Even though Obama isn't a card carrying member, he's got DLC written all over him

[mtnsnake]

It's funny how some of the non-members aren't all that far from being as DLC-like as some of the card-carrying members. I guess that's why Obama's theme of reaching out to Republicans has hit home with so many of the DLC people.

Ford predicted the DLC will play a major role in the issues debate that unfolds in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary process. The group will not side with any one candidate, he said, even though the organization has close ties to a number of potential nominees, from Vilsack to Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Joe Biden (Del.) to Gov. Bill Richardson (N.M.). Even Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) has expressed interest in "finding ways he could work with the DLC," according to Ford. (Ford describes Obama as a "personal friend" and says they talk regularly.)

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/01/fords_next_move.html


From a year ago:

DailyKos straw poll shows shows Kossacks prefer John Edwards 37% to Obama’s 27% with Wesley Clark a distant third at 14% (the Blogometer has checked these numbers at 6K, 13K ,and 16K votes and there has been no change in the %s).

Netroots ambivalence towards Obama’s candidacy seems to stem from two related sources: 1) his perceived centrist/Liebermanesque/DLC rhetoric; 2) and his inability/refusal to lead take the lead on a major progressive issue (especially the war).

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/01/obama_wire_the.html

The DLC doesn’t necessarily pre-select candidates, but they do keep an eye out for possibilities. Obama has been on their watch-list for some time. Now that they see his sex appeal, they may rally behind him. He could be Hillary without the polarizing effect, a real possibility to hold the office.

http://pieceofmind.wordpress.com/2007/01/18/obama-lieberman-and-the-dlc/


There are lots of things I don't like about the DLC, but give me someone who doesn't beat around the bush about it versus someone who is a closet DLC'er at heart but doesn't carry the official membership card. Obama doesn't want to be a card carrying member because he knows that would turn off the base, and you do not want to turn off the base during the Primaries. Yet he sure does reflect enough of the DLC agenda to make anyone wonder. Case in point: Vote to enable the war every chance you get, and court Republicans to your side in order to accomplish your goals.

At least with Hillary you know what you're getting, and she doesn't reach out to Republicans. She beats them.

[stray cat]

1. If Hillary always beats republicans why are we in Iraq and no universal health care?

[Mezzo]

103. That's just silly. nt

really

[Unsane]

2. You mean, the organization Hillary's husband helped create?

next

[mtnsnake]

4. You need to learn your history. If anything, it's the organization Al Gore helped to create. n/t

[Emit]

50. Clinton, Gore and others

Ironically, when Gore was trailing in the polls in 2000, however, he distanced himself from the DLC hard line and switched to a populist strategy, a strategy criticized by the DLC:

... But the DLC's great hopes in 2000 of becoming a permanent power center in Washington never materialized. Al Gore's promising New Democratic candidacy turned sour for the DLC when Gore, a DLC founder, switched to a populist strategy after trailing in the polls. No one but the DLC believes that strategy cost Gore the election. "Gore's defeat didn't reinvigorate the DLC as the defeat of Dukakis did, nor did it vindicate their strategy like the election of 1992," says Baer, a Gore speechwriter in 2000. In George W. Bush's first term, the DLC emerged as an important backer of "compassionate conservatism" and convinced the Democratic leadership to back Bush's war with Iraq. Current and former DLC chairmen Evan Bayh, Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt flanked Bush at a ceremony announcing the war resolution. Still enthralled by centrist orthodoxy, prowar candidates emerged as early frontrunners in the Democratic primary...

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050321/berman

[jackson_dem]

84. Gore changed his rhetoric. His platform was still DLC in 2000

Gore was a big voice for "New Democrat" ideas in the White House, ironic in the light of the hero status he now has among the same folks who hate Hillary's DLC ties.

[Emit]

108. Hi, jackson_dem. We can point fingers all we want

and rehash politicians' old connections with DLC -- that's important, too, historically speaking. But, the fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton is carrying the water for the DLC now.

But, you already knew that. ;)

:hi:

[DaLittle Kitty]

113. Obama And HillBill Were ALWAYS The DLC Tandem... That Is WHY They Were Pushed and John Edwards Was..

swept aside by the Voice of Corporate America... The MSM... Edwards was Corporate America's arch nemesis! Now we are stuck errr fucked totally... having no choice other than one of two DLC/Corporatist candidates for our nominee... :rofl:

[skipos]

3. You have really convinced me to vote for triangulating Hil, a cardcarrying DLCer

Not.

If Hillary is good at beating underfunded token Republicans in NY, I will give her that. Otherwise, unless her campaign goal is to make Mark Penn rich and and lose the nomination, her campaign sucks.

