria this spring.
Janet Napolitano? Moderated a criminal justice policy workshop at the DLC national conversation.
Kathleen Sebelius? One of the "100 to Watch" from the DLC's 2000 rising stars list.
Jennifer Granholm? She's also one of the DLC's rising stars.

As a matter of fact, Governors Granholm, Warner, Richardson, Sebelius and Napolitano, as well as Wisconcin Gov. Jim Doyle, have all been named as "New Democrcrat of the Week" by the DLC.

Looks to me as though it's the New Democrats who understand how to win!

[Terwilliger]

57. and when did they win?

We've lost the house and senate since you people have taken over, and now we've lost the white house

:wtf: do you mean winning?!?

[Fleshdancer]

16. You know things are bad when

Pat Buchanan defends the Progressives by saying "Atleast they stand for something". For real...I just heard it with my own ears. He was asked what his opinion was regarding New Democrats vs. Progressives. He actually said he admired Dean. Is this good or bad? lol

[PROGRESSIVE1]

17. Credit to the DLC...

They are admitting that the left-wing of the party does in fact have value. Both ends of the party need each other in order to defeat this evil monster!!! And yes, they should compromise, it's the only way that we will win in 2004.

However, the DLC should still bear the blame for the loss of the 2002 mid-term elections!!!

[Rich Hunt]

18. "We are the great and powerful DLC!"

.

:eyes:

[Walt Starr]

19. Pay no attention to those corporations behind the curtain!

:eyes:

[Pastiche423]

32. "The DLC is morally, ethic'lly, spiritually, physically,

Positively, absolutely, undeniably and reliably Dead!"

[PATRICK]

21. Well, guess who jumped at the WP bait

This is the "sucker" factor with the self-destructive factor toned down but rationalized. Thank you for encapsulating our most naive views of the DLC in a nutshell- and justifying them. Distancing from the "left" in party structure and decisions. Clinging to the success story of the DLC now depends solely on the Clinton phenomenon and that oddly serendipitous first Clinton win. Hello, that means strong leadership and ability to weather and overcome the dirt with the DLC well in the wings. Not the "progressives" who actually get the vote out.

It is amazing. In trying to respond to the WP judgment they(well, whoever the Great Majority spokemen currently are) further expose weakness and frankly, an elitist attitude their party professionalism has not borne out in results.

Too bad. The one point we can agree on, working together in a winning strategy is a point of near absolute unity and few of the typically enthusiastic Dean and Kucinich supporters are that alienated as to petulantly hand Bush another undeserved term for fatal rapine and plunder.

They never sound good on the defensive and they are ALWAYS on the defensive. Do they ever get tired of that posture? Pay attention to Rove and Norquist for a change. This grudging respect for the "lefties" sounds too whiny.

Maybe from New York to California a lot of Democratic chairs, pros and
activists(dare I call them that?) following a commendable but dangerously ill suited for the times philosophy, are actually more worried about their jobs. They should be. A real Dem groundswell with deserved large victories would normally cause an overhaul in the party similar to what happens to a peacetime military command when REAL war starts. Florida? Pathetic. Jeb uses their votes like toilet paper. New York? Pork and privilege will eventually sink the abysmal parity debacle into GOP nightmare. California? An even lighter weight celeb pawn Governor because of party weakness. Stealth Dems in Indiana, Ohio in the shadows. Bean counters and focus grpoups can't find vote fraud,
GOP dirt, schoolyard tactics, the people's mind with a road map.

And they try to tone down enthusiasm. Well, who does "enthusiasm" worry? The American public that is going broke, dying and watching its idealistic and living infrastructure looted into oblivion with no opposition party? Or the party pros trying to sit in the middle of the teeter totter and trying to stop the motion? Why do they assume they are near the base or middle? We all have the same need to survive and thrive according to our American ideals. If that is lefty or fringe then they are roosting over a graveyard.

[Dhalgren]

50. Go Patrick!

What you said!

[Az]

24. To the DLC

Shutup, sitdown, we're hunting republicans. Don't stand too close to them as you are already too similar and might get caught in the fire.

[loyalsister]

30. Everyone THINKS they're the "base"

I get so sick of people trying to claim the Democratic party as theirs when it's really just a very diverse party. I think it is a party of a spectrum of conservative to liberal "progressivism." I know people who call themselves conservative progressives. People need to get their language straight and stop trying to pretend they are so important noone can win without them. It's tiresome. Let's just focus on what we have in common and unseat this bunch of morons.
Dean has gathered awesome momentum, and it looks like he has wide appeal. A lot of people in the middle seem to like him. My meetup included some self described "conservatives with progressive leanings" and some Green party members.

[Capn Sunshine]

36. I have a real problem with this DLC politiking

It's not why I'm a member. The Third way philosophy postulates transcending the whole left vs right debate. This is not what From and Reed are doing. They seem to sense that they are behind the curve; they are desperately trying some tired rhetoric to keep their personal candidate in the race. I am going to include my letter which TomPaine.com published as a response to their DLC article:

DLC Division Is Within As Well
Re: Robert L. Borosage's "DLC Division"

As a member of the DLC I have to take exception with Al From and Bruce Reed's behavior on this issue. I think they are beating a dead horse. At this point it is obvious to all that they are partisan Lieberman lackeys, nothing more.

