Clintons kept the Party alive to serve them, and in the process, the Party grew weaker

[kpete]

It's Too Late
by Delaware Dem
Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:16:12 PM PST
Cross Posted at Daily Delaware

"We didn’t put any resources in small states."

-- Clinton Finance Chair Hassan Nemazee, quoted by the New York Observer, on why Clinton might lose the Democratic nomination.

There is a reason why Taegen Goddard has this listed as the quote of the day over at Political Wire. Because this one sentence reveals both all that is wrong with the Clinton Democratic Party machine, and all that is right with the netroots, the Dean 50-state strategy and the Obama campaign.

When the Clintons rescued the Democratic Party from its electoral coma in 1992, they never sought to cure the patient by revitalizing it at the cellular level. Instead, the Clintons and the Democratic establishment at the time only sought to keep the patient barely alive and breathing, so as to suit the very narrow and vain electoral success of one man. There was never any effort to build the party. To use the capital of the Clinton's electoral success in 1992 and 1996 to reach new voters and bring them into the Democratic fold for good. There was never any effort to build the party at the local level.

It is clear now why the Clintons never did that. For if they gave voice to new Democrats, they would lose control over that voice. They would lose control over the message. Thus, the Democratic Party, and more specifically, the DNC, existed only to serve the electoral prospects of the Clintons during the 1990's, and not to serve the future of the Democratic Party. Indeed, it did not even serve the present of the Democratic Party, for the Party, through this neglect, suffered worse electoral losses nationwide than it ever suffered under the Reagan Revolution, which, ironically, was the disease the Clintons were brought in to cure.

..........................

No, the Clintons kept the Party alive to serve them, and in the process, the Party grew weaker. No attention was paid to the smaller states. No attention was paid to the local level. No resources were spent unless they advanced the interests of the Clintons.

more at:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/13/19387/5496/337/456290

[liberalnurse]

1. I'm glad you only have two posts left.

It appears to me you have slipped into copy/paste journalism these days. What a sad position for you. Next, you'll be linking Drudge and Hannity.

[stellanoir]

4. She has long been one of our greatest if not our greatest contributors

and was one I thought of when the thread limit was suggested thinking an exception should be made for her given the quality of her threads.

Your commentary is really not at all fair, and quite ill informed.

Have a nice day.

[liberalnurse]

7. My heart is broken....

I have ALWAYS admired kpete. Maybe she needs an honest critique to snap out of the mentalfog. Did she drink the kool-aide? :cry:

[blm]

35. Claiming she can't think for herself and drank kool-aid shows RESPECT for her ?

You think she is uniformed about what goes on in this world and only reads all those news items for exercise?

[D23MIURG23]

57. There is nothing honest or logical in equating a critique of Clinton

to Sean Hannity. Furthermore there is nothing more "kool-aid" about Obama than there is about HRC.

What sort of thinking brings someone to the conclusion that their candidate is so beyond reproach that someone has to be a Hannitite or brainwashed cult member to dare critique them?

[QC]

24. "Has been" is the operative phrase. Now Clinton hatred has deranged her

just like it did to so many Republicans.

[stellanoir]

27. "deranged" is a bit extreme and I don't sense any hatred whatsoever in any of her posts.

[Heywood J]

38. How nice of you to claim that other factions in the party are

"deranged". You'll win converts and friends with that one, for sure. Maybe they might even vote for the candidate you champion, especially when you scream just a little louder how blinded by hatred they are for holding a different view.


Clinton isn't shrill. But apparently a number of her supporters are.

[QC]

49. I'm not a Clinton supporter.

I know that a binary world is a lot easier to understand, but one does not have to be a Hillary fan to be sick of the way some of Obama's followers seem intent on turning DU into Freak Republic.

[D23MIURG23]

59. Thank goodness Obama hatred never deranges anyone...

:rofl:

[AntiFascist]

69. So, we must all come to love the Hillary...

otherwise we are forever doomed to the fate of 'Hillary Hatred'. No wonder she is equated with Big Brother.

[XemaSab]

76. I think trustworthiness is an either/or thing for a lot of people

I used to trust the Clintons, and now I don't.

It's not blind, irrational "Clinton hatred," it's just that I don't trust them to lead our party or lead our country.