When does "day one" start? Because she sure doesn't look ready yet.

[mtnsnake]

6. lol, I'm not trying to get you to change your vote. n/t

[RandomKoolzip]

78. So you're just throwing insults out there for shits 'n' giggles?

Ah. Strange, but...okay.

[mtnsnake]

80. WTF are you talking about? What insults?

If I decide to throw some insults out there for shit 'n' giggles, you'll know it.

[devilindisguise]

33. She is very ready

This woman has served in public life, most of her life. From working for children's issues, to registering voters, to telling Bill to forget NAFTA, that it was a rep. issue. Compared to Bill's Charisma, she just seems dull. But remember, Bill has had all those years of campaigning for governor, attorney General, and president. She is not a man, and she doesn't need to sound one. If she showed her female charisma, which we all have (in one way or another) she sure wouldn't get any votes. Men would say she is too sexy, women would say she is a whore. Come on, she is between a rock and a hard place. I would be dreaming if I thought white men will vote for her. At one time I thought they would. Now I know they would rather vote for a republican. It's very sad because they betray their mothers, their wives, their daughters. She is capable, smart, and articulate. She just can't debate in a male style, and actually I think in the last debate so much went over men's heads. Because of course they don't speak our language. For instance one statement she made, my husband didn't understand. I had to explain it to him in the female language. I can't remember the statement but when it comes to me, I'll post it here.

[paulk]

55. is there some difference between Obama's plans

and the "triangulation" of the Clinton's?

Seriously.

I see many posters making the criticisms of Clinton you have here, yet when I listen to Obama's proposals - his "reaching across the aisle" rhetoric, I can't see any difference between that and the triangulation that Bill Clinton used...

Obama's healthcare proposal is a classic example - he panders to the right with his "no mandates" nonsense.


ps - I know many of the Obama supporters love to push the "underfunded token Republican" theme, but the race against Lazio was close. Go ahead and demean her efforts, however. It's what the Obama campaign is based on.

[jackson_dem]

85. You think Hillary was underfunded in 2000?

If you think Lazio was you must also believe Hillary was because they had about the same amount of money.

Skipos, who is that in your avatar? Is she a "card carrying" member of the DLC?

[Radical Activist]

5. And yet the national journal gave him the most liberal rating of any candidate this year

even Kucinich. Go figure.

[mtnsnake]

7. Hillary is always right up there, too. Just check out Progressive Punch anytime & you'll see

[Unsane]

8. How do you address the facts? Obama has a very progressive Senate record.

Your speculation is pure bunk.

[mtnsnake]

11. As does Hillary have a very progressive record...

That Obama has a very progressive Senate voting record doesn't mean for a minute that he doesn't have DLC written all over other parts of him and his agenda. You'd have to be very dim not to see it.

Late edit: Changed "So" to "As" in subject line for sake of clarity.

[Unsane]

14. What the hell is a DLC trait?

A willingness to reach across the isle? OMG R U series!11 The thought of bi-partisanship in Washington in order to get something done! The insanity!

[devilindisguise]

42. It's never been done in all my years of voting

There is no bi- partisanship. When the dems. had the congress years ago during the Nixon years or about then, there was a little bit of cooperation, but not since. The reps. were so bitter and frustrated by their 50 year dry spell, that they did their usual thing when they got the majority. Exactly what they wanted. I can say that when the dems. have the congress they cooperate better on legislation, if it is good. The reps. would die and go to hell rather than cooperate on dem. legislation. McCain has cooperated to a certain extent with dems., and that's why the reps. hate him.

[devilindisguise]

38. That's weird

He said in the debate Thursday night that he'd been campaigning for president for two years. I don't see how he can have any record, because of course he has only been in US govt. for 2 years. Logically this says he has voted on issues he wanted to put his 2 cents in, and neglected important legislation that might have helped end the war.

[Radical Activist]

9. Does the fact that Hillary is right up there make Obama a DLC candidate?

No, it does not. The implication that Obama is DLC when he distanced himself from them at every opportunity, including his run for US Senate, is ridiculous.

[mtnsnake]

13. Hillary's DLC traits have nothing to do with Obama's DLC trraits.

There is no cause and effect between the two.

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. There is no such thing as a "DLC trait".

There are only DLC strategies and priorities. And Obama has rejected both.

The fact that they want to co-opt HIM doesn't mean he wants anything to do with THEM.

[jackson_dem]

88. What DLC priorities and strategies has he rejected?

0?

[RaleighNCDUer]

99. The DLC was created to put a stop to populist uprisings in the ranks.

Much the same as the creation of the superdelegates was.

DLC strategy - concentrate on blue states and swing states for electoral votes, are write off the red states as lost.

