Skip to main content

Hillary called for a "cease fire" within the party:

"Now, I know the DLC has taken some shots from some within our party and that it has returned fire too," she told a gathering of the group here. "Well, I think it's high time for a cease-fire, time for all Democrats to work together based on the fundamental values we all share."

The poor, poor DLC forced to "return fire"? Please. The DLC has always been at the forefront of intra-party mud-slinging. They're just finally being called on it, and suddenly it's time for peace? If she wanted to give a speech to a centrist organization truly interested in bringing the various factions of the party together, she could've worked with NDN.

Instead, she plans on working with the DLC to come up with some common party message yadda yadda yadda. Well, that effort is dead on arrival. The DLC is not a credible vehicle for such an effort. Period.

This is the organization that defines "cease fire" by going on the attack and smearing progressives in an entire American city of over 100,000 people:

While someone from the daily kosy (misspelling intended) confines of Beserkely might utter ominous McCarthyite warnings about the "enemy within", here in Columbus constructive committed crusaders for progressivism are discussing ways to win back the hearts of the heartland.

Marshall Whitman can slam me all he wants. I can take it. But notice how he slams everyone in Berkeley? No good vital-center-seeking Democrats there!  They're all "berzerk", ha ha! I bet he called up his old friends at the Christian Coalition and his current friends at PNAC to share that gem.

Cease fire, DLC style! Pleas take note, Ed Kilgore.

Marshall also hilariously calls the 300 elected officials at their conference as "grassroots". Um, my dictionary defines "grassroots" as:

Ordinary people regarded as the main body of an organization's membership.

Elected officials are not "grassroots". The people licking envelopes and getting out the vote and manning phone banks and attending rallies and helping build the party from the ground up -- those are the grassroots. And they weren't at the DLC's little shingding. But it's cute that they're trying to claim the mantle. If they had real grassroots supporters they wouldn't have to try so hard. Democracy for Texas had over 1,000 people at their event down in Austin. But then again, the grassroots likes DFA.

But hey, that's all fun and games, despite Marshall's and Ed's  weird obsession over the words written on this site. (The "enemies within" line obviously struck a nerve.)

But if you want a current taste of the DLC's "our PNAC way or the highway" demands on the Democratic rank and file, read this.

The left's unease with patriotism is rooted in a 1960s narrative of American arrogance and abuse of power. For many liberals who came of age during the protests against the Vietnam War, writes leftish commentator Todd Gitlin, "the most powerful public emotion of our lives was rejecting patriotism." As he and other honest liberals have acknowledged, the excesses of protest politics still haunt liberalism today and complicate Democratic efforts to develop a coherent stance toward American power and the use of force.

When Americans ponder such questions today, their frame of reference is not the Vietnam War, but Sept. 11, 2001. The terrorist attacks evoked the most powerful upsurge in patriotic feeling since Pearl Harbor, and thrust national security back into the center of American politics. Democrats have yet to come to grips with this new reality. More than anything else, they need to show the country a party unified behind a new patriotism -- a progressive patriotism determined to succeed in Iraq and win the war on terror, to close a yawning cultural gap between Democrats and the military, and to summon a new spirit of national service and shared sacrifice to counter the politics of polarization.

There's nothing patriotic about sending our soldiers to die in a war based on lies about Iraq's threat to us and our allies. And what's more, the American people have realized it. Despite Will Marshall's contentions to the contrary, we are no longer living on September 12, 2001. The public's opinions have shifted based on the situation in Iraq and the rest of the world, no matter how much Will and the rest of his cohorts at the DLC and PNAC may want to shut his eyes, cover his ears, and shout "la la la I can't hear you!"

I could go on, but whatever. It's truly disappointing that this is the crap Hillary has signed on to. More of the failed corporatist bullshit that has cost our party so dearly the last decade and a half.

Also responding are Digby, Gilliard, Atrios, and Sirota.

(And, not to let them off the hook -- Bayh, Vilsack, and Warner also spoke at the event.)

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:06 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Step 1: (3.83)
    "Well, I think it's high time for a cease-fire, time for all Democrats to work together based on the fundamental values we all share."

    What are the fundamental values we all share? 'cause I don't agree with everyone around here, let alone the DLC.

    •  Just Say No to Corporate Whores! (3.72)
      Let the DLC renounce the corporate/lobbyist dollars. Let them renounce their ties to the Military-Industrial complex that Dwight Eisenhower, (a true patriot), warned us about.

      And then I'll admit to a cease-fire and agree to a summit meeting.

      Until then, I won't be talked down to by the Democratic Losers Club!

      If a Dem wants to be "good friends" with that hate-mongering liar, Sean Hannity, well, he deserves a primary. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DumpJoe/

      by DeanFan84 on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:25:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  rush limbaugh wants to know (none)
        if the he can use that.

        Democratic Losers Club.

        that's funny.

        •  D.ispicable L.osership C.abal (none)
          In 2004, after they shafted Howard Dean and other grassroots candidates, they adopted some of the rhetoric, none of the proposals, and bitched at the grassroots people for not doing enough for them.

          They are still pushing the line that the 'left lost it' for them. Let the DLC worry about party unity, because I am not going to. They seem determined to run things into the ground again. And then they will blame it all on those damn liberals.

          Fsck the DLC and all their candidates.

          Where the DLC goes, I am not following.

          No money, no phonebanking, no precinct walking, no talking to my family and friends.  

          If the DLC wants them, they can pay for them.

          I'll take a hard look at the other candidates but probably write in Howard Dean.

          If another Republican gets in, well, sometimes you have to let things break before anybody will let you fix them.    

          LL
           

          Lefty Limblog - It is time to WIN instead of "Appease and Cringe". Fight the Rethugs!

          by LeftyLimblog on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 06:37:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Bush/Clinton at Kennebunkport... (none)
        Read all about it (w/photo):

        http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/28/politics/main704651.shtml

        Hardy-har-har-har.

        Q: Guess who the joke is on!

        A: Those who want to believe politicians actually care about shit.

        If a Dem wants to be "good friends" with that hate-mongering liar, Sean Hannity, well, he deserves a primary. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DumpJoe/

        by DeanFan84 on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:37:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Eisenhower.... (4.00)
        was a great patriot.

        But let's not lionize him.

        Well as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe he was damned near perfect but as president he made some horrendous foreign policy blunders like sending military advisors to Vietnam and overthrowing the democratic government of Iran.

        He was a great American but he was deeply flawed.

        One thing I learned about him that is truly great is that, while president, he would get visits from Pentagon generals who would try to convince him that they needed some gee-whiz new weapons system to fight the Soviets.

        More often than not he'd listen to their presentation, then he'd look at them and say:

        "Who the f*ck do you think you're talking too?! Get out of my office!"

        Wish we had a president who'd do that kind of thing these days.

        *No matter where you go...there you are!*--Buckaroo Banzai

        by Manix on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:58:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Look, Ike like Sandra Day O'Connor, Ike could (none)
          see bigger pictures. And neither of them were scared to speak up about the dangers emanating from their own Party's actions.

          If a Dem wants to be "good friends" with that hate-mongering liar, Sean Hannity, well, he deserves a primary. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DumpJoe/

          by DeanFan84 on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:00:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  please quit with the brave Ike crap (4.00)
            he allowed his party to slander General Marshall and others in the Truman administration as being traitors, in essence.

            He was "brave" when he left office, going to retirement. He did not lose a lot of blood, sweat or tears fighting for any damn progressive cause.

            Ike was hardly a beacon of integrity when it came to Joe McCarthy either. He declined opportunities to denounce McCarthy, but since the far right was so in love with Joe, he did not criticize a man who was acting in a way that was detrimental to our national interests, promoting fear and loathing in America.

            So, while Ike would be a whale of a President compared to the current one, he is hardly an icon.

          •  Let's not even mention civil rights... (none)
            Eisenhower's America was just a wonderful place for people of color, as you might recall.

            Separate, but equal.  Everyone got along just fine, 'cept those folks wearing the silly white robes...

            •  and the people (none)
              they hung from trees.
            •  What happened? (none)
              Good question. What did happen during Ike's turn? Nothing. It was Brylcreem, high pants, nine irons and Laz-E-Boys for everyone and now let's get back to making money and rebuilding suburbia. It's notable that not a helluva lot happened during Eisenhower's administration, although he could've brought about a lot of needed changes.

              It's also notable that the shit didn't hit the fan until Kennedy took office in 1960, what with the Soviet threeat, the Cuban situation, the Civil Rights movement, US Steel going on strike, Vietnam... the list went on. Credit Kennedy, at least, with having to wrestle with problems that Eisenhower seemed to hardly know existed.

              JP
              http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com

              Defending bad taste and liberalism since 2005.

              by jurassicpork on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 09:53:18 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I unfair to try and hang Viet Nam on Ike. (none)
          To his credit, he resisted calls to intervene to help the French in '54.  

          Sad to say, but the intervention in Viet Nam began under Kennedy and was escalated under Johnson.

          If memory serves me, the largest "military" operation order by Eisenhower as President was to send the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to enforce school desegragation.   Its a shame they don't make Republicans like that anymore.

          ownership society - you are on your own

          by Sam I Am on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 04:39:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  BS (none)
            The US was bankrolling the French effort in 1954 under the Mutual Assistance program, to the tune of billions. Ike spoke ominously of the domino theory, and sent advisers and covert personnel.
          •  Sorry but you are mistaken on who sent what (none)
            And Manix was correct about Ike sending advisers to Nam.

            I know that we were sending advisers to Nam in
            1958 and I had a chance to go in 1960 before Kennedy
            was in office but I did not do it. I am not sure just
            what year the first advisers went in, but 1958 was
            the first I knew of. However I was not a member
            of those in the need to know.

            I realize all the history leads one to think that
            we did not partake in Nam until 1963 I believe, but
            it actually started long before that. I am not
            sure how and why it got written up to lay the Nam
            start on Kennedy, unless that was because the
            American was never informed of any activities in
            Nam until after Kennedy was in office. In fact it
            was all very hush hush until after he was in
            office.

            Much as in many cases we the public are not
            informed of military actions in many places even
            today.

            On anothere note the

            As for the following quote by Sam I Am

            (If memory serves me, the largest "military" operation order
            by Eisenhower as President was to send the 101st Airborne
            to Little Rock to enforce school desegragation.   Its a shame
            they don't make Republicans like that anymore.)

            The fact is that was not correct either, as Ike sent a major
            force to Lebanon in 1958 I believe. Hell I was there and
            I can not for the life of me remember for sure what year.

            I know that we were flying air cover for the Marines and we
            were not allowed to load the aircraft with Ammunition. For
            political reasons. I know our ship lost one plane that was
            shot down and I believe another ship lost one.

            Perhaps there is someone else here that was involved also and
            can remmember.

            Ike was a smart General, but a sorry president.

            Popeye

            I dream about waking up and finding out Bush has fell through his own Butthole and hung himself :)Popeye

            by eaglecries on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 07:21:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Excuse me (none)
              for interjecting, can't hold back. Kos, this piece tells me why I and so many others just love 'ya. Remember the dem. ntl. convention when Hill was shown drinking beer and talking while Osama or Kennedy was talking. That was shown on Jon Stuart. If you really love your party, you stop a minute for a great speech. The creeps in the W.H. house have taken us to a dangerous precipice. If the media likes you now you are suspect. They hated Howard Dean and have done their best to destroy him. Even repubs. are defending Hill now. 'nuf said.
        •  No lion, but (none)
          Ike's sending military advisors to Nam was a good thing, at the time. It was JFK (well, and the French before him) who fucked that one up, especially when JFK encouraged a coup there and then ramped up our presence. But Nam, done right, could have been worth doing. And in Ike's years we weren't doing it wrong yet.

          We didn't overthrow the government of Iran. There were massive street actions that brought the shah into power. We had a few CIA hacks who wrote up reports claiming that they'd brilliantly and single-handedly caused those demonstrations. Bullshit. They suffered from the same stupid arrogance about the clever white man's ability to psych out the brown natives that's still present in other of our operations. There's no way they actually accomplished the change in government. It really was the will of the Iranian public.

          •  Yeah, SSSUUUUURRRREEEEE It Was (none)
            The CIA had nothing to do with the Shah of Iran, the Saddam of Iraq, the Noriega of Panama, the Guatemalan deathsquads, the Pinochet of Chile, the People-boiler of Uzbekistan, the...

            Fool.

            LL

            Lefty Limblog - It is time to WIN instead of "Appease and Cringe". Fight the Rethugs!

            by LeftyLimblog on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 06:43:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  somehow I doubt you will receive an invitation (4.00)
        to any summit conference, not after calling the group arrayed in opposition "whores".

        Does this not remind you of a circular firing squad?

        The right took power because their various elements of a party deciced they could live with their compadre's warts, if they won elections and directed policy as a result.

        I think Senator Clinton's comments are fairly well demonstrated by the vituperative nature of this exchange.

        How can we win over the little people when we are busy calling each other whores and death merchants and servants of Satan.

        I personally am not a servant of Satan, I am on retainer, purely for consulting purposes.

        •  yeah, it's pretty funny (4.00)
          it's weird of kos to accuse the dlc of viciously attacking a part of the party, while he attacks people he represent a part of the party.  i don't know about the DLC itself, but people like hillary, warner and evan bayh (sp?) represent a part of the party we should be trying to cultivate.

          why do so many people on this thread want to attack hillary?  she didn't say anything nasty about the grassroots or about dailykos or about berkely or about cute little pandas.  she is just a left of center politician trying to position herself to win a general election. nothing wrong with that.

          "Rick Santorum is Latin for Asshole."

          by tmendoza on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 05:32:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  She's a chameleon (4.00)
            without principle, only ambition
          •  Simply because (none)
            Hillary Clinton didn't stand up BushCo manipulated the Ohio election process. In fact it would've been a repeat of Bush/Gore had it not been for the Senator Boxer.

            She stood with the "moderates" who were attacking Howard Dean for speaking his mind.

            She was one of the Dems who didn't stand up when the media was saying we needed to do some "soul searching" as a party after the 2004 defeat.

            To sum it up people hate Hillary for being a Republican in a donkey suit as Al Sharpton once phrased that kind of behavior. I didn't like it in Zell Miller, I didn't like it in Joe Lieberman, and I certainly don't like it in Hillary Clinton.

            She talks the talk about being a Democrat but when it comes to putting her skin on the line she wimps out every chance she gets, she should have been right next to Boxer in opposing the Ohio mess. By not putting her name on the ballot she weakened everything that Boxer, Conyers, and Tubbs Jones did in reporting the Ohio mess. Shame on Hillary Clinton.

            "All you have to deicde is what to do with the time given to you"

            by Donkey Rising on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 10:10:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Amen to that brother!!!!!!!!!!! (none)
        AND fuck the DLC.
      •  ONLY the DLC (none)
        would believe that the six undecided voters in this country would prefer a fake Republican to a real Republican.  They can go screw themselves.  Corporate whores - you betcha!
      •  Seems to me it is all Kossacs attacking the DLC (none)
        What is the internecine war all about, anyway?

        So the DLC is in favor of some support to business, not just one-sided support of labor. That makes a lot of sense to me. I agree that many of the corporate bosses and Texas Oil Millionaires make it hard to do, but entrepreuers and businesses are on net very important to society - and to the workers who work for them.

        All I have seen is Kossac attacks on the DLC, with allegations that Al From wants to write the extreme left wing out of the Democratic party.

        Ed Kilgore writes This over at TPM Cafe. Seems reasonable to me.

        A great many of the comments I see under this post are highly vitriolic and unreasonable. That makes this group the source of the problem as far as I can see. [Al From excluded, of course.]

        If the Democrats are going to win elections, this kind of vitriolic behavior has to stop. This better be a party that includes everyone who opposes the Republicans, not just the "true-believers." It is people like some who have written in this set of posts that have insured that that I could never be a Republican. The Democrats aren't going to win elections by matching the Republicans with the same kind of crap.

        So what in the devil is going on here?  

        Recovering Perfectionist IWDWIC (I Will Do What I Can) - Politics Plus Stuff

        by Rick B on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 02:29:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hillary and DLC Do Not Represent People (none)
          Hillary and DLC have fatally flawed vision for the future of America and the Democratic Party.  They believe that they have to kowtow to the right in order to win the election.  That is why Hillary wholeheartedly supported the invasion of Iraq.  That strategy has been costly to our country and the party.  Hillary is dishonest, opportunistic, and selfish.  She should never be president.  In fact, I want her to be unseated in 2006, but I am afraid that the Republcans will make a fake fight against her in 2006.  If she runs for president in 2008, it will only do good for the Republicans.  First, Hillary cannot unite the Democratic grassroot base because she is a corporate Democrat.  Second, she will unite the Republican base very well.  You don't need an explanation for the second point.  In fact, I dislike Hillary Clinton more than I dislike George W. Bush because she undermines the Democratic Party's efforts to counter the Republican right-wings.
          •  But why are so many Kossacs attacking the DLC? (none)
            Hillary and DLC have fatally flawed vision for the future of America and the Democratic Party.  They believe that they have to kowtow to the right in order to win the election.
            So? At least they are Democrats and oppose the Republicans.

            Why are you attacking Hillary and the DLC? You should attack the Republicans! Instead you are weakening the Democrats!

            I'm not wild about Hillary for President either. But we could do a lot worse. She needs ALL the Democrats to get there, and WE need all the Democrats to get rid of the Republican domination of this country.

            Attacking the DLC weakens the Democrats. It doesn't strengthen us. Or are you taking a long term view in which you concede defeat to the Republicans for the next two or three decades like the Teamsters and SEIU have done with organized labor?

            Whatever has gotten you so hot against fellow Democrats seems to me to be destructive of the Democratic Party. I don't really know (or at the moment care) what your objection to the DLC is. We need DLC'ers. We need almost anyone who is agianst the Republicans except Nadarites (who elected Bush in 2000 and were financed to get on the ballots in 2004 by Republicans.)

            I think it is time for Kossacs to bury the hatchet with the DLC. The DLC'ers aren't shooting back. I again refer you to Ed Kilgore.

            Do you think the fiscal conservative Republicans or Libertarian Republicans agree with the Social Conservatives like Falwell and Dobson? I don't. But you don't hear them attacking each other, either. That is one reason the Republicans are winning across the U.S.

            The internal internicine strife in the Democrats is one reason the Republicans keep winning. We need less public ways of expressing our internal Party differences. Off the internet, out of sight.

            Recovering Perfectionist IWDWIC (I Will Do What I Can) - Politics Plus Stuff

            by Rick B on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 06:00:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  DUDE! (none)
              Did you see Will Marshall's flame that Markos referenced/linked above?  Shit like that comes out of the mouths/pens of DINOs, not real Democrats.  If making peace involves swallowing that, I'm afraid my 'blue dress' will have the same problem Monica's did....
            •  DLC Democrats Help Elect Republicans (none)
              Pro-business Democrats HELP ELECT REPUBLICANS because it keeps shifting the country further to the right, thereby validating conservatism.  By not standing for the middle class, the common man, the little guy, Democrats are abdicating their role and withdrawing any reason that people would vote for them against common sense sounding, patriotic Republicans.  

              Too many of the Democrats now in office only care about their own reelection, their own ambitions.  Who knows, maybe they don't care if they're in the minority, just so long as they get reelected?  

      •  Returned fire, my ass (none)
        Repub lite DLC hacks have been firing on the rest of us Dems.  I won't lie down & take it.  It's time for the D'oh! Losers Club to kiss my ass.

        If they want to play in the Bigtimes, I have a fat ass right here.  & a big mouth, too.

        Kiss my fat ass, DLC.  Your corporate cronies don't speak for me.

        Andy Stern & Howard Dean are my spokesmen. Get used to it.

        The concept of war is outdated. Dalai Lama

        by x on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 07:43:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  way late to the duscussion but (4.00)
      fuck the DLC Fuck Hillary and fuck Democratic appeasers! Making nice with these Repugs is like making nice with Nazis.

      - This is not hyperbole - these people are willing to commit treason - willing to lie about treason - willing to cover up treason - they are happy to use the Constitution to wipe their feet on - They absolutely want to impose their will on everyone who doesn't see things their way - Things are getting worse and Hillary and her ambitions are no help!

      As much as I loved the Big Dog he was a weak President with no coattails who never would have won without the help of Ross Perot - Their day for what it was worth has come and gone.

      Sic 'em kossacks!

      •  Wow, disturbing (none)
        No, "making nice" with Republicans is not like making nice with Nazis. Maybe, Hillary's point  is that saying shit like that is not really helpful because it plays right into the Republican's hands. It makes you look foolish, and makes the liberal wing look foolish
        •  understand your meaning (none)
          but these are fascists and they want to impose their will and religion on you - they do not care about the US Constitution or treasonous behaviour - even the moderate repugs Hegel et al vote the straight shove it down your throat party line - making nice is appeasment - they've started an illeagal war they've sanctioned torture they've looted the treasury they want to take away your rights - what do you need as proof that they are a menace?

          You have to stand up and fight for what you believe unequivocally - and it's not red state blue state - that's a lie - it's urban and rural - you are having this agenda imposed on you by a bunch of religious hicks - there's a way to bridge that divide, but that for later - right now your fighting to keep the freedoms enshrined in the US Constitution

        •  and by the by (none)
          the point is that making nice with Nazis didn't work - just because the language is harsh doesn't make the point less valid - that's the repug tactic of saying look how mean Dean is - and they either obscure or ignore the points -

          If your biggest worry is that you'll look foolish then mind your p's and q's accordingly - If your biggest worry on the other hand is that you'll lose the freedoms and rights as granted by the US Constitution then scream blue murder and don't stop fighting 'til you've won!

        •  There is a difference (none)
          Republicans are conservative, moderate, honorable and commited to the safety of America.

          Rethugs are the Bushites that are destroying our nation piece by piece, and they are no better than the nazi's, what they've done to civilians in Iraq is looking more and more everyday like the Nazi brutality and butcher of civilians.

          I have lots of Republicans freinds and family who I care about dearly, but I have no love for the facist wing nuts in white house, they are truly more and more like the nazi's everyday.

          "All you have to deicde is what to do with the time given to you"

          by Donkey Rising on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 10:24:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Gee. Great selling points. (none)
        Fuck them - you're right.

        Somehow I don't see anyone who is asking for someone to vote for them to successfully use your technique.

        Nor do I ever see a majority of people supporting your view. Whatever it is. Because you have no clue what it takes to turn an idea into a political issue. Your technique of presentation is so repugnant that whatever you want to say will be rejected.

        At least, I hope there is never a majority of people supporting your view. I don't want to see any political movement at that level of totalitarianism - or anger - ever to exist on Earth.

        If you are over age 18 you really need psychiatric evaluation and help. At the very least you need anger management work.

        Recovering Perfectionist IWDWIC (I Will Do What I Can) - Politics Plus Stuff

        by Rick B on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 06:26:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  look Rick B you tell me (none)
          what you disagreed with besides my complete fury at these jerks and I'd be glad to debate

          - asking for whose vote?
          Snowe's? Hagel's? christian fundamentalists? The kind who want to repeal Roe? Griswold?

          Fascists are people who want to tell you how to live. That's the definition. Tell me how I'm wrong to characterize them as such?

           they've started an illegal war they've sanctioned torture they've looted the treasury they want to take away your rights
          Anything there you disagree with? - because those are some of my points.

          How about You have to stand up and fight for what you believe unequivocally - and it's not red state blue state - that's a lie - it's urban and rural - you are having this agenda imposed on you by a bunch of religious hicks What part of that do you disagree with? Spit it out!

          And this just because the language is harsh doesn't make the point less valid - that's the repug tactic of saying look how mean Dean is - and they either obscure or ignore the points -
          is this wrong? Am I mistaken?

          And to go to my original post what is it you disagree with here? these people are willing to commit treason - willing to lie about treason - willing to cover up treason - they are happy to use the Constitution to wipe their feet on - They absolutely want to impose their will on everyone who doesn't see things their way - Things are getting worse and Hillary and her ambitions are no help!

          But you can call me names but not refute a single point I made - just tell me that I'm wrong to be so very angry - I need therapy

          Well, the DLC provoked that anger because I believe the community at kos is dying to be activist and participate and change things - and what do they do? Pull quotes out of their ass to denigrate kos -

          do repugs spend any time defending the billious comments made at LGF or other repug sites?

          And comments made out of frustration and anger on a blog - a place to air it all out are somehow hurting the dems more than playing kissyface with a bunch of right-wing, fundamentalist machiavellis? -

          You have the nerve to tell me I'm wrong to think you can't make deals with these people? - prove it or shut the fuck up!

          •  Your message was your anger (none)
            If you had a subtext, I am sufficiently repulsed by your nonrational anger that I don't want to hear it.

            Not that I don't share your anger and frustration. But your message offers nothing beyond the anger and possibley some form of irrational mob activity. I want explanation and clear courses of action that will be effective.

            If you want therapy, go start a T-group or something. OK? I won't be there. I'll be trying to do something effective.

            Recovering Perfectionist IWDWIC (I Will Do What I Can) - Politics Plus Stuff

            by Rick B on Wed Jul 27, 2005 at 09:18:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  your pathetic (none)
              subtext?

              I wore it all on my sleeve. Just text I advocated irrational mob activity? Not true. I expressed my outrage.

              Cowards like yourself deserve the DLC. You'll be sitting on your fat ass picking your nose and complaining about the tone of the rhetoric, all the while ignoring it's meaning.

              If I were to suggest a course of action - it would be in the form of boycotts and letter writing campaigns - but that's not what I came to write about.

              Your smugness is revolting. Your unwillingness to debate a single thing I said after engaging in name calling, cowardly.

              Lastly it has been my experience that people project, so I'm guessing you're about 22 with some anger issues that you've kept very tightly under wraps. Good luck with that!

              Letting it all out on a blog board is, for mr, cathartic.

              You took the time to send more insults but never refuted a single point so let me repeat: Shut the fuck up! Ta!

              •  Your only point was, and continues to be (none)
                your anger.

                Recovering Perfectionist IWDWIC (I Will Do What I Can) - Politics Plus Stuff

                by Rick B on Wed Jul 27, 2005 at 11:24:47 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  just in case you didn't see this Ricky (none)
                  Let's be very clear - you started the pissing contest - you didn't write "Dial it down," or "Chill out - all that anger is counter-productive." or anything suggesting commiseration or understanding, you wrote ...you have no clue what it takes to turn an idea into a political issue. nice for someone so PC.

                  and then Your technique of presentation is so repugnant... again, nice!

                  not satisfied you continued I don't want to see any political movement at that level of totalitarianism - or anger - ever to exist on Earth. now I'm worse than hitler - hyperbole much?

                  and then you concluded with If you are over age 18 you really need psychiatric evaluation and help. At the very least you need anger management work. You are a witty charmer aren't you?

                  I would like to note that late last night at Atrios he used the same word, appeasement, to describe what it is the DLC are doing - his next post was about what Hillary got for playing nice Republicans immediately fired back at the criticisms, mocking the council for reaching out to Mrs. Clinton, whom conservatives have long derided as a symbol of liberal excess.

                  "The fact that the centrist organization of the Democrat Party would anoint Hillary Clinton anything, exemplifies just how far left the Democrats have gone," said Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee.

                  "There is nothing centrist about Senator Clinton's liberal record," Ms. Schmitt said in a statement.

                  In case you haven't noticed the repugs don't make deals - they trample over everything in sight - I say the Dems shouldn't make deals either, all the while declaring loudly what it is they are for: honest, open, fair government. Respect for the Constitution and the freedoms enshrined therein - including the right to pop off when you get pissed off!

                  Oh, and I read your mag - sure are knocking them dead aren't we?

                  Now fuck off!

                  No wonder repugs run roughshod over the likes of you - it's because you just let them. 2 days later I'm over my anger - while you're still a pussy.

        •  And one more thing Ricky (none)
          Let's be very clear - you started the pissing contest - you didn't write "Dial it down," or "Chill out - all that anger is counter-productive." or anything suggesting commiseration or understanding, you wrote ...you have no clue what it takes to turn an idea into a political issue. nice for someone so PC.

          and then Your technique of presentation is so repugnant... again, nice!

          not satisfied you continued I don't want to see any political movement at that level of totalitarianism - or anger - ever to exist on Earth. now I'm worse than hitler - hyperbole much?

          and then you concluded with If you are over age 18 you really need psychiatric evaluation and help. At the very least you need anger management work. You are a witty charmer aren't you?

          I would like to note that late last night at Atrios he used the same word, appeasement, to describe what it is the DLC are doing - his next post was about what Hillary got for playing nice Republicans immediately fired back at the criticisms, mocking the council for reaching out to Mrs. Clinton, whom conservatives have long derided as a symbol of liberal excess.

          "The fact that the centrist organization of the Democrat Party would anoint Hillary Clinton anything, exemplifies just how far left the Democrats have gone," said Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee.

          "There is nothing centrist about Senator Clinton's liberal record," Ms. Schmitt said in a statement.

          In case you haven't noticed the repugs don't make deals - they trample over everything in sight - I say the Dems shouldn't make deals either, all the while declaring loudly what it is they are for: honest, open, fair government. Respect for the Constitution and the freedoms enshrined therein - including the right to pop off when you get pissed off!

          Oh, and I read your mag - sure are knocking them dead aren't we?

          Now fuck off!

    •  Markos, this post should be re-promoted to the top (none)
      ...sometime later today so that it doesn't fall to far down the front page.

      Bestest most important post you've put up in a while, IMHO.
    •  This is the wrong approach.... (none)
      ...attempting to rally the party around values. Frankly, I am tired of such talk and attempts to frame the Democratic party in the opposition's image or "meet them in the middle". Simply put, I would rather see the party working assiduously to define and publicize a shared agenda instead of a shared value system. An agenda that further distinguishes the Democratic party from the failures of the current administration. The timing is primed right now to do so.

      The biggest complaint I hear is that people do not know what the party stands for, even those that are disillusioned by the state of things and looking to identify with an alternative approach. This is not about making the Democratic party more palatable for moderate Americans. It is about creating a platform that mainstream America can rally around, that suggests real solutions to real problems, and defines the party's tone and climate through its actions.

      For example, lets expound on a plan that excites a serious, realistic push towards energy independence for America. This is an issue that touches all citizens across the board and impacts the country's financial and environmental future and bolsters our domestic security and reassesses our foreign policy, distancing us from the instability of the Middle East. This is also an issue that the republicans cannot position themselves in and will not permit themselves to win.

      We also need to focus on and further draw attention to the incompetence of the Republicans to substantially secure our borders, ports, public transportation systems, food and water supplies and nuclear facilities. Being bankrupted by the ineffective war in Iraq is not a legitimate excuse for disregarding such glaring weaknesses, particularly with what the public sees going on in London. If we have to propose a plan to repeal tax cuts and even raise taxes to ameliorate these shortcomings, so be it. We also need to draw up a comprehensive plan for dealing with the situation in Iraq. Ideally one that sets the timetable for an eventual withdrawl, reassuring our intentions to the world, and draws on a multi-lateral, global operation through the UN and the help of our disenfranchised allies.