[gaiilonfong]

8. That is awful curbing free speech

liberalnurse another taylor marsh DLC wannabe
DISGUSTING

[liberalnurse]

22. Your reputation has been well established around here.

Rumor has it, you scream "stalker" when someone posts back at you in rebuttle in more than 3 threads.......

There is a clinical diagnosis for such behavior.

[gaiilonfong]

48. LMAO

pomm neii wheii Taylor Marsh DLC wannabe!

[LeftCoast]

14. You and me both. I am absolutely appalled at what passes as a post on DU these days

Unbelievable.

[Meshuga]

21. Don't shoot the messenger

The Clintons made mistakes, repeated their mistakes, and now they are realizing their own mistakes a little too late. The article is fair in its criticism. The HRC campaign could be in better shape today if she had a different strategy.

[liberalnurse]

25. So soon we forget the misery of the *bush administration or shall I say "Rule" of the *bush regime.

Remember how we nearly politically climaxed when we actually would see a real President in public or on Letterman. When we would have threads of adoration and reminisce the good old days of feeling we actually had President who truly was the Leader of the Free World".

Shame on those who drink the kool-aide.:banghead:

[Meshuga]

33. Who is forgetting the Bush years?

I would welcome a Clinton White House and if she wins the nomination I would have no problems voting for her.

But the Clintons are not infallible, they made mistakes and have their ambitions (like Obama and any other candidate). Not being able to see or admit to that is also kool-aide drinking, but only in a different flavor.

The article doesn't attack the Clinton years as a president but it critiques their approach toward the party and how it is hurting HRC's campaign in 2008.

[BlackVelvet04]

31. I agree....

oh, well, she had one as bad or worse last week. I should have known better than to click on this one.

[jjr5]

56. Let's work together for unity. Don't bash each other.

[Raydawg1234]

70. why do you have to attack the poster, either comment about the article or move on if you dont agree.

[Saturday]

2. whatever n/t

[BenDavid]

3. always the clintons fault-bullshit-you rgoing to settle for the pony?

[Sadie5]

5. such a shame

I have always looked forward to reading your posts. You have slipped into a sorry state

[blm]

18. The Clintons DID use the party to serve them, NOT other Dem candidates or voters.

Gore and Kerry would have won in landslides if DNC had bothered to secure election process and strengthen party infrastructures in ALL states.


Instead they kept one part of the party nurtured with cash and favors while they collapsed infrastructures in any red or contested stats, allowing RNC to gain total control over the election process at every level where the votes are allowed, cast and counted.

[liberalnurse]

29. Like the Party never used them............

The new Democrats we have in the House, Senate and Governor Chairs today we can thank Bill and Hillary Clinton. Believe me, as super-delegates, they won't forget the Clintons. Yea, count them....:wow:


They didn't get there thru Democracy For America, or PDA endorsements. Yea, the Clintons arrived and they gave credibility and campaign donations to where these Office Holders sit in their elected seats today.

The OP is offensive. :hurts:

[blm]

34. Baloney -Dems WERE going to win decisively because of W's SocialSecurity move

and Katrina and Iraq war and Cunningham's corruption and Foley's sex scandal.

Plus all the work that Democrats did in the 2004 primary to cut BushInc down from his 9-11 high. A high that BOTH Clintons tried to maintain for Bush by solidly supporting his decisions on terrorism and Iraq war even through the 2004 election cycle where Clinton spent his THREE WEEK BOOK TOUR defending Bush repeatedly on those two biggest issues of the campaign - terrorism and Iraq war.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

Carville threw in his help for Bush on election night.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


THAT is what you support? People who will UNDERMINE any Democratic candidate and Democratic VOTER just for their own glory and the protection of the power elite?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

45. exactly. HILLARY EVEN IGNORES THE DNC PARTY RULES

Hillary does what suits her hunger for power, that is all.

She is running for President of the Big States.

[XemaSab]

78. I'm a Californian

and I didn't vote for her. :P

[XemaSab]

77. That's what I'm saying

n/t

[shenmue]

6. More editorials.

What patient? What barely breathing? You haven't noticed the huge voter turnouts?

Sure, she went to talk to big states--they have lots of people. I know it's not chic to like the big states with big cities, but there it is.

How exactly is the party weaker, if more and more people are voting?

Welcome to the new age of campaigning, selective quotes and hortatory framing of which Roger Ailes would be proud.