Obama/DNC strategy - 50 state strategy to build up a Democratic base nationwide.

DLC policy - concentrate on machine politics, voting blocs and interest groups. Collect campaign funds from big deep-pocket donors.

Obama policy - work for a grassroots organization and develop it into a broad-based Democratic coalition. Collect campaign funds from a vast population of small donors by getting them personally interested in the campaign.

DLC strategy - run to the center(right), try to co-opt republican positions and undermine their base.

Obama strategy - hold the base but not antagonize the independents and republicans, reach out to them to bring them to the left.

Looking at them from Dennis' POV, they looked quite a bit alike - I always thought that Obama was too corporatist and centrist for my tastes - but now, between the two of them, the differences are obvious and are largely due to their differences over the DLC.

[jackson_dem]

101. Yes, and the populist candidate finished 3rd with 15-20% support

Obama helped serve one of the DLC's founding purposes by taking out Edwards.

No, the DLC was founded to expand the map after Democrats got slaughtered in 1980 and 1984. The DLC specifically focused on making inroads into the South. The DLC wasn't a bicoastal organization.

There isn't any evidence Obama adheres to Dean's 50 state strategy. If he runs a 50 state campaign in the fall he is nuts. Ask Nixon how that works. He was in Alaska when JFK was in swing states...

The DLC was founded to oppose interest groups and voting blocs. Another similarity between Obama and the DLC.

How has Obama created a grassroots progressive organization? Obama is about Obama.

Yes, the DLC believes in blurring the differences between the parties. Just like Obama's "unity" bull.

No, Obama will reach out to indies and rethugs the same way as the DLC. There is a reason people become rethugs in the first place. Chanting "hope and change" doesn't change one's political philosophy.

If Obama is so opposed to the DLC why does the DLC itself seem to be unaware of this accepted netroots scriptural truth? Are they a bunch of idiots and dupes?

[RaleighNCDUer]

104. "Are they a bunch of idiots and dupes?"

In a word, yes.

"No, the DLC was founded to expand the map after Democrats got slaughtered in 1980 and 1984. The DLC specifically focused on making inroads into the South. The DLC wasn't a bicoastal organization."

The defeats they blamed on grassroots activists who they felt hijacked the party - btw, as the DLC was formed in 82, it was not in response to the 84 election. They blamed McGovern's loss in 72 on activists, and Carter's 76 win on the activists. They didn't know how to counter Nixon's southern strategy and flat out abandoned the south - don't waste resources campaigning where you can't win.

"There isn't any evidence Obama adheres to Dean's 50 state strategy. If he runs a 50 state campaign in the fall he is nuts."

And yet, there he is winning the nomination by not ignoring the red states and, coincidentally, building up Democratic support in those state - not a few of which could be competative in the GE. BTW, why the disconnect? "The DLC...focused on...the south" and "If he runs a 50 state campaign in the fall he is nuts." So, is it a good thing, or a bad thing to work the red states?

As I noted above, the DLC depends on concentrated donations from interest groups and voting blocs. So how are they "...founded to oppose interest groups and voting blocs."? Are you talking about Mark Penn's company running anti-union campaigns? SOME interest groups are on OUR side.

From this point on you degenerate into lame accusations which are not worth response. Please try again when you have some REAL arguments.

[jackson_dem]

105. Wow, Obama is so amazing. He has duped the DLC!

:crazy:

The DLC was founded in 1985. If you are going to talk about "real" arguments you should know what you are talking about...

They blamed the losses on the party going, in their view, too far to the left. That led to the "New Democrat" philosophy, one that is shared by both Clinton and Obama.

The DLC didn't abandon the South. On the contrary, the DLC was focused greatly on appealing to the South. Go look back at the history of the big Super Tuesday in 1988. It was basically set up to allow a DLC candidate to win a boatload of delegates and use it to become the front runner. Who was the eventual DLC candidate? Albert Gore Jr. The plan failed because Jesse Jackson split the South with Gore because Jackson, like Obama, received nearly unamious black support (this fact is what Bill Clinton was alluding to). If Jackson hadn't run it likely would have produced DLC leader Al Gore as the nominee.

Yes, in the Democratic primaries which are dominated by...Democrats. Kerry won 46 states in the primaries, more than Obama. How'd he do in the general? No candidate has run a 50 state presidential campaign since Nixon in 1960. There is a reason for that...Obama will not.

Those tow things aren't mutually exclusive. Trying to make inroads in red states is smart where feasible. Wasting resources in every red state in a presidential campaign is idiotic. Obamites also conflate presidential elections with every other type. It is wise to run a 50 state campaign for state legislative, congressional, and mayoral races. It isn't for a presidential campaign. The difference is those running for the lower level offices can adapt to meet their local conditions. This is why red state Democrats are more conservative than national Democrats. A presidential candidate can't have 50 different platforms. What sells in California won't sell in Montana.