      This is part of the language that needs to be expressed. This is part of the platform that should be embraced as we approach the mid-terms and leading up to 2008. People want actions, not political minutiae. Bring the Democratic party together over a much needed plan of action, not a futile attempt to bridge ethical and fundamental differences. People that both support the war and those that rally against it can come together to agree that a more comprehensive approach is necessary. People from the left and from the right will agree that a more aggressive energy plan utilizing alternative fuel resources is in the country's best interests.

      This isn't about values. It is about the self-preservation of our country and the steps needed to ensure our livelihood and security as we look towards the future. The DLC is wrong if they think that emulating the transparency of the Republican party is the answer to our country's problems. Let the opposition be the party of ethical hypocrisy and contradiction and lets demand that the Democrats become the party of solutions and action. I would much rather be armed with a realistic plan than the most justified dissent.

      Sorry about the rant and poor grammar. Got to get back to work now. Cheers.

      We're gonna rise from these ashes like a bird aflame...

      by August West on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 10:46:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Kos: (2.43)
    You sound like a whiny schoolkid complaining about "who started it." Hillary, as usual, is dead on in her assessment of the Democratic party right NOW, we DO need to repair the rift in order to ensure electoral victories in '06 and '08. And I am SO sick of these diatribes from you and others on this site about the moderate wing of OUR party. It is a cliche but apparently needs repeating on this site: Americans are moderate. We will not win without moderate appeal. Totally writing off an organization that can attract 4 (at least?) front-runners for the Democratic nomination is just bad politics.

    Make History. Hillary 2008.

    by PWTrue on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:13:05 PM PDT

    •  Whatever (4.00)
      So our response when Will Marshall calls Kos and the base of the party unpatriotic is to say, "We appreciate your point of view. We'll take that under consideration. We can agree to disagree. Let's work together on this."

      Bullshit. To paraphrase James Carville, voters need to see you fighting for yourself, because if you won't fight for yourself, how are you going to fight for them.

      •  i can't see where anyone (2.50)
        called anyone else unpatriotic.

        i can see where someone said that there are those who don't understand that patriotism is important to a lot of americans.

        •  And that, in itself, (4.00)
          is implying that those who "don't understand" the importance of patriotism are themselves not patriotic.

          I've made it very clear, he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was.-McClellan, 2003

          by GN1927 on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:33:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  no it doesn't (3.00)
            you can be extremely patriotic and care very very passionately about what's best for your country and still underestimate the swell of patriotism in others and the kinds of stupid things it will inspire in others.
            •  From Sam's view... (4.00)
              Uh, I don't realy see too  much dem party sniping going on.  I really don't know what she is talking about, unless it's the odd comment on how the DLC hasn't helped grow our party in fifteen years.  Fact is, though Sam liked Clinton as prez, he didn't do jack shit to grow the party. In fact, Dems fled in great numbers during his reign.

              But overall, how can any sane person deny there is more democratic unity in this party than at any other time in my life?

              You can't.

              But let me snipe one more little time:

              How do comments like the ones from the DLC listed in this post help grow our party?

      •  That sounds a lot like... (3.25)
        ...playing into the Karl Rove stereotype of liberals.

        In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. -Thomas Jefferson

        by jabbausaf on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:28:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Dude. (4.00)
      Ok, 1) seems like Hillary first complained about who started it (ooh, wait, did I just do the same thing? do you think I sound like a whiny schoolkid? hold on a sec while I weep tears of blood).  2) You clearly have no understanding of this country's recent political history.  A huge number of these "moderates" you're so proud of are people who have been pulled rightward by successful Republican strategizing.  Strategizing which, in case you're wondering, did not involve saying "hey, let's be wicked moderate."  3) So the DLC can attract that many "front-runners."  Front-runners as defined by whom?  And what the fuck does it matter if they're the media-anointed front-runners for the nomination 3 years before the election, when the DLC strategy has been doing fuck all to win any actual elections of late?  Give me a break.
      •  Laura, (3.00)
        Your shrill reaction ignored my point completely. I am not a moderate in my personal views nor am I "so proud" of moderates or a member of that wing of the party. But all parties are coalitions and the more they work together the stronger they are. I at least "understand" that much.

        Make History. Hillary 2008.

        by PWTrue on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:27:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ah, yes, the shrill liberal. (4.00)
          A classic strawman of today's "moderate."  I'm kinda proud to get called that - from what I've read, all the best people do.

          The question I'd ask is, what's it worth to build a coalition if in doing so you sacrifice your core beliefs?  That's the kind of coalition the DLC has historically seemed interested in building, and no, I'm not interested.  I'd much rather see the Democrats take a page out of the Republicans book and spend 20-30 years shifting the culture, building a political machine that produces a sea change in the country's politics.  Winning on the DLC's terms is about politics as a profession, about which politicians not which values win.  As kos said, it's a corporatist model.  And no, I'm not interested in it at any price.  If HRC is the nominee, I'll back her.  But until then, when we have a couple years to think about what we want and plan how best to get it, I'm pushing for something better.  And if you're not, you're showing your lack of vision, lack of values, and lack of spine.

          •  My lackings... (2.60)
            I happen to disagree sharply with the caricature that has been drawn up of Hillary Rodham, first in the Republican Noise Machine and more recently on the left. I think she is a passionate intelligent person, VERY liberal but VERY politically savvy and a winner. For that reason, and not because I lack any of the things you mentioned, I am, for now, in Hillary's camp for 2008.

            Make History. Hillary 2008.

            by PWTrue on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:41:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ah, I get it. (4.00)
              You support HRC because with your psychic powers you can tell that her actual beliefs are nothing like her publicly stated beliefs.  The funny thing is, I actually suspect that's true.  But the fact of politics in this country these days is, once you've sold your soul to the corporations and the professional political operatives whose main interest is in continuing to collect fat paychecks, it tends to stay sold.  The farther you get in your political career, the more you have to lose, the more you owe the corporations and the operatives, and the less willing you are to return to your initial values, the less willing you are to fight.  Because that might be embarrassing.  That might decrease the pay-out you'll get later when you go into the business world.  And that's where I think she is.  

              Maybe you're right.  It would be nice.  I just don't see it happening.

            •  Good then piss off (1.50)
              and go drink your REPUBLICRAT Kool Aid.
              •  Tastes like Grape... (4.00)
                'Cause its PURPLE! Like Obama said, or maybe we should just wait until 70 percent of Americans DON'T think it is ok to deny Gay Americans there fundamental rights.

                Make History. Hillary 2008.

                by PWTrue on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:52:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Man.... (none)
                  .... you sure opened a can of worms with your first post!

                  I like HRC too. She's gotta show me that she can be more of a leader than Bill. Anyway, I don't understand how it doesn't bother you that HRC can endorse an organization so devoted to bashing the Democratic/liberal base. Any thoughts?

                  Can I take a stab at a few guesses here? You're young, right? You haven't really been in the trenches campaign after campaign like the rest of us have, have you? Maybe after you've spent a couple of election cycles toiling for Democratic candidates will you come even close to understanding what we feel like when Republicans like Marshall Whitman to us to the woodshed for lashing.  

                  "When the Nationals took over the NL East lead in early June, Frank Robinson should have declared: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

                  by crazymoloch on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:10:25 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  The DLC is not interested (none)
          in forming a genuine coalition.  They seek to dominate the party.  They have no interest in listening to the grass roots.  They just want the money and the time.  They are like the very worst elements in the republican party.  Any candidate listens to them at his/her peril.

          As for HRC, one sees the facade & tries to guess what her actual values are.  Some say, underneath she's really more liberal than she seems.  Others say the opposite. The only thing that's absolutely clear is that she's saying what she thinks people want to hear.  Do you really suppose people don't know that? Can't see that?  

          Disdain for progressives, for the grass roots, for democratic values, a strategy that has destroy the party and lost election after election.  That's the DLC.  Why in the world should any of us ever listen to any of them ever again?

          •  Nice Post Tulip! (none)
            Tom Clarke remarked, before being led to a British Army firing squad in 1916, "We must build Irish freedom on the ruins of English rule."

            I would offer that the task before us is to build a new, truly populist and democratic party on the ruins of the DLC. This task cannot be advanced by cooperating with the DLC, by attempting to influence the DLC or by voting for candidates involved in the DLC. It can be advanced by ignoring the DLC.

            If we are to get beyond these hollow suits whose life support is a corporate feeding tube - if we are to get beyond our current one party state (with a moribund and toothless Democratic Party wing)- we need to ignore the DLC.

          •  Dean (none)
            is the only outspoken dem. who gives credit that the average citizen has intelligence. That is the difference in his brand of politics and Hill's. Her brand has come and gone. People see through her and NAFTA and welfare reform and no jobs for the poor Bill.
            •  Dean may have been exactly what we needed as (none)
              our man in 04 if he had just spent a bit more
              time studying the nature of politics. If he
              had done that he would perhaps have know that
              the media as a whole was whoring for Bush and
              would not have made the big mistake with the
              scream.

              Mind you I am not saying there actually was
              anything so wrong about his screaming, except
              this much. I think that Dean had been great up
              to that point and I was watching that night as
              he committed it.

              I told my wife as soon as he did it that it was
              over for him as far as becoming President. No
              matter how much some may think that this is
              bullshit the fact is that regardless of what your
              stand is, if you are going for the big prize as
              in being President you do have to be careful of
              your image. Just as John Kerry came across as too
              much a prep boy, Dean then took on a too much of
              a redneck look. Plus he was perceived as being
              completely out of touch with reality as soon as
              he did that.

              For a large part of the voters that was a no no.

              I do believe that if it had not been for that
              mistake and Dean had managed to get elected along
              with enough seats to mantain control of both
              houses, we could have started rebuilding our
              party and started going in the right direction.

              But then sometimes I wonder if we as a nation
              will ever grasp how to approach the real issues
              which need to be addressed by our country.

              I have seen no politician either Repug or Democrat
              that ever pushed the real agendas that we need to
              address. Some have given token mention to some of
              them, but no push for it.

              Ppeye

              I dream about waking up and finding out Bush has fell through his own Butthole and hung himself :)Popeye

              by eaglecries on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 01:35:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  what hillary said (none)
        Now, I know the DLC has taken some shots from some within our party and that it has returned fire too,"

        if you read that and the only thing you can think is she should have said "i know some within our party have taken some shots from the DLC, and they have returned fire too," i think the point gets missed.

    •  Moderate? MODERATE? (4.00)
      koff-choke-wheeze...

      You think the DLC is moderate?

      What's moderate about endorsing the disaster in Iraq? What's moderate about undercutting any Democrat who dares to say Bush is wrong?

      That's not moderate. That's fifth column.

      Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is. - TNH

      by Canadian Reader on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:21:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Uh, what's a democrat? (4.00)
      How far to the right will Hillary need to swing before it's obvious she's in the wrong party (at least, closer to a traditional Republican than a traditional Democrat, since the right seems to be veering further and further off the edge)?  I'm not saying she's there yet, but in a lot of ways the DLC is well down that road.

      "Big tent" theories are all fine and good, but compromise has its limits.

      •  Show me the money! (4.00)
        So utterly sick of these FLAMES at Hillary from the left. Hillary a republican? Let's see the votes you are talking about? Let's see the speech texts. back up your assertions or shut the hell up.

        Make History. Hillary 2008.

        by PWTrue on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:29:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Arer you saying (4.00)
          NAFTA was a liberal treaty?  DLC= Destroy Liberalism Completely

          If anyone belongs to the DLC, they might as well change their Party affiliation to REPUBLICRAT.

          The STUPID idea of going "moderate" is what allowed the political spectrum to swing so far to the right that we're losing our nation and are becoming a fascist totalitarian state.

          Take your DLC and shove it you know where.  You're the Washington Generals of American politics.  We'll take the progressive fight to the right.  You'll have to decide if you're going to be with us or show your true colors.

        •  Let Hill and Bill send Chelsea to Iraq... (4.00)
          Hillary voted for the damn war. (not b/c she believed in it, but b/c it was expedient.)

          I am sorry, but I am not voting for some one who participated in such a blunder. All it has gotten us is more suicide bombers, not less. But General Dynamics and Raytheon are happy.

          If a Dem wants to be "good friends" with that hate-mongering liar, Sean Hannity, well, he deserves a primary. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DumpJoe/

          by DeanFan84 on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:58:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm with you (4.00)
            Hillary is too much of a hawk for me. I would not vote for her. In fact, I'd rather vote for an anti-war libertarian.
            •  If Hillary is the Dem nominee (none)

              for Prez, then I will not be casting a vote in the presidential election for the first time in my voting life. I haven't missed an election since I came of age back in 1980.

              The DLC and Hillary the Appeaser is NOT my Party and I will not cast a vote for any slime molds that ooze from those niches.

              I'd rather "throw my vote away" on a Green than vote DLC shit candidates.

              •  You know (none)
                I actually recently became an American citizen as I've lived here for decades and have been unable to vote.  I've been very excited to cast my first vote, but I must say that I'm with you.  I will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances.  Her recent moral crusade against videogame manufacturers was the sprinkles on the cake.  I don't trust her as far as I could throw her.
          •  How do you know... (none)
            What Hillary does or doesn't think? Vote for her or not, but until you've met the woman in person and heard what she has to say, do the rest of us a favor and stop pretending to know what she thinks.

            You don't. None of you do. It's not possible that the woman doesn't hold a single principle true to her heart, not everything that the woman says is political positioning, believe it or not sometimes she just says what she thinks and she means what she says.

        •  In your defense perhaps (4.00)
          I'm not sure how old you are but if you're over 50, you either slept through the 60s and 70s or you were just being born then.

          You younger whippersnappers aren't aware of how far to the right the democrats have actually swung.  To some of us, Hillary is definately what used to pass as a Republican.

          To argue with myself, maybe the dems haven't swung that far to the right.  Maybe they just seem that way because they've lost their fight and they keep letting the Republicans call the agenda.

      •  Bill Clinton is DLC (none)
        Therefore DLC-haters must hate Clinton.

        An interesting parallel to the DLC is the ADA, Americans for Democratic Action, formed in reaction to some of the more extreme left elements in American politics in the 1940s.

        Liberal ADA politicians like Humphrey were savaged by the left in the 1960s, much as liberal DLC politicians are today, for not being "progessive" enough. Ironically, in 1968 we got Nixon and in 2000 we got Bush, thanks to "progressive" ADA/DLC-haters.

        •  Honestly? (none)
          I was a big Clinton supporter.  I followed his election closely and the Presidency that followed.

          I absolutely loved Clinton even through all the Republican smearing.  I stood by him 100% through Monica until he lied.  Until he lied.  

          I don't know if that bothered you or not but I was so angry with him for lying.  I don't know what you thought of that, but I haven't been able to stomach the man since then.  I can't look at him.

          I don't give a flying banana about the BJ.  I don't care if he had an affair.  I do care that he lied.  I care deeply.  I took it personally and I still do although I'll argue with anybody who tries to convince me the BJ was grounds for impeachment.  However, he lied to us.  

          Bush, on the other hand, has lied so many times and about much graver issues, he should have been impeached long ago.

          I'm not a hypocrite.  Lying from our President no matter his/her party is, for me, the last straw.

          •  What is it with Bill (and Hillary)? (none)
            I was a Bill Clinton supporter also, but could someone tell me what happened to him?  Every time I hear him talk nowadays you would think he was the long lost brother of Dubya.  You never hear him express any real concern or contempt about the state of our nation under Bush.  I know there is this hazy axiom that ex-Presidents are not supposed to criticize current Presidents...but, PLEEZ, we're drowning here.  Honestly, I think if he had been stronger in his criticism prior to the 2004 election we may have had a better chance of winning (anybody remember his comment at his Presidential Library opening asking if he was the only one that likes both George Bush and John Kerry..I thought I was going to be sick).  He was still a popular figure, even after the Republican machine tried to destroy him.  He and Hillary do not seem to remember that very well!  The only thing I can think of is that Hillary has told him to keep his thoughts to himself because her only goal right now is to further her career.  I, too, will stay home in 2008 if she is the Democratic nominee for President.
        •  Of course (none)
          If Humphrey were around now, the DLC would be hounding him as an extinct liberal.  Hell, the positions of the Republican Party of 1968 were more liberal than today's DLC.  That's a problem.  We cannot combat the rightward drift - and make no mistake, our future depends on halting and reversing it - by defining "moderate" as halfway to the Republican Party.  As the Republicans mover further to the right, that means that "moderate," at least its DLC variant, also moves ever further to the right.  At the present rate, supporting the estate tax repeal, CAFTA and social security privatization will be "moderate" when, even 15 years ago, they were extreme right positions.  Oh wait, DLC moderates do support CAFTA [http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253383&kaid=131&subid=192]  How long until social security and the estate tax become "moderate" or "progressive"?
    •  The DLC hasn't marginalized itself... (4.00)
      by pushing for moderation. It's marginalized itself by attacking virtually everyone in the party outside its own membership.

      It's not about ideology, it's about solidarity.


      Those who cannot remember the future are condemned to repeat it.

      by Abou Ben Adhem on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:28:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. (none)
        Harry Reid is not a liberal Democrat but he stands up and fights for our core values. When he does disagree with the liberal wing of the party e.g. abortion, he has the good sense to keep his disagreement low profile and not hoist it up the flag pole like Al From.

        That is why I consider myself a "former DLC Democrat:.

        ownership society - you are on your own

        by Sam I Am on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 04:49:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  How do you repair a rift (4.00)
      by starting an argument? Back hand compliments the last time I checked aren't the way to do it. Let's say you are right. Let's say Kos is whining. How was Hillary dead on in her approach? Just curious because you seem to define things pretty oddly.
      •  If you don't agree with (3.00)
        the excerpt that Kos quoted from Hillary's speech then I don't see how you can hope for a democratic majority. That is what was dead on.

        Make History. Hillary 2008.

        by PWTrue on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:34:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Take your right wing mindjob (3.00)
          over to the freepers.  That's where the DLC really belongs.
          •  what? (none)
            hillary was looking for peace in the party.  how is that crazy?  how is that right-wing?  on the contrary, i think it helps the right-wing if people who might vote democrat continue to fight themselves.

            "Rick Santorum is Latin for Asshole."

            by tmendoza on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 05:38:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No Hillary and the DLC Seek Control... (none)
              by telling us progressives to shut up and join the DLC (and, oh bye the way, send money). If you were around this December and January, it was the DLC that put up a series of failed candidates to head the DNC and they were defeated. Instead of the DNC being a financial warehouse for the annointed DLC Presidential Candidate, it is out in the world supporting the grassroots. Everything Hillary does is planned, deliberate and calculated: so, choosing her DLC forum from which to call for a "big tent" is her saying this is her platform to run for the presidency. If she was really interested in bringing us closer together she could have chosen a hundred other more neutral venues. I believe her pro war, pro "victory", pro Newt Gingrich health care, dropping the right to choose, etc. is a calculated way to work with the remnants of the Clinton White House, to line up the corporatists, the Iowa "centrists", etc.

              Makes me puke. Makes me resolved to support someone else.

              Bush/Rove: Co-Conspirators in an On-Going Criminal Enterprise

              by vetfordean on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 07:14:47 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Two Words: Howard Dean (none)
                The minute he told the truth about the Republicans, the DLC got in line to either distance themselves from his remarks (Harold Ford) or trash him on Sunday Talk shows (Joe Biden).

                Until someone explains to me how becoming like the enemy helps to defeat the enemy, the DLC needs to continuing their corporate whoring and drink their glasses of STHU.

                I will listen to a DLC member's point of view when they stop being Fox News Media Darlings, and kissing the asses of Don Imus and Rush Limbaugh.

                "I'm sorry; did you misspeak, or flat out tell a lie?, Cause the President does it ALL THE TIME."

                by The Truth on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 09:02:35 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  AL GORE: Who Stood By Howard Dean Last Year (none)
                  Al Gore knew in 2000 that DLC is dying and took a more populist approach, which right-wing sycophants like Joe Lieberman criticized.  But Gore was right and he later helped the Dean campaign.  Dean is not running in 2008.  The only progressive choice we have is Al Gore.  Gore has much better experience than Hillary has.
            •  back room conniving, the rest is lip service (none)
              HRC lost me during the primaries.  I hated the way she & the DLC connived against Dean. I don't mind that they didn't support him.  I would've welcomed an open debate.  But a smiley front and a lethal smoke-filled room strategy to kill off the Governor's candidacy-- she lost me. Drinking champagne with Chelsea in a box at the convention while the Governor spoke-- lost me. Trying to outshine all the candidates in primaries, during televised rallies, but not ever sticking her neck out, not really, not candidly-- lost me.

              Ever hear the expression, 'too smart for his/her own good?"  That's HRC.  That's Big Dawg hnging with the Bushes.  

              I actually love the way HRC has represented me as Senator.  But I don't trust, never will, and won't lift a finger, if she's the candidate in 'O8

        •  I take things in context (4.00)
          I try to understand the whole meaning.

          Let me give you an example. It was like when Biden was attacking Dean. He was actually right that Dean needed to change is language- although Dean was right in saying that the Republican leadership (the part he needed to emphasize) can't have understood OH workers to have required them to stand in line for 8 hours to vote.  At that time, I said, and still believe, that Biden said what he said, not for the party, but for Biden. What did Biden do just a few weeks ago- he announces his run for the Presidency. I can't know what's in peoples hearts. But, I can pay attention to what they do, when they do it and put two plus two together.

          Any quote out of context by itself means nothing. The problem you face with your argument is context. Of the DLCs prior history. Also, you face the problem that no one is actually saying HRC can't run as a moderate- they are questioning the organization who has a bad prior history, and continues to act in a non party loyalist way.

          In order for things to change, the first thing that must change is that somehow, in some way, there must be a return to party loyalty beyond personal ambition. No one expects a denial of personal ambition, but one should expect that no Democrat should disparage other Democrats. I don't see how you think that is at all productive. Let's say she's right. How is she helped in her position by placing it in the context of the DLC? How for that matter is it useuful for us to have a group disparaging the Democratic base- even if it's only the base of which D Kos represents. How is that valuable to us as a party?

          What's bizzare about your comments is that it lacks any consideration of this. I mean lets look at the Republican coalition. They are no less fracturous in their positions than we are. The difference is that the Republicans both fear and respect their base. We have a loopy situation in which the Democrats regularly attack their base. That can not be a useful thing.

      •  Let's (none)
        don't say Kos is whining. Let's say he is standing tall for his country. Am I and Randy Rhodes the only ones who watch cspan? When bushco was trying their best to do a way with overtime for first responders? nurses firemen and police. These people are traitors. Kerry could have mopped the floor with the repuublican party if he had thrown that little tidbit into the so called debates.
    •  When Working People have no faith... (4.00)
      in politicians like Hillary, Lieberman, Bayh, Biden, and the patrician Kerry, how can we ever win?

      Pray tell, what does the DLC's Democratic Pary stand for?

      I have no problem with Moderates. But I won't put up with sell-outs. The Republican Party has been successful because they don't tolerate appeasers, and they put forth a positive vision,-- one that DLC Dems are scared to fight.

      If a Dem wants to be "good friends" with that hate-mongering liar, Sean Hannity, well, he deserves a primary. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DumpJoe/

      by DeanFan84 on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:30:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  List? (none)
        Which moderates do you like that are not sellouts? That is often an imaginary distinction around here...

        Make History. Hillary 2008.

        by PWTrue on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:33:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Okay short list (4.00)
          Wesley Clark
          Eliot Spitzer

          Just to name two off top my head. There is a difference between being moderate, and in support of your party, and moderate, and just how for yourself. I think that is a mantra that needs to start being the catchphrase for what it means to show party loyalty. Coming out and attacking other members of the party is unacceptable in the Republican ranks even if the member such as DeLay commits ethics violation. I am not saying we should go anywhere near that far. But, this is to me a question of loyalty and discipline. No Democrat should be attacking another Democrat. The two I have listed have so far as I have read reframed from playing the game of people like the centrists who think they can make political hay by attacking their own party members rather than attacking Republicans. There is something wrong where we actually have the public on ourside on a lot of issues for a change, and they are still repeating the mantra of attack our left, attack our left.

          •  Harry Reid... (4.00)
            Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

            Bob Graham.
            Tom Harkin.
            Howard Dean.
            Patrick Leahy.
            Barack Obama.

            If a Dem wants to be "good friends" with that hate-mongering liar, Sean Hannity, well, he deserves a primary. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DumpJoe/

            by DeanFan84 on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:46:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  why are you being hostile toward me (4.00)
              I would agree with that list you created too. I am a moderate, not a centrist trying to triangulate. This is why I can understand Kos's point. That these people he's talking about aren't interested in party loyalty. The people you are mentioning also seem intersted in a greater loyalty to a greater good other than their own ambitions. I had this conversation a day or so ago about my issue with Mark Warner not running as a Senate candidate- the party needs him in that role, and yet others were defending him by saying well his individual interests are to be Prez. What I am looking for are people who put party and country above themselves. I think again your list is potentially equally as good as mine so long as they all reflect the values I just mentioned.
            •  UHHH (none)
              This last go-round Obama attacked DNC chair Dean.  Last I looked, both were Democrats.

              Considering that DFA sent lots of turkee to Obama, and thoroughly supported him, I found his comments a good example of ingratitude.

              Obama needs to be removed from your list.

      •  no faith? (4.00)
        every single senator you just mentioned is a very popular senator with their constituents. Evan Bayh is from Indiana, a state about as red as it gets, and he absolutely crushed his last opponent. Kerry, Biden, Hillary, all people who can be senators as long as they desire. Where is this lack of faith that you're talking about? Where is this dislike for these senators outside of this community?

        You'd better do as you are told-You'd better listen to your radio

        by AnnArborBlue on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:34:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Among the general American (none)
          people. When looking at these Democratic Senators in polling data, the recent flubs by the conservatives in the Republican Party suprise, suprise have not been helping the Democrats in Congress to improve their numbers. Look it up over at Democratic Majority- a polling blog. Certainly, they don't like Biden's support of the bankruptcy bill. These are how you care measure dislike if you want to see it another way.
          •  Hillary is very popular (none)
            Hillary has a 70% approval rating in New York.  So what that hell are you talking about?  You may not like her, but the vast majoriy of the people of New York do like her.  

            "Rick Santorum is Latin for Asshole."

            by tmendoza on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 05:40:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, Hillary... (none)

              Hillary has a 70% approval rating in New York. So what that hell are you talking about? You may not like her, but the vast majoriy of the people of New York do like her.

              That is fine and dandy. The people of NEW YORK love her. The rest of the country doesn't and the Party at large are not New Yorkers. Hillary needs to stay the New York Senator where the people love her and want her. She needs to stay out of the Presidential run or she WILL lose us another one (and probably carry off a senate seat or two on her failed coattails.

              She is NOT "the one". She is damaged goods running on a Republican-lite national campaign. Republican-lite ALWAYS loses for the Dems. Always.

        •  You forgot Joe Lieberman... (4.00)
          Exceedingly popular here in CT. (And more popular with Republicans, than Democrats... Go Figure!)

          Obviously a safe thing to do for an incumbent/slash leading Democrat is to play to the other side. But it is devastating to the Party.

          Take for instance that in CT, a very Blue State, we have 3 Republican Congressmen in our House Delegation, and only 2 Democrats.

          The lack of faith is with the working folks of this country who still can't afford Health Care. The lack of faith is with those who saw through Bush's lies, and knew the Iraq Occupation would prove to be a nightmare. The lack of faith is with those who see the rich in this country becoming more insanely rich, at the same time the middle class gets squeezed.

          Kerry didn't win. And it wasn't that he ran to the Left. At what point will you realize that Republican-Lite doesn't sell well?

          If a Dem wants to be "good friends" with that hate-mongering liar, Sean Hannity, well, he deserves a primary. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DumpJoe/

          by DeanFan84 on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:43:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  moderates (none)
            I want to make something absolutely clear from the outset: I am not, not, not NOT defending the rhetoric of the DLC. I thought that column from today or yesterday or whenever that called progressives anti american was absurd.

            That being said, I haven't seen any sign that progressive candidates are a better sell than moderates. Howard Dean ignited the grassroots, and brought the party into the 21st century, for which I will be forever grateful toward him. But he lost to John Kerry, one of the most liberal members of the Senate. Dukakis, Mondale. Very progressive candidates who got killed. I'm struggling to understand this faith that if Democrats would simply embrace the Left, they would be in better shape. The only Dem elected to the White house in the last 20 years was a DLC, third way, republican-lite candidate.

            You'd better do as you are told-You'd better listen to your radio

            by AnnArborBlue on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:53:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I was a Dean delegate (4.00)
              And at our caucus and later the state caucus, all I saw was DLC support for Kerry, not Dean.  Kerry may have been declared "more liberal" but the fact was, if the DLC wanted him, he was NOT the man we needed.  Had Democrats stuck by Dean in spite of the yell, we could have won it all.  

              Instead, there I am at the caucus, with people who are telling me they are Republicans who left the party because they don't like Bush (riiiiight) and they are voting for KERRY?!?  I don't buy it.  They are pushing for Kerry, the DLC is pushing for Kerry.  We GET Kerry and guess what?

              Kerry doesn't ask the hard questions.  Kerry flat out sucks.  Kerry loses.

              Dean was the man all along.  Where was the DLC when we needed them?  Pushing the Republicrat agenda.

              •  Dude, (4.00)
                the fix was in on the 2004 Dem primary for the following reason: defense spending.  

                Yes, the MIC chose the Dem nominee.  Kerry was a solid voice for continued high levels of defense spending as he has the Raytheon love from way back.  His incomprehensibly vague position on the Iraq war was devised for a reason.  

                I know it sucks, but that's the way it is.  

                Dean did not have any ties to defense and no support there.  Even now he probably does not even comprehend how important this shadowy support is.

                HRC knows it full well, but she is a total sellout.  She has drunk deep from the power chalice, and she wants more.  

                I will say this, I can't understand why anyone is surprised that she is playing nice with the DLC.  

                When these morons go and talk about national security, there is BEAUCOUP subtext going on.  They are talking to the defense industry.  They want them to know that they will be supporting them with continued government largesse.

                The question for us is, who can make nice to the defense industry, but get us the fuck out of Iraq?  Since Iraq is a huge funnel from the U.S. Treasury into the MIC pockets, this is a tough proposition.

              •  I voted (none)
                 for Kerry, but had a sinking feeling he and Bush worked for the same company. I will never cast a vote for someone I don't trust again. I don't trust Hill.
            •  They never really embraced being liberal (4.00)
              Mondale never really articulated what it was. Mondale ran away from it. Kerry was all about Vietnam!
              Dean ignited us liberals by showing what we are and not running from it. If only California had the first shot in the primaries!
            •  Dean (none)

              Dean lost primarily because of the "scream". It is unfair, it was overblown, it was taken out of context (all by the press) but they DID intentionally assassinate Dean's run by playing UP "the scream". I was a "Deaniac" after having been a Clark supporter (I dropped him when I saw his "Help!" cry during an interview and he couldn't answer a question directly himself - and he should have known HIS OWN POSITION ON THE MATTER). I KNEW Dean had lost as soon as the press started playing "the scream" over and over. Clark died with the cry for "Help!" and Dean was assassinated for his so-called "scream".

