Clinton/Obama race : A proxy fight between the DLC wing and the progressive wing of the Dem. party

[rhombus]

It's that simple. This is what it boils down to folks. Peel all the layers, and eventually this realization is laid bare. Take a look at the characters on each side.

The future of the Democratic Party is at stake.

[anonymous171]

1. Yep. That's why it's been so intense and divisive.

It's the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party vs the Republican Wing of the Democratic Party.

[blm]

7. Open Government Democrats v Closed Government Democrats.

No doubt which gets MY vote.

[XemaSab]

34. 50-state populists v 5-state elitists

:thumbsup:

[MindMatter]

68. Yes, and this reveals some misconceptions about the calculus

The conventional wisdom is that Obama has to win over almost all of the Clinton supporters.

I believe that the majority of Clinton supporters generally share the broad Democratic principles that we're talking about here, and I hope and trust most of them will be fighting with us from now to November.

Having said that, some of the most vocal of the Clinton supporters are DINOs -- and they would be a lot more comfortable supporting McCain, Lieberman, or any other Republican. This is exactly what they should do, and none of us should lost any sleep over that.

We will be much more successful promoting a true Democratic agenda for this country than we have been with these Junior Republicans in our midst watering down our message. With a solid Democratic message out there, we will win over millions of people who have found themselves voting for Republicans recently. True Democrats, as opposed to the DNC-types who make a living trading off the Democratic name, fight for the best interests of the average American. We are on the right side of all the issues of importance to 75% of the public. And with Obama, we finally have a guy who can get this point across unapologetically.

We have nothing to fear by sending the DNC crowd packing. Don't let the screen door hit you in the ass.

[MBS]

81. you betcha. The choice is really clear for me, too n/t

[DJ13]

41. Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party vs the Republican Wing of the Democratic Party

Well after Bush had ruined the GOP's image, the Republican pro-business elites had to find another way to remain in power.

What better way than to get the Democrats to once again fall for the lie that the Clintons are liberals and not Republican lite?

They never thought they could lose with Hillary, they hadnt realized that people had enough of the pro business politicians (no matter which party) that she could actually lose.

[tokenlib]

2. Thanks a lot! You've revealed the truth of the struggle in all its glory.....

..now someone will really get pissed off.

[OzarkDem]

3. Obama defended the nuclear power industry over his constituents

when they were ignoring safety problems at their plants.

What part, exactly, of Obama's support of corporations at the expense of average Americans progressive?

[anonymous171]

5. links plz.

[OzarkDem]

12. Obama and Exelon

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.hancock25jan25,0,4656523.column

But the Exelon-Obama link is especially strong. Exelon employees and others close to the company have given almost $195,000 to Obama, according to the latest records. Exelon is surpassed among corporate Obama donors by only Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Lehman Brothers and a couple of other companies, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

One of Obama's biggest fundraising "bundlers," packaging money from multiple individuals, is Frank M. Clark, chairman of Commonwealth Edison, the big Illinois utility owned by Exelon. Exelon director John W. Rogers Jr., chief of mutual fund company Ariel Capital Management, also has given thousands to Obama.

...

Last year Illinois Senate President Emil Jones, frequently described as Obama's mentor, single-handedly killed a bill that would have extended price caps for customers of Commonwealth Edison and other utilities.

...



Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.”

“I just did that last year,” he said, to murmurs of approval.

A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. ... ..

...

Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.

“Senator Obama’s staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft,” said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. “The teeth were just taken out of it.” ... ..

... .. The rewritten bill also contained the new wording sought by Exelon making it clear that state and local authorities would have no regulatory oversight of nuclear power plants. ... ..




Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[crankychatter]

20. is that all you got?

let's see... many millions in PAC money in Clinton's pocket vs this one incident?

back to the pit... keep scraping.

[OzarkDem]

24. Bwahahaha!

Check the link. Lay off the kool aid.

[anonymous171]

28. "Kool Aid" smear stopped working a month ago.

Once everyone realized that it was Clinton who had the cult.