Look at the DLC's history. It believed the Democratic Party was beholden to interest groups. Obama seems to share that view given him denouncing Edwards getting support for a labor union that he called an "interest group."

You are very arrogant and condescending which is amusing because you clearly don't know what you are talking about regarding the DLC. I imagine most folks who believe the "Obama is an alternative to the DLC" myth don't either. The DLC hatred is largely irrational in the blogosphere and not issues based. Look at the veep polls at DU. Even here it is dominated by DLC members Bill Richardson and Kathleen Seblieus with Clintonite Wes Clark, who has not held an elected post so he hasn't formally joined the DLC, consistently comprising the top 3. The same folks then turn around and rail against Hillary being DLC. :rofl:

[Radical Activist]

66. Exactly. Then why did you bring up Hillary

when I pointed out how liberal Obama is? He's not DLC at all.

[jackson_dem]

87. "He distanced himself from them at every opportunity"

Only after he was attacked by progressives for being on the DLC "100 to watch list." He has never formally joined the DLC but he campaigned for the likes of Harold Ford and has been endorsed by prominent DLC members like Ben Nelson, Kathleen Seblieus, and Tim Johnson.

[devilindisguise]

36. How can he be liberal and vote for war

Yeah, he is for the war. He's riding it big time that he didn't vote for the war. Well, he wasn't there or he would have voted for it, I believe. He's voted for a lot of war funding, and Lieberman wants us to take out the whole middle east of course, because of his beloved Israel. There is a guy who shouldn't be in politics.

[Unsane]

39. Obama forcefully spoke out against the war at the time the vote was taking place.

[devilindisguise]

45. Well, I did too

But just like Obama, I wasn't in the Congress and did not have to vote. See the difference?

[Unsane]

46. No, I don't. Obama's rep was on the line at the time, as he was gearing up for a Senate run.

He took the same stand as his brother Senator, Dick Durbin. Obama led when others didn't.

[devilindisguise]

111. Obama was not in the US Senate at the time of the war

I repeat. I don't even know that he spoke out against the war as an Illinois person. I've never seen an article or heard it replayed on TV - and I watch the boob tube a lot, because I like to watch the boobs (idiots) telling me who is going to do what and why, when they don't have the slightest idea of anyone's motives except there own selfish greed to sell out their country for the greenbacks they are paid for lying day after day after day.

[Emit]

43. On those rating scales, even some neocons score high points

because they are considered socially liberal. The issue of hawkishness or free trade is rarely ever qualified in the liberal v conservative v progressive criteria, I think. If others know for sure, otherwise, please inform.

[Breeze54]

44. Sen. Richard Durbin, , D- Ill. scored as the most liberal Senator. - 95.2%

Compared to Obama, Barack, D-Ill. - 86%

http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm

Unless you have a link to your citation. :shrug:

PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS (DEMOCRATIC)- URL: Website http://cpc.lee.house.gov/

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, co-chairman

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6497



* Radical caucus of nearly six-dozen members of the House of Representatives
* Until 1999, worked in open partnership with Democratic Socialists of America


The Progressive Caucus is an organization of Members of Congress founded in 1991 by newly-elected House Representative Bernie Sanders (Independent-Vermont), the former mayor of Burlington and a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which describes itself as "the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International."

As of April 2007, the Progressive Caucus included Sanders (who became a U.S. Senator in 2006), Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, and 69 members of the House of Representatives, all of them leftist Democrats and almost all in districts heavily gerrymandered to guarantee the re-election of any Democratic Party incumbent, no matter how extreme.

-----------

Progressive Caucus Member List

http://cpc.lee.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164

Co-Chairs
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-6)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-9)

Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Raul Grijalva (AZ-7)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-5)
Hon. Hilda Solis (CA-32)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-2)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)

Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)

House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-1)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-2)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-1)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-3)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-8)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-1)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-9)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-7)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-7)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-4)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-3)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-5)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-2)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-4)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-4)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-2)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-4)
Hon. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH-11)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-9)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Hon. Tom Lantos (CA-12)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-5)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-2)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-7)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-7)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-3)
Hon. George Miller (CA-7)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-4)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-8)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-1)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-4)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-1)
Hon. Linda Sanchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-9)
Hon. Jose Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-2)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-6)
Hon. Tom Udall (NM-3)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)

[Radical Activist]

71. I didn't know Durbin was running for President this year.

[Breeze54]

75. Editing response: Kucinich scored higher than Obama

;)

But where is the link to the ratings about presidential candidates on the National Review?