              If the press actually did the job it should rather than the old horse race, game of gotcha! crap they do to exclusion, then Dean would likely have won. There was nothing at all wrong with Dean's message or with Dean himself. He would have mopped the bathroom floor AND scrubbed the toilet with Bush during all debates and with his message which DID resonate with actual human beings.

              Unappealing progressives my ass.

        •  Bayh crushes Repubs? (none)
          I grew up in Indiana and worked hard for the Democrat party there. Evan Bayh won't fly where I live now. It won't do us any good to nominate a conservative Dem from a red state if the blue staters don't recognize him as a Dem. Frankly, having grown up with baby Bayh, he's no Dem in my book. He's a pretty boy who was BORN with statewide name recognition. There aren't many Repubs who fit that bill in Indiana.  Thanks but no thanks. At the moment I'd prefer an actual military veteran-Wes Clark-any day over any of the DLC candidates.
      •  "patrician Kerry"! (4.00)
        You've swallowed all the media (and Repug spun)bullshit completely whole! Dubya is TEN TIMES more of a "patrician" than Kerry is.  He came from several generations of rich fucks.  His surname is synonymous with New England privilege and money, and he has the power structure support to prove it.  The fact that Bush has a whiny faux-Texas accent and a beady-eyed, slackjawed expression shouldn't fool anyone into believing he has any interest in the "working people" except in taxing them as much as possible so he can fill his bank accounts.  

        If the "Working People" can't figure that out, we just have to keep beating them over the head with it.  Current events will help us.

        I don't know what you mean by "appeasers".  Who are you talking about?

        *Springsteen for President*

        by hrh on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 01:20:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Kerry IS patrician (none)

          Yes, Bush is a spoiled brat patrician but he is capable of pulling the wool over everyone's eyes and ACTING like an actual person. Kerry did not and cannot act like a regular, actual person. He oozes patrician blood and aloofness. It doesn't matter whether or not it is fair that Bush is a spoiled, nasty, brat, sociopathic patrician who is able to fool people while Kerry cannot. It is what it is. Kerry lost because he could not connect to regular, non-patrician blue bloods. Kerry lost because he played the loser Dem game of trying to stay "above the fight" while letting the GOP paint him up in colors of liar, coward, wishy-washy. It was totally, 100% bullshit but Kerry let it happen. You cannot play the perfect blue-blood gentleman with these GOP creeps. You DO have to take at least one or two steps down into the cellar, not necessarily roll around on the cellar floor, and fight them early, hard, and fast.

          •  bullshit (none)
            Kerry lost because 9/11 gave Bush an insurmountable edge.  I heard over and over again, even from people who despised Bush, "You don't want to change horses in midstream, especially during wartime!"  Fear is what elected Bush, not some crap about "how well he connected to the Common Man".

            I went to a Kerry rally in Minnesota that was jam-packed full of "regular, non-patrician-blue-bloods". In spite of the conventional wisdom that Kerry was a boring public speaker and too "aloof", he gave an electrifying speech that had them eating out of his hand.  People were moved to tears.  I kid you not.

            As for Kerry being a "loser", recall that he did win more votes than Reagan in his landslide, which indicates he was pretty damn good at connecting to voters.

            I like street fighting as much as anyone, but being a gentleman is cool too.

            *Springsteen for President*

            by hrh on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 07:44:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I mostly agree with you, but I think (none)
              Kerry hurt himself during the third debate when he presented a fairly vague, optimistic plan for Iraq and Bush said, "Well, it isn't that simple." Bush was right. He's the one who screwed it all up, but fixing it wasn't going to be all that simple.

              But my dad met Kerry, liked him and still voted for Bush just because he assumed changing presidents would somehow in and of itself trigger a huge Al Qaeda attack.

            •  Hey, hrh... (none)
              Can you shoot me an email?  advisorjim at yahoo dot com.  I'm finishing up my book, and I've just noticed that you were the first person to suggest that I write one.  Wanted to give you props in the acknowledgements.

              Thanks!

              Politics: It's all fun and games until somone dies.

              by advisorjim on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 05:25:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Fault on both sides (3.95)
      You sound like a whiny schoolkid complaining about "who started it."

      I don't agree with everything Kos writes, but the simple truth is that he's just a regular guy who started a progressive blog that attracts a huge audience of progressives and moderates.

      I am a (kinder, gentler) free-market, free-trade capitalist with a Vanguard IRA and a 401(k) plan. I've never voted for a Republican presidential candidate, but I did vote for John Danforth for Senate. I'm pro-choice, but my baby grabbed and wiggled the amnio needle when she was a roughly 18-week-old fetus, and I respect people who have concerns about abortion. I love Bush's plans to go to Mars, and I don't yet see any reason to oppose John Roberts. I think passing a law against flag burning would be pretty stupid, but I love the flag, wouldn't dream of setting fire to a flag, and am pretty scared of matches and lighters in general.

      My instinct is to think that Kos's hostility toward the DLC is silly and overly Oedipal, but then I see the excerpt about Kos people not being patriotic and think, "Wow wow wow. Why on earth is anyone at the DLC site sanctioning an article that questions my patriotism simply because I somehow ended up with a user name at Daily Kos rather than some other blog????"

      Also: Who are the Martians who are presenting Hillary Clinton as an American centrist heroine? It's like, OK, fine, she really is a centrist and always was. But the truth is that moderate centrists in the American heartland who have no idea what a blog is or who Kos is think of Hillary Clinton as a leftist.

      If the subtext is that Clinton is trying to present herself as being more moderate than Howard Dean, Dean is a former mutual fund manager who is a strong supporter for malpractice reform. He is about as leftist as milk. People on Daily Kos like him because he had a vision and talked about it in clear, down-to-earth language, not because they necessarily agree with every point in his platform.

      •  Excellent post (4.00)
        It's bizzare to me as someone who used to be considered a moderate to now be told that I am this super leftist simply because I disagree with the tactics that the Democratic Party has taken in the last decade. If someone were to ask me my views, I would say I am for a strong national defense, a live and let live type, who believes that we had the New Deal for a reason. I am also someone who believes in incrementalism as a general rule over quick changes that are not thought out. Yet, here and else where now adays I am being told that makes me a leftist. What I have come to realize is what they mean is that I am not a centrist. In actual believe, Hillary Clinton is probably to the left of me. In practice, she is acting like a Centrist triangulating as far right as she can in order to win in 2008. My problem with this is that it's not about growing the party, or building it for the group as a whole. All of it seems for each of these people's individual poltical gain.
        •  Great comment (3.33)

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:51:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Something bad IS going on.... (4.00)
          and it's pervasive.

          It seems the DLC has appropriated the Rovian tactics from Schmitt's Concept of the Political.

          It's not us, folks, it's them.

          They will continue to weaken the PRAGMATIC wing of our party, which you have done a great job of encapsulating.

          Pragmatic means incrementalism.  It means "Reality-based."  It means agreeing to communicate.

          DLC is intent on shutting down communication and dialogue.  That's where they are wrong.

          And, it's wrong for any true Democratic candidate to pander to such a self-destructive organization.  

          •  What's great about regular dem folks like us (none)
            is that, unlike Republicans, we don't get into lockstep with our party leaders when they are full of shit.  We will actually challenge them and speak out.

            I love being in the Democratic Party, because it is defined by regular folks who don't put up with blind, misguided conformity.

            God Bless America.

          •  Is the DLC bribed? (none)
            I respect the idea that the DLC might want to present itself as a centrist organization. Personally, I'm a centrist. Maybe my politics are a little bit closer to DLC politics than typical Daily Kos politics. But the whole idea that the DLC is going around misrepresenting and insulting large groups of Democrats (what? Daily Kos, who voted for Reagan and served in the military, isn't patriotic???????????????????????????? what the f????????????) is really counterproductive and self-destructive.

            Kerry lost because he had a wooden speaking style and failed to present clear, concrete foreign policy proposals. DLCers who try to pretend that he lost because he was too far to the left are kidding themselves.

        •  I believe you have not (4.00)
          been keeping an eye on the DLC website nor are aware of the DLC actions during the primary.
          We have no compelling, differentiating message?  Credit the DLC.
      •  LOL - WHAT plan?! (none)
        "I love Bush's plans to go to Mars"

        As a member of Dr. Zubrin's "Mars Society" I had to laugh out loud at this comment.  Bush has no plan to go to Mars!  This was yet another swipe at his daddy's legacy.  Bush the elder proposed a completely unfeasible plan for going to Mars that most scientists agreed was unfeasible.

        You want a plan for going to Mars?  Google Mars Society and Zubrin.  Bush couldn't find Mars if it was blocking the intake from his coke straw.

        •  Reminds Me of a Shrub Joke... (none)
          What's the difference between VietNam and Iraq?

          Shrub had a plan to get out of VietNam.

          Bush/Rove: Co-Conspirators in an On-Going Criminal Enterprise

          by vetfordean on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 07:23:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  OK, not a plan. But a goal. (none)
          I hate the fact that Bush wants to let the Hubble fall into the atmosphere, but I love any peaceful proposal to do anything in space, period, and I don't care whether it's a Democrat, a Republican or a Socialist-Leninist who makes the proposal.
    •  They like our money though (4.00)
      I'm one of those looney libs the DLC types hate except when they want a check or want me to do grunt work.
      What exactly does Hillary offer that makes her "electable" in '08? It seems the message is lost on some Hillary supporters. We had 2 guys at the top of our ticket that voted with Bush for this war in Iraq, the bottom line issue in '04. Why should grassroots liberals eat shit again and support Hillary or the rest of those guys who voted for Iraq! Why should those moderates in the populace that the DLC pander to, vote for them when then are it seems so transparent. The repugs support the same thing but at least it seems ideologically based! If we are gonna go one party for all practical purposes, why vote, why bother! Well like kos and many others here I still have a litte bit of passion left. I would rather us stand on truly liberal convictions than go down as pandering, all about packaging Dems that the DLC types favor and the wingnuts rightly criticize!
      •  Right now, if Waxman ran (4.00)
        He'd have my vote in a heartbeat.

        That's what it's all about.  What has Hillary done to stand up to the totalitarianism sweeping our country?  Did Hillary write a letter to Bush chiding him to do his duty?  Where has the DLC been during all of this?  Where's that "leadership"?  Have they led the fight against Bush and his shenanigans?

        •  I wish I could give that an 8 (none)
          I agree.  There are models in our party already for candidates, and campaigns, that can bridge this divide.  And boy is Waxman one of them.  Honest, diligent, believes in good government to his bones.  Whether he runs or not (and I can't imagine he would), other candidates should take a page from his book.

          The DLC bashes other Dems because it gets them in the press.  Everyone slows down to see a good trainwreck, and they deliver that.

          Waxman spends his time quietly battling the real enemies: corruption, incompetance, secrecy.  

          When it's all said and done, who will have served their country better?  Who deserves power?  Ed Kilgore?  That guy can head off into oblivion as far as I'm concerned.

          Give me a Waxman any day.  Let's go find us more of those.

    •  It doesn't bother you...... (4.00)
      ..... that Hillary Clinton is addressing an organization that slams the entire populace of Berkeley as being berserk! This is the reason why I (and a lot of other Kossacks, I'm guessing) DESPISE the DLC so very much. Why does the DLC feel the need to turn every liberal city and township into a punching bag to lash out at the base? Where are you on this?

      Why isn't Hillary saying that the DLC can make its point without bashing people like me. I'm a good Democrat. I vote in the primaries. I volunteer in the primaries. I vote in the general. I volunteer in the general. I care about our democracy. I'm liberal. Hell, I'm very liberal! Why does that make me a bad person and where the hell does the DLC get off thinking it can diss me like they have been?

      There are about 4 or 5 million people who volunteer for Democratic candidates or the Democratic party every election cycle. We are good people. We're liberal. We're activists. We're passionate. We're outspoken. We're your base. We spend hour upon hour making phone calls, we canvass in the rain and snow, we hold voter registration drives year round, we are at every Democratic rally, we are active in our local party organizations and we give to the party what little money they have. You don't have to call us names while we're doing all this is all I'm saying. Ya know?

      "When the Nationals took over the NL East lead in early June, Frank Robinson should have declared: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

      by crazymoloch on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:01:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The DLC message: (4.00)
        The Left has it all wrong...
        I'm a lot like the Right, so you should like me too!

        What a disastrous recipe this has proven to be.

        Did witness a single Republican dissing the Radical Right? Or sucking up to the other side?

        When will we ever learn??

        If a Dem wants to be "good friends" with that hate-mongering liar, Sean Hannity, well, he deserves a primary. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DumpJoe/

        by DeanFan84 on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:08:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  To add (none)
          When it's time to nominate a 2008 Presidential candidate, the DLC backed one might win, but, once again, we will lose against the Republicans.  I don't know if a Progressive can win either.  But it's my belief that the DLC does nothing to further the party, to grow the party, to define the party.  It maintains the stagnent status quo.  

          If this thread is any example, we are still a party that is divided.  One side still using the, "let's be reasonable argument" (while taking potshots at the other)" and one side saying, "we need to have a spine and stand up for our convictions".

          I am not in favor of forming a new party, but despite my resistance to this concept, if this keeps up that there is a strong possibility that that is where this is headed.  The DLC is the problem, not the solution and they should stop fighting with progressives.  They give me the distince impression that, to them, it's all about maintaining control and power.  If the DLC democrats had accomplished anything and had kept Bush in check, I might not have ever become a Dean Democrat.  Instead, I see them as being all about insider politics and being nothing about the people of this nation nor the state of it.

      •  Maybe it is because most of us (none)
        have never been anywhere near Berkley!  60 percent of us aren't as old as Todd Gitland, and 20 percent of us are older.
        •  The only Kossack I know from Berkley is Paul (none)
          and he is a conspicuous neocon Dem, and I suspect he claims to be from Berkley because he wants to stereotype Dems as from Berkley. Costie for Truth the official DU pet neocon always rants about Berkley as well.  If I am not from their nor do I know anything about it, I just consider it hippy stereotyping bile.
    •  PWTrue, I couldn't disagree more. (3.80)
       Actually the rank and file "moderates" are much further left than people like you realize. What has been done so successfully by the right is the characterization of positions that are endorsed by the majority of all Americans, as far left. For instance most Americans favor the following, 1. Greater access to union membership to all workers 2. A substantial increase in the minimum wage 3. Joining in the Kyoto treaty 4. NOT abolishing the estate tax, and on and on. The problem is while they do agree with the Democrats traditional core values, they quite correctly view us as having become a party of panderers with our fingers always testing the wind, and while not agreeing with the Republicans in the particulars, they do respect them for what they see as being willing to adhere to principle. Sadly, they seem to have a point.

      "Quoting: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another..." Robert Benchley

      by greeseyparrot on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:20:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Haha (3.85)
      Americans are moderate.

      Haha.  That is really really funny.  Americans are moderate and Americans vote moderate are not the same things.  If this "moderate" bullshit had ANY weight at all, please explain why they just voted to elect the most extremist president in the last century.  Please explain how the extreme right wing is in control of Congress.  Why did Barbara Boxer win re-election by a whopping 20 point margin while the "moderate" Tom Daschle lost?  Moderate my ass.

      The truth is, swing voters swing towards strength, not their positions.  What Americans want to know more than anything is that a public servant will make decisions from his or her conscience and convictions, not put their finger up in the air every time an important issue comes up.  It's less important if one agrees with the particular positions; it is far more important that one can prove or show themselves as a person of conviction rather than convenience.  "Moderate" too often means having to find a position in the "middle" of  the political line rather than really examining what you believe.  Finding "common ground" is too often confused with finding "middle ground."

      The only way Democrats will win is if they start standing for something again, and are never ashamed of being Democrats.  That is why Barbara Boxer was the third highest vote-getter in the country in 2004, and amassed nearly 200,000 more votes than John Kerry got in California.  We need to tell Americans what we stand for: freedom, equality, fairness, family, justice, the rule of law, and responsibility.  People will vote for you if you show them you understand where they are coming from, don't treat them like kids, and state your values and principles even if you disagree.  It's a myth that people vote their positions.  If they did, Democrats would be controlling everything.  People vote their values, their identities, and in swing cases, for the person they believe is the strongest in their convictions.  We need to articulate our progressive principles, stop shying away from taking a stand, and people will vote for us.  We do not need to move to the right.  We need to have some courage, a spine.  What the DLC is telling us is we have to dump our principles in order to win elections.  Yeah, we tried that for a while.  Guess what?  IT DOES NOT WORK.

      DLC stands for moving the party to the right.  DLC stands for undermining the progressive movement.  Progressives do NOT share any values with the DLC.  The DLC believes in blind support of wars, we believe that patriotism is the courage to speak up against injustice.  The DLC believes that social progress can wait, we believe that there is no bad time for standing up for Americans' rights.  The DLC believes in "triangulation", we stand for a clarity of vision.  The DLC believes the party ought to be controled from top down like a corporation, we believe the party ought to be built from the down up, like a democracy.

      The DLC is a parasite to the Democratic party.

    •  I don't see the need to troll rate this comment (4.00)
      but I would like to respond.

      Kos is NOT a whiny schoolkid.  He speaks for the grassroots of this nation who is sick and tired of eight years of lies.

      The DLC wants to stay and win in Iraq.  OK.  How will they go about doing that?  Show me the plan.  I don't think there is a viable plan.  So why perpetuate a quagmire?  I've yet to be convinced.

         - The military is behind on its recruitment quotas, yet folks like Hillary tell us we need more boots on the ground.  Do they propose a draft?

         - What is the DLC doing about exposing the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and Afghanistan?  If they can't stand for basic human rights for people in our custody then, what principles have we in common?

         - Where is the DLC on homeland security?  I don't want platitudes.  I want an action plan.

         - And how is the DLC working to energize the base and expand this party?  Can I get someone on the phone if I want to volunteer?  Will they be organizing Dem groups on college campuses?  Will they be organizing groups of retirees?  Are they working with miliary families? And I don't mean asking me for money!

      Just imagine, for a minute, an e-mail invitation to the "we want your money" list to a free get together where folks could discuss opportunities to DO SOMETHING.

      Hillary is right about one thing.  We need boots on the ground--RIGHT HERE IN THE USA.  In Alabama, in Mississippi, in Louisiana, in Texas...

      I'm beginning to sound like Howard Dean.

      If she wants to be President (and I'm not completely convinced of that) she needs to earn it.  This is not a coronation.  And if the DLC wants to win back Congress, they better damn well get some boots on the ground.

      You don't do that by propping up and appeasing the horrible ideas of this President.  You do that by demonstrating a difference.

    •  You sound (none)
      like one of those spineless Democrats we all bemoan.   They are happy to take money from Liberals and then distance yourself and tell the world how we suck!  You and the DLC are devoid of real values, and the DLC is nothing but a group of corporate whores.  Many of us are so sick and tired of the lying, cheating, and stealing that we really don't care if the whores are Republican or Democrat or a Clinton!  Enough is enough.  Clinton screwed this country over with NAFTA.  He knew it would take away jobs, but he wanted the deal!  DLC won't get my money or my vote.
    •  Glad to see someone with good sense. (none)
      This crew has gotten a bad case of "Groupthink" going.

      The Democrats need unity more than purity. It is the purists who are destroying the Democrats from within - and from without as the Nadarites proved in 2000 and 2004.

      Recovering Perfectionist IWDWIC (I Will Do What I Can) - Politics Plus Stuff

      by Rick B on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 06:31:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nader was right (none)
        In 2000 and in 2004.  The Democrats went along with Kerry, setting aside their differences in the interest of unity.  The "Anybody but Bush" mindset prevailed and the Democratic base - labor, liberals, women, environmentalists--took a holiday.

        "They allowed Kerry to adopt ambiguous wishy-washy positions and they deprived him of the key to victory, which is bright lines," says Nader.

  •  WELL SAID! (none)

    Which minority group would Jesus hate?

    by NorCalJim on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:14:47 PM PDT

  •  Well, we have to find unity of some kind... (4.00)
    But I'll be damned if I'll vote for a Lieberman type, and even Clinton seems like a Republican Manchurian candidate to me now.

    I mean, Clinton called for fucking' school uniforms, for Christ's sake, and actually defended "W", and Clinton didn't do much for the Democratic Party in Congress---he lost his fucking majority in 1994 for God's sake.

    I say screw the DLC--they're just Democratic conservatives, and they got us nowhereseville!!!

    •  oh.... (2.60)
      .... shove it up your ass! A Democratic president tries to do something truly liberal by attempting to create universal healthcare and allow gays to serve openly in the military, get crushed for it pushing a liberal agenda and you hate him for that?

      Are you sure you don't want the DLC running things?

      "When the Nationals took over the NL East lead in early June, Frank Robinson should have declared: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

      by crazymoloch on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:45:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You forgot the part (4.00)
        where he royally screwed up all that and more, and then blamed his own incompetency on the same people that got him into the White House in the first place.

        Clinton was a real mixed bag: in some ways he freed the party of baggage, and brought in some much-needed fresh air...but at the same time he actively worked to undermine some of its core principles, and he was always willing to sacrifice the party and his staffers for his own personal gain.

        •  That's a great point (none)
          It's all encompassed in that Harris book "the Survivor", which backs up your point 100%.

          But it has to be asked----In the field of running 08 candidates, why does the DLC and their ilk dominate the field as of now?

          I don't know.

        •  Still, I'd turn back the hands on the clock (4.00)
          if I could.

          The trouble is, we're not talking about welfare reform (considering that welfare was already in pretty bad shape) and we're not talking about a failed universal health care plan (which kept us at the status quo.)

          We're now talking about eight years which in every way imaginable has taken us back to the Nixon Administration in terms of quality of life:

           - working wages are stagnant
           - cost of living is increasing
           - record high deficits
           - an unpopular, unwinnable, immoral war
           - a completely decimated intelligence network

          The next President has to fix this mess.

    •  Clinton didn't lose the majority in 1994 (none)
      The Democrats lost the majority in 1994. Not Bill Clinton.

      Bill wasn't elected President in 1992 by the Democrats. He was elected in spite of being a Democrat.

      In 1992 Bill was elected through a combination of his own political genius and the interference of an intelligent, non-political man with his own personal resources to run a campaign (Ross Perot) who was able to throw the election to Bill Clinton. You didn't elect Bill Clinton President. The Democrats didn't elect Bill Clinton President. Bill Clinton positioned himself to be elected President and then got very lucky.

      Clinton didn't lose Congress in 1994. The Democrats were complacent and corrupt, and the conervative Republicans were lean, hungry and well-organized.  The Democrats lost Congress in 1994, and have not yet become fully aware that they are NO LONGER THE DOMINANT PARTY. Thus we still have Biden and Liberman playing games as individuals like what they do matters.

      It wasn't Clinton who lost Health Care in 1993. It was the Democrats. After that, he did the best he could working with the majority in Congress. Those were Republicans and Democrats like Zell Miller. You don't like triangulation? Only a political genius of the level of Clinton or Rove could have made that work. Clinton was winning against the majority. He was a DLC person and needed the DLC to make it work.

      The Democrats didn't reelect Clinton, either. He know how to use the incumbancy. Just as Rove and Bush did in 2004.

      The DLC and triangulation are no longer workable. Whatever will replace them has not yet surfaced and proven itself. But when it does, and it will because the Republicans are simply incompetent at governing - they aren't even very good at political graft - it won't be because people like you blame the DLC for your own damned failures in politics.

      Al Gore didn't lose in 2000. The Democratic Party did. He was just the standard bearer. The Repubilican Party could have run a ham sandwich against Gore and done as well as Bush did.

      If you can't get anyone to work with you to defeat the Republicans then you are going to be crying in the political wilderness like the Nadarites do. Don't expect me to join you. I don't like "loser" attitudes.

      Hillary Clinton is right. The Democrats have to work together to save America from the incompetence and graft that is currently calling itself the Republican Party. Your "screw the DLC" attitude is not helping.

      Recovering Perfectionist IWDWIC (I Will Do What I Can) - Politics Plus Stuff

      by Rick B on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 07:24:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  That's Why I Love ya Kos! (4.00)
    Give 'em hell--we've got a country to save!

    Get up on your SoapBlox - The NEW blog framework

    by pacified on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:15:41 PM PDT

    •  Saving the country. (4.00)
      That's what its all about.  And that's why we say/do and what we say/do here.  What people are unwilling to realize is that the time we spent here/on dkos isn't done just for the sake of bitching.  We see what is wrong here and want to correct it.  Exchanging ideas and opinions is the a starting point.  Also ignored is the fact that we are willing to spend our time contacting our elected officials and write (here, on other blogs) LTE's to get our point across.  That's all a part of it.

      I remember a year or so ago, there was some really asinine law enacted in MI--can't remeber which one off the top of my head.  I contacted all of my elected officials (even called the governor's office) and wrote an LTE w/my opinion.  Shortly after, the law in question was changed.  I like to think that what I did made a difference, just by writing and calling.  

      What I am trying to say is that the little things have a tendency to add up.  And, if the DLC is going to call themselves centrist and play to the moderate/fed-up republican vote, I have serious doubts as to whether or not the party can survive.

      With that in mind, what the hell is wrong with calling someone who is attempting to represent us on his/her views when his/her views appear to be in obvious conflict with ours?  Not a damn thing, IMO.

      To me, that is saving the country and the Democratic party at the same time.  In other words, the DLC is the one w/the attitude problem, not us.  So the DLC should be working on remedying that, as opposed to picking fights.

      "Free speech is not to be regulated like diseased cattle and impure butter." William O. Douglas.

      by Street Kid on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:15:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree! (4.00)
        I resent being portrayed as a keyboard tapping whiner.  Kossacks do much more than sit at our computers and type diaries and responses all day (although it seems as though we live on this site...)

          1. We have jobs.  We work and live in the real world, not the world of think tanks, round tables, and policy discussions.  Many of us are civil servants.  Some of us are federal civil servants who have a vested interest in who our next President might be.

          2. We have families and hopes and dreams for those families.  

          3. We are active in the community. I'm on the board of some non-profit neighborhood groups.  Others are working on campaigns, running for office, GOTV, working the polls, etc...  I will volunteer once local campaigns get fully underway.

          4. We seek to hold our representatives accountable.  We want to know where they stand on issues.  We want to hear their ideas.  We want to know how they will vote.  

          5. We constantly find ways to get our message out about the war, about the economy, about families, about education, about health care, about crime, about civil rights.  We write letters to the editor, support progressive media, call our representatives, hold neighborhood discussion groups, and protest.

        It would be nice to be able to stop dodging the brickbats thrown by the DLC and to start being engaged in a constructive dialogue.

  •  a-fucking-men (4.00)
    As I just posted on Alice Marshall's (no relation to Will presumably) related diary, it would be great if we demand Hillary, Bayh, Vilsack, etc. be called to account to condemn Marshall's piece as an unwarranted attack on the base of the party, or kiss their shot at the nomination in '08 bye-bye.

    They are either with us or against us, ha ha.

  •  Amen, (4.00)
    and when I say amen, I mean amen, kos, not amen, Hillary.  

    Calling for a cease-fire with the DLC is basically calling for a cease-fire with the Republicans, isn't it?  What's the difference?  We saw the logical extension of the DLC's strategies and beliefs at the Republican National Convention last summer, when Zell Miller spoke.  Is that what she wants?

    And "fundamental values"?  By that I'm taking it that she means the fundamental values of the DLC, which the rest of us are just supposed to sign on to.  The only answer possible is hell, no.

  •  Hillary and the "vital center" (4.00)
    I think in some ways Dean's flameout gave the netroots a black eye (our influence is even less influential than it appears), and Hillary knows that the DLC may line up behind someone else without worrying about any weakening that may result.  She doesn't need to appeal to us, because she doesn't believe we have the power to significantly affect who gets the nomination.

    It's up to us to prove her wrong.

  •  interesting (none)
    unfortunately the text above doesn't seem to be calling for sending our soldiers to die in a war based on lies.

    taking it at face value it seems to also reflect dean's view that it would be a monumental tragedy if we don't stay and finish the job.  "determined to succeed" is not the words dean would use.  but the end result is the same.

    even if i don't agree, there's nothing radically hateful about the text above.  no insults are flung at fellow democrats.   nor do i see an ultimatum there.  nothing "my way or the highway" about it.  just a perspective you don't agree with.

    •  Here's something Digby quoted (4.00)
      that could qualify.

      "...the revelation that some U.S. troops aren't saints should not come as too great a shock, at least to grownups. By dwelling obsessively on U.S. misdeeds while ignoring the far more heinous crimes of what is quite possibly the most barbaric insurgency in modern times, anti-war critics betray an anti-American bias that undercuts their credibility.
      "

      To which Digby responds

      Let's just say I'm a big believer in supporting the troops --- troops like Spc. Joseph Darby, for instance, who had the courage and patriotism to stand up and say something when his fellow troopers were committing reprehensible acts --- or the FBI agents who complained on the record about what they saw at Guantanamo. I will never excuse the United States using torture or abuse or holding prisoners indefinitely without due process. Never. No matter what the "barbaric insurgency" does in Iraq. And I am more than willing to throw down the gauntlet on this and say that anyone who soft peddles those things is the worst kind of anti-American there is. We're not going to find common ground on this subject. If that kicks me out of the big tent so be it. I'm not signing on to that shit, ever.

      I read that passage from digby and remembered why that man has me saying "damn f'in straight" more than any other blogger out there.

      •  And (4.00)
        I wanted that graf to stand alone without much comment from me.

        I'm a big proponent of party unity. If I could find a way to bridge the gap I would be all over it. Half the shit I see directed at moderates here pisses me off as much as what Marshall said. I'm more to the center than 90% of the people on this site. But there are certain things I will not give up and my soul is the biggest one.

        That's what he's asking of us here. He wants me to say that fucking little Iraqi boys in the ass is A/OK with me because some animal is blowing them up in Iraq. Well FUCK THAT. Maybe this asshole should try and make Americans see that that shit is going on and then ask them if I am anti American for saying no or he is for saying whatever it is that makes Ruch Limbaugh happy.

        I'll argue policy happily. But this is a line that I will not cross. And he is an asshole for even proposing that I do.

      •  i don't see anything there (none)
        i disagree with.

        that is unless there's something there that inspires dems to tell other dems to go fuck themselves.

        if there is, i don't see it.

        •  Then I guess (none)
          you don't mind being accused of having an "anti American bias."
          •  i don't feel accused of that (none)
            if someone told me i was anti-american i would mind.

            so far, as far as i can tell, no one has.

            •  You mean other than (4.00)
              where he specifically says "anti-war critics betray an anti-American bias that undercuts their credibility."

              Or

              Such antics give Democrats an opportunity to expose what lies beneath the fulsome facade of GOP patriotism -- an atavistic nationalism in which the ruling passion is the will to power, not love of country. The right answer to GOP jingoism, however, cannot be left-wing anti-Americanism.