And you wonder why people don't like you.

[eridani]

10. That's been happening since Dean's 50 state strategy, not before n/t

[AtomicKitten]

9. Hillary Clinton: Gaming the system for 35 years.

On edit, K&R ;)

[Cooley Hurd]

11. As always, kpete, THANK YOU for your posts!

:thumbsup::hi:

[Debi]

12. Thanks for the report kpete!

:hi:

[liberalnurse]

26. You call that a report?

:hide:

[Debi]

42. Please direct me to the Clinton Supporters Dictionary

so I don't make the same mistake again x(

Maybe you should change your name to - post police

[L0oniX]

101. ...

Use the ignore button. The "post police" are in my ignore list for a reason.
:hi:

[Zodiak]

13. Sorry for all of the people who would rather attack you, kpete

The article is essentially correct...until Dean came along with his 50 state strategy, the Democratic party had withered on the wine in the South and rural areas. And this is because the DLC Democrats had gobbled all of the money and organizational effort to the national arena and the safe blue states.

This is why we have lost every election until 2006.

And the party is weak....we have DLC infiltrators who give Bush everything he wants, hence the party cannot oppose on ANY issue. The last two years are excellent evidence for this.

Just because people have nowhere to go doesn't make the party strong. The party is a limp noodle that cannot stop the war, cannot stop the criminality, cannot stop the torture, and cannot stop the spying on Americans.

I will not deny this reality.

[blm]

20. Yes kpete - they are accustomed to attacking truth because that's all they have left

in their arsenal.

[XemaSab]

79. Hell, even parts of California...

Here in Santa Barbara we've probably got 20 different progressive groups and organizations. There's a network of progressives that includes health care, clean elections, MoveOn, sustainable living, and many more and they're all intertwined.

Go up to Redding, which is a city with a similar population and which had 16,000 democrats vote in the primary, and there's the ten lameasses who own the party headquarters, and then there's this other group that's run by this one jackass as his personal fiefdom, and that's IT. Why is it like this? Because it's Redding and Redding "always" votes 65% or more Republican. But it's a dangerous conventional wisdom. I went to go see Wally Herger, Mormon congressman extraordinaire, speak and a lot of the audience was hostile to him, even the supposed Republicans. The guy's a loser, but every time there's an election the Democrats put up some hippie from Chico who runs a half-assed campaign with 500 bucks and gets his clock cleaned.

Dude, Amy Goodman came and spoke at the theater downtown in Redding and the place was PACKED! There must have been 1000 people there. Standing room only. And you KNOW that these are die-hard liberals. So why is there no progressive movement in the area? :shrug:

It's a mystery.

[Scurrilous]

15. K & R

Great article! :thumbsup:

[ShortnFiery]

16. Well put kpete.

:thumbsup:

[islandmkl]

17. from #6: "exactly is the party weaker, if more and more people are voting?"...

uh...they are turning out to battle against the Clinton power-wing of the Party. If it was all about HRC being the candidate that most party members wanted to lead us, do you think the turnout would be so great?

[TwilightGardener]

19. Thank you, Kpete!

[Yael]

23. She chose to spend her donor's hard earned donations

on image consultants and half-million-dollar parking spaces as opposed to a ground game.

This is the fruit of her investment.

[formernaderite]

28. bill barely squeaked to victory in both elections

His famous triangulations only served to move the party further to the right...thus moving the center. This in turn allowed the repubs to move further to the right. The "center" looks nothing like the center I was to the left of growing up. Bill and his cadre were more interested in the short term win...than any long term gains.

[XemaSab]

80. The Perot factor cannot be understated.

n/t

[formernaderite]

87. exactly...if not for perot

there would have been no clinton....and probably no Bush junior eight years later. Ah...how the fates play with us.

[BlackVelvet04]

30. Nice right wing talking points......

Atwater and the press did a good job.

[MagickMuffin]

32. kpete, sorry some people here have a hard time dealing with reality

I guess you could say I'm one of the disenfranchised Democratic voters who only vote for BC the first time around. I didn't really feel comfortable voting for him the first time around, but I damn sure didn't want Poppy to win reelection, and if Ross Perot hadn't split the vote I'm not so sure BC would have won in '92.

And let's not forget that we lost control of congress in '94.