This is the only scores I can find on NR website and it's from 2006!!!

2008 Presidential Wannabe's
http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/pdf/06democrats.pdf

In 2006, Kucinich scored higher as a liberal than Obama as a presidential candidate.

[LWolf]

54. I guess we all have different criteria for what constitutes "liberal," lol. nt

[jackson_dem]

86. They gave DLC members the #1 and #4 rankings in 2004

Does that mean Kerry and Edwards weren't DLC in 2004?

[Eric J in MN]

10. Big deal.

Obama said something to Harold Ford like, I hope we can find ways to work together.

It's called politeness.

[last1standing]

12. Ok, you've convinced me not to vote for Obama (if MI gets another vote).

But even you admit Clinton isn't any better so why should I vote for her? Are you trying to say that we shouldn't vote for either of them since they're so alike?

Interesting.....

[mtnsnake]

16. I'm not trying to convince you who to vote for

Just pointing out something to those who for whatever reason love to bash Clinton for her DLC ties, yet fail to recognize how appealing Obama is to the DLC himself for obvious reasons all pointed out in those articles. His agenda has DLC written all over some parts of it.

[last1standing]

26. So this is just negative advertizing. Ok, got it.

n/t

[PassingFair]

15. Hillary is one of the DLC's LEADERS!!!

Why are you trying to smear Obama with Hillary's
dirt?

"At least with Hillary you know what you're getting..."

http://www.dlc.org/

[mtnsnake]

17. And?

Is that supposed to explain how Obama's agenda looks more and more DLC with each passing day? What's your point?

[PassingFair]

22. The real question is what is YOUR point?

Wouldn't this baseless assertion of yours
make him a better candidate in your eyes,
as he would be trending TOWARDS Hillary
in thought, word and campaign contributions?

[gmudem]

18. The DLC wishes Obama was one of them.

But he is not. I'm sure you know about him asking the DLC to remove his name from their membership list.

Also I believe was one of Howard Dean's "Dean Dozen" in his Democracy For America group.

This is just more throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks by Clinton supporters.

[jackson_dem]

89. Al From is "proud" of "New Democrat" Obama and many DLC members have endorsed Obama

Only in the lala land that is often the netroots does the DLC "wish" anything regarding Obama.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

19. coward

[MadHound]

21. The irony and desperation of your post is thick

You berate the DLC because you perceive Obama as being similar in outlook, yet you are actually supporting a card carrying DLC member:crazy:

Mtnsnake, I suggest that you take some time out from posting, the amount of spin that you're putting out there is confusing and disorienting you to the point where you're actually doing your candidate harm.

Don't vote for DLC lite in Obama, DLC is bad. Instead, support my candidate who is uh, mmm, a DLC member:eyes:

[PassingFair]

23. Not just a member, a LEADER. n/t

[mtnsnake]

27. another Obama supporter who just can't face the truth

Sucks, doesn't it.

[parasim]

24. When he was running for the Illinois Senate, he distanced himself from the DLC

Here's excerpts from his letter to Black Commentator:

-snip

You are undoubtedly correct that these positions make me an unlikely candidate for membership in the DLC. That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC. As I stated in my previous letter, I agreed to be listed as “100 to watch” by the DLC. That’s been the extent of my contact with them. It does appear that, without my knowledge, the DLC also listed me in their “New Democrat” directory. Because I agree that such a directory implies membership, I will be calling the DLC to have my name removed, and appreciate your having brought this fact to my attention.

-snip

and later in the letter...

All of which explains why I’m not likely to launch blanket denunciations of the DLC or any other faction within the Democratic Party. I intend to engage DLC members, just like I intend to engage everybody else that I can during the next year of campaigning, in a conversation about the direction our country needs to take to give ordinary working families a fair shake. In some instances, I may even agree with DLC positions: their insistence on the value of national service, or the need to harden domestic targets like chemical plants from potential terrorist attack, to cite a few examples I just pulled from the DLC web-site, make sense to me. Where I disagree with them – and, as we have already discussed, I disagree with them strongly on a lot of major issues - I intend to let them know, firmly and without equivocation, just why I think they are wrong.

-snip


http://www.blackcommentator.com/48/48_cover.html

So, his statement to Ford regarding "finding ways he could work with the DLC"... saying he wants to work with them doesn't mean he supports them wholeheartedly. The DLC is a force to reckon with (unfortunately) so he is simply following what he has said along about disagreeing with people without being disagreeable.

[democrattotheend]

25. Finding ways to work with is not the same as being a closet believer

If the next president is going to get anything done, he/she will have to work with people and groups of all different beliefs. If we limit the group the next president can work with to Democratic members of Congress who are not part of the DLC, we won't have anything close to a governing majority.

