In 1994 party centrist think tank warned Clinton to toe corporate line or lose their support.

[madfloridian]

Of course these guys in my mind were not really center on anything. They were the group that in their own words had tapped corporate sources of money so as not to need the party's traditional constituents.

Can not find the original article but I saved it.

Party centrists issue stern warning to White House

The Democratic Leadership Council's moderate ideas helped Bill Clinton win the presidency. Now, the organization's head honchos are angry over his slide from the organization's themes. The Democratic Leadership Council, which created the "New Democrat" themes that helped put Bill Clinton in the White House, has turned sharply critical of him, saying that the president is finished if he ignores their ideas. It was another sign of the political anger and unrest Clinton faces in his party if his wounded presidency does not recover.

The DLC's blunt warning was delivered in November in response to the Democrats' midterm election debacle, which shrank the party's congressional membership and shook whatever remaining confidence they had in Clinton's political viability. The DLC's criticism followed some bitter remarks by its chairman, Rep. Dave McCurdy of Oklahoma, who, after losing his Senate bid, complained that his defeat was due to "a visceral anti-Clintonism" among the voters.

..."I think for President Clinton there is a pretty blunt message in this poll," DLC President Al From told reporters this week. "It's `Get with the program or you'll have to pay the consequences.'"

Will Marshall, who heads the group's Progressive Policy Institute, said the poll showed that swing voters who helped elect Clinton were sending the president and the Democrats this message: "We are disappointed in what you've done, but we haven't given up on you. You have one last chance. You govern as a New Democrat, unequivocally as a New Democrat, and you can win us back, and you can win back the vital center of the electorate. But if you don't, you're in big trouble."

I wonder if that is perhaps why President Clinton made this strange remark to Robert Reich.

From Reich's Locked in the Cabinet:

A Parting Shot

Picture this. Reich and his wife Clare, and Bill and Hillary go to Kinkaid's, an elegant restaurant on Pennsylvania Avenue. It's a good-bye dinner for Clare, who is going back to Cambridge with their two sons. Over dessert, Reich can't help himself.

'After all, we're balancing the budget and sacrificing public investment so that corporations have more money to invest. At the least, we should expect them to invest with their employees and communities in mind.'

There's an awkward pause. Have I overstepped the line?

'It seems to me,' says Clare, weighing her words carefully, 'that corporations are downsizing not only themselves but also a big part of the middle class.'

She's bailed me out. I want to kiss her on the spot. I throw caution to the winds and ask B, 'Would you be comfortable saying what Clare just said?'

'I have to keep myself from saying it everyday,' he says softly. 'I shouldn't be out in front on these issues. I can't be criticizing.'

Of course an American Democratic president should be "out in front" and should be "criticizing" corporations who are hurting our country. I guess those threats could have meant defeat.

And a further word from R. J Eskow. I posted yesterday what he wrote about Third Way advising House of Cards Frank Underwood on "entitlements". Got a lot of rofl and tinfoil hat stuff, but it was important info.

Eskow's words right after our devastating loss in 2010 before the even more devastating loss in 2014.

A President's Choice: Resist Wall Street's 'Shock Doctrine' or Keep Listening to the Usual Suspects

The Failure of Pseudo-Centrism

We're still suffering from the massive failure of a radical, free-market-run-wild ideology that devastated the economy. The public understood that, so they gave the Democrats an enormous mandate to change economic direction. Yet just twenty months later conservatives scored a huge triumph, leaving Democrats with a choice: Continue to blur the distinction between themselves and their opponents, or lay out a clear agenda for job creation and economic growth.

Of course, that's been the choice all along. But the president and many other senior Democrats chose to take the advice of the "centrist" experts within their party by adopting unpopular Republican positions and getting nothing in return. After last night's rout, what are these experts advising? You guessed it: more of the same so-called "Centrism." That's an odd word to use for policies that most Americans oppose, like cutting Social Security or allowing bankers to enrich themselves by endangering the economy, but theirs is an Alice-in-Wonderland world.

Real centrists would defend Social Security and do more to rein in Wall Street, since those positions are popular across the political spectrum. It's a good thing the president said today that he wants to spend more time with the American people. Bankers and the Deficit Commission aren't "centrists" where most Americans live.

If Democrats want to keep passing bills that include unpopular right-wing ideas, Republicans and their Wall Street patrons will be happy to let them do it and suffer the consequences. They've done it before, most notably when they let Dems take the fall for their unconditional bailout of the big banks. We saw the results yesterday. And yet, incredibly, the usual suspects are still pushing the same failed approach.

[villager]

1. From literal parade routes in Dallas, to metaphorical ones: Dem Presidents still targets

...if they "step out of line," according to the needs of the MIC.

[madfloridian]

2. .....

Some of the threats to toe the line are very serious. Scary stuff.

[Segami]

3. K&R!

[madfloridian]

4. ....

Thanks for that.

[Scuba]

5. If we're going to get Republican policies, we might as well have Republicans to blame them on.

[madfloridian]

7. Our president, our party are fighting back more now with both houses GOP.

Too bipartisan before.

[Scuba]

14. Yeah, that's it. Or something.

[hifiguy]

6. The Clintons sold the Democratic Party to Wall $treet,

the banksters and the corporatists to feather their own nests. Period. I've had more than enough of both of them for several lifetimes.

[HereSince1628]

10. It wasn't JUST the Clintons

Rahm Emmanuel who was WJC's director of fund-raising.

Rahm got hired because Al From & Co were pushing on all DLCers the 'new' idea about turning away from traditional sources of support.

[madfloridian]

11. When Rahm was leading DCCC he did loads of harm to FL and progressive candidates.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1487

And he did much harm to immigration policies.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/6093

[HereSince1628]

13. I have not doubt...conventional wisdom was Rahm was a genius

people took his advice. Obama apparently thought enough of him to make him Chief of Staff. I don't think that was just to keep an enemy close.

[madfloridian]

8. Good advice from DU 2001...let go of those bi-partisan feelings.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026344966#post44

Ha...long time ago.

[madfloridian]

9. Threat of withholding financial support can loom large for politicians.

It costs so much to run campaigns now. Such threats as these could have affected policy, and probably still do today.

[Fumesucker]

12. Nice little campaign you have here...

It would be a shame if it were to run out of money.

You know what I mean?

[BeanMusical]

15. Don't worry,

Hillary does miracles, will bring hope and change!