I haven't decided who I will vote for on March 4, I like Hillary, but I'm again feeling uncomfortable voting for HRC because of the men she surrounds herself with, Mark Penn, Terry McAuliffe, James Carville and of course BC.

Thanks for posting.

[Metric System]

36. My diagnosis? Clinton Derangement Syndrome. n/t

[hfojvt]

51. you mean it is not true that Clinton's campaign manager

became head of the DNC in 1993?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Wilhelm

and the chair of the DNC from 2001-2005 isn't now heading Hillary's campaign?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_McAuliffe

[PetraPooh]

37. Trying to stay above personal attacks; a question please...

And I do mean a question, because perhaps I am misunderstanding the number and quality of Dem Orgs. How are the DNC and the DLC connected or are they? Which organization has had Howard Dean running it for a while? And finally if the answers indicate that Howard Dean or anyone else has been "in charge" of the DNC for the last eight years, how is this issue the Clinton's fault this far down the road? Seems that by now even if they did what is described above, and even if they are responsible through 2000; they sure couldn't be held responsible for the last eight years, plenty of time to recover and in an atmosphere where many ex-repubs (like myself) are converting if for no other reason than complete disgust with the hypocrisy and lies and religious overtones of the bushies.

[truedelphi]

62. I'll answer part of your concerns

Like you say, Dean has been in charge of the DNC for a while now.

But what the OP is trying to point out is that the uber strategy that the Clintons and the D-L-C decided on was to swing the Democratic party over to the right and then to not concentrate on building up a base of new voters (who would probably be too progressive for what they wanted)

So instead they kept the voting list shorter and orchestrated everything from the top down.

one result of this is exactly what we saw in Iowa in the recent primary there: Obama came in and asked around: who are the local leaders and will they work with us?

Hillary came in and was like: I don't need to know the local leaders and their names and the name of organizations that might help me in all the many localities in Iowa - I have my super national organization and they will do the work for me.

Not liking to be left out, the people in iowa resented this and thus handed Obama the bigger share of the pie.

And it is the major flaw in her theory of running a campaign.

[PetraPooh]

63. Okay, I see your point, and agree. But I am way dissappointed that Dean

assisted in this. I really liked the guy back when and was intending on voting him all the way to the Presidency, so I am really disappointed he turned out to be a moving force in "righting" the Democratic party.

[XemaSab]

81. Dean has been head of the Democratic National Committee only since 2005

He's the author of the 50-state strategy, and that's what got us the congress in 2006.

All the centrist triangulation nonsense is what he went into the position to fix. :patriot:

I don't know how overt the split is between Dean and the Clintons, but it's a major difference of worldview for sure. :D

http://www.democrats.org/

http://www.democrats.org/a/party/a_50_state_strategy/

[truedelphi]

96. Totally agree with everything you are saying n/t

[madfloridian]

93. Dean wasn't chair then.

He was running for president. He saw then how things were run in the party, and he decided to change it.

[XemaSab]

82. The DNC and the DLC are totally different groups

The Democratic National Committee basically is the party. They figure out fundraising, set elections, host the convention, and basically run the whole shebang.

The Democratic Leadership Council is an independent group trying to "reform" the party. They're the New Democrats. They've got a website and you can go check them out.

http://www.dlc.org/

A lot of people, myself included, think that they're what's wrong with the party. They're very corporatist and willing to cast aside progressive ideals at the drop of a hat.

They're basically overtly anti-populist, and I think that's a 180 degree wrong direction for the democrats to go in. :(

[PetraPooh]

94. Aha, this is the explanation I was looking for.

Thank you. Now can you explain also please how the DCCC (?) fits into all of this?

Thank you and the other two above posters for explaining Dean's part in all of this. I didn't like feeling dissappointed about him.

[XemaSab]

95. They do fundraising and election organizing for House candidates

and aside from that I don't know a lot about them. :shrug:

[snappyturtle]

39. K&R I think this article is right on! Time will tell, fairly soon, if it is

correct and I think it is! Thanks for posting.

[Mme. Defarge]

40. Thanks Kpete

for including this insightful commentary in your daily quota.

K&R

[TexasObserver]

41. This is very true, and it's the main reason I don't want Hillary on the ticket.

Sure, the Clintons survived their two terms, but the cost to the party was catastrophic. They killed us in the House, in the Senate, in the State Houses.