In 2004, just about everyone who ran was a member of the DLC, so the fact that Obama has publicly refused to be a member is pretty good, IMHO.

[ProSense]

28. Look over there: Obama isn't a member of the DLC, but more DLC than Hillary. LOL! Here:

From left to right: Harold Ford, Jr. is chairman of the DLC. U.S. Sen. Tom Carper is vice chair of the DLC; U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is chair of the DLC's American Dream Initiative; Al From is founder and CEO of the DLC. (Not pictured: Bruce Reed is DLC president; Pennsylvania State Representative Jennifer Mann is chair of the DLC's State Legislative Advisory Board (SLAB); Columbus (OH) Mayor Michael Coleman is chair of the DLC's Local Elected Officials Network(LEON).)

link

Somebody Wants to be the Next Joe Lieberman...

[mtnsnake]

29. You're the only one who said Obama is more DLC than Hillary, not me. n/t

[PassingFair]

30. Go HERE and watch the "Meet our Leaders" flash at the top of the page:

http://www.dlc.org/

:rofl:

I do it just for fun!

[OzarkDem]

31. He makes DLC look liberal

[PassingFair]

32. How? n/t

[jackson_dem]

91. Maybe because he is to the right of Hillary on trade, health care, and education?

[mtnsnake]

40. I'm starting to think so

and I'm getting sick of his "reaching out to Republicans" theme which is one of the DLC's priorities that is just tastless, IMO.

[devilindisguise]

49. I can't stand republicans

I don't want any dems. reaching out to them. That is so stupid. They never reach out to anyone and they fought Bill Clinton every step of the way when he was president, and smeared and investigated, and smeared and investigated with no results except one lousy BJ. F them all.

[mtnsnake]

57. Im with you. Reaching out to repukes will only result in us getting wacked in the face

Fuck reaching out to those assholes. If we get into the WH, let those asswipes reach out to us for a change.

[Emit]

81. My SO is "one of those assholes"

Who re-registered as a Dem (just received the new voter reg card today!) because of ill feelings toward the Republican Party that has abandoned so many of its members.

Not all Republicans are assholes. Many never voted for a Bush in their life, and are looking for viable alternatives. They are people, like me and you, not some cohesive evil group who all have the same agenda as Bush & Co.

[devilindisguise]

117. Congratulations

That is very refreshing to hear of a rep. switching to dem. However, I know a lot of reps., and I hear them talk. I used to have rep. friends. They just want to keep reps. in power, no matter how dirty they are. I have never heard one of them apologize for voting for Bush Jr. After all he has done too. If a dem. president had started a "preemtive" war and caused so much worry and strife for American mothers and wives, and put sons and husbands on the firing line for nothing, I would be screaming for his impeachment. Look, I don't care about a BJ, that's personal and usually contained to two people. I do care about attacking another nation and murdering its citizens, and forcing our miltary to fight a worthless, and uncalled for war.

[devilindisguise]

110. Yeah

I can remember what wussies they were when the dems. had control for 50 years. Crawling on their knees and squriming like wiggleworms when some dem. said boo. Now I want to see that again, because - as I said before - I can't stand the smell of their selfishness, and greed, and corruption, and lust for war and more war and more war. BUT, you won't see any of their children fighting in those wars they start.

[antigop]

34. How positively Rovian! Attack the candidate's strength. Obama is NOT DLC -- that's his strength.

n/t

[jackson_dem]

92. That isn't his strength. DLC types don't buy it. Look at how he did in the most DLC states

[RaleighNCDUer]

106. What, may I ask, is a "DLC state"?

Please enlighten me.

[babylonsister]

35. Wow. How low will Clinton supporters go? So now

her supporters, knowing she is DLC, are labeling Obama as DLC, and inferring it's bad?
How convoluted is that? :rofl:

[mtnsnake]

37. truth always hurts

Why is that?

[babylonsister]

41. No, dear. I'm not hurt at all, but you seem to be.

You're making last ditch attempts to smear him with a label she owns. How pathetic is that?
No worries, I'm sure it will all work out real soon for the benefit of us all. :smoke:

[Lerkfish]

48. pathetic desperationg flop sweat, that's what that is:

let me summarize: "How dare my opponent be a member of the sleazy organization that I rund myself!"

[babylonsister]

52. I hear ya! It's 'almost' funny, but it smells like desperation. nt

[Lerkfish]

47. oh no you din't go there, did you? what a wonderful strategy!

accuse your opponent of being part of the organization you yourself run as if its a bad thing.


OMG, flailing around desperately, the clinton campaign is.