              There are plenty of things I can agree with Marshall on. But this shit is over the line and if he were to say it to my face I'd show him being against this war does not make me a pasifist.

              •  first kind of annoys me (none)
                except to say i think there is anti american way of expressing one's love of america.  it annoys me cause he doesn't make a real distinction there.  but i haven't read the whole thing.

                but the second i kind of agree with it.

                the left wing does not fully understand patriotism as a motivator in politics.  that there's great strides to me made in pointing out the false patriotism of the GOP and, the response then cannot be a vision of america being bad.  it has to be a vision of america being good.

                i do suspect if i made this same point in a completely different context, that if given a choice between loving one's country and being reality based, a great many americans would choose to love one's country.  if i made the point that we misunderstand that impulse and have lost the ability to utililize patriotism politically, i get the sense if i made that point OUTSIDE of the DLC/netroots fray, i'd get lots of 4s.

                but marshall makes those kinds of points and it's a huge insult.  in the context of the fray, he's telling us to go fuck ourselves.

                •  Ok (none)
                  the left wing does not fully understand patriotism as a motivator in politics.  that there's great strides to me made in pointing out the false patriotism of the GOP and, the response then cannot be a vision of america being bad.  it has to be a vision of america being good.

                  99% of the time that we criticize torture and such it is in the context that we are better than this. That is a love for country and patriotism better than the GOP will ever have.

                  i do suspect if i made this same point in a completely different context, that if given a choice between loving one's country and being reality based, a great many americans would choose to love one's country.

                  As the country has woken up to the many things that have gone wrong in their name they have understood that we can do better. That is why Bush, WOT and Iraq poll numbers have been tanking. If the word ever gets out that we are raping and murdering prisoners then they will be irate. And rightfully so. If they love this country then they will demand accountability.

                  If they don't then I want nothing to do with them.

                •  Democrats (none)
                  Yeah, that whole winning World War II, putting a man on the moon, and giving voting rights to all Americans really misses the point of patriotism. All that crazy legislation the Democrats keep proposing about giving health benefits to Guard and Reservist is wrong and unpatriotic. Better to send them to die for lies - now that's patriotic...or is it idiotic?

                  'Just World News' by Helena Cobban, it's like Juan Cole with comments

                  by joejoejoe on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 01:09:32 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  but do we do those things (none)
                    cause we love america or because it makes sense to do them?

                    both.  right?

                    and it strikes me that the big stuff there is in the past.  not that it isn't important, but nobody's saying dems never understood the patriotic impulse in politics, they did during ww2, civil rights, and space race, just that some point between the 60s and 90s we grew to distrust the patriotic impulse in politics, and therefore no longer understand it, or more typically understand it only as the rationalization for something evil.

            •  I need to get something straight (none)
              here. Are you agreeing that those of us who are saying that we will not accept torture are anti American?
      •  Have to quote Jefferson here (none)
        "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."  

        Bumpersticker on my car says that and I think someone else here uses it in their sig.

        "Free speech is not to be regulated like diseased cattle and impure butter." William O. Douglas.

        by Street Kid on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:19:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'm with Kos (2.61)
    Fuck em.

    Don't need em. Don't want em. Hillary, Biden, Bayh, Vilsack, Warner... irrelevent... losers.

    Not worth talking about...

    Hillary is not the future of the party. I won't vote for her and there are plenty of Progressives who feel the same way.

    Unless Hillary threatens Wes Clarks' family... that bitch ain't going anywhere.

    It's a shame. But they did it to themselves.

    "...an admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!"

    King Lear

    by Norwell on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:18:51 PM PDT

    •  Excuse me, (3.77)
      But please do not refer to Hillary Rodham Clinton as a "bitch." Considering the monumental effort Republicans have made to sow that image into America's head, not to mention being offensive to women in general, I thought it was really innapropriate.

      Make History. Hillary 2008.

      by PWTrue on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:21:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I know we're dissing your idol (1.33)
        But fuck her, I just don't care.

        She's a DINO.

        What's her redeeming qualities? Her gender? Anything else?

        Hillary is a bitch. Lieberman is a bitch. Biden is a bitch. And a spade is a motherfucking spade.

        In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. -Thomas Jefferson

        by jabbausaf on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:27:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Read her book, (1.14)
          instead of parroting GOP talking points about her, bitch.

          Make History. Hillary 2008.

          by PWTrue on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:35:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Any damn Republicrat who infiltrates our party (1.00)
            and sides with the DLC is a bitch so get fucking over it.
            •  She helped BUILD our party... (none)
              And I am still waiting for votes that show her "siding with the GOP." You are a maniac.

              Make History. Hillary 2008.

              by PWTrue on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:18:32 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If Kerry had voted against Invasion... (4.00)
                2004 wouldn't have been close.

                Biggest reason for JFK's pro-Vote? The DLC influence. "We need to be more like them, and less like Michael Moore and Move-On."

                Too bad it didn't work.

                If a Dem wants to be "good friends" with that hate-mongering liar, Sean Hannity, well, he deserves a primary. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DumpJoe/

                by DeanFan84 on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:22:27 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Overblown (4.00)
                  The DLC isn't omnipotent. The reason so many voted for the war is because they were lied to incessantly. Nobody seems to remember the part where Cheney and his admin kept telling the Senate that they had super secret info that would make them look bad if they voted against.

                  I wish we'd stop fighting this battle. There are far better places to use our ammo against the admin than our own people.

                •  Re: If Kerry had voted against Invasion... (none)
                  Too bad it didn't work.

                  Excuse me, but it came damn close to working -- within 40,000 votes, to be exact.  That's a lot closer than in the 2002 midterms, when the face of the party was largely anti-war.

                  It is likely with a more attractive candidate personality-wise, one who was more Clinton than Dukakis, we would have won.  In 1992, 1996, and 1998, when we ran on true third way platforms, we won brilliantly.

                  Conversely, with Howard Dean, we would have had our clocks cleaned.  And on some days, I do, in retrospect, wish we had nominated Dean and had our clocks cleaned, so as to put to rest these silly arguments about "oh, if only we stood for something (i.e., Bezerkeley values) we'd win!"

                  •  not named (none)
                    remember the media worked for Kerry, against Dean and for the war. We want our democracy back and a free press. If we had a fair voting system and a free press, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Dean would be our president and we wouldn't have a traitor sitting next door to the so called prez in the W.H.
              •  How exactly has HRC built the party? n/t (3.50)
              •  Destroyed our party! (none)
                Our loss of the House was a direct result of Clinton and his damn triangulation, yeah it worked, just long enough to get him elected, then his welfare "reform", NAFTA etc.(see my reply to you above for more examples) ended up costing us for almost an effing decade now.

                "Quoting: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another..." Robert Benchley

                by greeseyparrot on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:34:40 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Bill Clinton destroyed our party? (none)
                  Do you really mean that?

                  Don't look now! I'm just a friendly reminder.

                  by babbitt on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:54:54 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I suppose not (none)
                    The Hyperbole of "She helped build our party" set me off. My apologies, I sincerely think that they have caused real damage however. Please see my comment above: "PWTrue, I couldn't disagree more."

                    "Quoting: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another..." Robert Benchley

                    by greeseyparrot on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 01:08:30 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  This is always hard to understand for me (4.00)
                    Bill Clinton served 2 terms, and yet he gets villied by some for all of the Democratic Party's problems.

                    Ronald Reagan served 2 terms, and he is revered by Republicans FOR EVERYTHING.  He can't do anything wrong.

                    And our guy had a far better presidency overall, in my view.

                    Where is the love, at least a little?

              •  Build it into What? A BIG LOSER? great (none)
                Clinoinista is not a highly regarded term around these parts.
          •  How about I look at her voting record? (none)
            Patriot Act: Voted YES
            Homeland Security Act of 2002: Voted YES
            Use of Military Force against Iraq: Voted YES
            No Child Left Behind Act: Voted YES

            Her record is all I need to read. Her voting actions speak louder then words.

            Oh, and she consistently has refused to provide Porject VoteSmart with a clear and concise list of her views. Why? Because she's a slimbag politician who doesn't want to have to take a clear stand on anything.

            She's also not proud of being a liberal.

            Ever since she won election to the Senate in 2000, Clinton has been striving to establish her moderate or centrist credentials. It's an apparent effort to overcome her reputation as an orthodox liberal. Like everyone else at the meeting of party centrists, Clinton is keenly aware that the only two Democrats to win the presidency in the last 35 years have been moderate Southerners - one of them her husband, Bill Clinton, and the other a former governor of Georgia, Jimmy Carter.

            She's ashamed of liberalism.

            She referred to faith in God, shared values and a desire to "protect our children from the excesses of the popular culture."

            Censorship.

            Such emphasis on values more often associated with political conservatives than liberals isn't new for Clinton.

            Family Values is the watchword of the Right.

            A member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, she backed the war in     Iraq and has refused to push for early withdrawal

            Stay in it till we're all dead.

            Her efforts to find middle ground have accelerated since liberal Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts was defeated in last year's presidential election.

            "To beat them... we must become them!" Talk about the pigs turning into the men and the men turning into the pigs.

            Recently she even has been partnering with former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich - who fought her husband on virtually everything - on proposals to use technology to save money in health care.

            Guess I must have missed the "Newt Gingrich is actually a great guy!" memo.

            She's a Republican with a D next to her name, and I'd be happy to say the same thing about any guy in the same position.

            In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. -Thomas Jefferson

            by jabbausaf on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 01:07:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What's wrong with all of you (none)
              Most of you are all mis reading this.  Since when is uniting the conservative and liberal party of the party a bad thing you all need to remember that we're all DEMOCRATS.  If we all unite on our fundamental values such as right to chose, enviroment, and health care for all and stop fighting on which way the party needs to move maybe we'll stop lossing elections.  So what if she voted for some republican things if you remember right a lot of Democrats voted for all of those bills bc we didn't know the republicans would fuck them up like no child left behind.  Why is having a big tent party a bad thing Hillary's been on the liberals side forever now she's moving to the right a little to become more of a moderate like her husband and to become president.  Let's face it folks she's going to win the nomination and the presidency and there's no one who can stop her ( except McCain) and if we all can unite and draw more people into are party she'll become president.  So you all better learn to deal with it bc if things keep going the way they are now you will all have to deal with her for at least 4 years hopefully 8.  

              P.S.- PWTrue u go we need more Democrats like you.

              •  What do you call a conservative Democrat? (none)
                ...a Republican.

                I'm sure many Democrats voted for the Patriot Act. I don't trust any of them either.

                If it comes down to a race between her and McCain, I'm not going to be voting, because to me that's a mediocre/mediocre situation, where I don't really give a shit who wins or loses.

                In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. -Thomas Jefferson

                by jabbausaf on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 08:38:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Explain this to me (none)
                   Ok I'm about as far left as they come but again why can't we be a big tent party.  Does it realy mater that our party is about 50/50 between liberal and conservative.  As long as we can unite for now on our core values then what does it matter if your a conservative or a liberal Democrat.  Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the most important thing winning the whitehouse and congress and as long as were united and all the liberal and conservative democrats are voting to do that there's nothing wrong with being a conservative democrat.  When we accomplish those things then we can fight about which way the party needs to move as long as we are united and have the power WHO CARES?
                •  One last thing (none)
                   Why wouldn't you vote?  Whether you like Hillary or not she's by far better than having any republican in the White House right?  I'm probably going to wish I never said this here but I deaply respect McCain.  He's the only republican that I've ever liked and he shouldn't realy call himself a republican either he should be a independent.  But I'd like to know whats wrong with him.  If you think about it who else on the republican side is more willing to work with us democrats and is always making fun of his party saying the republicans need to grow up.  He's a strong ally to have and if Kerry had him as VP then regardless of what the republicans did Kerry would be President.
        •  I agree with PWTrue (4.00)
          There is no need to call Hillary a bitch
        •  I can't decide who I want to punch more,... (none)
          .... toolbags like you and Norwell or PWTrue who seems content with the DLC bashing the base.

          Her redeeming quality is her gender? What the does that even mean?

          "When the Nationals took over the NL East lead in early June, Frank Robinson should have declared: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

          by crazymoloch on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:28:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What it means (none)
            It means that the main reason people support her is because she's a woman in politics. Doesn't matter what her views are, she's a woman in politics whose been smeared by the Republicans, how dare anyone question her.

            In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. -Thomas Jefferson

            by jabbausaf on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:54:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Hillary's husband plays golf... (none)
        with Bush Sr.

        Has he no shame!

        If a Dem wants to be "good friends" with that hate-mongering liar, Sean Hannity, well, he deserves a primary. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DumpJoe/

        by DeanFan84 on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:48:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Golf? (4.00)
          I'm worried about policies and direction.
          I'm neutral on the DLC overall, though I have criticisms of them with regards to slamming other Democrats.

          But Golf?  That's recreation.

          •  Do you see Republicans sucking up to (none)
            Democrats. No!. Bubba hanging out with Bush Sr. sends an awful message. It might be good for the Clintons, but it is harmful to the Party.

            If a Dem wants to be "good friends" with that hate-mongering liar, Sean Hannity, well, he deserves a primary. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DumpJoe/

            by DeanFan84 on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:05:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  They're Both Ex-Presidents... (4.00)
              Carter and Ford are friends...should we break them up?
              •  The other side is playing Hardball, (none)
                and you want to make nicey-nice?!?

                Clinton going to Kennebunkport was one hell of a mixed message. You didn't see Bush Sr., or Reagan, take a tour of Hope, Arkansas?

                No, as a matter of fact their side was doing everything they could to DESTROY our Democratic Presidency.

                W is the worst President, ever. And Bubba sends out a message that Daddy Bush, Mr. Iran-Contra, is a stand-up guy?

                Gimme a break.

                If a Dem wants to be "good friends" with that hate-mongering liar, Sean Hannity, well, he deserves a primary. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DumpJoe/

                by DeanFan84 on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:18:17 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Actually... (none)
                  Both Bushes showed up for Clinton's library opening in Arkansas. But nice try to make a stink out of an IRRELEVANT common practice among former presidents.

                  Make History. Hillary 2008.

                  by PWTrue on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:19:54 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Look, Hope is a nice little town (none)
                  and I canvassed there in the last election and had previously visited Clinton's birthplace.

                  But I don't even think Bill visits there much anymore, so why would GHWB

                  I imagine Kennebunkport has nicer golf courses and better recreation opportunities.

                •  What's wrong with being bi partisan (none)
                   So what's wrong with 2 people of the different party being friends.  How hard do you think it was for Bush Sr. to be friends with the man who cost him four more years.  To those of you who wonder why we should be nicey nicey with it's bc we are above them and shouldn't drop to their level.  By the way we have people in our party to do that for us like Howard Dean, Harry Ried, and Nancy Pelosi all people who are in charge of our party.  So what's wrong with some Democrats being friends with some republicans don't democrats come in all shapes and sizes?
                •  What's wrong with being bi partisan (none)
                   So what's wrong with 2 people of the different party being friends.  How hard do you think it was for Bush Sr. to be friends with the man who cost him four more years.  To those of you who wonder why we should be nicey nicey with it's bc we are above them and shouldn't drop to their level.  By the way we have people in our party to do that for us like Howard Dean, Harry Ried, and Nancy Pelosi all people who are in charge of our party.  So what's wrong with some Democrats being friends with some republicans don't democrats come in all shapes and sizes?
                  •  Very true! (none)
                    Personally, I'm tired of being cynical.
                    We do have to fight hard, don't get me wrong.

                    But hey, living in Texas, I happen to have a lot of Republican friends. It comes with the territory.

                    So if I'm in this boat, then what's so wrong with Clinton and Bush, Sr. being friends?

              •  CARTER (none)
                did more to destroy the family farm than any other human. Remember all the great movies? His buddies were Big Ag. We must rise above party.
      •  I call GW.... (none)
        a bitch all the time!

        I don't see why Hillary should be immune from the same label.

        *No matter where you go...there you are!*--Buckaroo Banzai

        by Manix on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:05:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  FWIW (none)
        Had dinner with 6 friends Friday -

        Myself and another guy were quite active, both in terms of $$$ and activity for DFA.  We both spent weekends out-of-state pounding the pavement, etc.  It's fair to say we're the most politically active of our group of friends (and the most left-leaning).

        A third guy is what you'd call a Rockefeller Republican - voted Kerry (or so he says) in '04, but generally votes Republican.

        A recently married couple - probably exactly the types that the DLC is after... moderates, supported action in Iraq, with some reservations, yada, yada.

        Two others - 1 girl, 1 guy - usually vote, but don't lean heavily in either direction... though the guy has a bit of neocon in him.

        The subject of politics came up -- and the best Hillary fared in "table opinion" actually came from myself and my DFA friend, both of whom said we'd probably vote for her in the general, but no way in hell would she get our primary votes.

        No one else said they'd cast a vote for her in either the primary or general -- and the most hostile towards her was actually the wife in the DLC couple.

        What I want to know - where exactly is Hillary's "base"?

        I mean - aside from my love of anything that annoys and upsets the far right, I can't think of a single policy where Hillary's the standard bearer for my views... or even close.

        She was and continues to be part of the shameful charade that was and is Iraq.

        She's wobbly on trade and labor.

        She's hardly been at the forefront of any PATRIOT Act/Civil liberty issues (of course - virtually no one except Russ Feingold can say they have been).

        She's no Gore on the environment.

        I can't speak with any degree of certainty on her education agenda....

        But in the grand scheme - I'd grade her with an "F", a "D", a "D", a "C", and an incomplete on the 5 issues I care most about.

        Someone tell me why she deserves my support?  

        I'm sorry - but I've had quite enough of "most electable" or "less of 2 evils".

    •  um yes we do (4.00)
      Evan Bayh, a beloved Democrat in a state where no other Democrat would ever be a senator. Mark Warner, wildly popular Democrat in a conservative state. Where you see losers I see valuable Red-State democrats that this party needs if it EVER wants to be in the majority again. You kick out Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, Tom Vilsack, Ben Nelson, Landrieu, Pryor etc and then see if Dems ever regain the majority in this country. I don't know if I want Evan Bayh to be my president, but I sure as hell want him as a Democratic senator.

      You'd better do as you are told-You'd better listen to your radio

      by AnnArborBlue on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:22:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Excellent Point (4.00)
        Unfortunately, many angry Democrats don't realize that.
      •  Get them off the Corporate teat, then please! (none)
        BAYH: http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_give/2003_S8IN00049

        WARNER: http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_give/2001_S8VA00107

        NELSON: http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_give/2005_S6NE00095

        LANDRIEU: http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_give/2001_S6LA00227

        Me, I want all these folks as Senators. But I want them renting rank and file Dems, and not Corporate America. It is that simple.

        If a Dem wants to be "good friends" with that hate-mongering liar, Sean Hannity, well, he deserves a primary. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DumpJoe/

        by DeanFan84 on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:54:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  corporate teat (none)
          people chastizing "corporate senators" doesn't bother me nearly as much as the DLC calling me anti-american, but it does bother me. I just can't summon up that level of hatred for corporations.

          You'd better do as you are told-You'd better listen to your radio

          by AnnArborBlue on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:04:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hatred? Why are the Corporations giving (4.00)
            so many Dollars?

            Look, I don't hate corporations (soul-less though they may be.) I'm just not so stupid as to fail to recognize that the reason they pour so much money into the political system is to get their way. And very often that doesn't correspond with the People's interest.

            What I hate are elected representatives who sell us out to Big Business. These type of politicians should have a good home in the Republican Party. But our brand should be clean of them.

            If a Dem wants to be "good friends" with that hate-mongering liar, Sean Hannity, well, he deserves a primary. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DumpJoe/

            by DeanFan84 on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:13:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think a big part of it (none)
              is that I'm a political science student, and everything I've read and studied says that buying votes simply doesn't work. Giving money to a candidate doesn't correlate to a greater support for that corporation's issues. And hell, Republicans sure as hell are going to be taking money from corporations, I don't really like the idea of being left behind.

              You'd better do as you are told-You'd better listen to your radio

              by AnnArborBlue on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:17:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You'll make a great DLC'er then.... (4.00)
                The money that changes hand is a thank you, a compliment, a social obligation?

                Is that how the game is played?

                If a Dem wants to be "good friends" with that hate-mongering liar, Sean Hannity, well, he deserves a primary. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DumpJoe/

                by DeanFan84 on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:20:16 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  My only point (none)
                  was that Corporate Dems or not, they're Dems. And the people that would replace them would be incredibly not. They're necessary for a Democratic party that wants to be in the majority of this country. And I don't think it's productive to attack Joe Biden any more than it's productive for the DLC to attack Howard Dean or Michael Moore.

                  You'd better do as you are told-You'd better listen to your radio

                  by AnnArborBlue on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:25:04 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Where's the logic in your reasoning? (3.00)
                    If Joe Biden votes Republican on all the important issues, then he's a Democrat IN NAME ONLY!

                    What's the fucking point in having a majority of Dems if the REALITY is that the Republicans still have the majority of VOTES?

                    It's stupidity to think like that.

                    •  yes (4.00)
                      you're soooooooo right. Because having a Democratic majority leader wouldn't affect what came to the floor for a vote. Because having Democratic committee chairs wouldn't affect what bills came out of committee. Being in the majority conveys all sorts of powers that have nothing to do with the actual vote counts on specific issues.

                      You'd better do as you are told-You'd better listen to your radio

                      by AnnArborBlue on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 01:22:03 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Not in a quid pro quo sense (none)
                At least not most of the time.  But, what corporate money does is: (1) raises the dollar amount necessary to mount a campaign, meaning that grass-roots candidates have little chance; which (2) influences the type of Democrats that can run for office: either independently wealthy or pro-corporate types.  In either case, these people are going to be pro-corporate, i.e., Republican-Lite (although the occasional sealthy maverick may be found).  So, no it doesn't directly buy votes, but it is a selecting mechanism that ensures that a coporation will get the votes it wants.  Otherwise, there'd be no point in donating the money to begin with.

                Yes, Democrats did get corporate money in the old days (pre-1994), but that's because we controlled Congress for most of the preceeding 60 years; corporations had little choice but to curry our favor.  Now, they do have a choice, and they aren't going to give it to anyone with a progressive agenda.

        •  Hey Dumbass (none)
          Before posting - check your facts jack!

          Your link to "Mark Warner" is actually John Warner - Virginias Senior Senator.

          Before you go spouting off hatred - which is exactly what you, and everyone else who are bashing the "moderates" of our party, are doing.

      •  Where's the fucking logic? (none)
        Where's the logic in supporting a Democrat for the mere fact he 'calls himself' a Democrat?  If he goes and votes for every Republican piece of legislation that comes across his plate, if he sides against everything that being a Democrat stands for, if he doesn't do jack shit to fight the Republicans tooth and nail as they turn our country into a totalitarian state, THEN WHAT'S THE FUCKING LOGIC in being happy we outnumber the Republicans in the Senate?

        A Democrat who votes Republican is a Fucking Republican for all intents and purposes.  Where's the fucking logic here?

        •  the "fucking logic" as you call it (4.00)
          is simple. You don't like Evan Bayh? You don't like Mary Landrieu? You don't like Mark Pryor or Ben Nelson? How do you feel about Vitter, Coburn, Inhofe, Sessions? In addition to voting with dems on more issues than you give them credit for, cutting into the Republican majority, and being a vote for Harry Reid for Majority Leader, every one of those moderate dems or "republicrats" or whatever you want to call them is keeping a batshit crazy republican out of that seat. THink how much worse the senate would be with 5 more James Inhofes.

          You'd better do as you are told-You'd better listen to your radio

          by AnnArborBlue on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:19:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sounds very logical to me (none)
          •  A batshit crazy Republican? (none)
            Who cares if the DLC Dem votes to reauthorize the Patriot Act or a "batshit crazy Republican" votes to reauthorize the Patriot Act?

            It's not about having more DEMS in Congress, it's about having more VOTES.  So electing Dems that are going to vote with Republicans is, by definition, BATSHIT CRAZY!!!!

            •  you're not interested in debate (4.00)
              you're interested in shouting and proving how ideologically pure you are. You're not even reading what I'm saying, you're just trying stuff and capitalizing some words. I've responded to you more than once on the powers that being in the majority convey, but you never respond to any of my points. You're just hear to shout about DLC dems being "republicrats".

              But one last time, do you like stem cell research? So do many of the Dems I named. James Inhofe...not so much. Do you like the right to choose? A democratic majority would never bring anti-abortion bills to the floor. it doesn't matter what the vote count is because the bills you are yelling about would never make it to the floor

              You'd better do as you are told-You'd better listen to your radio

              by AnnArborBlue on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 01:27:59 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  How did the dlc twit that Kos was nice enough to (none)
            support keep Coburn out of a seat? Then the dlc twit wrote an essay and dlc twit central's TNR stabbing dems like Kos for being out of touch.
      •  We don't have to kick anyone out... (none)
        we just don't have to give them any credit. They can go on doing what they're doing. They can stab people in the back all they want. I can't stop them. But that doesn't mean I have to help legitimize them.

        "...an admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!"

        King Lear

        by Norwell on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 01:16:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  yeppers (4.00)
      the democratic party.

      in all it's glory.

    •  And that's what they don't get (4.00)
      "Hillary is not the future of the party."  I have personal admiration for her, but she is not aligned with the future of our party.

      The public has spoken, and clearly: they want a party which stands for something clearly distinct from the GOP, a party which will define a clear vision of leadership which most people can live with, even if they do not totally agree with every facet of it.  The Clintons' triangulation model is outdated and even harmful in the context of the now extreme GOP.

      This is not about petty intra-party disputes which can be resolved with a "can't we all get along" chant while our leadership hops over to PNAC meetings and continues to advocate a war which most people don't like.  This is about seizing this moment of GOP weakness and self-destruction and presenting a clear and viable alternative to the people.  Those who are unable to assist with this endeavor, while entitled to their opinions, are not entitled to support from the grassroots and need to get out of the way while we do the work of saving this country from the immoral excesses of the GOP.

      I've made it very clear, he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was.-McClellan, 2003

      by GN1927 on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:26:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A fucking men and hallelujah! (none)
        You said it brother!  NOW is the time to FIGHT THE DLC and drive it out of our party.  Make it clear NOW, before it's time to pick our next candidate, that the DLC HAS NO ROLE in this party.
      •  Said it all. (4.00)
        "Hillary is not the future of the party."  The public has spoken and clearly; they a party which stands for something clearly distinct from the GOP, a party with a clear definition of leadership which most people can live with, even  iof they do not totally agree with every facet of it.

        W/that in mind, it is up to us to develop an alternative to the current powers that be.  An alternative that appeals to all who feel that there is no need for them to pay any attention to this world, because no who is elected, it won't make a difference.  And that does not mean supporting a possible candidate because of a past track record.  That means supporting a candidate who shows that his/her beliefs and values are in sync with liberal values by action, as opposed to merely talking.

        "Free speech is not to be regulated like diseased cattle and impure butter." William O. Douglas.

        by Street Kid on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:31:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Partisanship (none)
        The public has spoken, and clearly: they want a party which stands for something clearly distinct from the GOP...

        Of course they do; but what they save clearly said they want is the Third Way.  They want real, non-ideological solutions to problems, not endless hyper-partisan bickering.

      •  I haven't heard this before... (none)
        about DLCers consorting with PNAC, but it figures.

        That would indicate to me that DLC is in support of PNAC's national security strategy of world empire, preemptive war on any regime that threatens to build up its military beyond our comfort level, and so on.

        It would also indicate to me that the DLC are not even DINOs, but something else entirely...maybe a pro-business lobby? They certainly don't represent democratic ideals.

        Can you provide any links on the DLC/PNAC connection? Thanks.

  •  The small business party (4.00)
    More of the failed corporatist bullshit that has cost our party so dearly the last decade and a half.

    Amen. And speaking of which: You know how the Democrats regain power in Washington? With this message:

    "We are the party of the small business person."

    Healthcare. Fair trade. Communities. Clean elections. What major issue of ours cannot be put under this rubric? Even the rednecks are pissed at not having healthcare and at watching their jobs sent overseas to government subsisized markets.

    •  Got a ? (none)
      We are the party of the small business person.

      Do you think that the issue of disability rights falls under that?  

      (That is one of my big concerns and I would like to see a candidate seriously address and offer concrete solutions/implement policies that would benefit people with disabilities, as opposed to paying lip service.)

      "Free speech is not to be regulated like diseased cattle and impure butter." William O. Douglas.

      by Street Kid on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:35:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Considering how many disabled people (none)
        we're churning out everyday, due to this war, I'd say it will be a very important issue.
        •  Thanks!! (none)
          For me, disability rights is a very important issue.  (I am a traumatic brain injury survivor who is dependent on social programs.)  What bugs me is the gutting of social programs and tightening up eligibility as a means of balancing the federal and various state budget.  The gutting of the ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act) is another pet peeve.  

          W/that in mind, I would love to see a candidate that would fully understand the importance of all social service programs, not just those that would assist veterans--not every person that has a disability is a veteran.

          And some people just don't get that!

          "Free speech is not to be regulated like diseased cattle and impure butter." William O. Douglas.

          by Street Kid on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 07:14:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Fair trade (none)
      Fair trade...

      What if you happen to be a small business person who actually has to (gasp) export something?

      Are you so naive as to think that if we effectively close our borders to imports, we'll just be able to go on exporting as we please?

      •  Our Export sector (none)
        is miniscule and mainly goes to developed nations like Canada, Japan, Europe.  Admittedly, we do sent lots of scrap metal to China.

        But more to the point, why is fair trade bad - to require other nations to compete on a level playing field?  To require them to respect the right to organize and have minimum wage laws?  To have environmental and safety standards?  How are these bad things?  If anything, they will help poor societies become more middle-class and buy more American stuff.  

        That you react so violently to Fair Trade seems to indicate that you don't want free trade, you want globalized serfdom.  Hopefully, I'm wrong.

        •  Code words (none)
          That you react so violently to Fair Trade seems to indicate that you don't want free trade, you want globalized serfdom.

          It indicates that I know dog whistle politics when I hear it.  "Fair trade" means more protectionism.  That is bad for the U.S., including its workers.

  •  Fuck them. (4.00)
    I'm not in Berkeley. I'm somewhere hotter.

    People wonder why nobody wants to get behind Hillary. It's because with the DLC back there, there's no room.

    You know what I see this common party bullshit as being? It's the fucking same thing as Bush saying "Hey, all you fuckers better get in line and not question me", and it'll get the same level of respect and consideration from me.

    this level of respect and consideration involves going through obscene hand gestures from half a dozen cultures in quick succession

    Incidentally, directly because I've heard about them on dkos, I've donated money to the Global Fund For Women, the Christian Alliance for Progress, and Talk To Action. DailyKos is an incredible tool and resource for the Democratic Party to use... well, they could use it if they weren't such corporate whores.

    Some Democrats are smart enough to be friends with us, and we see a lot of them. The rest of the lot may as well change the letter next to their name to R as far as I'm concerned.

    By the way, does this seem to anybody else like throwing a snowball at someone and calling a truce before they can throw one back? And then throwing another snowball? Cause that's what it seems to me like Hillary and the DLC are doing.