[Whisp]

43. OT- Ozark, I have a thread I am inviting you to join.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5396624&mesg_id=5396624

you claimed that Obama has been trying to steal Clinton delegates and I give you a chance to prove your statement here.
bring links or forever hold your codpiece.

thanks.

[izzybeans]

85. "or forever hold your codpiece"

:rofl:

sort of like Commander Coo-Coo Bananas in a flight suit codpiece?

[mod mom]

53. and ClintonS protected the TOXIC WASTE Industry along the banks of Ohio River

1100 feet from an elementary school:

How The Clintons SOLD OUT OHIO: New Developments-Anthrax, Radioactive Waste, & Post Katrina Waste

Edited on Mon Feb-11-08 02:55 PM by mod mom
SOME OF YOU HERE MAY WONDER WHY I AM SUCH A VOCAL OPPONENT OF THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN. SEN CLINTON SPEAKS OF HER LIFETIME COMMITMENT TO HELPING CHILDREN, YET IN MY STATE OF OHIO, THEIR POLITICAL ASPIRATIONS TOOK THE FRONT SEAT OVER WHAT WAS BEST FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, CHILDREN AND AN IMPOVERISHED REGION. I HAVE POSTED THREADS BEFORE ON THE EAST LIVERPOOL TOXIC WASTE INCINERATOR, BUT A DIARIST ON DAILY KOS RECENTLY FOUND DISTURBING NEW FACTS ON THE INCINERATOR. FIRST, HERE IS THE WELL RESEARCHED KOS PIECE:

Ask Hillary About This Tonight. I Dare You.
by Zwoof

Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:40:46 AM PST

-snip

While I was writing the original piece on the history of this foul project, a new ruling from the Ohio EPA allowed this incinerator, located 1,100 feet from an elementary school, to accept even more hazardous waste (anthrax, radioactive waste, infectious medical waste and mixed hazardous waste from Hurricane Katrina) than the original permit that was shrouded in corruption and approved by the Clinton Administration

Clinton and Al Gore promised the residents of East Liverpool, Ohio that they would not allow this incinerator originally approved by Bush '41 to operate. However, a Clinton EPA appointee, recommended by his classmate Hillary Clinton, approved the permit.

This is a tangled tale of corporatism, broken promises and an environmental disaster waiting to happen.

-snip
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4537770

[blm]

4. I've heard about this for years since the 90s. It was Clinton Dems v Kennedy Dems

It's just been more STARK in recent years as we have been witnessing the tragic fallout from the Clintons' protection of BushInc and the powerful elite throughout the 90s.

[Lyric]

6. Nope.

The day I'm a centrist is the day pigs fly, but I still support Clinton. Obama is NO progressive, and if I'm forced to choose between two centrists, I'll take the one who didn't hire McClurkin.

[Exultant Democracy]

50. Are you nuts, the Clinton's and the DLC are as close as you can get, do you deny this?

[jackson_dem]

8. Really? Only the netroots have gotten this mysterious memo

Ben Nelson, Kathleen Seblieus, Bill Richardson, Tim Johnson, Bob Casey, and even Al From are among those who don't know what only the "netroots" mysteriously "knows".

[Moochy]

59. And you are not on the net?

or are you in Al From's Basement?

Say Hi to Mr Benchley! :hi:

[MethuenProgressive]

9. Obama isn't officially a DLCer. He just acts like one. Clinton's a classic Progressive.

He triangulates every move. Sickening.

edit: added an e

[anonymous171]

11. Projection and completely incorrect. Clinton's campaign has even said Obama was a liberal.

Clinton is a DLC chair.

Who's the DLCer again?

[jackson_dem]

21. And Obama himself said Bill Clinton was progressive and praised his "Third Way"

And it is widely accepted that Hill is more progressive than Bill.

[anonymous171]

26. Then why does she vote like a repug?

If she is so "progressive" why does she keep on acting like a right-leaning centrist?

[jackson_dem]

31. Ask Obama. Their voting records are the same

[anonymous171]

33. Except for the Kyle-LIEberman amendment. And the Ban on Clusterbombs

[jackson_dem]

38. Obama sponsored a bill that was the same as Kyl-Lieb months before

He only switched when he saw the traction Edwards, who at the time was much closer to Obama than Obama was to Clinton in polls, got from opposing it.