[PassingFair]

59. Remember, this is NOT her campaign.

To be fair, this is just someone on a message board.

Looks like brain damage.

[Lerkfish]

72. good point, I stand corrected. still. desperate

[LWolf]

51. THANK YOU.

While I don't want either of them as president, this is one of my biggest issues with Obama.

I find his platform to be more DLC/centrist/3rd way than Hillary's, regardless of who's a card carrying member and who's making hay with an "alternative to the DLC" campaign.

I find it disingenuous, to say the least, to pretend to be progressive, or somehow different from the DLC, while you line up a platform that matches the DLC so well.

I can't believe I'm typing this: I've been against HRC's candidacy from the beginning and have no plans to vote for her at any time, but if I were making a "lesser of two evils" vote, it would be for her, as a vote against Obama.

[mtnsnake]

65. and I thank YOU for being so well informed

about what is really happening out there.

Your post restored my faith that there are still some well-informed people who know what's up and who can see beyond all the hype and empty rhetoric.

[LWolf]

67. There are some who see beyond,

but, unfortunately, I think they are few and far between. :(

Still, some is better than none, and one can hope that more and more will begin to pay attention. :shrug:

Anyway, the least we can do is to keep putting it out there, making it more difficult to ignore. :hi:

[jackson_dem]

94. Yup. Obama is running on smoke and mirrors and the "alternative to the DLC" thing is a big one

[mudesi]

53. Don't YOU support the DLC?

If you're a Clinton supporter, you must have no problem with the DLC!

[mtnsnake]

60. No. I don't subscribe to any groups. I take what I think are the best parts of the best candidates

and that's what I subscribe to. That's why Kucinich was my first choice all throughout, and Hillary can be my second choice, even though she's a DLC member. Liking Hillary doesn't mean I have to like the DLC. Are there things about her I don't agree with? Oh for sure, but with Kucinich not being a realistic choice anymore, then I feel Hillary definitely has the best combination of traits for me. Does it mean I think she's perfect? Nope.

The hypocrisy that runs rampant on this forum never ceases to amaze me, though (I don't mean you, btw).

[Forkboy]

56. It's why I don't like him either. They're two peas in a pod, basically.

At least with Hillary you know what you're getting..

Yeah, that's the problem.

[Vinca]

58. Weird post. Hillary is actually in the DLC.

Are you trying to say Barack is as bad as Hillary? I'm confused.

[mtnsnake]

62. No, I'm not trying to say Barack is just as "bad".

What amazes me is the selective criticism on this board when it comes Hillary, as if she's the only DLC type to run in this campaign. About the only ones free from being that type are Kucinich and Edwards, IMO, especially Kucinich. If I had it my way, Dennis Kucinich would be our nominee. He has been my 1st choice since practically the start.

[RaleighNCDUer]

107. No, what MtnSnake is saying is that the DLC isn't bad.

Hillary is in the DLC and the DLC wants Obama, therefore they are a wash.

Except the DLC IS bad. They are a corporate 5th column which is devoted to undermining any populist progress in the Democratic party.

And the simple fact is, Hillary is a member; Obama is not.

[AtomicKitten]

61. The facts and data beg to differ.

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

[jackson_dem]

95. So Kerry and Edwards weren't DLC in 2004 under the new Obama standard?

[karynnj]

63. There are only two Democrats left - one a DLC person has been in the DLC leadership and

is married to a former DLC leader - unless he is DLC emeritas now - and the other is someone who demanded the DLC remove his name from their list when they tried to claim him, who has never been DLC.

Your links are ridiculous - Ford saying he could work even with Obama?? Would he have a real choice?

[PassingFair]

64. Is CURRENTLY a leader, Karynnj...not has been. n/t

[mtnsnake]

68. Maybe you should do some research

and then you'll understand why Obama asked to have his name removed from the DLC's list. He's no dummy. He knows he wouldn't have had a chance at doing so well at sucking up to the base, had he not asked them to remove his name from their list. What's ironic is how his agenda is just as much DLC as anyone's, yet he thinks he can avoid scrutiny because he's not an official member. Gimme a break.

Go ahead and continue to post away that the links are ridiculous and blah blah blah. It doesn't change a thing, and you wouldn't agree with me if I said the sun rose in the East this morning anyway.

[jackson_dem]

96. Yup. It is scary how he has snookered folks without them even looking at his DLC platform

[TheWraith]

69. You're citing the National Journal? The personal magazine of the Washington insider crowd?

Talk about desperate and delusional. Some people are willing to say anything no matter how far from reality it is. Not to mention, you forget to mention that unlike Obama, Hillary IS a card-carrying member of the DLC, and has been since its inception. Obama on the other hand has never been a member, and objected to them listing him as such on their website.