By continuously alienating all of our party brethren outside their fragile circle of Lieberman supporters, they do damage to the DLC and what it stands for. Refusing to see the forest for the trees is not an effective way of doing business, and among the membership of the DLC there is a growing resentment at the conflict From and Reed are fomenting. We joined this organization because the DLC stands for innovative, progressive modern applications of politics. Despite the blinders From and Reed are wearing, progressives are everywhere, even in the DLC. There are currently no less than five "DLC for Dean" organizations nationally. How many more DLC members support Kerry rather than Lieberman?

Frankly, we are getting tired of dragging the DLC out of the ditch every time we let From drive. This organization stands for the Third Way, a progressive philosophy that attempts to move beyond partisan bickering. Yet that is exactly what From and Reed are fomenting.

Many in our membership are CEOs, VPs, small business owners or in other positions of authority. We do not need an inside-the-beltway pol to tell us what is wrong with the party. We didn't get where we are by waiting around for our competition to define us. Unless you DC boys see the writing on the wall pretty soon, you'll be looking for a new organization to lead. There are two groups that want Lieberman to be the Democratic nominee: the fragile circle of his primary supporters within the DLC, and Karl Rove, who knows, as we all do, that Jr. would wipe the floor with him.

Sincerely,
-----------

So don't think we are without our "progessive" members my bros and sisses.

[ulysses]

37. hey!

Progressive Majority just sent out an email with your letter paired with the Borosage piece. Nice job!

[Capn Sunshine]

42. NO SHIT?

I'm a legend in my own mind
:crazy:

[bpilgrim]

49. nice letter

i thought there must be a lot of pressure on the 'inside' for these guys to so... bi-polar with their responces to the 'liberal elite' - lol, the irony/hypocrasy is blatant

when i first became more interested in politics i was interested in your org until i started hearing more and more of those two.

hey, i am a progressive and i am willing to try new ways to get our TRADIONAL AGENDA passed but i am NOT in favor of surrendering our traditional principals to supposedly win that doesn't make sense EXCEPT from a machavailin/reTHUG platform, imo.

thanks for sharing :toast:

peace

[Dhalgren]

51. Excellent letter!

Many, many dems are not aware that there is an attempt within the DLC at balance. Keep at it!

[Jack Rabbit]

53. Excellent

It would be good to get the asylum away from the lunatics.

[depakid]

41. The DLC needs to get on the bandwagon

because the "rank and file" is tired of their hollow rhetoric, policy sell outs and losing electorial strategies. The gig is up.

The DLC's sole claim to fame is the Clinton election of 1992- which he won with the help of Ross Perot. Since then, following the DLC strategy has led to a string of bitter losses and a schizm with the Greens. Congress has been crippled since 1994 and Gore wouldn't have even come close to winning in 2000, had he not turned progressive late in the campaign (after which his poll numbers soared). Since the disaster of 2002, I think the vast majority in the Democratic party have had enough pandering to the right. It doesn't work and it's bad for the country.

Stay in the tent, but take a seat. For all of our sakes.

[TheDonkey]

46. sheesh

I'm a liberal (yes it isn't a dirty word) and proud of it!

I was happy to see in the letter DLC at least noted the democrats law (anti-war, pro-enviroment, pro-social service etc.). The Centrists and DLCers of the party are useful but they need to keep off this "Clinton" guide.

Look at Gore (Clinton 2 w/o the sax) a great and capable man just barely won the election from an incredible dumb asshole who cackles :thumbsdown:! Gore and Liberman followed through and got nowhere. The most common thing I heard about the campaign was that Gore and Bush were too similair (geez). If Clinton did such a good job of enegrizing the dems why have we not gained power in any branch sense he left (and not the congress while he was in office).

We need a new strategy. That being lets go back to our roots, the blue-collar workers, minorities, those who are better than corporate america and don't want to be played by the MAN.

The Dr. has a fighting chance of renewing what "Democrat" means.

[Dhalgren]

54. Yeah, get back to our historical, populist roots.

Blue-collar, minorities, socio-economic issues and peace.

And welcome to DU, Donkey! :toast:

[TheDonkey]

56. Thanks for the welcome Dhalgren!

:)

[bpilgrim]

47. the thing with clinton was he said ONE THING then did ANOTHER

he was good at winning with PROGRESSIVE RHETORIC but he actually executed to the right of center.

but he - and other canidates - prove that the PEOPLE want CHANGE and PROGRESSIVE CHANGE, to boot, but right now it's PROFIT over PEOPLE as demonstrated by the "new-left" or "third way" - lol

anyways, couple the internet with fired up grass-roots populist pulling for their guy/gal, the corporate masters will have a tougher time insuring their boy victory and that, apparantly, got a lot of folks nervous from the 'third way'.

a least they aren't spewing hate in this highly patronizing response?

peace

[Dover]

58. A pretty stale formula. And keep in mind that the people who voted for

Clinton probably thought they were getting someone more Left of Center than Right imo. He and Gore were the BoomerBoys. That changed....

"But it's important to remember that energy and excitement and all
the other subjective factors in politics are no more than means
to an end: obtaining the power to govern, and then governing
well. And the Democratic Party's only recently successful
formula.."

And BTW, how can they continue to perpetuate a "formula" which was in effect a decade ago? THE WORLD and THIS COUNTRY HAS CHANGED! Particularly regarding that "formula" that perpetuates the Corporate involvement in our government which only prolongs our problems and delays real reform. This may have worked in Clinton's favor then, but it can not possibly lead to any positive end.

[KG]

59. anyone really paying attention

has to come to the conclusion the the DLC and clinton has been a disaster for the dem party.


time for the progressive elements to retake control of the party.