The DLC's decision to revolve the race for DNC Chair around a partisan right/left axis rather than a establishment/reform axis is a perfect example of the organization's interest in sabatoging the Democratic Party.
Why? Because Democrats don't believe we lost in 2004 because we were too liberal. Within the Democratic Party -- electeds, staffers, financial backers, grassroots and netroots supporters, etc. -- there have been few ideological post-mortems of the 2004 campaign.
At the presidential level, the left liked Howard Dean, the centrists favored John Edwards and the voters nominated an "all things to all people" John Kerry. Who ran left, right and, center until he no longer ran at all.
At the state and congressional level, the DSCC and the DCCC favored centrists, moderates and former Republicans (e.g. Brozak in blue NJ), but few on the left noticed. Partially because most were blinded by the rise of the perhaps-liberal but certainly-black Barack Obama.
But throughout America, voters cast ballots about "moral values" -- or so the mainstream media spun the election (with the help of a winger or two). Consequently, there became a public perception that the Democrats ran too far to the left, at least on social issues.
Democratic Party members and activists, however, know this not to be the case. In Senate race after Senate race, congressional campaign after congressional campaign, and Kerry address after Kerry address, the party's candidates ran either right (e.g. Knowles, Carson and Farmer) or center (e.g. Lois Murphy, Richard Romero).
Another slew of "the Democrats should move (further) right" articles in the mainstream press won't convince candidates, consultants, party members or activists this need be the case. It will only suggest (again) to the public that Democrats are "far out of the mainstream."