[Mezzo]

70. I find it amazing how this thread was about Barack Obama, and the first responses are about Hillary

You all know one of Barack Obama's senior aides is married to Rahm Emmanuel's senior aides. Those guys have been in cahoots for a very long time now.


Go ahead. I put my flame retardant suit on before I posted this.

[Radical Activist]

73. So Obama is DLC by marriage?

Come on. This is ridiculous. All anyone has to do is look at his voting record and where he stands on the issues to see that he isn't DLC.

[Mezzo]

76. are you serious? (series)

He's been hanging out with Rahm Emmanuel for a long time now. Are you saying that being open to privatizing schools is NOT a conservative thing? If that's the case, honey, *I* am not the one being ridiculous.

[mtnsnake]

79. Excellent point, Mezzo. This was touched upon by another DU'er a few days ago, too...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4686870

[Radical Activist]

82. Guilt by association games huh?

So Obama hangs out with a Democratic Congressman that lives in the same city and state that he represents. Wow. What a shocker! It says a lot that you have to go with something that far-fetched that totally lacks substance to make your argument.

[Mezzo]

102. if the shoe fits...

after all, you're only as good as the company you keep.

[AtomicKitten]

74. Why does that bother people when both candidates are discussed?

For the purposes of an election, a comparative analysis of both is germane to the process.

[Mezzo]

77. It doesn't bother that both are discussed

but Obama supporters don't seem to be able to defend him. They only seem to attack her, or the messenger.

[AtomicKitten]

83. yes, there is much of that going on here - but it's a reflection of the conversation across America

For the record and in my opinion, much of the anger and gnashing of teeth around here has more to do with the end of the BuchCo regime that is being acted out in the Dem primary. I don't think for a minute one side is more guilty than the other in the silliness acted out here at DU. It will pass, sooner than later, and it won't come a moment too soon for me; I am anxious to get on with the business of kicking GOP arse.

[Mezzo]

116. Thank you for that, Atomic Kitten

yours is a beautiful voice in a sea of ugly and I mean that. I am really disappointed in the Ohio mailer depicting Harry and Louise. It was a disgusting, slimy move.

I am so discouraged by these antics now. I am not interested in a fight, I am too saddened by the let down of Hope.

Truly.

[dailykoff]

90. DailyKos straw poll from a year ago?

Oh the inanity.

[ErnestoG]

93. Please back sloooooowly away from the bong.

[Bushwick Bill]

97. Yup, he's not out of the mainstream.

Look, I understand he's basically DLC, he'll blindly support Israel even if it means vaporizing Iran, will probably let the Iraq war wage on for a little while for the military/industrial complex, will let Bernanke run rampant, is probably a consummate corporatist. His positions are not that much different than Hillary. So, it comes down to this: which personality do you like better? I don't see Hillary as that much more experienced and skilled of a politician. She is pissing away a lock of a nomination. She is too polarizing and will never get anything done as Prez. Barack is somewhat raw, but he has the makings of a uniter much more than Hillary.

[workinclasszero]

98. What fu**** horseshit!

Hillary is a LEADER of the DLC!!

You people are so out of hand with lies about Obama, but what can ya expect considering your candidate is a stone cold liar herself!

Obama is the ONLY progressive in this race and thats a fact!

[mtnsnake]

100. Horseshit? Why, because it's Obama? Too bad if you can't handle that your idol resembles DLC

on many fronts. He isn't a DLC member, but he appeals dearly to the DLC for more than one reason. His agenda reeks of some of their worst ideas, like his "reaching out to Republicans" theme. Republicans aren't very welcoming critters. We ought to know that by now.

[Forkboy]

109. heh...Obama "progressive".

Best laugh of my day.

You guys, on both sides, need to get out more. If either of these people seem progressive then we're all fucked.

[jackson_dem]

114. How can Obamites call Obama a progressive and then say Hillary isn't progressive?

On the issue Hillary is arguably more progressive. Obama is to the right of her on trade, education (he favors "pay for performance" and is "open" to privatizing education http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4686870 ), and health care.

[DURHAM D]

112. Obama is to the right of the DLC.

He isn't even a Democrat - which is ok because his supporters aren't either.

[jackson_dem]

115. He's probably to the right of Hillary and Hill is considered a DLC template on the netroots

[Horse with no Name]

118. The Media Conflageration that is Obama

was bankrolled and paid by people in the shadows from the start.
I don't believe the hype and hoopla of all of these little donors sending money...almost from the start.
There is no doubt in my mind when the servers of the koolaid step out from the shadows...there are going to be some SHOCKED supporters--at least the ones who haven't morphed into the rabid Bush-type supporters by then.