    If she gets the 2008 nomination, and I will be a fighting motherfucker to keep that from happening, I will have to take a long hard look at every other candidate.

    Incidentally, if Hillary wants to know what the fundamental values of the Democrat Party are, here they are:
    Liberal

    1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
    1. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
    2. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
    n.  1: a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties [syn: progressive] [ant: conservative] 2: a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets

    There ya go. Is spelled out right there.

    In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. -Thomas Jefferson

    by jabbausaf on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:22:33 PM PDT

  •  Cease Fire Nonsense (4.00)
    We will not just shut up and do what were told because corprate sellouts like Bayh and Vilsack want to be president.  We don't want the party to become the socially liberal wing of the Republican party and will fight tooth and nail to enact economic policies that help all Americans.

    Strength and wisdom are not conflicting values--they go hand in hand. - Bill Clinton

    by skidrow on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:23:01 PM PDT

  •  Thank you Kos,! The Corporatists within.. (4.00)
    are the enemy! Either they represent We, the People,-- or they represent the country clubbers. One can't have it both ways. Since when are the Powerful on the side of working families? The DLC'ers are complicit in the attempted return of America to the 19th century. When capitalists were Royalty, and workers were sub-human.

    And what gives with Bill Clinton getting so down with Bush Sr.? Visiting Kennebunkport and what not! I call it fucking appalling. His wife won't get my vote or dollars.

    Also appalling is the fact that Lieberman's wife is "working" for Hill & Knowlton, the PR/lobbying firm. She is there "working" with Big Pharma and Insurance Cos. If anyone wants to see the PAC money that has been donated to Joe in return:

    http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_give/2005_S8CT00022

    (Abbot Labs, Aetna, AFLAC, Anteon, Assurant, Baxter, Bayer, Blue Cross, Caremark, Cigna, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Invitrogen, Johnson & Johnson, Medco, Merck, Metlife, Phoenix, Prudential, Purdue, GlaxoSmithKline, Travellers, Wellpoint, Wyeth, whew!)

    Let's don't Get Fooled Again. Please, folks, please.

    Democrats don't have to be anti-business. But they can't take Corporate dollars and pretend they belong in the party of the People. It is that easy.

    If a Dem wants to be "good friends" with that hate-mongering liar, Sean Hannity, well, he deserves a primary. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DumpJoe/

    by DeanFan84 on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:23:12 PM PDT

  •  Really? (4.00)
    "Despite Will Marshall's contentions to the contrary, we are no longer living on September 12, 2001."

    At least not until they get around to detonating a few pipe bombs in our subways.  Then it's back to square one with the hype-machine in full swing.

  •  Well (4.00)
    The DLC made a schmuck out of me.

    I urge markos to find common ground with the "vital center" and there they go again.

    Sorry Markos, I guess there's nothing to be done. Kilgore is a good guy, but his colleagues seem to have no other direction to shoot at.

    The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

    by Armando on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:24:09 PM PDT

    •  what've they done now? (none)
      i'm assuming something more horrible than what i see in this diary.
      •  The Moose' s Attack (4.00)
        is cool with you?

        So my advice to not fire at the DLC made a lot of sense after that?

        Will Marshall's clumsy insult of those who oppose the Iraq Debacle is cool?

        Well, I expected something better I must say.

        The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

        by Armando on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:32:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  is it that bit about patriotism? (none)
          i didn't see it as an insult and i am very much against the iraq debacle?

          this all just plays into the fundamental split in this party.   those who support or supported the war and those who don't.  where for me it was always between those who believed regime change had to stay open as an option, but still think the perpetrators of this war have been criminally negligent and should be impeached on those grounds alone.

          in most respects, i still think we're all on the same side.

          i do think that if i posted marshall's thoughts in a different context, they would be welcome here at dkos.  the fact is, we did underestimate the kinds of (stupid) things patriotism can make a country do.  (i know, you probably think that's spin, but i'm not caught up in the either or-ism of all this, i agreed with the face value content of the statement made by marshall above.  i think it's a fair insight.  and certainly not a popular one either.).  we do, i think, ignore patriotism as a political motivator, just in and of itself.  it seems logical to us that folks should agree with us because we are smart, logical, and reality based, if we say people should agree with us because we love our country more than repugs, it's news to me.  and yet, i think, we do love our country more than repugs.

          i know a lot of people here see his comments as a justification for this war, as it stands right now.  they're not.  what i need to see before i can join in the vilification of the DLC is folks in the DLC congratulating the bush admin on fucking up this war and turning it into the unrelenting terrorist breeding hell hole it is.  for iraqis. for all of us.

          when marshall and co. or whoever it is at the DLC start saying "i wouldn't have fought this war any other way, it's gone just perfect" then i can start condemning them along with everyone else.

          but until then, i'm still going to see a remarkable difference between them and repugs.

          what this diary thrives on is how people simply will not move fwd until folks at the DLC admit they were wrong. they want someone to pay.  i do get the sense that the only response that would NOT have been regarded as an insult is "you're right folks, we were wrong.  we're bad people.  we apologize for being bad people and now we want to beg you to let us back in the party."

          anything short of that is probably going to seen as an insult.

          so we're stuck.  cause they have as much pride as we do.  they'll never say that.

          •  No (none)
            The Moose, not Marshall, Marshall is merely idioyic and unintentionally insulting.

            The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

            by Armando on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:14:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  well i guessed i missed it then (none)
              sorry.  

              should i be worried about what moose thinks?

              •  Need to ask (4.00)
                Where are the DLC types who voted for the war and believe it is being fought badly?  Are they denouncing Bush's plans loudly?  Are they fighting to go in another direction?

                Because other than denouncing dems who disagree with the Iraq vote, they are silent.  We are enraged at their silence BECAUSE we are patriotic, because we believe our country is going in the wrong direction (understatement) totally, and we need to fight back hard against that direction.

                The DLCers only want a minor course correction, and are happy pretty much with every fricking dime Bush has spent on his wartime friends.  No matter the overspending, no matter the useless equipment.  

                We need a strong military, and supporting bush on military matters is NOT going to achieve that goal.  And by the way, where is Hillary on the Wilson matter?  Is she appearing at those hearings to take on the liars?  Does Evan Bayh want to find out who leaked the name of Wilson's wife?  

                •  Exactly! (none)
                  What happened to the L in DLC?  What have they done to FIGHT the fascism that is the right?

                  How has Tom Carper, one of the leaders of the DLC voted recently?

                  He broke party ranks to vote AYE for CAFTA.  I'll grant Hillary this, at least SHE voted no.   Blanche Lincoln, Maria Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein, Mark Pryor, Bill and Ben Nelson voted AYE.

                  That's 7 of the 9 Democrats who crossed party lines and passed CAFTA.  7 DLC'ers who stabbed the Democrats in the back!

                  Those Dems vote NAY and CAFTA doesn't pass.

                  Oh, and Lieberman was the sole No Vote.

                  Thanks DLC for the great leadership!  

    •  Kilgore is a flack (none)
      Kilgore is a nice guy, but he's a nice guy like other shills for the powerful are nice guys.

      He's a hired gun. He doesn't set the agenda, he just does his best to spin the agenda set by From and Reed.

      Rrrrrringgg... Time to change the government.

      by Carl Nyberg on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:33:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  My Hats Off To You Mando... (4.00)
      Thanks for self-correcting. The so called big tent will do nothing but drag us into the clutches of these ratbastards. A place where they'll use our efforts and our bucks to get their anointed candidates elected, and we the people get as royally shafted as if the Rs won.

      We need to fight smart. Hillary is off my list -- fuck her! So is anyone who sides with the corporations, and anyone who preaches bipartisanship. You support the war -- fuck you! You bash us anti-VN war fighters -- fuck you! You turn on those of us who fight for democratic values because we're "too radical" for America -- fuck you!

      Enough with the big tent. Hillary, Vilsack, Bayh, Lieberman, go play golf with your R buddies. You ain't getting any help from me -- you're getting flames from me. I'm a yellow dog democrat -- always will be. But I'm gonna fight a lot smarter than I have before. I'm not gonna ever leave my party -- but I'll kick the asses of any Ds who consort with the Rs, given what the Rs have done to the Republic. So be warned DLC, I'm here to stay and I'm going to fight you for my party as hard as I fighr the Rs for my country. And I'm not calling no truce, or mending fences. I'd almost rather have a Santorum in office, than a ratass DINO like Lieberman or Hillary. At least it's clear who I'm fighting.

      We haven't won shit with the DLC. All we've gotten is a string of defeats and the back of their hand -- as they make us the convenient scapegoats for their stupid campaigns.  

      Just Doing My Small Part In Pissing Off The Religious Right.

      by chuco35 on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:50:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What really pissed me off... (none)
        is the anti-Vietnam crack.  Hey, I was born in 1960.  I remember all the crap that went down.  I remember the protests and activism.

        Growing up during the Vietnam era had a tremendous influence on my beliefs and values.  So fucking what?  

        And, if those belies and values are too "liberal", the attempted appeal to patriotism that the DLC is even more crap.  Elected officials are supposed to represent us, as opposed ot whining about unification and that big tent nonsense.  Get with the program, Hillary!

        "Free speech is not to be regulated like diseased cattle and impure butter." William O. Douglas.

        by Street Kid on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:48:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thought Exercise (4.00)
    Rather than arguing w/ the DLC on points which you are correct, why not spend the time and effort trying to actually produce party unity? If we could only have such passion against Roberts and the Republicans that we have against each other.
    •  Let me tell you bruh (4.00)
      I have been trying that tack for some time.

      But the Will Marshall idiocy and the Moose's frontal attack make a fool out of me.

      My urging markos to do what you suggest makes me the fool, not markos.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:28:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  At this point (4.00)
        I have decided that the left will continue to lose, and not be able to capitalize on any conservative flubs. You are right. Which means, that reading the tea leaves, I don't see how anything can be done because everything requires us to be unified. What amazes me is that even the basic mechanics of buildin an opposition party is not there. We don't have discipline, we don't have loyalty, and we don't have a message creating a narrative. Why isn't Roberts a part of the wider narrative that an opposition party should be using for example in the case of situations like Shiavo and Rove? Because you are right about the state of the problem.
        •  I dunno (4.00)
          But if you look at the FP here, only someone unfair could say we do not spend 99% of our energies shooting in the other direction - at the GOP.

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:34:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree with that (4.00)
            My point is more about how can you on the FP achieve anything in this environment. It comes down to this- people have to want to change. We can't force it on the centrists. We can't convince the people here who are into the cult of personality approach to politics to start to look at things differently. I was trying to have this conversation over at mydd.com w/ this guy about the need for narrative- but narrative and cohesive messaging assumes we are all on the same team. I don't see how even if you are focused on the right issues, this will produce a better result if some team members are running in the other direction away from the goal post when you are running towards it.
        •  I think you've stumbled on the difference. (none)
          The DLC doesn't want and opposition party.  They want one Rightwing Party, one Moderate Party, and big muzzle for progressives.

          If we abandon our allies and their issues, who will defend us and ours?

          by Bryce in Seattle on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:15:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I will stay loyal to my ideals and beliefs... (none)
          ...and place such loyalty before that of a certain "party". That is what seperates progressives from most conservatives, whom often act against their own interests. So what if that is not fashionable. I'll wait for the party to conform to me, or switch parties. Call it political suicide. I call it a virtue. And would rather stand in a virtuous minority, than render up my soul.

          We're gonna rise from these ashes like a bird aflame...

          by August West on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:20:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  what are you arguing against in what (none)
            I said. Did I say give up your principles? figure out the context of my post from the other things I have said along the thread.
            •  Not so much a dissenting argument... (none)
              ...as a reaction to the DLC article and assertion that my stance on the war in Iraq might even contain the slightest tinge of un-American sentiment. And in doing so, questioning my intentions and asking me to "aim higher"and "match the sacrifices our troops are making" (from diary link). I find that insulting and will not compromise my beliefs for anyone, regardless of party affiliation.

              We're gonna rise from these ashes like a bird aflame...

              by August West on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:49:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  I really (none)
        really like you, Armando.
    •  good faith (4.00)
      Do you negotiate with people who aren't negotiating in good faith?

      Is the DLC negotiating in good faith?

      Rrrrrringgg... Time to change the government.

      by Carl Nyberg on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:32:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I say no (4.00)
        and I have been trying to cool the rhetoric between us.

        Feel like a fool now.

        The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

        by Armando on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:33:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Enough of flogging yourself (4.00)
          Truth is, you should have been right; the pursuit of peace amongst us should always be wise counsel.

          It's never too late to have hope for unity because you care about this party and the nation it's supposed to be serving.

          Those among the DLC crowd that used advise like yours as a cynical ploy to hang on to relevance and wrench silence from liberal Democrats are the ones that should feel like jerks. They are. And they couldn't be anything else, harboring that kind of twisted ambition.

          You merely made a mistake. It happens.

          •  Mebbe (none)
            See I think highly of Ed Kilgore.

            But the evidence is such that how can I say you are worng?

            The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

            by Armando on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:09:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Peace just isn't (4.00)
              sexy or intriguing, Armando.

              I'll give Kilgore the benefit of doubt too. Why not? But the pursuit of peaceful coexistence just doesn't jazz people the way conflict does. Kilgore may mean it. But he's apparently surrounded by people that don't. He's the odd man out.

              Every tried and true liberal in the Democratic Party today can sympathize with him. Every well-intentioned moderate can pity him his company, even. But we don't have to sacrifice our principles to prove to him that we see him struggling.

              You believed in him. You thought his pull within the DLC was worth the gamble of toning down criticism, to give him a chance to hold sway. The gamble didn't pay off. But that's not the fault of moderates, like yourself, that gave what should have been wise advise. And there's no way for any of us to know that it would or wouldn't pay off until we rolled the dice.

              Peace loses, again; I think because people haven't figured out a way to publicly own a slice of it - as a lucrative, bragging right. So, conflict it is then.

              We're right back to where we started though. We didn't lose ground with the gamble you wanted to take, none that we can't make up anyway.

              What does it matter who's right or wrong now? No harm, no foul.

              •  It's about agendas (none)
                Some people state their agenda and that's what it is.  Others state their agenda but what follows is a crapshoot.  

                As I continue reading over this, very interesting thread, I continue to have more and more insight.  How can you align with people you don't trust?

                •  Absolutely (none)
                  Last night I went to bed thinking about this very thing you mention: agenda.

                  Transparent, noble motivation, a determination to hold fast to one's motives regardless of the obstacles, those are things that create an astonishing degree of credibility. Because good people everywhere honor the effort, it takes on the power of an ocean.

                  It occurred to me how shrewd it would be to deploy that phenomenon to defeat the global plague of terrorism. I think the best contemporary example of this is a man like Jimmy Carter who, though he is a loyal American, is renowned the globe over for a fundamental decency that transcends nation - works for humanity on a global scale.

                  When a man like Carter shakes your hand on a deal, that is the deal and everyone knows the deal was made in good faith by him.

                  Just think about the power that broad recognition like that bestows on his position. You crap out on that deal with him, you take up permanent residence in Shitsville. You can't be trusted and everyone knows it.

                  Contrast that to the paper-tiger-power that Straussian idiots are so enamored of. Those fools are stuck trying to stab wildly at problems with lighting. It's just sound and fury, recycled endlessly. Their cure is as bad as the disease.

                  Sorry to get all tangential but you're absolutely correct; agenda matters. Aligning with people that have proven themselves untrustworthy undermines all of those that are fighting the good fights wisely, honorably. It's better to give the unreliable curs among us directions to their new digs in Shitsville.

      •  I don't disagree (none)
        Just wish there was a way to make a run around them to reach the moderate voter in the mainstream media
        •  have a vision and make the case (none)
          Have a vision for society that is grounded in our values, not in pursuing "moderation" as defined by society's powerbrokers and the GOP.

          Rrrrrringgg... Time to change the government.

          by Carl Nyberg on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:56:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  seriously, does the DLC deliver? (none)
          BTW, is there any evidence that the DLC agenda does connect with swing voters?

          Rrrrrringgg... Time to change the government.

          by Carl Nyberg on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:57:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  NDN (none)
          is a start. The thing that pisses me off is that right now is the perfect time to build unity. The GOP is in a major meltdown and the best thing we could do is find our own common ground.

          WTF is Marshall doing this kind of post for now. It makes no sense. Support for the war and the admin is tanking. So what does he do? He says we should start supportinmg the f'ing war. The stupid fuck hasn't come to grips with the fact that he was wrong on the first place.

          It's unfrigginbelievable. Right now moderate reps are freaking out about the direction of the party. Attack them and find common ground with the left. It's almost as if he's not on our side and is trying to make the current GOP meltdown less lethal.

    •  We do (none)
      We have more energy for tearing them apart, actually.  But we're not Stepford wives here, if we disagree, we don't swallow our discontent for the sake of unity.  Some differences are not reconcileable, and DLC mudslinging isn't going to be passively accepted by progressives, period.

      As for a positive message, see these threads:

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/12/23911/3211
      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/13/1956/07246
      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/13/124929/317

      Unfortunately, the CPC, CPA,  and every state and local Democrat organization is doing the same thing.  There are plenty of progressive and party values statements out there, it's the coherence of message we're missing. So the DLC is going to do their own version. Joy. Another party values statement, only in this case one we care even less about than usual.

      •  I am not so much interested in (none)
        party statements as learning how to create narratives. Been saying this alot- especially after a post by KO. The idea that we can't link, for example Bush's choice of a SCOTUS nominee, with his lack of trustworthiness in the form of Karl Rove, Shiavo and other issues of which the public has grown leary shows just how poltically we are out in the wilderness.
    •  You produce party unity (none)
      By making abig enough parade that the DLC types realize they'd better get in front of it or they'll be marching alone.

      And I, I, I, I - turn up the radio. Lies, lies and propaganda. I - gonna tell you what I need. Life, life without surrender

      by nightsweat on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 07:24:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  DLC (4.00)
    is just trying to "strike while the fire is hot", as they realize the Reagan coalition is fragmenting terribly (just as the New Deal coalition finally came apart in the '70s), and the progressive reform wing of the party-mod & left-is gaining in strength. They are trying to make themselves relevant again.

    You could have done a much better job of stating the case, Kos, but you're essentially correct: if Clinton was interested in finding a vehicle that forged an overarching, coherent theme to the Dems, she could have gone with NDN, and let the DLC die on the vine. That's a real statement of defiance to the grassroots and base that some of the D(L)C establishment have chosen this vehicle to try and ride back to power.

    If you were to compare the Dems to mayoral politics in any big city, the DLC is the downtown businessman's club-with gobs of cash & and hefty insider influence-and nothing more. The grassroots/base are the neighborhood groups that are the heart and soul of politics.

    You have to realize, that despite all of the gains the reform wing has made in the last year, and despite the ongoing self-destruction of the conservatives, a Democratic win my yet by phyrric, if the DLC types are the ones who are able to capitalize on the situation...

    •  Perhaps... (none)
      she feels that the DLC is a more influential and important organization than NDN.

      I'm not saying I agree.
      But perhaps this is indicative of the influence of the DLC.

      Then again, this is just one stop in many over the next 4 years for Hillary.

  •  Remember what Dean said: (4.00)
    FIRST we take our Party back.
    THEN we take our Country back.
    AND THEN we take back the White House.

    There's a reason he stated it in this order.  Unfortunately, we're still working on step one, but it is a necessary prerequisite to steps 2 and 3.

    When Dean was asked why he wanted to be Chairman of the DNC, he replied that unless we fix the Party, it won't matter who we run in 2008. I don't think I need to tell you how it got broken in the first place, but Thomas Frank does an excellent job of laying out the case on pp. 175-178 of "What's the Matter with Kansas" (hardcover edition, aka end of chapter 8).

    The DLC continues to push the same policies that lost us the voters Frank writes about, while its attacks on our Party's populists (the one's who could potentially reach these voters again) make it impossible for us to win them back.

    "We can win elections only by standing up for what we believe." --Howard Dean

    by Jim in Chicago on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:29:45 PM PDT

  •  One-sided ceasefire (4.00)
    We should remind the DLC that a one-sided ceasefire would not work.  They will have to abide by any standards that they seek to impose on us.  Now, I doubt that the DLC want to bargain in good faith, but I would hear what they have to say.  

    If we abandon our allies and their issues, who will defend us and ours?

    by Bryce in Seattle on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:29:48 PM PDT

  •  HRC needs to connect with reality (4.00)
    Can the junior Senator from the Empire State produce one example of the activists initiating a spat with the DLC?

    Every one of these "dust-ups" begins with the DLC implicitly, or more often explicitly, criticizing the rest of the part.

    Rrrrrringgg... Time to change the government.

    by Carl Nyberg on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:30:31 PM PDT

    •  Hahahaha. (none)
      EVERY time its THEM who starts it. Do you read this site?

      Make History. Hillary 2008.

      by PWTrue on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:35:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Do (none)
        Do you read my posts? Have you read theirs?

        Sorry, I know more about this than you, for obvious reasons.

        You can find fault all around, but the incoming is markedly greater from them than here.

        Who is their equivalent to me, who has made serious efforts to reach out and treat the DLC with respect?

        Answer - there is none.

        I've been played.

        The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

        by Armando on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:39:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are right Armando, (none)
          you are certainly more familiar with the ins and outs of the situation but EVEN if they are being more difficult I just think in the end we need the DLC wing as much as they clearly need us. I know it is easier, (and more fun) to just say fuck 'em but I really strongly support your efforts to reach out and I hope they continue.

          Make History. Hillary 2008.

          by PWTrue on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:44:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They make it exceedingly difficult (4.00)
            Is markos a day at the beach on this? Course not. But for crissakes,they are the "big boys" right?

            What the hell is worng with the Moose with that crap?

            Will Marshall has impressed me as utterly clueless for a good long time. But that is a substantive pont - his style does not strike me as offensive.

            I respect and like Kilgore but my gawd, From and Marshall and Wittman seemed determined to make this a nasty internecine battle.

            The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

            by Armando on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:49:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  We Don't Need The DLC -- Fuck Them (none)
            As Kos pointed out they are not the grassroots. They're a bunch of hack elected officials and professional political consultants weaned on corporate money. Their only philosophy is what is necessary to keep the campaign donations coming their way. So far it's been mostly corporate. But they want a truce so that we will give to them as well.

            We need the voters, not the "big-wigs" from the DLC. We'll do just fine without them. We've proven we can raise our own funds. We don't even need their corporate money.

            Just Doing My Small Part In Pissing Off The Religious Right.

            by chuco35 on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:02:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually (none)
              I disagree.  I think we need the DLC but I can't trust them.  I feel they made Dean the Chairman of the DNC in a condescending move to appease us.  If they really want a unified party, they're going to have to quit patting us on the head and unite behind the DNC and become one with it.  And....they're going to have to give us respect.  The grassroots can smell a phoney a mile away and currently, the grassroots view the DLC as a bunch of self-interested phoneys who, up until this point, have had power.  Throught their actions, they keep proving to us, over and over again, that their main concern is their own selfish interests above those of the nation.
              •  ??? The DLC didn't (none)
                "make Dean the Chairman," WE did. The grassroots campign and the local DNC members. For instance, my district Dems voted to endorse Dean and sent a letter of such to the voting DNC members in WA.

                The DLC fought Dean tooth and nail, am I right?

                •  Technically we didn't either (none)
                  although I was one voice among many who said they'd leave the party if he didn't get it.  I suppose that had some influence.  However, the folks who voted were our delegates, not all of whom are grassroots.  If you remember, the DLCers did not back Dean but instead entered candidates they favored.  

                  My point is...I wonder if the DLC, in their "infinite wisdom" didn't think, "OK.  We'll let the grassroots have Dean.  But we know best.  Instead of making a political issue out of it, he can be a "figurehead" because we know where the real power will come from and that will be from us."

            •  DLC apologist? (none)
              The DLC never intended to be a grassroots movement.  The DLC arose out of the terribly dispiritng Democratic Presidential losses in the 80s.  The foundation of the DLC was to be an inside the Beltway movement to get a Democratic President elected.  They would do that by generating ideas for other Democratic electeds to use.  The folks that used these ideas would evenutally build a bench for the party.  Then from that bench a President would arise.  

              Corporate donations are ok.  Everyone takes them and until they figure out a better system, that's what we are stuck with.  Does't the DNC, DSCC, DCCC take corporate money?  Dems do not have the five foundations to bankroll the equivilent of AEI or Heritage.  

              I'm not sure that the DLC and PPI have such bad ideas.  AmeriCorps was pretty good, as was the 100,000 Cops.  Emissions cap and trade regimes are decent ideas on greenhouse gasses.  I understand why people don't like their stands on trade, but at least they have been consistant.  

              My biggest question is when has the DLC made an attack on the liberal wing of the party? They may have scoffed at some ideas, but I don't remember them laying out a direct attack on anyone.  If anyone can show me different, I'd be very interested.  

          •  Look (4.00)
            No one has argued more strenuously for dialogue with  the DLC than me. I have been much vilified for it.

            IF I am throwing my hands up, that should give you an indication of what the rest of the commnity wiil think.

            The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

            by Armando on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:03:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  And, (4.00)
          you can't deny that the DLC is crucified on dKos, it is a curse word for pete's sake.

          Make History. Hillary 2008.

          by PWTrue on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:45:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  compare dKos and DLC (none)
            When the dKos community gets together and works on something, when has it directed its guns at the DLC?

            Not chatting within the community, but efforts directed at the outside world.

            Now, let's look at the DLC. What percent of its media coverage is devoted to trashing other Dems? What percent is criticizing pachyderms?

            Rrrrrringgg... Time to change the government.

            by Carl Nyberg on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:52:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I Write on the Front Page (none)
            Tell me where, and I have written on and of the DLC and their policy views more than anyone including kos, I have crucified them?

            The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

            by Armando on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:53:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I know you write (4.00)
              on the front page Armando. I was referring to a distinct impression I have gotten from 2+ years of reading this site. It is often thrown into a chain of insults like "republicrat kissass corporatist weakneed DLC democrat Joe Biden spoke in New hampshire today" Maybe you have been temperate on the FP but the majority of DLC critics, and I am suprised you would dispute this, are not.

              Make History. Hillary 2008.

              by PWTrue on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:56:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I do not dispute that KOSSACKS generally (none)
                are very hostile to the DLC.

                My point is the Front Page is not uniformly so.

                Indeed, I have been very positive about Ed Kilgore and gave strong commendations to Wittman for his great work on the Abramoff scandal.

                I have written in defense of the DLc, urged dialogue with the DLC, etc. In short, the reachout on the Front PAge, via ME, has been 10 times the reach out from the other side.

                Hence, my point is I have been made a schmuck.

                Your reaction confirms that.
                 

                The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

                by Armando on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:00:46 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  First, (none)
                  How does my reaction confirm anything? And second, don't you think that when two sides have a disagreement it is not right for you, a clear member of one side, to assess who is to blame for problems/setbacks in working towards the resolution of the disagreement? I would really like to hear what "they" say because, as I said, I think that a truly unified Democratic party base working together NOW could reap huge gains in 06 and 08.

                  Make History. Hillary 2008.

                  by PWTrue on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:05:24 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I was not part of the dispute (none)
                    I was someone urging an end to the dispute.

                    I am sorry but your reaction AGAIN confirms the schmuck I have been.

                    You have no idea what I have been doing for 7 months on this.

                    It is disheartening.  

                    The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

                    by Armando on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:13:23 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Curious (none)
                    So, are you telling us to work with DLC right despite what they said about us or telling us to suck it up and 'obey' whatever DLC said?

                    I think, I know and I believe that you are already aware that DLC and their movement is NOT grassroot-style at all.

                    Well, DLC had to be a crybaby and run to their 'mother', Hillary Clinton, to tell her to slam the grassrooters like us. That's the thing that turn me off and I certainly don't want to work with pro-CAFTA organization like DLC.

                    Even before this silly thing by DLC, I will not and will never vote for Hillary. That's one thing that I can be proud of about myself since I am all for 'local' and 'people', not corporatists. In other words, DLC can fuck themselves for all I care.

                    •  She called for a "cease-fire" (none)
                      ...and you're calling it a slamming of the grassroots.

                      This doesn't connect for me.
                      If you think that she is disingenous, fair enough.

                      But where is the slam

                      •  It doesn't connect for YOU. (none)
                        But it does for ME. Hillary joins with these republicrats (DLC), a republican-thinking-based organiztion which slammed and insulted us. If you disagree with my POV then fine. I couldn't care less about yours, but I can correct my statement if you feel that I shouldn't use the word, 'us'; she slammed me and my loyalty of democratic/progressive movement.

                        Fair enough?

                        Have a nice night. I'm out for fresh air to get rid of my anger that I feel toward DLC/republicrats & Hillary.

                        •  Guess you are angry (none)
                          Please tell me specifically how SHE slammed you.
                          Just by showing up?  That's a pretty broad definition.

                          I'm not talking about the DLC, I'm talking about Hillary and her comments.

                          If you don't care what I think, fine.
                          I wasn't asking you to.

                          Hope you feel better

                          •  I have a prob w/the DLC (none)
                            It's their embrace of Corporate money/power, & their disdain for rank & file Dem activists.  I might be more hospitable to them if they were more hospitable to me.

                            But they insist on insulting me at every turn.

                            I will grant that they still consider themselves Democrats, I just wish they'd recognize that they can't be Democrats without the rest of us.  What is it with them, insulting rank & file, grassrooots Dems every chance they get?

                            I am a partisan, & the DLC counts on me for that. But I find their constant insults rankling.  I think that they will be driven out of the Party before I will, but I wish they'd find a way to get along with the likes of me, rather than force me to abandon them.

                            The concept of war is outdated. Dalai Lama

                            by x on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 07:20:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  I think you see it more in the diaries (none)
                And Armando is right, he has always been fair on this subject.

                The most distressing thing is how the DLC thing has become so seemingly personal to many.  I understand the criticisms and agree with many of them, but I would also like to think that this isn't a personal issue, but a tactical and philosophical issue.

                Critiques of the DLC are valid and should be discussed.  But excessive venom often obscures the real issues and renders any further communication useless.

                The DLC, needless to say, is guilty of this as well, as evidence by the links provided here.

          •  No, (none)
            Joementum is a curse word.

            DLC is a punching bag.

        •  Which ones? (none)
          Do you read my posts?

          You mean the posts about the primary challenge to Lieberman?

          •  I Stand By Those (none)
            Lieberman is utterly lacking in Dem loyalty.

            The DLC has nothing to do with my position on Lieberman.

            Too bad you joemmentums can never understand that.

            Mind you, I never write negatively about him on the FP.

            The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

            by Armando on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 06:30:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  except for being wrong you're right (4.00)
        When has the dKos community paid a PR person to go out and trash the DLC?

        Has it ever happened?

        Has the dKos community ever initiated a grassroots campaign to get letters to the editor published criticizing the DLC?

        What kind of activism has the dKos community done? Sinclair? Gannon/Guckert? DSM?

        Has any dKos activism been directed at trashing the DLC to the general public?