[krkaufman]

43. "rescued the party from its electoral coma in 1992"

Is it too much to ask that we all remember that Clinton only won the Presidency, in 1992, due to the third-party candidacy of Ross Perot, and not necessarily due to any significant support for Clinton or his "message."

[tishaLA]

44. excellent post

thanks for sharing it with us.

[elixir]

46. I guess bringin the country out of a recession, creating millions of jobs, launching technology...

just wasn't enough. Oh, did I forget - fight against the right wing conspiracy. They had a lot of free time on their hands to get the whole party back into shape to help out Obama et al. You know what, find something real to complain about.

[xxqqqzme]

47. Thus is the pattern and intent of the dlc is exposed.

And it is not only little states. The amount of money that left California is mind boggling. Precious little of it came back to support any candidate except those approved by the dlc. That is how we got stuck w/ Feinstein. As a result the CDP was very nearly dessicated and left to blow away in the wind. Thankfully, we had an infusion of Howard Dean and progressive enthusiasm. The CDP is on it's way to recovery but we absolutely MUST get rid of the dlc tools that control the upper tiers of the party. New central committee members get elected this year. More progressives will replace the old hacks. At the end of the '09 term, I can get out of the party and let the yonuger ones move in.

[XemaSab]

83. DiFi's not the biggest disaster story

Look at the gubernatorial elections.

Gray Davis? Cruz Bustamenti? Phil Angelides? :shrug:

Where the hell do we get these LOSERS from? :shrug:

[no name no slogan]

50. Not bad, but not entirely accurate IMHO

I would not say that in the 1990s the Clintons abandoned a 50 state strategy so much as the abandoned a small donor/grassroots strategy in favor of a corporate-centric/big money donor strategy.

The emphasis turned away from grassroots and local organizing and more toward a few big donors, specifically from Wall Street and the corporate world. We spent money in very Republican-esque ways instead of relying on people power. What we didn't have in volunteers we made up for in paid staff and paid advertising.

In our obsession with getting big money, we lost touch with the base, and became just another party of the upper class. We let the grassroots starve.

[nolabels]

92. And wouldn't it be ironic if it proved to be the undoing of them

Record turn outs because of inclusion and out pacing the competition in funds by larger margins from smaller contributers

[Perry Logan]

52. One believes any accusation against the Clintons at one's peril.

[babylonsister]

53. REC'D. Thanks, kpete. nt

[bvar22]

54. K&R

Thanks, kpete.
I always look for your posts!
:toast:

[mod mom]

55. Let's not forget that Ross Perot was in the race and although a third party candidate drew a sizable

percent of the vote from HW (When the Clintons rescued the Democratic Party from its electoral coma in 1992).

What really bothered me was the deafening silence from both Clintons after the 2 stolen elections in 2000 and 2004. Who benefitted from the steals from Gore and Kerry besides the GOP?

[Raine]

58. Interesting

THANKS for posting this.

[Baby Snooks]

60. Hit the nail on the head...

"No resources were spent unless they advanced the interests of the Clintons."

As I once observed about the money machine in Texas, the odd sucking sound was all the money those two raised in Texas. With very little ever really put back. No campaigning for local candidates even in the congressional races. Says quite a lot if you think about it.

I really resent the assertion that the Clintons revitalized the party. Pamela and Averell Harriman revitalized the party. And intended for Al Gore to run in 1992. They just pulled the proverbial wool over everyone's eyes. With a little help from Bob Strauss. Mr. Democrat. Who was also a very good friend of George HW Bush's. And still is a very good friend of George HW Bush's.

The "neo-cons" are really oligarchists who have managed to hijack both parties. And the Clintons are "neo-con artists."

[Beregond2]

61. Clintons...

I agree completely. It took some distance from the Clinton years to see the truth of what was going on, but it is clear to me now. I don't want to bash them; they were better than the alternatives. But we now have a shot at rebuilding the Democratic Party from the ground up, so it serves the needs of average Americans.

[pingzing58]

64. Kpete I looked to you for a mature perspective. Sorry, Madfloridian has my vote now. Have to press

the ignore button on you.