[anonymous171]

42. If only Clinton had done the same.

[paulk]

57. Obama didn't switch on Kyle-Lieberman

he just didn't bother to even vote.

It's kind of a pattern, actually.

[Kool Kitty]

72. And the part about the cluster bombs?

[merh]

49. That's why she is one of the chairs of the DLC

facts do tend to get in your way, don't they.



FFrom 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 Legislative Advisory Board (LAB); Columbus (OH) Mayor Michael Coleman is chair of the DLC's Local Elected Officials Network(LEON).)

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

[jackson_dem]

65. And that has what to do with Obama saying Bill Clinton was progressive?

You do realize the DLC supports Obama over Clinton? CLinton is DLC. The fact the DlC prefers Obama should lead to a logical conclusion...

[merh]

67. Bill Clinton isn't the one running

try to keep your Clinton's straight.

[bvar22]

70. Please provide some links for your assertion ...

...that the DLC prefers Obama over Clinton.

[quakerboy]

75. That they want the cover of respectability?

and that they are afraid they will go down with the repubs if they dont manage to get it?

[Yael]

15. Wow! It must be 'up is down' day.

:rofl:

[blm]

23. Covering up for BushInc throughout the 90s is now a Classic Progressive action?

Supporting BushII from 2001-2007 while you undermine other Dem leaders is now the actions of a Classic Progressive?

[UALRBSofL]

10. I can not believe the OP thinks Obama is progressive

I mean, take a look at his platform issues and take a look at Hillary's and you would think Hillary's issues are more progressive and Obama's are a little bit more centrist. You can categorize her as a DLC but her issues are very progressive.

[anonymous171]

16. Except for her stance on Lobbyists.

[XemaSab]

37. It's not labeling her DLC... she IS DLC through and through

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

[99th_Monkey]

48. Obama's progressive compared to Hillary: see Iraq and Iran war stance, oh and on NAFTA, oh and...

[Captain Hilts]

13. No. Their voting records are nearly identical. Her healthcare, as EEdwards, notes, is better. nt

[kwenu]

14. Maybe for others but for me its about the country not the DLC.

[msongs]

17. who represents the progressive wing? not obama, he is an imperialist nt

[Forkboy]

18. The funny thing is they're both pretty much the same.

The jokes on us.

[crankychatter]

19. Obama did an end run around the PACs

I actually like some of the "DLC-ers" but you hit the nail on the head.

The system of campaign financing for favors (which is actually illegal), is deeply entrenched. All the lobbies but especially the War Profiteers, Energy Transnationals, Megapharms, Financial Industries and Big Insurance, are represented in the process through PACs.

Obama did an end run around that evil symbiosis, and DESPITE BEING A MILD CENTRIST, represents a big threat to the old system of corruption.

Clinton's run is for the status quo... period.

They benefit from keeping the party small, and these financial backers win no matter which party wins the General Election...

unless it's Obama.

So you're right on OP. Best of luck getting people that think being a good Democrat is the same thing as being a good Republican (abject, lockstep loyalty without regard to reality).

It's a writhing pit of snakes here.

[Flabbergasted]

22. No it's between two candidates that represent a slightly different set of

immensly powerful interests.

[OzarkDem]

25. Which one has the progressive health care plan?

Two guesses, and it isn't Obama.

[anonymous171]

30. What happened last time Hillary attempted to pass her health plan?

Oh yeah, she failed. Miserably.

[paulk]

58. is that your argument?

maybe she learned something from that failure and will do better next time.

You sound like you're glad she failed.

[XemaSab]

44. Um, none of the above?

A real health plan would be single-payer, which neither of the candidates is proposing.

[WillyT]

27. Spot On, Rhombus !!! - Exactly !!! - K & R !!!

:yourock:

[LWolf]

29. I disagree.

Barack Obama is just as centrist/corporatist/3rd way/"new" dem as HRC; he just doesn't carry the dlc label. Even so, his positions mesh well with the "Progressive" Policy Institute.

The progressive wing of the party doesn't have a pony in this race.

