Al From of the DLC on C-Span this morning.

[TayTay]

He listed the members of the DLC who might run for Pres.

Sen. Hillary Clinton of NY
Gov. Tom Vilsak of Iowa
Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana
Gov. Mark Warner

He did NOT mention John Kerry. Specifically.

Interesting.

[Mass]

1. Not sure that From considers Kerry as a DLCer

After all, he has been absent from all the most recent meetings except for the 2004 when he was the Democratic nominee.

I dont think Kerry has ever been part of the leading group of the DLC, contrarely to the one you mentionned. He is just part of the New Democrat Caucus, just as Edwards was until he stopped being a Senator.

[karynnj]

2. That is interesting

Either Al forgot him,
Kerry is no longer DLC
Al does not want him to run
or he knows Kerry isn't running - but Kerry hasn't told Kennedy

It's hard to believe that he either forgot him or knows he's not running. So it might be that Al From doesn't want him to run. It would be interesting if Kerry actually is no longer in the DLC. Wasn't there some DLC conference this summer that the others spoke at that Kerry avoided.

Either way, it's clear he's not the DLC choice for 2008.

[whometense]

3. It is interesting.

My first thought was, did Kerry leave the DLC? Is it that formal a group? Kerry was not at that conference last summer - it hardly seemed that was an accident.

I'd go with either Kerry is no longer DLC or Al doesn't want him to run - or both.

[TayTay]

4. For what it's worth, I don't think Kerry was ever really a member

of the DLC. I think there was this flirtation stage, but it never really took. Kerry was on the New Democrat Network at the DLC site, but that was a Senatorial thing. Kerry briefly got involved with this group in '99 (over the education and tenure thing, oh lord, I don't want to explain that) but even Al From, at that time, expressed surprise that he was on the list. (Too liberal) (Kerry and From are NOT a match. From now wants to divorce Kerry anyway and pretend they never even had a flirtation.)

I always believed that Kerry was never really DLC in his heart. (I don't think DLC is the heart of all evil either. But I just don't think it was ever a real fit for Kerry. And yes, I do think he is more fiscally moderate than, say Kennedy. )

[ginnyinWI]

5. he was/is on board with Clintonian economics

That's the only way I see him connected to the DLC, if that qualifies him. He's complex and multi-facted and just too hard to pigeon-hole! That probably frustrates a lot of people.

[sandnsea]

7. Economics is multi-faceted

There is something to be said for global trade, creating market economies is the only way to lift people out of poverty around the globe. Creating an economic infrastructure that people can depend on so they will invest in businesses in third world countries is important. That requires some movement towards free markets. I don't know about Clinton, but I think Kerry is/was at the place to recognize that we needed to do more than Peace Corps and aid. That is the position of Bono and many liberal charitable groups too. As much as I hate corporatism and the global take-over, I don't think that was the intent of people like Kerry. Same can be said of welfare reform. Getting health care and child care separate from cash benefits was necessary. Women had been begging for that for years. Genuinely helpful motives. It's not perfect, but I think we'd have seen the tweaks in trade and welfare reform had Gore been inaugurated. Not to mention investment in alternative energy and medicine and science, that would have created the new jobs and alleviated the harm of outsourcing and welfare reform. Clinton economics probably wouldn't have led to the problems we've got today. Bush tax cuts, refusal to invest in growth, refusal to move the world forward on labor and the environment, that's why Clinton economics look bad in the rear view mirror. IMHO, anyway.

[TayTay]

8. I agree. The problem with the trade agreements was

that NAFTA was enacted and we were promised the 'side agreements' that would have guaranteed more workers rights after NAFTA became law. It never happened. In 1994 the Dems lost control of Congress and lost the impetus in Congress to get those side agreements. I am not against free and fair trade at all for the exact reasons you stated. Truly free trade is indeed a wave that lifts all boats. But we didn't get that. The agreements were gimmicked so that the gigantic ships like Wal-Mart were handed immense incentives to go for the lowest wage, the least amount of worker protection and so forth. I in no way think Mr. Kerry supported this part of 'free trade.' It simply is inconsistent with his long term record on labor.

You know, it's funny, everyone wants the 'Star Trek' future wherein people from every conceivable background are invited to participate in building the future. That's a sort of liberal dream. It's just that we have to have all the parts in place including education, worker protections, environmental protections and so forth for that vision to be more than just a dream.

[JI7]

6. they have never supported Kerry

just look at their media arm TNR which also hates Kerry.

there has always been variety in membership of the DLC. Eliot Spitzer is a dlc member also. and then there are people like Biden who are not members. i bet they would go for Biden even if he isn't member before they went for Kerry or Spitzer.