[donheld]

72. Anybody who puts kpete is an idiot!

[madfloridian]

91. Hey, I love kpete...leave me out of this. Never put kpete on ignore.

That would be a terrible shame. She is a great addition to DU, and a great poster. The post from Kos she posted put words to what many have thought and said.

[pingzing58]

100. "expressed what many have thought." But to what end? Such a simplistic

analysis of who controls the DNC seems completely implausable. This post by Kpete states clearly that the history of the party and its weakness lies squarly on two people. It's like saying, as so many have argued, Pelosi and Reid, have complete control over the votes and actions of the House and Senate. One can argue that the leadership has some influence on the direction etc., of the party but complete control and influence? I don't think so. The reason for my reaction to Kpete's post, albeit indirect since it's from Kos, is that it perpetuates the media's inflamatory claim that the Clintons are "calculating." The quote from Kos is based on that claim and uses the Kos forum to draw attention to the author by creating scandal. I can't believe that Kpete would not see that unless the purpose of the post was not to agree with it but to create a discussion about it. It does not appear as such to me. That's why I had to ignore Kpete. But as new DUer I will take your advice.

[McCamy Taylor]

65. Bullshit. If not for Bill Clinton, the 90s would have been the 50s---GOP prez and Congress.

Congress cycles through the control of the different parties and it was coming on time for the Democrats to hand over control to the GOP. Newt Gingrich, a history teacher out of West Georgia State predicted that trend and took credit for it. Billy Kristol also claimed credit for it.

The fact is that Bill Clinton did an amazing job of seizing the presidency from an incumbent--George HW Bush that no one was particularly mad at. Clinton was just a hell of a lot better.

If not for Clinton, the Federalists would have solidified their power grab in the 90s.

The way that people rewrite history for their own political purposes in this country is absolutely appalling. What passes for historical discussion in some circles is a joke. This is what we get for having a country where social studies is taught by coaches and where people would rather watch sports and American Idol when they are growing up than participate in the democratic process.

[Beausoir]

66. The Obmatots have no conception of the gains we acheived under Clinton.

They just simply do not understand.

[McCamy Taylor]

68. Most have never heard of Joe McCarthy, the Red Scare, "Duck and Cover"

"The Checkers Speech" or any of the fun, fun, fun that made up life in the good old USA in the 1950s when the nation actually elected single party GOP rule. Life under the GOP coup has been a totally different thing, because half the country has not trusted W. and Cheney. In the 1950s, everyone believed in the lies coming out of Washington. Why shouldn't they? They voted for them.

[XemaSab]

84. My recollection is that people were mad as hell in 1992

How else was Perot even on anybody's radar at all? :shrug:

[McCamy Taylor]

97. And GHW Bush would have deflected that rage onto Blacks, Unions and the Poor same as 1988

Bill Clinton was unlike any of the Democrats in the field in 1992. They tried to force him out of the race with the same adultery scandal that took out Gary Hart in 1988---and he just laughed at them. And America said "Yeah, we aren't interested in bullshit. We are interested in results."

This is why the corporate media is targeting Hillary. They can not slime the Clinton's with "character" attacks, because the Clintons run as public servants, not as public role models.

[McCamy Taylor]

67. What was the alternative? Take the Party out back and shoot it?

[DFW]

71. Whatever may be wrong with the Clintons, I can't swallow this

I don't know of any other candidate who could have won for us in 1992,
and the record participation in this year's primaries is a decent sign
that there is more interest than ever in the party. I can't attribute
this entirely to Obama and Edwards. I do attribute it in large part to
both Howard's efforts and Cheneybush's evil, but I don't see the
Clintons as having this all-encompassing might that some seem to attribute
to them. HRC's seeming "invincibility" of just a few months ago was
a product of the press, just as much of the stuff thrown against both her
and Obama. Reality seldom comes in the neat package certain interests would
have us believe.

[donheld]

73. I still love ya, Kpete

:hug: K & R

[TheDonkey]

74. Clintons never met an entity that they wouldn't throw under a bus to get ahead.

Gays
African Americans
Democrats
America

[mmonk]

75. The neglect at the local level starting in the 90's or maybe

even the 80's. It became more concerned with it's national message in light of the Reagan revolution of the 80's. The Clintons were considered the saviors since Bill won the presidency back. The new hybrid party lost it's sense of self or former identity with a more top down approach and ignored the precinct level politics.