        Rrrrrringgg... Time to change the government.

        by Carl Nyberg on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:46:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Indeed (none)
          You nailed it perfectly.
        •  Shoot... (4.00)
          Thus site pushed mightily for every GD democrat on the ticket last year. Every single one of them. We got into horrendous fights with the few Naderites who frequented this site in favor of party unity. Where the fuck are they coming from in attacking us? We're too fucking radical? We fought for our party all the way. What? We should cave in on the war? Kiss Chimp's red-ass because that's the patriotic thing to do? Because that's what the people expect from our politicians?

          What do the Kossacks get from the DLC for everything we did for the party last year? We're not patriotic enough. Excuse me for saying it again, but Fuck Them!

          Just Doing My Small Part In Pissing Off The Religious Right.

          by chuco35 on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:11:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Act Blue list (4.00)
            Good point.

            Who were the candidates on the dKos Act Blue list?

            As I remember it was heavily slanted toward the "moderate" and "centrist" Dems. And I don't remember much complaining.

            How much money did the DLC network raise for progressive candidates?

            Rrrrrringgg... Time to change the government.

            by Carl Nyberg on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:14:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  dkos dozen vs. DLC backed progressives (4.00)
              Here's the list.

              Tony Knowles? Didn't he support drilling in ANWR?

              Stan Matsunaka? Isn't he about as pro-business as Democrats come?

              Brad Carson? Didn't he write about how the Dems need to be more anti-abortion and more anti-gay rights?

              Weren't Richard Romero and Dan Mongiardo a good fit in the DLC camp?

              OK, now ask the DLC, which progressives did the DLC back in the general election?

              If the answer is none, Hillary Rodham Clinton deserves a big "fuck you".

              Rrrrrringgg... Time to change the government.

              by Carl Nyberg on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 06:17:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  I too would like to see united Democrats (4.00)
    but Marshall's commentary is so..."1975."  To use the "raised in the Vietnam crucible" metaphor about today's progressives is just so much cliched bunk.

    I was raised in the '60's and '70,s but am the late-life child of a WWII vet (and neice of two purple heart WWII vets) and MY patriotism was formed in WWII values.  I.E. that Americans go to war only when absolutely necessary pushed to the edge, then we come out en force to right the wrongs of the world.  America stood for something unshakeable and RIGHT.  My father the vet began with a few quiet doubts about Vietnam, which, by the end of the war, had become full-out opposition.  All fact-based points of view.  

    Nothing about "rejecting patriotism" in our "liberal Kennedy Democrat" family.  I remember a high school boyfriend stole a flag from a flagpole as a prank (nothing political about it - just a stupid thing to do) - my very liberal mother went BESERK on him for disrespecting the flag. One of my uncles lost a career as a pro-ball player that would have catapulted him out of the working class because of war injuries.  And he gave that up with pride for having served his country.

    Stereotyping progressives as somehow retarded development flower children is about as far off as you can get from the reality of this world.  And from the complexity of thoughtful people who've paid their price in this society.  Of all people, Hillary Clinton should know better.

    Those of us who lived through 9-11 - no matter what decade we were raised in - are fully aware that "the world has changed."  Some of us live in NYC and live every day knowing it's not if but when. What we are up in arms about is, our current administration isn't changing in response to those changes.  It's REACTING, not responding.  And it's ill-though out reactions are fanning the flames, not solving the problems.

    I am so disappointed in Hillary.  I'd love to hear her directly address an intelligent progressive audience and give her "take" on Will Marshall's slander.

    I hate having insomnia these days.  There's just too much to worry about.  And part of the reason I worry, Senator Clinton, Mr. Marshall, is I just don't feel any safer with the current administration at the helm.  Will YOU make me feel any safer?  

    Prove it.

    "Every violation of truth is not only a sort of suicide in the liar, but is a stab at the health of human society." -Ralph Waldo Emerson

    by hopesprings on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:35:06 PM PDT

    •  The truth, Hope, is that (4.00)
      its actually the establishment types, in politics and the press, who are helplessly stuck in a 1970s rubric.
      •  Absolutely. (none)
        They see the world through that b&w Leave It To Beaver vs. Maude frame - with no acknowledgement that there's been a hell of a lot of TV seasons since both of them.

        Bad network tv metaphors, but it's late.

        "Every violation of truth is not only a sort of suicide in the liar, but is a stab at the health of human society." -Ralph Waldo Emerson

        by hopesprings on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:53:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Which is quite annoying (4.00)
        I'm tired of people thinking my views and motivations were formed fifteen years before I was born.

        My views were formed as I grew up in central Iowa, while I attended school, while I read books and watch the news, and continue to develope even now.

        Just as in war, political talking heads continue to talk about the last war, instead of the current or next one.

        But I won't be frustrated by the fire in your eyes as you're staring at the sun

        by Izixs on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:01:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'm sick to death of the 'pre 9/11 mindset' (4.00)
    crap.

    why don't we give the equating a successful WOT (whatever THAT means) with a successful occupation of Iraq a name...

    for instance, a "'Pre Mission Accomplished' mindset" would do nicely.

    Freedom does not march. I saw an invasion. I see an occupation. I don't see a war.

    by ex republican on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:36:37 PM PDT

  •  Making a list (4.00)
    Checkin' it twice.
    Gonna remember who's naughty or nice.
    Clinton, Bayh, Vilsack, Warner They won't ever be our nominee.
  •  Amen (4.00)
    Screw the DLC, and Hillary too if she insists on wimpin' out ala Tipper with nonsense over a hidden aspect of a frickin' fictious video game - like that's something important a Senator for christsake should even be concerned with.  

    The DLC is a corporate infiltration that serves it's masters as much as the present administration not the citizens of this "noble experiment".

    I will neither back-track or support anything less than progressive progress 'of by & for the people' anything less is a compromise and sell-out.

    If it takes, due to the stupidity and negligence of the people, a total destruction of our society - so be it -- Sequoia's rise from the ashes.

    Get serious or get outta the way, no hand wring compromise, best choice of the moment crap.

     

  •  divisions within the Dem Party (4.00)
    There are five overlapping axes for evaluating the Dem Party.

    Middle class/economic Dems......vs.....Affluent Neo-liberals

    Pro-peace & isolationist Dems...vs.....Israel hawks

    Advocate for change/take risks...vs....Status quo/play-it-safe

    Became active recently...........vs....Older Dems

    Roots/outsiders..................vs....Elites/insiders

    The Dems in the right hand column tend to be in the minority, but are better organized. They have also made deals with each other so the organized minorities can continue calling the shots.

    Rrrrrringgg... Time to change the government.

    by Carl Nyberg on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:41:21 PM PDT

    •  Bad combination (none)
        Being for peace is not the same thing as being isolationist.  Isolationism is Buchanan-style isolation from the world, the creation of a "Fortress America" preserving its own "peculiar virtue" behind walls and barbed wire, and shutting out the supposedly vicious foreigner who would taint America's unique vision.
        I am definitely for America being out and involved in the world, in continuous dialogue with other nations, especially to help the poorer nations advance themselves.  I am for America being a voice against tyrannies around the world, whether in China or Burma or Uzbekistan or Zimbabwe -- or Iraq.  I just don't think that America's involvement should consist of bombers and bullets.  It's a false division to suggest that either you're killing your neighbors, or you have nothing to do with them at all.
      •  Iraq War opposition diverse (none)
        It's a false division to suggest that either you're killing your neighbors, or you have nothing to do with them at all.

        Absolutely!

        The Dems that opposed the Iraq War did so for diverse reasons.

        The Dems that still support the Iraq War fall into a couple camps.

        They basically think the goal of U.S. policy should be to kill or subjugate Arabs and Muslims. Most Dems that feel this way are Zionists.

        And then there are the politicians, who aspire to keep a harmonious relationship with AIPAC.

        Isn't it weird that Senator Rockefeller is the only Congressional Dem to have a change of heart about the Iraq War? How bad does it have to get before other Dems have the courage to say invading Iraq was a bad idea?

        Rrrrrringgg... Time to change the government.

        by Carl Nyberg on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 08:02:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Good grief! (4.00)
    That moose fellow is annoying, isn't he? What an unpleasant style--I never trust people who speak of themselves in the third-person. And he wants people to take him seriously?

    Bayh, Vilsack, and Warner also spoke at the event.

    Isn't Bayh the outgoing chair and Vilsack the incoming? Don't let them off so easy as speakers only!

  •  Maybe I could actually have an informed (4.00)
    opinion about this subject if someone would explain to me where Kos and other opponents of the DLC would like to take the country.

    About the only substantive difference between Howard Dean (who was a DLCish governor of Vermont) and the Clintonistas was his opposition to the war in Iraq. Rhetorically he was of course a firebrand, but in the end rhetoric only matters so much.

    As for the corporatist stuff, I sense a distinct recognition on the part of at least some DLC heavy hitters, including Hillary, that we have gone too far in eroding middle class economic security. She didn't vote for the bankruptcy bill when it mattered (Kos came closer to apologizing for it than many conservative bloggers) and there have been editorials in major centrist magazines (including the New Republic) in recent months saying very explicitly that Democrats must become the party of the middle class again.

    On social issues, Hillary and the DLC more generally are not calling for more conservative policy positions, just a more moderate rhetorical stance, which again probably doesn't matter that much in the end. Roe V Wade is not going to be overturned or not be overturned because of what Hillary or any other Democrat says about the issue. It's going to be overturned because of what right-wing judges do about the issue.

    Bruce and Al seem kinda like assholes to me, but on the other hand I could really care less what they think.

    Am I correct to assume this is all really about Iraq and the DLC's rhetorical style, or am I missing something here?

    Yo ho yo ho a pirate's life for me.

    by spot on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:44:36 PM PDT

    •  The DLC Message: (2.50)
      Liberal Democrats  = Bad
      Republican Message = Good

      We, the DLC, are like the Republicans, but even better. Therefore we are the best chance to win back the White House and Congressional Majorities.

      This is of course great fucking rhetoric. And if one could only through the empirical evidence out the window, one might be able to go along with it with a clear conscience.

      Me, I'd rather go with a message of:

      Universal HealthCare
      Affordable Education
      Higher Wages
      True Global Leadership
      Equal Rights
      Secular Government
      Environmentalism

      ETC.

      If a Dem wants to be "good friends" with that hate-mongering liar, Sean Hannity, well, he deserves a primary. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DumpJoe/

      by DeanFan84 on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:28:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  this is false (4.00)
        i just checked out the dlc site, hate to give them a hit, but had to check to be sure.

        they didn't call liberal dems bad.

        they called many repug policies bad.

        and they were basically for:
        Universal HealthCare
        Affordable Education
        Higher Wages
        True Global Leadership
        Equal Rights
        Secular Government
        Environmentalism

        in some way shape or form.

        now you can hate their tactics.  you can hate that they take money from corporations.

        but it would be wrong to allow such misinformation above go unchecked.

        •  That's just it. (4.00)
          They have a ton in common with most of the people that hate them. If they stuck to that, attacked the GOP and even just stayed mumm on the people they disagreed with we would have a shot.

          Hillary's right. There needs to be a cease fire. But when members of your own party call you anti American, just like Rush/Hannity, then any cease fire is null and void.

      •  I don't doubt that there's more than a little (4.00)
        cravenness and whoring to poll-dom among DLC acolytes, but their actual policy positions (at least on domestic issues) tend to be pretty sensible, pragamatic, and (dare I say it) progressive. I'm not sure what you mean by secular government or true global leadership, but I think you'd find that they support universal health care, affordable education, higher wages, equal rights, and environmentalism. I'm not endorsing their policy positions, just suggesting that what came out of the Dean campaign in 04 was really no more imaginative and visionary than much of what they have to offer. The primary difference again it seems to me is their position on national security and foreign policy, and their rhetorical style.

        Yo ho yo ho a pirate's life for me.

        by spot on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:54:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Ok, I'll bite. (none)
      IMO, the difference between Dean and DLC moderates is night and day.  But, ok, the burden is on me.  Besides, I saw something up-thread that gave me a good answer.

      The DLC doesn't want and opposition party.  They want one Rightwing Party, one Moderate Party, and big muzzle for progressives.  Take a look at their rhetoric.  They rarely criticize Republicans.  Most of their time is spent advocating moving Democrats to the middle.  And then there is their vitriol for progressives, witch Kos has sited here.  Another that comes to mind is From saying that Michael Moore should have no place in the Democratic Party.

      Dean on the other hand has embraced Progressives and roundly and unequivocally criticized Republicans, even to the extent that he has been criticized for the words he choose.

      So, the difference is rhetorical opposition.  

      If we abandon our allies and their issues, who will defend us and ours?

      by Bryce in Seattle on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:35:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not true (none)
        They rarely criticize Republicans.  Most of their time is spent advocating moving Democrats to the middle.

        They spend most of their time attacking the GOP. It just so happens that they only get noticed around here when they attack the party.

      •  Sure, but most of the differences you're pointing (none)
        out are rhetorical, not in policy or vision. I'm not suggesting the DLC has all the answers, or that I necessarily agree with their vision of where the country should go, but I do think I know at least where they stand, and what their vision for the country is. For the Dean Democrats, it seems to be primarily about rhetoric and process, but I just don't have a clear sense that aside from Iraq there is substantively much difference between the Dean wing and the DLCers.

        Yo ho yo ho a pirate's life for me.

        by spot on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:47:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's more than enough for me. (none)
          Or anyone who considers themselves in the group to be muzzled.  I'm sure moderates would be up in arms if Progressives wanted to silence them.

          I'll grant you that Dean has been slow to set out a policy that is different.  

          If we abandon our allies and their issues, who will defend us and ours?

          by Bryce in Seattle on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 01:13:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But exactly what do they want to silence (none)
            progressives about? The war? I don't think it can be domestic issues, because sadly I just don't see very much risk taking or vision or imagination or outside the box thinking among Democrats of any stripe on domestic issues (even if I find the positions they do take on a number of issues acceptable).

            Yo ho yo ho a pirate's life for me.

            by spot on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 01:18:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Silenced (none)
              We've got to repudiate, you know, the most strident and insulting anti-American voices out there sometimes on our party's left... We can't have our party identified by Michael Moore and Hollywood as our cultural values.
              -- Al From, CEO, Democratic Leadership Council

              I don't know about you, but to me, that sounds like a SYFPH.

              If we abandon our allies and their issues, who will defend us and ours?

              by Bryce in Seattle on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 02:19:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  DLC=Destroy Liberalism Completely (4.00)
    The DLC is simply a Republican subversive unit within the Democratic Party.  Always was, always will be.  If a Democrat belongs to the DLC we might as well call him/her for what they are:

    Republicrats.

    Any fool who votes for a DLC candidate deserves what he gets:  A spineless, corrupt politician that will vote in the Republicans interest every time.

    Cease fire?  We haven't even BEGUN TO FIGHT!

  •  Hillary, more wars (4.00)
    I have little time for those who voted for an unconstitutional bill that gave Bush the sole power to declare war. The Iraq War apologists. Hillary would keep us in there for 8 more years.
  •  Any politician associated with this drivel (4.00)
    is permanently off my list. I'm referring to the 'left's unease with patriotism.' What a load of offensive bullshit. I'm sure they're thinking there's going to be a second 9/11 that'll turn the population into a stampeding terrified herd and they want to have a patriotic pro war pen to herd some of 'em into. I can't live that way. Hilary's too clever for her own good.

    Darkness washed over the Dude...darker than a black steer's tookus on a moonlight prairie night...there was no bottom

    by moon in the house of moe on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:01:12 AM PDT

  •  CHILL THE FUCK OUT, people! (4.00)
    as I once heard a NYC cop say in the midst of strife (he was a black guy defusing a fight between whites)- I borrow his words now.

    I read the Bull Moose's article and also the other one cited, regarding patriotism etc. and I have to say, I agree with much of what they say.

    I'm sick and tired of being tarred with the "unpatriotic" brush because I'm antiwar.  I really want to see the Dems focus on patriotism and how WE LOVE THIS COUNTRY and we want to keep it out of the sewer.  Let's focus on how to get this message across to the rest of the "yellow-ribbon" populace!  This is far more important than our pissing/moaning/infighting.

    I'm a longtime subscriber to The Nation and other leftist papers, and while I deeply appreciate the information I get from these publications, after a while the constant complaining really gets to me.  I think this is one of the reasons we lost the last election - our tone was consistently negative (with good reason, of course) and the "Average American Voter" got turned off by that and voted for the Snake Oil Party.

    Much as I admire Michael Moore, the truth is that nobody enjoys hearing 24/7 that their government is evil.  

    Can we move on to a framing that will make people feel good about their country and themselves?

    We have to study how to voice our complaints in a different tone - one that communicates our deeply felt patriotism.

    *Springsteen for President*

    by hrh on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:08:13 AM PDT

    •  That's all true (4.00)
      But the DLC is contributing to the problem by saying that the mere fact you hold those opinions at all essentially makes you un-American. Instead of shifting the frame, they want to shift you and what you think.

      I quite strongly agree that we antiwar folks need a new message and new delivery of it and need it badly. But the DLC doesn't want us to do that. They want us to shut up and fall in line behind them.

      I'm not going to do it.

      I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

      by eugene on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:11:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  gimme a link (none)
        the DLC doesn't want us to do that. They want us to shut up and fall in line behind them.

        I don't see that from what I've read.  Can you give me cites?  Maybe I've missed it.

        *Springsteen for President*

        by hrh on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:51:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  yes, but (none)
      our country is going to hell in a handbasket and it is difficult not to mention it.

      Ken Salazar (D-CO), who said he'll vote for the Flag Desecration Amendment, needs to hear from us.

      by OLinda on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:25:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yes, it's difficult (none)
        but it's our duty to our country.

        Do you see what I mean?

        *Springsteen for President*

        by hrh on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:52:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think I do (none)
          I can make the case that our criticism is because or our patriotism.  We want our country to be better.

          If we abandon our allies and their issues, who will defend us and ours?

          by Bryce in Seattle on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 02:30:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  sure! (none)
            That's easy to say.  But when all we do is criticize our country CONSTANTLY, as if it's tragically uncool to be patriotic, then we come off looking like anti-Americans who just want to bitch and moan about something, anything.

            I'm not a big fan of nationalism, but when you get right down to it, we have a lot of advantages living here, and we shouldn't be afraid to say so.  We have to grab the positive high ground.  

            *Springsteen for President*

            by hrh on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 06:41:01 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  sure! (none)
            That's easy to say.  But when all we do is criticize our country CONSTANTLY, as if it's tragically uncool to be patriotic, then we come off looking like anti-Americans who just want to bitch and moan about something, anything.

            I'm not a big fan of nationalism, but when you get right down to it, we have a lot of advantages living here, and we shouldn't be afraid to say so.  We have to grab the positive high ground.  

            *Springsteen for President*

            by hrh on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 06:41:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I get your argument (none)
              but I think the key is to couch our very legitimate criticisms in the imagery and rhetoric of the ideal of what everyone believes America (the idea) is. I do disagree with you, I think that we tried mightily to do that in the last election.

              Progressives believe in a strong, effective American government: balancing budgets, empowering people, & helping the least among us.

              by BrianVA on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 07:09:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  What a great idea (none)
      I really want to see the Dems focus on patriotism and how WE LOVE THIS COUNTRY and we want to keep it out of the sewer.

      It's such a great idea that Howard Dean did it pretty much non-stop all through the last election.

      And then every grubby-handed Republican and halfwit DLC hack called him an America-hating extremist and Oh Lordy, he's ANGRY!

      Our tone was "consistently negative." Right. I remember the way our party funded the Swift Boat Veterans for Smearing a Presidential Candidate's Military Service.

      The Republicans are relentlessly negative, hateful, and demagogical. Oddly enough, that does not seem to keep them from winning elections.

      I have evidently Energised the Discourse and Made Politics Real Again. -Spider Jerusalem

      by agrajag on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 07:08:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You have (none)
      the same theory as Kerry. Remember the dancing and singing at the convention. The protesters locked up blocks away? You deserve each other.
  •  Fuck with Berkeley, fuck with me. (4.00)
    That's what I say.

    Where is MoveOn headquartered? Where does a shitload of money for progressive causes - and Democratic candidates - come from? Where do legions of young activists who walk precincts and man phone banks and stuff envelopes come from?

    Berkeley, California.

    Piss on Marshall Wittman. How's that for straight talk? We worked our fucking asses off in 2004 in an uphill fight against a powerful incumbent on behalf of a presidential candidate whose campaign was in disarray the last crucial 3 months. And the thanks we get is this?

    No wonder the Democrats keep losing elections. The DLC is more interested in scoring points against liberals than in scoring points against Republicans.

    The DLC is an enemy so long as they maintain these divisive tactics. I am happy to work with them to retake this country. But when they turn those guns on me, instead of on our common Republican enemies, I turn mine back on them.

    I'm really angry at this. Some folks here have given calm advice and analysis and I think that's good. But I'm in the mood for righteous anger. Unless the DLC makes an about-face, retracts these statements, and promises to work WITH us - not against us - then they must be either destroyed or made irrelevant. I don't care which.

    I want my party back, and I want my country back. The DLC just wants power for its own damn self. I'm sick of it, just sick of it, and I am not taking this any longer.

    Rant done.

    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

    by eugene on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:09:43 AM PDT

    •  Amen! (none)
      I want to say one more time, Amen!
    •  Living in Texas (none)
      ...we put up with a lot of shit that is said about us here at this site.  

      The TexasKos group can vouch for that.

      So if we can put up with it, so can Berkeley.  

    •  hear, hear (4.00)
      no party can win if it is ashamed of its own rank and file.

      personally, what this tells me is that they are scared of us. they can no longer make the frontal attacks, they are borrowing our words (note the word "progressive" popping up now and then?), and they are suing for peace while sniping where they think nobody will see them. they can smell the wind changing, and they know that a hard rain's a-gonna fall, and they're trying to get out of our sights by saying "unity."

      well fuck 'em. it is time to start flexing our muscles in the primaries, and either take these bastards out or else put the fear of god into them. they fear us a little now, but we must become like the christian coalition is to the republicans, where the party makes care not to offend. it is time to start raising our own army of grassroots candidates and precinct captains, and giving them a real run for their money, so that we can pick up seats in '06 and win the leadership struggles afterwards.

      the winds of history are at our back. it is time for a realignment, and it will only become more clear in the coming year. it is time to bring the fight to all those who lied us into war, into debt, into bankruptcy, and into acquiescence to the corporations and the bigots and the fading flag sticker patriots and the federalist society judges and the so-called "values voters," and make it clear that the time for such grovelling is over.

      it is time to take the party back so that we can take the country back. it is time to call on the DLC to return the right-wing foundation money and stop repeating republican talking points, or else remove the D from their name.

      the democratic party should never be ashamed of democrats, or the people of berkeley, california, any more than it should be ashamed of the people of austin, texas, or atlanta, georgia, or new york city, or boston, massachusetts, or cleveland, ohio, or las vegas, nevada, or minneapolis, minnesota, or madison, wisconsin, or st. louis, missouri, or boulder, colorado, or burlington, vermont, or los angeles, or new orleans, louisiana, or washington, DC, or any other city where democrats stand proudly as democrats.

      crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

      by wu ming on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:47:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No, thanks (2.50)
      You seriously think that a Chris Worthington-type message is going to play in the parts of the country we need to win?  

      They were protesting in Berkeley against action in Afghanistan three weeks after 9/11, for Chrissakes.

    •  Best rant I've heard in weeks n/t (none)
  •  Contest (none)
    Ok, we can make this a contest where both sides win but we'll see who can win bigger.

    Senate 2006, DLC can take Pennsylvania and back Casey, the bloggers, DNC, and DFA can take Pennsylvania and back Tester.

    Whichever candidate wins by the larger margin can be declared the more effective group and will probably get a greater influence in choosing the presidential nominee in 2008.

    We SHOULD win both.  So whoever wins more gets more clout for 2008.

  •  Contest (3.00)
    Ok, we can make this a contest where both sides win but we'll see who can win bigger.

    Senate 2006, DLC can take Pennsylvania and back Casey, the bloggers, DNC, and DFA can take Montana and back Tester.

    Whichever candidate wins by the larger margin can be declared the more effective group and will probably get a greater influence in choosing the presidential nominee in 2008.

    We SHOULD win both.  So whoever wins more gets more clout for 2008.

  •  DLC in CSMonitor (none)
    This article from CSMonitor (7/20/05) ticked me off.  I'm tired of hearing negative things about Democrats from Democrats, not to mention RNC talking points.
    But Democrats need to be careful not to focus too much on hounding Mr. Rove at a time when voters know too little about what their own party stands for.

    So say executives of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), a group of centrist Democrats founded to reconnect their party with "mainstream values and aspirations."
    ...
    And with Republicans in control of both the White House and Congress, "The American people have very little idea what Democrats stand for and very little idea of what we would do."
    In seeking to deal with a GOP White House, "It is a shame some Democrats have bought into the Rove strategy," Reed says. "Karl Rove's view is that polarization is the best approach for Republican.... And some Democrats felt the same way - that stoking the partisan fires and disagreeing with everything the Republicans did just because George Bush was involved was going to be good for us."
    ...
    The DLC leaders noted that since the 1970s , more voters have identified themselves as conservatives than liberals. Thus polarization may work for Republicans but not for Democrats. "Our challenge is not to unify as a minority but to expand to a majority," From said.


    Ken Salazar (D-CO), who said he'll vote for the Flag Desecration Amendment, needs to hear from us.

    by OLinda on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:18:39 AM PDT

    •  That (none)
      was before the christian right, who aren't always rich, didn't have jobs, groceries or gas. Come fall, they might lose their houses. These things can make you explore more deeply your voting habits.
  •  Hey look... (4.00)
    The circular firing squad has howitzers now. And look at the cool brand on the shells--it's a cute little elephant with RNC stamped in the middle.

    Fire in the hole....

    Where have all the lib'rels gone,
    Long time passing?
    Where have all the lib'rels gone,
    Long time ago?
    ...
    When will they ever learn?
    Oh, when will they ever learn?

    "I love mankind; it's people I can't stand." --Linus/Peanuts

    by homogenius on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:19:36 AM PDT

  •  moral relativism (4.00)
    Whitman declares that the fact that US engaged in torture and abuse is unimportant, "would not be shocking to grownups".

    To me, Whitman is an adolescent fascinated by a map of Eurasia and putting little flags in it.

    Yah, yah, condemming Guantanamo is deflecting our attention from the big picture.  The small picture is [expletive deleted] experimental concentration camp where various techniques of abuse invented by some [expletive] military experts are tested for effectiveness.

    The big picture is that the insurgency in Iraq is not "barbaric beyond any precedent".  Recent civil war in Algeria was quite gruesome, with 100,000 estimated dead.  Algerian military coped with it without any benefit from foreign experts.  Question: why 140 thousand strong Iraqi army that is in training for years cannot achieve the standard of Algerian military?  The answer seems to be that we trust no one there and that the feeling is mutual --- it is not a way to create an allied force.  We got boxed in: we wage a war that is too dirty to win politically and too clean to win militarily.

    In the meantime, we can ponder if American exceptionalism is a good thing.  The problem is that the minute you state that you are exceptionally good you are not.  Exceptionalism means that while we fight against terror and for democracy we allow ourselves assorted exceptions that undermine the stated purpose.

  •  Fuck Hillary. (none)
    I like her less with each passing day.

    "Make no mistake about it: We are At War now - with somebody - and we will stay At War with that mysterious Enemy for the rest of our lives"-- HST, 9/12/01

    by mraker on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:23:44 AM PDT

    •  RE (3.50)
      Sadly. I don't think she cares if you like her.  She is pandering to a different crowd of so-called "centrist" voters.

      She, like them all, are counting on the fact that at the end of the day, you will have no one else to vote for because you sure ain't voting for the Republican.  

      Oh, don't get me wrong, she will make some quiet plays to base again in the future.  Those plays will just not receive as much coverage as her plays to the middle or even the right.

      ... now watch this drive.

      by jg on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 01:00:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good for Hillary (none)
      And I have to say, I like her more.  

      I for one think that Hillary Clinton has taken one on the chin for the Democratic party more time than I can count, and if she endorses a Third Way agenda, more power to her.

  •  I wish that (4.00)
    the Dems could stop airing dirty laundry in public

    Every man for himself.

    by JLFinch on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:46:01 AM PDT

  •  Common Ground (4.00)
    I think any discussion about the DLC should be prefaced with an examination of their track record.

    First, they have never produced a majority president.  Clinton failed both in '92 and '96 to carry 50% of the vote and its conceivable he could have lost just as easily as he could have won if Ross Perot had not run as an independent.  The Gore and Kerry campaigns were mismanaged trainwrecks and without the grassroots support and enthusiasm for people like Howard Dean, who is actively reaching out to the people that matter and working to rebuild the Democratic Party from the bottom up, who is reaching out to the very people who DLC policies have neglected, its quite possible that 2004 would not have been nearly as close.  Without the presence of Dean and Kucinich in the race, and consequently those who adopted their passion and principles, it's likely the other Democratic leaders would have continued to acquiesce to the Bush Administration and continue to support the misguided policies which now plague our nation.

    Not only has the inept consul of those who have dominated the Party for the last decade or so saddled our Nation with two Bush terms, they have also lost ground in the House and Senate since 1994.  Put another way, if Rick Santorum wants to win re-election in Pennsylvania this year, he should convince Bob Casey, Jr. to hire Al From as his political guru.  The DLC simply does not have the record to back up its talk.

    The "narrative of American arrogance and abuse of power" was just as real then, as it is now; except that forty years ago, many current leaders of the Democratic Party had the courage to stand against it - because it didn't represent them and the vision they had of America.  You don't score any points for running away from your past.  The John Kerry this country and the Democratic Party needed last year is the young officer who stood for what he believed was right and countered those who had selfishly sacrificed 60,000 American lives and more than a million Vietnemese on lies.

    What too many of our leaders in Washington cannot accept, is that THEY let it happen again.

    And on that note, we've come very much to the point of winning back the heartland.  The American people are not dumb.  They may get sidetracked by the trivialities of pop culture or are simply too preoccupied keeping their heads above water, but by and large I believe they understand what's going on better than the powerbrokers in Washington who have no idea how to resolve the conflict in Iraq or wage a "war" on terror.  

    And their beginning to understand exactly what our leaders have gotten us into, mainly because our elected officials didn't tell them what they knew about the cost and length of the conflict.  What kind of a statement is "as long as we have to and not a day more" really?  How ignorant and unconscionable do you have to be to accept that?

    The current power in the Democratic Party lies at the feet of the People.  And the DLC needs to get behind them.  They need to support Howard Dean and the DNC, they need to support policies which are in the interest of the middle class and poor and they need to establish an effective and realistic approach to combatting terrorism which does not unnecessarily and blindly sacrifice American values and civil liberties, but most importantly, more innocent lives who need not otherwise die as a result of a misguided, misinformed and negligent foreign policy.

    They must also work much harder to not  mimic the follies of the Bush Administration nor tacitly oppose the destructive policies which have been implemented here at home.  