Many back Obama because he doesn't carry the dlc label, it's true, but he fits the dlc better than the progressive wing of the party.

I believe that the war is over, and the centrists/corporatists/3rd way/"new" democrats have won.

That they did so by convincing Democrats to adopt orwellian turns of phrase with the term "progressive," just like the "Progressive" Policy Institute, is pathetic.

I'm from the liberal left wing of the Democratic Party, and I know a loss when it knocks me down and runs me over.

[UALRBSofL]

36. Also, Clinton has taken the GLBT issue one step further then Obama

And Obama has extended his timetable for troops to come home from Iraq plus he wants to leave 100,000 in the territory. Hillary is ready from day one to bring the troops home. Obama has changed on several issues over the past few months.

[anonymous171]

39. Right now she is only "ready" to be first lady on "day one."

It's on the job training.

[blm]

46. You believe HRC would be taking gay issues ANY step further if she was the nominee right now?

The only reason she is focusing on gay issues is because she's scared of losing every demographic now, and she timed it with her Ellen appearance in hopes she can re-ignite some 'base' for herself.

If HRC was the nominee by Super Tuesday as she intended, Clintons would be putting out proposals right now for gays to start seeking common ground with the RW religious groups who oppose gay marriage.

[LWolf]

52. It's staggering to me to find

DLCer HRC more liberal/progressive than a supposed non-dlcer. This is the woman that stands by her votes for the IWR and the patriot act, and kyl/lieberman, for that matter.

And she still looks more liberal/progressive than Obama.

[TahitiNut]

56. I share your perspective.

I hold out the VERY faint hope that Obama would gravitate slightly more to the left than Clinton, if only because he might bring in a far different cast of characters. I sure ain't tripping down the roadway spreading flower petals, though.
:shrug:

Every time I look at this, it becomes more and more obvious that it's accurate. (Especially with the update of Gravel's position!)

[LWolf]

60. I like the political compass

because it reflects what I see when I look at U.S. politics, and explains why I don't feel any particular attachment to the mainstream democratic candidates.

I haven't seen it since gravel was updated, but I agree with the placement.

[billyoc]

32. The DLC will NOT go quietly, and they'll cheerfully cede the White House to the R's and try again

in '12. Watch for them to do to Obama what they did to Kerry in '04.

DLC delende est.

[derby378]

35. It can also be considered a referendum on repudiating the Clinton legacy

Yes, Bill Clinton delivered us a balanced budget. Yes, we had a fiscal surplus that could have been used to pay down part of the National Debt or to shore up Medicare and/or Social Security. Yes, we got FMLA and HIPAA out of the deal. For this, we thank Bill.

But that turkey of a gun ban cost us control of Congress. Corporate canoodling with the Democrats rewrote the patent laws so that now everything short of a newborn human baby can be trademarked with a (C) stamp on its butt. Then there was that Communications Decency Act, which first raised the spectre of Internet censorship.

The Clinton legacy is a mixed legacy for the Democrats, and may remain a sort spot for some time.

[tokenlib]

45. The Clinton legacy is largely the DLC pinnacle of success...

...unless Hillary pulls this out.

We can argue all we want about who is progressive or more corporatist between Barack and Hillary...but the DLC establishment/machine IS the Clinton machine..for better or worse.

It is the Clinton crowd that wants Harold Ford and the DLC in control of the DNC..

[bigwillq]

40. Obama's a centrist.

So is Clinton.

But Obama's image, and behavior, makes him seem like a progressive. He is not.

[crankychatter]

66. he didn't take the PAC money

and that makes him a dangerous, loose cannon, centrist or not

and that's why these ppl are foaming at the mouth

[99th_Monkey]

47. Yep. That just about sums it up in one sentence. -nt-

[Enrique]

51. they're both centrists

[Lou Queb]

54. There seems to be a general consensus of both leaning center, thanks guys !

[paulk]

55. there's a lot of truth in that

the real problem is that the DLC centrists have a much better record of getting elected than the progressive wing of the party.

The progressive/activist wing has used their pull before to get a candidate through the primaries - only to be slaughtered in the General Election. Think McGovern, Dukakis, Mondale.