[robbedvoter]

85. Yeah - let's dismantle it - hope GOP will too - it's bipartisan time, baby!

[Lilith Velkor]

99. Kadima USA

:scared:

[Yossariant]

86. The mystical, magical Clenis strkes again --- "weakening" the whole damn party.

The Obama fans continue to bleat the right wing's mantra.

We're not responsible, the Clenis made us do it.

It works for George Bush and the 30%, too.

Disgusting.

:puke:

[farmbo]

88. No big HRC fan here...But this is BULLS#%T

Many of the 1994 losses were as a result of principled stands taken by the Clinton(s) on gays in the military and universal health-- two ideas upon which history will judge them fairly, but which were highly divisive at the time... and highly susceptible to the demagoguery of Newt Gingrich et al.

Can't (the OP) give them just a bit of credit for taking those risks?

Sorry...they were not meeting surreptitiously in the oval office at 3:00 am to drink vampire blood and plot the demise of the Democratic Party.

[AlertLurker]

89. I completely disagree.

This editorial is complete and utter bullshit. No proof, no quotes - hell, not even a useful anecdote to support any of the claims made. The author should be ashamed. How does garbage like this get published ANYWHERE, much less reposted on DU?

Do people here NOT remember the 1990s? Is there somehow a belief at DU that Bill WANTED a minority in '94/'96? They were far from perfect, but do people here remember the Reagan years with FONDNESS? Do you not remember Gingrich, who is (for some strange reason) STILL stirring up SHIT? Do you see ANYONE on the 'Puke side of the house asking SHrub for an appearance at a fundraiser? Not even McCain! Did many of them get him to campaign for them in 2006? How many Dems asked Bill Clinton to campaign with, appear with or just help raise some badly needed CASH?

Sheesh - pass the pixie Dust, please.

---------

Hillary is campigning hardest in the states with the most delegates. It's called "fishing where the fish are." This is NOT the GE, it's the Primaries - but even in the GE, there is no guarantee that a 50 state strategy would work for the Democrats this time. Why waste resources in a state you can't win, that has few electoral votes, when you can campaign more effectively in large states, in battleground states, in states where you have a SHOT at winning, a state with LOTS of electoral votes? You've got to pick your battles, at this point, anyway - at least if yuo are smart, yuo do...


Does ANYONE here actually think that after recovering seats in 2004 and finally the majorities in BOTH houses in 2006, the Democrats are weaker than they were in 2000? Give your collective heads a shake and go back to drinking the kool-aid. Or work HARDER to help the Party you LOVE. Just quit the faux whining, for X's sake. The Clintons kept the Party alive - at least that much is true. They have raised a LOT of CASH for a LOT of other candidates and PACs during the last two cycles and their celebrity, coupled with people's fond remembrances of the 1990s will make it possible for them to raise a LOT more to help many more candidates in the weeks to come.

I dislike Hillary only slightly less than I dislike Obama, but I have actually been defending her on many threads due to the heavy bashing she has been taking from the pod people Obamoids this week. She's not the Devil, or Hitler, or the ball-crushing harpie that those seemingly hypnotised by St. Barack of Illinois seem to think she is.

And if you are going to flame me about the last paragraph, give your pointy head another shake and THINK, goddammit, note the contrast and dissonance, and actually THINK about what I was attempting to do with the last paragraph.

</RANT>

[From The Left]

90. Pelosi and Reid Have Driven People Out Too

So many of us had such high hopes when the Dems regained control of the Congress in 2006.

Mostly, we expected Pelosi Inc., would close down the committees charged with funding Bush's lethal Iraq war. While many Dems wanted Pelosi to order the Articles of Impeachment too (yeah, right), at very least, cut the funding for the war.

Well, Pelosi (and Reid) have elevated to an art form the shuck and jive excuse of "we don't have the required 60 votes." Of course, this is a lie but, many Democrats drank the koolaide. But many Democrats stayed firmly in reality and left the party, becoming Independent in protest to the Pelosi/Reid circus.

[Barack_America]

98. That's a really intriguing analysis...

...And would also explain why Bill Clinton did so little to get Dems elected after leaving office.

But you figure that after 2006, they would have a let conceded the strength of Dean's 50-state strategy. That they could not acknowledge and utilize his success says a lot about their arrogance.