    It's simply time for the DLC to get behind the future of the Democratic Party - the American people...all of them.

     

    •  Republican lite (none)
      Clinton failed both in '92 and '96 to carry 50% of the vote and its conceivable he could have lost just as easily as he could have won if Ross Perot had not run as an independent.

      This is an old wingnut talking point, and your parroting it makes me think you are nothing more than Republican lite.

      The fact of the matter is that both Clinton and Perot were strongly anti-Bush.  They were both reformists who were competing for the same pool of votes.  Absent Perot, Clinton still would have won.

      •  I'm no wingnut... (none)
        and I think anyone who follows politics would make the same point, especially since Perot pulled fairly evenly between both Bush and Clinton voters.

        But as long as Democrats want to ignore that fact, that's fine, so long as they can deal with continuing to lose national elections.

        But how fucking closeminded are you?  It's wrong to share viewpoints with people from across the aisle?  Bullshit...besides, it's not a "conservative" viewpoint.  It's a fact and something Democrats should consider.

        But why don't you just keep mindlessly labeling people as "republican-lite" because you don't agree with them.

        •  Who am I? Why am I here? (none)
          Perot pulled fairly evenly between both Bush and Clinton voters.

          ...in which case, his effect on the outcome was negligible, and Clinton would have won absent Perot's presence in the race.  Thank you for admitting that.

          The reversal in fortune from 1984-92 was attributable to Clinton's capture of the vital center, not to Perot acting as a spoiler for Bush.

          But how fucking closeminded are you?  It's wrong to share viewpoints with people from across the aisle?  Bullshit...But why don't you just keep mindlessly labeling people as "republican-lite" because you don't agree with them.

          Irony is a concept you evidently fail to grasp.

  •  RE (none)
    As someone over at Atrios wrote in response to the Marshall piece:

    "There really are three parties in Washington. The Republicans, the DLC Democrats, and non-DLC Democrats. If you think otherwise, you haven't been paying attention. Keep mindful of which of the above parties your campaign dollars actually support."

    ... now watch this drive.

    by jg on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:56:50 AM PDT

  •  2008 (4.00)
    Hillary Clinton NOT for president. That anyone can even contemplate the idea is beyond me, only for the reason that her election to the presidency will mean that only two familes will then have dominated the U.S. goverment for 24, possibly 28, years: Bushs and Clintons. What kind of an autocratic dynastic system are we now living in? As far as that's concerned, the Clintons are as bad as the Bushs, in my estimation. Twenty years of Bushs and Clintons are enough. It's not for nothing that Papa Bush and Bill are now hobnobbing.
    •  I stated (none)
      i would be willing to accept and vote for hillary the other day Quentin. I was WRONG and i apologise to all democrats for letting my vote get nearly conned out of me. Just another DLC hack, albeit a slightly more legit one.

      Remember: there's no sense in talking to them. Talk to your base first, the middle second, and the amoral and lying right never.

      by cdreid on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 01:21:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bravo (none)
    (as always) Markos. DLC is another term for Republican. The NDN? We dont know yet. Perhaps they will become the "center right" wing of the democratic party.. while still being democrats. But the DLC? Let them go back to the party they shill for.

    And put up a tip Jar sometime so the silent kossacks can give you some luv sometimes.

    Remember: there's no sense in talking to them. Talk to your base first, the middle second, and the amoral and lying right never.

    by cdreid on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 01:19:35 AM PDT

    •  for a bunch of republicans (none)
      they sure do seem to have devoted some energy to criticizing repugs.

      certainly not in the most engaging way, but it's pretty clear to me, they're democrats.

      not republicans.

      http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=450007

      just an fyi.

      •  They're republicans (none)
        Isnt it revealing to you that to find even a slight criticism of Bushco from the dlc you have to go to there web page and squint at mild chastising of Bush? On the other hand if you wish to find their Loud, harsh, angry, deceptive attacks on Democrats you can go to the NY Times, Fox, Wapo, LA Times, NBC, CBS, ABC

        Where do you go to find Dean, Reid, Pelosi criticisms of Bushco? Any paper or broadcast outlet in the country. Where do you go to find their attacks on democrats? You dont. They dont do it.

        If you choose to support DLCers thats your business.
        If you think Actual democrats are going to sit silently by and let you and them destroy the party again.. you are flat out wrong. The question isnt whether they are democrats or not.. the question is whether they are simply Quislings.. or actual out and out moles.

        Remember: there's no sense in talking to them. Talk to your base first, the middle second, and the amoral and lying right never.

        by cdreid on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 01:40:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  i don't choose to support (none)
          the dlc, wouldn't go that far out of my way, but i don't see them being republican either.

          if you do, that's your business.

          On the other hand if you wish to find their Loud, harsh, angry, deceptive attacks on Democrats you can go to the NY Times, Fox, Wapo, LA Times, NBC, CBS, ABC

          hmmm.  well, i don't watch much tv news, i just went and checked the front page of the nytimes and the washington front page.  where's the loud, harsh, angry and deceptive attacks?

          here, let me just ask this, cut through some poop and avoid a potential misunderstanding.  when biden said "he doesn't speak for me" was that, in your mind, a Loud, harsh, angry, deceptive attack on Dean?

          if so, perhaps we could just agree to disagree on this and let it go for now.

          •  It was an attack (none)
            If you're going to try to honestly pretend the dlc hasnt been attacking democrats since before it came to prominence and isnt doing it even moreso now I dont know what to say other than your reality must be a rosie one. From? Lieberman? Do the names ring a bell?

            Remember: there's no sense in talking to them. Talk to your base first, the middle second, and the amoral and lying right never.

            by cdreid on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 09:12:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  all i'm saying is (none)
              if "he doesn't speak for me" is regarded as an attack on democrats, then my guess is, by definition there has been an ongoing siege by moderates against leftists for a long time now.

              i'm only pointing out what the threshold is for calling something an attack.  you seem to think "he doesn't speak for me" is an attack.

              i seem to think calling a group of people "cowards" and "traitors" is an attack.

              •  You dont get it (none)
                The DLCers, the Clintons.. these people you call "the moderates" would have been considered Hardcore republicans pre-dlc.

                by definition there has been an ongoing siege by moderates dlcers against leftists for a long time now.

                Yup.

                Remember: there's no sense in talking to them. Talk to your base first, the middle second, and the amoral and lying right never.

                by cdreid on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 02:55:45 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  i disagree (none)
                  if i apply the stilted prose of the dlc to pre dlc politics i can still vast differences between them and, say, reagan.
                  •  Ah (none)
                    Heres our misunmderstanding. When i think republican i think Nixon, Specter, McCain. I think country club republican. Not the far right wing extremist version that now leads the republican party. Republicans kossacks call "centrists" now for pretty much my lifetime were hardcore right wing republicans. Conservatives. Bill Clinton was in most way one of those Conservatives. The DLCers are definitely to the right of clinton. In fact they're to the right of McCain and Specter. I dont consider that a democrat. Imho a Democrat is someone who fights for the poor, the working class, Civil Liberties, the Bill of Rights, Womens rights. Not someone who only wants a 5% tax cut for the ultrawealthy as opposed to a 0% tax rate for the ultrawealthy.

                    Remember: there's no sense in talking to them. Talk to your base first, the middle second, and the amoral and lying right never.

                    by cdreid on Wed Jul 27, 2005 at 02:56:39 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  not the best proof for your argument (none)
        since I see two stories here that I think prove what others are saying about the DLC.

        First story,

        In an incautiously frank moment, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney complained about Bush administration incompetence in working with states and localities on homeland security.

        So a well-documented complaint against Bush is "incautious".

        And then:

        Beneath its inspiring rhetoric of compassion, the Bush approach combines stingy funding with no effective demands for greater accountability.

        Bad as the bidget may be, well, they're using the words "inspiring" which supports the Republican frame and only serves to weaken whatever may come afterwards.

        And these are their two headline pieces on Bush's Record?  I don't think they're trying too hard there.

        In the end, words fromt heir website or their vision statement mean a lot less to me than their actions.  Putting the word progressive in the name of a policy institute doesn't cut it.  They should walk the walk if tghey want to talk the talk as the saying goes.  And sadly, with the DLC, it just doesn't.

        "Fear is an -ism...did you notice the transition from Communism into Islamic terrorism?" Lee Raback, Warsaw Pack "Doomsday Device", written pre-9/11

        by lizah on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 05:50:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I swear (none)
          I hit preview instead of post, but obviously I was wrong.  Consider typos fixed here and sorry.

          "Fear is an -ism...did you notice the transition from Communism into Islamic terrorism?" Lee Raback, Warsaw Pack "Doomsday Device", written pre-9/11

          by lizah on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 05:54:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  you focus on two words (none)
          incautious and inspiring.

          basically, from your perception, a sentence that calls the bush approach stingy and ineffective is actually somehow propping up the bush admin.

          i don't see it.

          people see that sentence like this:

          Beneath its inspiring rhetoric of compassion, the Bush approach combines stingy funding with no effective demands for greater accountability.

          and not...

          inspiring rhetoric of compassion the Bush approach combines stingy funding with no effective demands for greater accountability.,

          and then they get all upset.  if you're looking for subtext in that statement, consider the whole statement, and it's this:  inspiring rhetoric of compassion should not be confused with accountability and ultimately it won't do squat to protect us from any future attacks.

          but even if i did see these statements as you do, i still don't regard these examples as profound attacks on the core democratic party constituency.  what's worse? calling someone incautious?  or calling someone a coward?  or the "enemy within"?

    •  The NDN (4.00)
      They're like the DLC, founded by a DLCer--Rosenberg, but the group is far less pyrrhic in intent and doesn't set out to offend anyone, particularly in the Democratic Party.

      There's lots of good groups unofficially under our tent, like Clinton's Chief of Staff John Podesta's Center for American Progress and former GOP-smearman David Brock's Media Matters for America.  The NDN, while I disagree with Rosenberg on some issues, also qualifies as good.  The DLC, on the other hand, is a stink tank that doesn't hold a candle to the afforementioned groups.

      KISS -- Keep It Simple, Stupid! :-D

      by Viktor on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 01:31:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I give the NDN (none)
        a "chance" for one reason and one reason only. Markos supports them. And his ideology and mine on most things mirror each other. I trust his judgement. Imho they are likely just the same group with a more charming and positive leader but.. i oculd be wrong.

        Remember: there's no sense in talking to them. Talk to your base first, the middle second, and the amoral and lying right never.

        by cdreid on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 01:34:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing (none)
    Ho, hum, another day, another dollar, another attack by Kos on the DLC.

    Me, I'm still waiting for the vaunted primary challenger to Sen. Lieberman to materialize.

  •  And me? (none)
    I'm wondering why 7 of the 9 Dems who crossed party lines and voted FOR CAFTA were DLC'ers?  Including their Vice-Chairman Tom Carper!

    With Democrats like that, who needs Republicans?

  •  Same old Dem-hating from Wittmann (none)
    Marshall Wittmann, in case anyone needs a reminder, never misses a chance to attack genuine Democrats.

    Allow me to dredge up this old diary, in which I noted Wittmann's anti-union comments.

    Wittmann wants Wal-Mart to remain low-wage and non-union, and he hates unions because, well, they're progressive:

    "If they target Wal-Mart, they could turn off a lot of people they want to organize," says Marshall Wittmann, a spokesman for the centrist Democratic Leadership Council.
    . . . .
    Wittmann cautions that attempts to unionize in these conservative pockets of America will be portrayed as an anti-religious, pro-abortion, East Coast movement.

    Wittmann even took the opportunity to indulge in some gay bashing and smear the unions, all in one little bigoted "wink wink" comment:

    With the theory you have to start somewhere, Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, recently adopted the color purple as SEIU's signature logo.
    . . . .
    "Where I'm from, men don't wear purple," says Wittmann. "What's wrong with red, white and blue?"

    That says everything you need to know about the character (or lack thereof) of Marshall Wittmann.

  •  [music] co-stan-za! (none)
    "The DLC is not a credible vehicle for such an effort."

    But money has a big, big part to play:

    "Corporate fundraisers and DC connections--the lifeblood of the DLC?" (read this elsewhere)

    Ah, another special interest group.

  •  If Iraq is their litmus... (none)
    count me out. What exactly ARE the progressive values of the DLC -- better lies? There can be no cease fire: their values are similar to the bankrupt values of Bush: war without a moral basis, and without sacrifices by elites.

    "Scrutinize the bill, it is you who must pay it...You must take over the leadership." - Brecht

    by pedestrian xing on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 03:18:04 AM PDT

  •  this is not new for hillary (none)
    i agree with everything kos says except that he seems surprised hillary would cast her lot with DLC.  Why the surprise?  The Clintons have been DLC leadership forever.

    Bill was a disaster for the Democratic Party in large measure because of his DLC roots, his dragging the Democratic Party far far to the right.  Ross Perot made it possible for the Clintons to stagger into office.  Bill is a brilliant man -- but whose commitment to justice pales compared to his commitment to Bill.  Yes, the Clintons won two presidential elections, but they muffled the voice of the grassroots.

    Hillary's election night 2000 "joke" endorsing the killing of Nader, and her refusal to apologize afterwards, show that the woman is not even civil.

    The Clintons are not even decent, and because the Democratic Party still looks to them as models we are debilitated.

  •  Let's be pragmatic about this (4.00)
    If the measure of leadership capability lies in results, then let's look at the DLC's results - Congressional losses in 94, 96, and 98; total losses (on a national basis) in 98, 00, and 04.  Based on those results, it's beyond time for a change in leadership.

    It's just common sense that if we want to be taken seriously by voters and win elections, Dems have to stop bashing other Dems.  Who has been the leader in bashing our own?  The DLC.

    When a new Chair for the DNC was chosen this year, seems to me that the DLC approach was soundly rejected.  It's time to drop the arrogant "we know best" approach to driving the party and actually stop to listen to the people who have stuck with the party.  We know ourselves, our friends and our neighbors.  We know what they will respond to and what they will reject.  Why won't the DLC listen?  

    Notice that I've said nothing about the liberal to moderate to conservative spectrum.  All politics is still local.  Democrats must be able to represent their local constituency, and there is nothing wrong with that.  Using a big brush to paint ourselves into a corner so that local constituencies are shut out of the party serves no one's purpose.   Instead, we need to well and truly define the core values of the party; those things on which there will be no compromise - the things that all Democrats will stand for.  All children deserve a good education; the environment should be protected; worker's deserve fair pay for an honest days work and should be protected from corporate vultures; people deserve a retirement with dignity;  war for profit is bad, but a strong military is vital to our national defense; etc.

    When it comes to compromise, the DLC's definition of compromise smacks awfully close to the Republican's definition - "let's compromise; you do it our way without question or comment and we'll get along just fine.  Otherwise, we'll smear you and deride you."  While that may serve to protect the local interests of certain Democrats, it leads to overall disaster.

    Living proof that not every Southern white guy is stupid enough to vote Republican.

    by SouthernBlueNeck on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 03:41:34 AM PDT

  •  Governor Warner - Another DLC candidate (none)
    Here are 2 short, funny and insightful posts at - http://satire.myblogsite.com/blog/

    about another DLC candidate - Governor Warner.


    "Governor Warner, Future, Poker, Democrats"
     - June 14, 2005

    2.  
    "Democrats Nominate Warner For 'America Hates Democrats' Candid Talk"
     June 25, 2005

  •  I keep trying to be a Democrat (none)
    but it can be very trying. Instead of being ashamed of our anti-war stance, Hillary, or anyone who wants to ride the wave of the new progressive movement, should embrace it. I need a Democratic party that will call this war off! Period. It was a mistake. We should admit it, give the rest of the money to the Iraqis with our humble apologies and some effective engineering help for rebuilding and get our army the hell out! This romance with war and violence is what we protested in the 60's and now. I am ashamed of government bent on imperialism  and not ashamed of protesting a war based on lies. Get it straight Hillary, or get lost.
  •  I couldn't scroll through all these comments and (none)
    read all this intra-party esoterica.  It's all to depressing, especially considering the enemy we face.  But you can count me in with the folks who remain simply amazed at willing blindness of your average Democratic Party fat cat.  Do these people enjoy being played?  Do they like being total idiots in public?  I don't get it.  I try and try to be a Democrat--for the the entire 50 plus years of my life--but then I look at the public face of the party and ask--why do we put up with these jerks?
  •  Markos I love ya But...... (none)
    Dude...

    If I get it correctly Markos' argument (distilled and pithy) goes like this....

    If we (Progressives or jest plain Democrats) build a better infrastructure we will all win (no defining the term 'win)....

    I know I am simplifying the argument greatly but it is one that makes me shake my head....

    YOU HAFTA WIN ELECTIONS....it is that simple...

    Forget about doing it a certain (re: correct and moral way).....

    I am not a fan of the Big Dog's wife but....she is gunna do what it takes to win...

    I say read this guys blog and answer his question....

    Is she doing what it will take to win?...

    http://lawandpolitics.blogspot.com/

    Politics is more difficult than physics
    --Albert Einstein

  •  Thank you (none)
    The DLC is a group in my estimation that is where the Democratic Party allowed an infiltration of Republicans to find a way to control us .. thus making this country really a one party country which is what we have now...

    I am not surprised that Hillary is part of the DLC..Bill is a product of the DLC.  They have no control over the Democratic Party..none .. whatsoever..we will not support anyone coming out of the DLC..so Hillary might as well forget 2008..that is unless she calls for the impeachment of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney and the arrest and prosecution of every member of this administration's cabinet...everyone in the press complicit in the scheme of fraud and artifice that has gotten us into this awful war...
    every NEOCON involved in the plan to steal the assets of Iraq and the Middle East...

  •  Thanks, Hillary, we'll take it from here (none)
    So, let's be honest: the DLC sees the grassroots as being the 'loony left'.  This is a sentiment not unlike that expressed by Kos himself at times.  Kos doesn't appreciate tin-foil hat diaries that aren't based on evidence.  Kos expressed misgivings about the number of single-issue activists who screamed for attention at a recent conference.  There have been a couple times when I want to smack the 'abortion is the most wonderful thing since sliced-bread', or 'all pharmas or corporations are bad' or 'teachers and their methods are infallible and all standards based testing is wrong, wrong, wrong' poster myself.  
    The thing is, here at dailykos, there aren't that many people out on the fringes or absolutists who feel that their position is one that must define the Democratic party.  Most people here are just a little left of center.  I couldn't feel comfortable here if it weren't for the number of people who value evidence and well-reasoned arguments.  We are diverse and yet I do believe we share some common, fundamental values.  That is we value opportunity over privelege, fairness over exclusion, the rule of law rather than the rule of man, solidarity in honoring the social contracts we make to each other rather than every man for himself, American strength in acting like a protective older sibling rather than the playground bully.
    I get the feeling that the DLC doesn't understand the grassroots at dailykos.  In any case, the era of the DLC dominating the party is over.  The sooner they accept that and learn to work with us instead of trying to scramble to the top of the heap, the sooner we can refine our fundamental values into a message that will resonate with the latent kossacks in the general public.  

    "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

    by goldberry on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 05:15:46 AM PDT

  •  Obituary (none)
    If mentioning Hilary's name on a Democrat blog brings that kind of contention, imagine what would happen if she ran for President!

    Gore Vidal: "...she is uncompromised by compassion." Was he talking about a Republican?

    by oratorio on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 05:16:04 AM PDT

  •  Now I know what Bill (none)
    was up to last month in Kennebunkport.  Hillary, you could have been part of the movement to unite the party a long time ago.  Like when your party elected a DNC Chairman with a vision and the spine to back it up.

    You are a politician.  And you are going to run for President, aren't you?  I think you made this statement just to see how much support you really do have.

    Count me out Hil'.  I'll be supporting someone else.  By the way, I'm sure you knew the intelligence had been "sexed up" when you voted to give the madman in the WH permission to declare war.

  •  Kos your a hypocrite on this one (none)
    i love you but, it's pretty funny for you to accuse the DLC of being the leaders of mud-slinging.  you always attack the DLC.  everyone at dailykos seems to attack the DLC.  they attack back for sure, and maybe they 'started' it, but it takes two to have a food fight.  

    "Rick Santorum is Latin for Asshole."

    by tmendoza on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 05:22:09 AM PDT

  •  DLC commited murder! (none)
    The victim's name was Howard Dean.

    Gore Vidal: "...she is uncompromised by compassion." Was he talking about a Republican?

    by oratorio on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 05:24:04 AM PDT

  •  Given that Hil may win the (none)
    nomination if she runs. What will the esteemed KOS then do?
  •  asdf (none)
    Hopefully the lashing out in this thread was due to the late night hours.

    My thought is that Hillary Clinton is doing a great job as a senator of an important state and should remain so.  From reading this thread it is obvious that a Clinton presidential run would be a boon to the Republican candidate.  We really should find someone who is not so controvercial but stands on his/her own two feet, gets things accomplished, did not vote for the are, and doesn't bow to interest groups .. oh wait, we had someone like that but the DLC screwed him.

  •  Huh (none)
    Intellectually, of course, it's possible to separate Iraq and the war on terror.

    Intellectually?

    What, in some obscure, egg-headed way?

    What the fuck is this guy smoking?

    It's possible to separate Iraq and the war on terror??  As in, it's a stretch to separate the two, but only if you use deep intellect in a hypothetical construct understandable only to few?

    Please tell me this is the guy that parks the cars and arranges the chairs at the DLC.  

    Please tell me he's not in charge of anything.

    Please?

    •  In a nutshell (none)
      Will Marshall is telling Democrats to shut up about Iraq because voters can't tell the difference between invading Iraq and fighting al-Queda.

      And who's responsible for that confusion? Democratic hawks like Marshall, who argued for a "muscular foreign policy" (translation: blow things up or voters will think you're a wimp) and, as a result, supported Bush's invasion of Iraq.

      Marshall and the DLC are blaming us for a mess they helped create. Someone get them a mirror.

  •  Kos better heed the lady's words. (none)
    "It's high time for a cease-fire, time for all Democrats to work together based on the fundamental values we all share."

    She's absolutely right, and if Kos wants to continue his intraparty sniping, I'll go elsewhere for my bloggish delights.

    •  You Won't Be Missed... (none)
      Bye!

      This is CLASS WAR, and the other side is winning.

      by Mr X on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 05:50:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fundamental values? (none)
      Certainly the folks here are appalled by the war and its falsified justifications.  Anyone who bought into that war or worse yet still can't condemn it doesn't share my core values.  And pretty obviously doesn't share the core values of most of this site's participants.

      Just what values do we have if we can't oppose this war and the lies?

  •  DLC and Iraq (none)
    How many of those faux patriot chickenhawks have told their own children to enlist and fight the crusade they cheer?

    I won't vote for any politician that supported the IWR who hasn't done a mea culpa.  Period.

  •  Tell Hillary to... (2.50)
    go to www.goarmy.com and sign Chelsea up.
  •  Oh, great.... (none)
    first the Labor movement tears itself apart, now the DLC and anti-DLC ripe the Democratic Party's "big tent" to shreds.  Gee, I wonder who's sitting back and enjoying this circular firing squad carnage?  Perhaps some guys named Rove, DeLay, Cheney and Bush?   I say, CEASE "FRIENDLY FIRE" immediately!
  •  Republicans really love this (none)
    I already emailed Whitman on his "daily kosy" crack, so I might as well be ecumenical.

    I'm a Democrat.  I want to win elections.  The only two presidential elections we've won since 1964 (that's 41 years, for the math-challenged) were in the last 15 years that you claim have "cost our party so dearly."  I'm not sure what about the 1980s was so good for the party, since we lost 3 presidential elections during that decade.  But if you'd like to post on the glory years of Reagan/Bush I and why they were so good for Democrats I'll gladly read it.

    If Clinton or the DLC wins the next election you won't get everything on your ideological shopping list.  But you'll get a hell of a lot more than if the Fascist - oops - Republican party wins.

    The real irritating thing about this little civil war we love to perpetually fight is that at heart, we want the same things - equal right under the law for every American, freedom from government intervention in our personal lives, the kind of strength and security that comes from other nations respecting us rather than fearing us, and prosperity for the working men and women of this country.  The difference between progressives and DLCers is in methodology, not goals.  Yet each side wants to kick the other out of the party.

    And Ken Mole-man sits in RNC headquarters and laughs.  And laughs.  And collects some more money.

    •  You Miss a VERY Large Point (none)
      Should the Democratic Party be progressive or not?

      Most of us here believe that is an important issue. I would rather have a progressive Democratic Party eventually return to power, than a conservative Dem party in office right away.

      This is CLASS WAR, and the other side is winning.

      by Mr X on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 05:55:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  i'd rather have a conservative dem party (none)
        in power right away.

        and then a truly progressive dem party in power later.

        you know.  both.

        why not?

        •  conservative democratic victories lead to (none)
          far right republican victories, not progressive democratic victories
          •  i was just working with the options (none)
            listed by the kossack above.

            the kossack didn't point out that a conservative dem victory right now would prohibit a more progressive dem victory later on.

            if the kossack pointed that out then it wouldn't be an option.

            i'm just saying if it was an option between.

            option 1.  a conservative dem victory now AND a progressive dem victory later.

            and ..

            option 2.  a republican victory now and a progressive dem victory later.

            i'd choose option 1.

            i get the sense many here would choose option 2.  just out of sheer spite.

        •  Why Not? Are You Serious? (none)
          Because the Democratic Party has already wandered very far from progressive policies. If the party moves any farther to the right, what makes you think they will EVER become progressive again?

          This is CLASS WAR, and the other side is winning.

          by Mr X on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 06:31:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  maybe I'm confused (none)
            what exactly do you mean by "progressive policies"?

            if you get past support for abortion rights, support for gay rights, support for the environment, opposition to being lied to to start a war, opposition to invading other countries that don't threaten us, environmentalism, I'm not sure what policies someone would have to espouse to be a progressive.

            •  I'd Say the Number One Progressive Issue (none)
              is being on the right side in the class war.

              It's about the distribution of wealth. Progressive policies distribute wealth towards equality, they favor the working class and the poor. Regressive policies distribute wealth towards disparity, they favor the wealthy.

              Controlling the distribution of wealth is the primary function of government.

              This is CLASS WAR, and the other side is winning.

              by Mr X on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 08:15:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  okay (none)
                so one dividing line would be those who voted for, and those who voted against, W's tax cuts for rich people?  

                I'll have to look it up, but I don't think all those DLC people voted for those tax cuts -

                sometimes I think we get into big fights because we phrase things differently.  e.g., I don't know if I'd call it "class war" - but I think government policy ought to be geared toward improving the prosperity of working men and women, and I think you're right that that's at the top of the list of important issues (choice/privacy's pretty important, too).

                my problem is that I'm more pragmatic than ideological.  it's a plain fact that we won't be able to elect someone who wants to (for example) raise the top marginal tax rate to 60%, eliminate taxes for anyone who makes less than 20K/year, and enact free universal health insurance.  so it seems to me that the first thing we have to do is elect someone who'll get rid of the tax breaks for rich people so we can at least get the budget back in balance and see where we can go from there.

                I don't see how we get any closer to prosperity for all by kicking people out of the party, or quitting the party . . .

                •  Hmmmmmmmmm... (none)
                  "it's a plain fact that we won't be able to elect someone who wants to (for example) raise the top marginal tax rate to 60%, eliminate taxes for anyone who makes less than 20K/year, and enact free universal health insurance."

                  The astounding thing is that these policies would benefit the overwhelming majority of Americans.

                  Why is it impossible to elect someone who favors helping the working class and the poor? It's NOT. It is just not going to be easy.

                  Right now, the poor hardly vote at all, and who can blame them, when nobody represents them in the election? The working class are seeing their dreams start to fade, but they are still more easily fired-up by wedge issues than by complicated ones like health care and education.

                  Someday the poor and working class will get fired-up by a true progressive. There will be no stopping them then.

                  This is CLASS WAR, and the other side is winning.

                  by Mr X on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 10:23:03 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  see above (none)
            for response.
          •  In response to (none)
            biminicat, do you realize innocent citizens are being raped tortured and killed in our name under the guise of moderation? If you believe in God or Godess or Karma..you think.
      •  I frequently miss points (none)
        so that would be nothing new.

        The point I'm not missing is this - the majority of the electorate doesn't consider themselves progressive (and may not objectively be progressive.)  Heck, most of the British people aren't even "progressive" or the Liberal Democrats would win all the elections!

        Was Howard Dean really a "progressive"?  He wanted a balanced budget, even if it meant rolling back the pittance of tax cuts that went to non-rich people, e.g. increased deductions for kids.  

        (since in kos' polls, the biggest number of kossacks keep choosing Wesley Clark, are kossacks even "progressive."?)

        I think by even having the argument - who's progressive and who's not - we muddle the argument and get into the same labelling game that the Republicans have excelled at since Nixon ("liberal" = "Democrat" = "spawn of Satan").

        Again - we have certain common core values - e.g. we've basically gotten all the racists to switch to the Republican party.  We don't believe in shoving our religion down other people's throats.  Being flat-out opposed to anyone who doesn't agree with us on every single point will only ensure that neither progressives nor Democrats will win elections.

        My least favorite Democrats are Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman.  But I'd much, much rather have either of them be President than anyone the thugs will offer.  The only person who will ever completely agree with my ideas and ideology is me.  And I'm not running for President.

  •  The Last Refuge (4.00)
    Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.  That wasn't patriotism that welled up after 9/11.  That was a combination of fear and blatantly cynical exploitation thereof.  The DLCers are too blind or -- more likely -- too intimidated to recognize the situation for what it is.  Bush is a demagogue.  Demagaogues must be resisted, not submitted to.

    FUCK THE DLC.

    And by the way, re Marshall Wittman.  This is a guy who not too long ago thought the fucking godforsaken Christian Coalition was an enterprise worth devoting his time to.  'Nuff said.

    •  are you calling patriotic people (none)
      scoundrels?
      •  not quite sure what's wrong with that question (none)
        based on the post i was responding too.

        patriotism is the refuge of scoundrels.  so does that mean all patriots are scoundrels?

        but i got a 1.

        boo.  hoo.

        •  biminicat (none)
          don't know where you have been the last four and a half years...your guy thinks anyone who disagrees with the fuehher is unpatriotic. If you see a flag on a vehicle store or whatever. More than likely you will find a republican like yourself. Let's see how many institutions have you guys destroyed for patriotic people. Family, media, courts, the vote, the right to assemble and organize, religion. If you want to destroy a people you take away their culture. Indians...Irish...Iraq citizens. Your brand of patriosm in the present day climate can't pass the smell test. Oh, a traitor has an office right beside yoiur guy in the W.H.
          •  you make a lot of incorrect (none)
            ignorant and, pretty much, insulting assumptions about what it is you think i'm saying or believe.

            newsflash, dimwit.  you won't win any elections convincing people patriotism is a bad thing.  you might win some elections convincing folks that bad policies, that destroying family, media, courts, the vote, the right to assemble and organize and religion is EXTREMELY UNpatriotic.

            quick summary, just to repeat clearly for you:  patriotism isn't bad.  bad/destructive policy is NOT patriotic.

            doofaramus.

  •  H. Clinton v. Rice in 2008? (none)
    It was Hillary's position on the war in '02 & '03 that determined that I would not be able to support her as president...  Her comments seemed to justify what Bushy-boy was doing (we had the same intelligence when Bill was in the White House...[Then why didn't we invade Iraq in '97?]). If Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, then I will be looking for a 3rd party (hopefully, one that has a nervous system [I.e., a backbone & gray matter])...
  •  sister souljah (none)
    hilary's just trying to have her sister souljah moment; the only problem is, we're not "the fringe" in any way, shape, or form.

    They think they can jettison the progressive movement and retain the mushy middle.

  •  Todd Gitlin speaks only for himself (none)
    Todd Gitlin might have ditched patriotism during the Vietnam War, but that is not what I've noticed among the folks I knew who opposed that war.

    Most of us came to the conclusion that the Vietnam War was a mistake when the military started talking about "strategic hamlets", village compounds to protect friendly Vietnamese from their unfriendly neighbors.  That was in 1965, and the admission was that the US was not interested in the "hearts and minds" of the Vietnamese.  Just as Iraq was fighting the wrong people, in Vietnam the "domino theory" was an admission that we were fighting the wrong people.

    So why did we oppose the war?  We were patriotic.  We bought the ideas of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  We believed that other people could benefit from those ideas.  Most of us love marches and 4th of July parades and the notion that we were a moral nation, that we were the "city on the hill", that "liberty was a beacon".  We were patriotic because we insisted that the United States live up to its promise to the world.  We believed that we had the freedom of speech to criticize a government action, and that the government would listen.  The youth of the 1960s were children of the 1950s after all, patriotic fervor 24x7.  Sure we were naive.

    So what happened in the 1970s.  After the rage at Kent State had passed, there was a sense of mourning.  For a while, it seemed like our nation had died; died dead.  Then in 1976, we were patriotic again; America was reminding itself of its promise beginning to rid itself of its dishonesty.  I saw actual change in racial attitudes in the South, attitudes that Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms worked very hard to reverse.  

    It became very clear to me that what one thought about a president had zero to do with being patriotic or unpatriotic.

    It became very clear to me that "We're No. 1" has zero to do with patriotism.

    The only meaning that anti-war writer Todd Gitlin could possibly have is that Todd Gitlin is no longer patriotic because he has retreated into cynicism.

    The revolution starts now--in your own back yard, in your own home town

    by TarheelDem on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 06:08:00 AM PDT

    •  Cynicism? (none)
      I can't speak for Tod but what he was probably saying is that he no longer subscribed to the kind of patriotism we are still fighting against. The obscurantists hijacked the word and short of inventing a new one we have to fall in the quagmire of having to prove we would die for our country. Let the chickenhawks prove they love their country by joining the Army.

      Gore Vidal: "...she is uncompromised by compassion." Was he talking about a Republican?

      by oratorio on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 06:19:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Dying for one's country (none)
        Republicans love George Patton but forget one of his most memorable quotes:

        "War isn't about dying for your country; it's about the other poor slob dying for his."

        And, yes I believe that it is cynicism that has prevented us from reclaiming our patriotism.  When Kerry said at last year's convention that it's our flag he was right.

        And if Gitlin was saying that he no longer subscribed to the "We're No. 1" phoney patriotism, why didn't he say so instead of implicitly slamming liberals?  Why didn't he talk about why the conservatives are so detached from real patriotism instead?

        The revolution starts now--in your own back yard, in your own home town

        by TarheelDem on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 06:54:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  "Winning The Heartland" (none)
    We won the popular vote in 2000, and we lost the election in 2004 by 2% of the vote. The Democratic Party does not have a disconnect with the "heartland," whatever the fuck the "heartland" is. We simply suck at politics.

    That's it. Plain and simple. The GOP is smarter, tougher, and more nimble, and therefore, they win presidential elections when the electorate is split 50/50. We on the other hand are stupid, weak, and clumsy.

    Our losses have nothing to do with policy. They have everything to do with our ineptness at running campaigns.

    Russ Feingold for President!

    by Basil on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 06:10:35 AM PDT

  •  DLC is so out of touch - read this shit (none)
    The DLC Motto > An upbeat Moose who is inspired and motivated by what he is seeing declares, "Gray skies are going to clear up, put on a happy face!"

    DLC is so out of touch - and so full of shit.

    FUCK YOU DLC.

  •  Hillary '08: Disaster of epic proportions (none)
    In a nutshell, here are my reasons: Iraq war, hawk, DLC, dynasty, Clinton wars redux, sucks up all the oxygen, hurts downticket, celebrity politics, unites Republicans, "it's her turn."

    Why on Earth should Democrats unite behind Hillary? She's Joe Lieberman with higher name recognition.

    •  I'm not sure she should run either, but... (none)
      That Hillary HASN'T SAID ONE SINGLE WORD about running in 2008.  The idea that she's full of ambition, does everything to feed that ambition, etc. is a GOP talking point. And Hillary is more liberal on some issues than Howard Dean.    
  •  Looks like it worked (none)
    One comment from the DLC and everyone at Kos is at each other's throats.

    Just the way the DLC likes it.

    Until you guys finally have the balls to face who is funding the DLC and why (hint: the original post mentions this circuitously), you will never understand how and why the DLC leadership is currently actively helping Republicans get elected.

    Historically, the right only stays in power when the left is split. This is true across boundaries of time and nations. That is what is happening now in the U.S.

    It's a deliberate strategy, and the DLC and its funders are a key part of it. Wake up and see it for what it is, or just go back to sleep.

  •  Good for you, Kos (none)
    Why didn't Kerry defend Massachusetts when Bush and Cheney slimed the entire state of Massachusetts?!

    Grok Your World

    grok: to understand something in a deep and empathic way

    by Grok Your World on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 06:34:16 AM PDT

  •  So, How much have the DLC Given Hackett? (4.00)
     Because the Netroots the DLC so despises have raised over 165, 000 for the guy this week.  If the DLC hasn't give him more than that, they can STFU.

    Secondly, these incompetents at the DLC have LOST  THE LAST THREE ELECTIONS!  

    What's that definition of insanity, again?  Repeating the same action (pretending to be just like RePUgs) and expecting differnt results?

    Again, until the DLC WINS something, they can STFU!

    Man, they got their damn nerve, don't they - lecturing US?

    LIsten, they got their way in the last election - made a concerted effort to destroy Howard Dean and install their hand-picked candidate - AND THEY LOST!

    SO, once again - they can STFU.

  •  And DLC leave my Berkeley ALONE (none)
    Berkeley is a interesting,progressive,diverse, livable, environmentally concious place as anywhere in the world. Most of communities of this country could learn a lost of useful ways - even run thier cities better if they could get past all the bashing. Berkeley is not mention often as one of the most livable cities in the country for nothing. Ya Know?  
  •  Reality check (none)
    This is why the Republicans have an advantage over the Democrats in a national campaign.  They are united when it comes to economic and foreign policy, while we are divided.  The DLC is the Republicans' fifth column.

    Democrats must confront the cultural populism of the wedge issues with genuine economic populism. Thomas Frank.

    by Paleo on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 06:40:37 AM PDT

  •  Jesus... (4.00)
    The left's unease with patriotism is rooted in a 1960s narrative of American arrogance and abuse of power. For many liberals who came of age during the protests against the Vietnam War, writes leftish commentator Todd Gitlin, "the most powerful public emotion of our lives was rejecting patriotism."

    So at this point the DLC is even using the right wing "Democrats hate America" spin while simultaneously calling for "unity"?  Unbelievable!

    Unlike Al From, Dick Morris, Joe Lieberman, or (apparently) Hillary Clinton I am PROUD to be a Democrat.  I am not ashamed of my party affiliation, and I certainly don't think most of the people voting alongside me hate America, want to see the terrorists win, want to oppress religious people, or would only be satisfied if the next President were to the left of Stalin.  Yet that is the caricature the DLC has sold regarding ANYONE in the party that does not completely toe their line.  And their idiot shills permeating the real grassroots orgs swing out at anyone who now disagrees with that hardcore opposition as "divisive".  The party needs a change, and getting rid of the organization that's led it into a decade of unmitigated failure would be a good place to start.

    You know what the Midwest is? Young and restless... - Kanye West

    by ChicagoDem on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 06:41:09 AM PDT

  •  After having a very terse phone conversation (none)
    with a woman in the DLC administration a few moments ago, I say, it is not too late for a third party.
    There are some very good Dem members and they need to know the DLC attacks on the populist and progressive Party base are harmful.
    That is about as conciliatory and constructive as I can manage with these assholes.
  •  Clinton + DLC = (none)
    absolutely zero support from me in an election.  I'd rather vote 3rd party than for a DCL lap dog.
    •  The Clintonista Strategy is attack Progressives (none)
      Clinton + Bayh + DLC = Clintonista Old Ideas

      A lot of worn out Old Ideas + sure to lose in 2008.

      How can they act like they know what they are doing? They are clueless. The Democratic Party has been in a continual slide since 1994 - the entire time the Clintonistas have ruled the party.

      Shame on you DLC. Progressive are the Future.
      Bash us today if your dare.

  •  Fight fire with fire - remind DLC focus on Plame (none)
    Bill Clinton had a wonderful talent when asked a question.  

    In one breath, he could restate the question, defend himself, and then conclude with a rhetorical question aimed back at whatever force was attacking him and effectively attack back.   All in one breath, over and over again, subject after subject.  The dude was amazing.  

    So, inspired by Bill, here it goes:

    The DLC and Hillary is making a fuss about being attacked and calling for a cease fire, which is fine, they are right, there needs to be a cease fire an unity in the party, but I have to ask are they themselves willing to hold their fire themselves; We will if they will, but really what we all need to be focussing on for not only party unity but American unity is to make sure the government is clear of people willing to play so fast and loose with National Security as Karl Rove has - cease fire nothing, all Americans need to be focused on the Plame affair, make sure Fitzgerald has every opportunity to get to the bottom of things with as little interference as possible.  We face a crisis at this moment and we need to take care of it.    

    Next question...

    (All in one breath.  And don't you know Bill would do this to Hillary in their personal lives).  

    Tug

    George W Bush - Plame Duck President

    by Tug on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 07:20:54 AM PDT

  •  In case you've all forgotten... (none)
    Hillary has a Senate election to win in 2006, and I fail to see how attacking her now without any knowledge of whether she will actually run in 2008, will be helpful to the Democratic Party going forward. More over, I fail to see how refusing to support her when she will be facing the ENTIRE Republican Party in 06 while they try to bloody her for 2008, is at all productive for the party going forward.

    C'mon people, think straight for a moment, whatever you think of a run in 2008, it would be bad for her to become vulnerable in New York in 06. The woman has done more for her country than a lot of us will do in a lifetime, be judgemental if you want...but I find it a little childish and wrongheaded.

  •  I want Democrats to win... (none)
    If nothing else, the recent nomination of Judge Roberts provided me with a focus of purpose... Democrats must once again win at the statewide and national levels.   It's that simple.  That is the purpose of the Democratic Party apparatus - to ensure political victory in the upcoming election.

    Without victory in the near term, many of the "fundamental" values of which H.C. and Kossaks speak, however divergent, will become lost for generations to come.  Therefore, I am willing, in the interest of my children and the future generations of this nation, to bust my ass to make sure as many Democrats win as possible in the next 2 election cycles.

    Yes, I understand that the meaning of "fundamental" values may be quite different for the moderates, conservatives (I know of many conservatives that voted for Kerry) and the progressives within the Party.  I also know that I am infinitely more willing to accept the entire breadth of these divergent values than I am willing to allow my children to grow up under the semi-fascist values of the current right-wing Republican machine.

    The time is now people.  We are desperate.  We need progressives, moderates and conservatives on our side.  The Republicans are ripe for marginalization.  We are not.

  •  Beginning a process (none)
    We have 3 years to go before the 2008 election
    Clearly there is some work to do on clarifying the ongoing stream of slightly twisted communication which tends to emanate from DLC

    I don't say they are bad people, they're simply looking for a winning political strategy, and seem to be all to willing to apologize for fellow Dems and for themselves, to constantly look for new excuses and apologies
    They come up with some good ideas, or beginnings of such, they have brains, they have visions, they are not worthless
    But they have a self-destructive attitude problem

    These type of people are people who need to be led.   If they were winning and Dems were winning they wouldn't be complaining and divisivising (new word!)

    There are some good beginnings of ideas in Marshall Witmann's pieces here
    http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253472&kaid=124&subid=307

    For example, he talks about expanding Americorps into a truly widespread national service program with better tuition contributions flowing to those who sign up

    And I think many here would agree that the military needs to develop a post-conflict branch, lightly armed and specializing in helping destructed countries get functional again

    However we need to take those beginnings and remove the twisting, apologizing, self-flagellation.

    We need the DLC to get over Vietnam and to stop promoting Dem self-doubt and self-aggression.
    Nobody here is fretting over Vietnam, it's rarely mentioned except in the dictionary sense of the word 'Vietnam' meaning 'Quagmire'

    Just get over it guys!  
    Most of us weren't there and we don't have whatever hangup it is you still seem to have about decisions you made 35 years ago.

    Here's a challenge to the DLC:  try writing a piece where you do zero attacking, undermining or even speaking about fellow Dems.  Just as an exercize.  
    STOP APOLOGIZING!  BE PROUD.  PEOPLE RESPECT PRIDE!
    Heck, dKos respects pride!
    We're tired of Washington hair-splitting apologisms, excuses and mixed messages covering over the same old corrupt power games.

    DLC-style Dem apologism is a loser strategy, it feeds the very beast of right-wing bluster it's claiming to challenge.

    We more or less all know what those things are that this world requires in order to begin to function harmoniously

    We need to assemble good, clear ideas, of which we have many, and simply present a clear positive agenda, free from excuses, apologies or even from trying to keep tabs on who's idea it was.

  •  Offending progressives is OK! (4.00)
    I mean, what are we going to do, join the Republicans?

    No... but we might join the Greens, which is almost as bad from the perspective of the Democratic party. I have a handful of friends who after the last election said they were through with pretending the Democratic party represented them and went and registered as Greens. Pretending to be part of a centrist party that insults you and then asks for your loyalty and doesn't win anyway is pretty pointless - better to be part of building something you can actually believe in, even if it won't win anytime soon either.

    I haven't given up yet myself... but I've looked at the friends who have and haven't really been able to come up with a good coherent argument why they should come back to the Democratic party.

  •  Douchebag alert (none)
    Looks like the wingnuts at the Museum are at it again. They provided a link to the very thread in an attempt to discredit us. The link's here:

    http://www.museumofleftwinglunacy.com/archives/2005/07/kos_goes_off_on.html

    It seems to genuinely surprise those on the right lunatic fringe that we possess the capacity to call a spade a spade and to not support out party in lockstep when we feel they don't deserve out support. But then again, free thinking was nbever the GOP's long suit.

    http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com

    Defending bad taste and liberalism since 2005.

    by jurassicpork on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 08:31:42 AM PDT

  •  Excuse me here (none)
    You cannot brag about the number of attendees at your event if you pay for their airfare or room and board. Doesn't work that way.

    Also who is sponsoring these little breakout sessions in Ohio? Progress Energy ? Or whoever was in charge of the NYC balckout? Probably them. Probably Dyncorp and probably Boeing.

    Are we counting the big oil lobbyists that are there as part of the "grassroots" who are interested in winning back the heartland.

    Whatever. The National Conversation is so boring it will put you to sleep.

  •  Legal Fiction's Hillary (none)
    Publius at Legal Fiction comes out for Hillary based on the belief that the country is in a "conservative" ascendancy.

    An excerpt from my comment there:

    Just as Bush (like Reagan) is a wolf in sheep's clothing -- a radical right winger perceived as a "man of the people" --- Democrats must have their own "wolf in sheep's clothing," -- a liberal who is perceived as a strong centrist -- especially in foreign policy and "fighting terror." Bill Clinton filled that bill before terror became an issue. I don't think Hillary, despite her tilts to the right, can overcome the present perception that Dems are National Security wimps.

    If Wes Clark could become a better communicator, he's a possibility. Schweitzer of Mont. also could put across the necessary "tough guy" persona


  •  Hillary is right! (none)
    We do need to do less of this infighting!  Of course, Kos is also right that the DLC has done their share of the infighting.  On the other hand, there isn't a single word in those two paragraphs from Will Marshall that isn't dead on target. Liberals DO have to realize that much of the public thinks more about September 11 than they do about the Vietnam War.  What the DLC (and maybe Kos as well) needs to realize is that there is no reason you can't acknowledge that, and be strongly supportive of the war on terror, AND oppose the war in Iraq.    
    •  Hillary is wrong (none)
      Hillary disdains the progressive voice. Her and Bill always have. Centrist ideas of the DLC are not the answer.
      •  I didn't agree with everything Bill Clinton did (none)
        But he was the most progressive president we've had in decades, and I'm damn proud I voted for him.  And Hillary is more liberal than he is (a big compliment, in my book!)  She's more liberal on some issues than Howard Dean is!

        I think people are making too big a deal out of one speech Hillary made.  

  •  What does Hilary Clinton know that you don't (none)
    She knows how to win elections.  She stood on the lawn of the white house during the welfare reform signing and and told those grumbling about it to shut up because the bill would keep them in power.

    She is, in her heart more "progressive" in her personal views than just about anyone on this Blog but she is linear in her thinking and her ambitions: winning in '08.

    Show me a someone who ran as a liberal for the Presidency and won. Even FDR never compromised on defense.  The post Vietnam progressive generation has situated itself so far from the mainstream that   it really has a credibility problem even before the post 9-11 world.

    The sad truth is the "progressives" of the party have followed opposition to the Vietnam war down a wormhole that has left them consistantly viewed as weak on defense. I love when liberals complain about troop strengths in Iraq while forgetting Clinton slashed eight divisions out of the Army.

    But Hilary is smart. She knows what to say to get elected and she sure hopes that average American voter spends as little time here at the DK.

    Truman, Kennedy, Carter and Clinton all ran as moderates: what do they know that you don't?

    by Molotov Von Ribbentrop on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 09:57:27 AM PDT

    •  She understands the vast right wing (none)
      conspiracy..that is true..but the DLC had better stop bashing Democrats...it does this party no good to have the DLC bash Democrats period..they are doing the work of the RNC when they do that..and we don't need that...we need to rid this country of all the radical right wing that has infected our government..not support it with more dirt...
      •  what do you mean by getting rid of the right wing? (none)
        Your choices are kill them or change their minds.  If you believe the former you put yourself beyond the pale of civil discussion, if the latter, how od you change their mind and behavior.

        The party that wins in the middle gains power.  Bill  Clinton was the smartest electioneer of this generation.  He understood that the DLC speaks to middle american values more than the left wing of the party and was smart enough to exploit it.  I still laugh at him calling out Sista Souljah for her  lyrics on the '92 campaign and then as soon as he got into office, all televised decency standards went out the window and he would talk about the V-Chip (that never worked) as his sop middle America 's unhappiness about trash on TV.

        Then Janet Jackson had a costume malfunction and most of the coutnry went nuts.

        But the point is DLC kind of people are as outraged by such excesses as many on the right and the far left of the party thinks that free speech forbids self restraint but doesn't put 2 and 2 together and realize that toxic culture overwhelms  people in our own society and there is a deep resentment towards an entertainment industry that continuously trashes what still is the American norm.

        Truman, Kennedy, Carter and Clinton all ran as moderates: what do they know that you don't?

        by Molotov Von Ribbentrop on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 07:45:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  When Bush seized power (none)
          there was barely a whimper from the leadership of the Democratic Party...only Barbara Lee from California was in tears because she knew how truly awful it was to witness a coup in this country..we have lost our country...we are living in a coup..

          I don't understand why Bill Clinton is hanging with Bush Sr.  Unless it is an attempt by both parties to pacify the left who is smoldering with palpable anger and outrage...

          We have been lied to about the reasons to get this country involved in a war without end..the left tried..truly tried to wake up the nation to tell them that what BUSH was about to do would lead to disaster....the protests fell on deaf ears and met with ridicule...the press was complicate in the scheme of fraud and artifice that has cost this country everything..our place in the world..our treasure and our people..a whole generation is lost...

          We have an administration that is insane enough to be discussin tactical nuclear weapons as if depleted uranium is not bad enough...

          Abu Ghraib is much worse than we imagined..15 year old boys raped..women and girls raped..over 100 children held in detention and now they are using the word internment...have you ever stopped to think that maybe the horrors of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are designed to terrorize us..???  Have you ever thought that maybe the torture of those innocent people is designed to frighten us into conforming to the will of the monsters in charge of our government???  Why hasn't Titan Corp. been brought up on charges for torture and rape and murder of Iraqis in their capacity as corporate contractors..?? they do not operate under the color of law..they operate under the laws of the United States of America and the World Court...

          We have a media that has been complicate in this criminal enterprise known as the Bush administration...

          If the people of this nation are lucky enough to survive the next few years of BUSH, we cannot ever ever ever participate as Vichy Democrats..ever..

          Too many people throughout history have been hurt by monsters like the ones we see in this administration..it is the ones we don't see everyday that may be of real concern, Negroponte, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Elliott Abrams, Rove, Libby..what these people have done is beyond the pale of civilized humanity...

  •  A few facts about Hillary's record (none)
    Need to be said here.... For all this talk about Hillary being a "centrist," she strikes me as actually fairly liberal.  She's pro-choice:
    http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/publications/cong_04_ny.cfm
    And she's pro-gay (an 88% approval rating for her from HRC):
    http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm& ContentID=23412
    A quick look at ADA's web site shows that she's voted against job outsourcing overseas, for more childcare money (something we parents like to see), for more money to retrain people who lose their jobs due to foreign trade, and in favor of Kennedy's bill to require Bush to make reports on the situation in Iraq.  Her overall score is 95, the same as Barbara Boxer's:
    http://www.adaction.org/ADATodayVR2004.pdf
    And then there's that environmental record of 92%:
    http://www.capwiz.com/lcv/dbq/vote_info/?command=results&chamber=S&sort=Last&session=108 &submit.x=15&submit.y=11

    If this is a centrist, than I say we need more centrists in the Senate!  (I should add that much of the media's talk about Hillary "moving to the center" is just another example of the media faithfully copying right-wing talking points about how every last thing Hillary does is meant to get her into the White House.  Since when is it "centrist" to want to see abortions safe, legal and rare, or to want to see the war on terror fought with something resembling competence?  Liberals want those things just as much as anybody else!)

    Lastly, why isn't anybody giving Hillary credit for that Alfred E. Newman line?  I got a good laugh out of that!

     

    •  Riiight. (none)
      Patriot Act: Voted YES
      Homeland Security Act of 2002: Voted YES
      Use of Military Force against Iraq: Voted YES
      No Child Left Behind Act: Voted YES

      Oh, and she consistently has refused to provide Project VoteSmart with a clear and concise list of her views. Why? Because she's a slimbag politician who doesn't want to have to take a clear stand on anything.

      She's also not proud of being a liberal.

      Ever since she won election to the Senate in 2000, Clinton has been striving to establish her moderate or centrist credentials. It's an apparent effort to overcome her reputation as an orthodox liberal. Like everyone else at the meeting of party centrists, Clinton is keenly aware that the only two Democrats to win the presidency in the last 35 years have been moderate Southerners - one of them her husband, Bill Clinton, and the other a former governor of Georgia, Jimmy Carter.

      She's ashamed of liberalism.

      She referred to faith in God, shared values and a desire to "protect our children from the excesses of the popular culture."

      Censorship.

      Such emphasis on values more often associated with political conservatives than liberals isn't new for Clinton.

      "Family Values" is the watchword of the Right.

      A member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, she backed the war in Iraq and has refused to push for early withdrawal

      Stay in it till we're all dead. I don't see any evidence there that she wants to see the war on terror fought with competence.

      Her efforts to find middle ground have accelerated since liberal Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts was defeated in last year's presidential election.

      "To beat them... we must become them!" Talk about the pigs turning into the men and the men turning into the pigs.

      Recently she even has been partnering with former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich - who fought her husband on virtually everything - on proposals to use technology to save money in health care.

      Guess I must have missed the "Newt Gingrich is actually a great guy!" memo.

      She's a Republican with a D next to her name, and I'd be happy to say the same thing about any guy in the same position.

      In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. -Thomas Jefferson

      by jabbausaf on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 01:18:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't think most of us (none)
    would insist that the DLC endorse every issue I'm for.  However, I just don't feel that they respect my opinion.
  •  I couldn't agree more with Kos's diary (none)
     And also did one on this topic yesterday:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/25/213025/538#14

    The Republicans stood aside and allowed their Party to be taken over by Fascists. Democrats, don't let it happen to our Party. There is a difference between unity and blind conformity. The DLC wants the latter, and I am sure they think Dean is now "contained" in  his position at the DNC. That's why we the people  have to not only stand up to the Bush cabal, but to those who enable their foreign policy that will bring us down if we don't stand up to all of them.

    The DLC has also trashed Al Gore, Dennis Kucinich, and all Democrats by calling us traitors for being against this war, and also called us the "Michael Moore" wing of the Party. They are Republican moles in my view. If you still support this war, you are nothing else, and you need to be outted for the accomplice to murder and torture that you are. It's as simple as that.

    •  Anyone who would (none)
      call us the Michael Moore wing of the democratic party are true liberal elitists. Michael Moore bothers these people because he is effective. He is STANDING for the working man, he has not had a traditional education, and he he is fat. ANATHEMA to an elitist.
    •  AL GORE IS THE ONLY HOPE WE HAVE! (none)
      Howard Dean is not running in 2008.  We can never, never trust Hillary and the DLC sycophants who kowtow to the right-wing extremists for their survival.  Other progressive Democrats are not ready to take the White House.

      We need Al Gore to run in 2008, period.

  •  The DLC doesn't represent me. (none)
    Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that. I believe that we should have a "big tent" party--but I want all wings of it to be firm in their beliefs, not willing to pander to a dangerous ideology of fundamentalism.
  •  Unease with patriotism?!?!?!? (none)
    I'm quite patriotic, thank you.  My unease is with jingoism.

    I believe what most makes our country great is our constant examination of our own behavior, our willingness to admit our mistakes and make amends for them the best we can.  We're not perfect at this, but we have always tried.

    This WH has the noblesse oblige attitude that they rule because they are superior and that, by definition, anything they do is the correct thing.

  •  Why does Kos hate the Democrat's base? (none)
    Kos (and several of his followers) are under the impression that they are the base of the Democratic Party.  Remember the 2004 primary?  How'd that work out for you?  Instead, Kos (and several of his followers) are separating themselves from the base of the Democratic Party.
    •  Distinquish between DLC democrats (4.00)
      and the base of the Democratic Party which has historically been labor, working people, teachers, women, minorities, and the rest of the intelligentsia..the wise people..the people who are onto the game being played by the power elites....uh hum...

      The DLC is pushing for the hyperconformity fall in line with corporatists and that is the difference...if you can't intellectually understand this fundamental distinction you need to do a whole lot of reading...

      •  baloney (none)
        labor, working people, teachers, women, minorities, and the rest of the intelligentsia..the wise people..the people who are onto the game being played by the power elites

        These people are going to go for Hillary

        If you are telling me that people who will vote for Hillary are being played by the power elite, you are not one of the wise people.  Moreover, you are an ass.

        dKos is not the party's base.  

        •  Uh.......excuse me..what year are (none)
          we currently in...2005??  hmmm.......why on earth are people talking as if Hillary is the nominee of the Democratic Party...???  would that be the DLC by any chance...???  Do they want you to fall in line and support someone who may or may not have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning in 2008..leaving us once again with a God forsaken Republican for the forseeable future..??
  •  Hillary Is Right. (none)
    Hillary is right because she has to win elections in today's America.  She has to move to the center to win.  Too many trends are going to the Repugs:  married couples, couples with children, Hispanics, Asians.  Why are so many groups that traditionally vote Democratic losing ground to the Republicans?  It sure as hell isn't because Dems aren't liberal enough.  If Hillary runs as a liberal in moderate's clothing, it won't be the first time a successful Democrat has done that.

    Sure, Kos is right to complain that the DLC is a big sellout to the corporatists.  The best thing would be for the whole country to move about ten steps to the left and about 20 steps Greener.  But jeez, Kos, we're losing ground at a rapid clip, here!  The Labor Movement just split in half because part of it recognizes that the Dems can't be counted on to deliver any more.  The EPA has been reduced to a joke.  Bush can threaten to veto any regulation of his "right" to torture people he has illegally imprisoned, and it doesn't even cause a ripple.  And defense spending and mindless "homeland security" spending is out of control.

    The next two elections represent a goal-line stand by progressive forces.  If we don't turn it around there won't BE a Democratic party to counter the Republican Fascist/Fundie coalition.  And we aren't going to turn it around, while we're still fighting through political means, anyway, by moving leftward.

    Whether Kos likes it or not, the DLC speaks to issues that are important to the moderates the Dems have been bleeding to the Repugs.  We on the left can be "right" on the issues all we wants, but we shouldn't lose sight of political reality.  The DLC represent our only chance to get back in the game.

    "Son, this here is shit. And that stuff over there, that's Shinola."--Dad

    by Simian on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 02:28:18 PM PDT

    •  Hillary Is Wrong, Dead Wrong! (2.50)
      Hillary does not know how to stand up and fight.  A politician who truly deserves to win the White House must have courage to put his or her political life at risk to stand up for what is right in times of momentous decision.  But Hillary voted for many of Bush's failed agenda, most notably the invasion of Iraq, just for her political expediency.  Also, Hillary oppressed the progressive movements within the Democratic Party and attacked progressive politicians like Al Gore and Howard Dean.  I won't be surprised if I see a videotape of Bill and Hillary popping up a champaign in celebration as they were listening to Kerry's concession speech last November.  A dishonest and opportunistic politician who vies for the return to the White House while knowingly inflicting pain on Americans should never be the president because we cannot trust her.  I dislike Hillary Clinton more than I dislike George W. Bush because she undermines the power of the ordinary Americans behind the scene.  I try not to see her face while I am eating because I am afraid that I will vomit.
      •  Get a grip, they're ALL pols... (none)
        I'm not a fan of Hillary myself, and I sincerely hope she doesn't win the nomination.  But anyone who can call himself a Democrat and say that he hates Hillary WORSE than George W. Bush is a...well, a DINO (Democrat In Name Only).

        "Son, this here is shit. And that stuff over there, that's Shinola."--Dad

        by Simian on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 05:46:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Such a DINO (none)
         What's wrong with you. Anyone who hate's a Democrat more than a republican is a DINO.  Hillary Clinton is one of the rock stars of our party whether or not any of you like it you all have to deal with it.
  •  biminicat (none)
    just read your reply...think there may be a misunderstanding and I apologize...was too intense in this discussion. I was thinking about when I was in the south and the only people who wrapped themselves in the flag were like redneck kkk types. judging by the language you used, you remind me of them. Let's both stick to the issues. I was using my subjective opinion as fact...which I have a tendency to do...will work on that.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site