Which is why I think Hillary has a better chance in the GE than Obama does.

And a Democratic President is more important to me than this interparty squabbling.

[eridani]

61. I think it's more about party building vs consultants and sound bite politics

They aren't all that different in platform issues.

[stillcool]

62. I agree. The New Democrat Movement....

vs. The Democratic Party

http://www.nndb.com/group/269/000093987/
New Democrat Movement

GROUP

The right wing current of the Democratic party, characterized by its neoliberal economic policies, support of Israel, desire to increase defense spending, and links to heavy donors and fundraisers.

Believes that "left-wing" positions are not politically viable. Describes itself as "moderate and pro-growth". Probably responsible for erosion of the Democratic Party's historical labor and minority base due to support of treaties like NAFTA, lack of support for affirmative action and poverty programs, and their siphoning away of campaign funds from minority groups.

At the national level, the movement was founded by the Democratic Leadership Council (501c4 educational non-profit, founded 1984) and includes the House New Democrat Coalition (founded 1997), the Senate New Democrat Coalition (founded 2000), the New Democrat Network PAC (founded 1996), the misnamed Progressive Policy Institute (501c4 think tank, "Bill Clinton's idea mill", founded 1989), and the umbrella funding group The Third Way Foundation (501c3 non-profit, founded 1996).

Since coming to power within the Democratic Party with Bill Clinton's presidency, the New Democrats/DLC have worked towards "essentially the same purpose as the Christian Coalition... to pull a broad political party dramatically to the right" according to John Nichols of The Progressive.

DLC operatives actively worked to sabotage Howard Dean's candidacy for the US Presidency in 2004, claiming that the "far-left" Democrat was wrong to attack George W. Bush's tax cuts and national security policies.

Corporate contributors to the DLC and New Democratic Network include Bank One, Citigroup, Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric, Health Insurance Corporation of America, Merrill Lynch, Microsoft, Philip Morris, RJR Nabisco, Chevron, Prudential Foundation, Amoco Foundation, AT&T, Morgan Stanley, Occidental Petroleum, Raytheon, and many other Fortune 500 companies.

The New Democrat Movement is sometimes referred to as the Dixiecrat movement due to the DLC's origination in the southern states, their desire to get rid of affirmative action, and their membership's overwhelming whiteness.

"Democrats should shift the primary focus from racism, the traditional enemy without, to self-defeating patterns of behavior among blacks" --Chuck Robb, 2nd DLC Chairman, Governor & Senator of the Great State of Virginia, White Man, 1986.

"I'm from the democratic wing of the Democrat Party" --Paul Wellstone, progressive Democrat, criticizing the New Democrat Movement.

"Democrats for the Leadership Class" --Jesse Jackson, progressive black Democrat, describing the DLC.

[bonito]

63. Hammer meets nail n/t

[jackson_dem]

64. News to the DLC

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5398981&mesg_id=5398981

Edited on Sat Apr-05-08 06:58 PM by jackson_dem
This is hilarious since much of Obama's rabid blogosphere support comes from a "belief" that a win for Obama will somehow hurt the DLC. Apparently the DLC itself is unaware of this!

I looked at the Senate New Democrat Coalition for senators and the DLC governor's page http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=450015 for governors. I did not look at the House nor did I pour over every DLC piece mentioning a governor. The existing sample is sufficient to give shatter the blogosphere-only myth that the DLC cabal is out to get Obama when in fact, as no less than Al From has said, both Clinton and Obama are "New Democrats" and the DLC will be happy with either.

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-l... has a list of superdelegates who are supporting a candidate.

DLC Senators

Clinton: 5 (Lincoln of Arkansas, Feinstein, Bill Nelson, Stabenow, Bayh)
Obama: 4 (Ben Nelson--the most right-wing Democrat in the Senate, Kerry, Conrad, Johnson)
Edwards: 0

One of the DLC senators for Clinton is from her home state so that is no surprise. Missing from the list is Bob Casey. Casey, an Obama supporter, is not a member of the DLC but on social issues he is as conservative as any DLC member.

Edwards, as far as I can recall, was not endorsed by a single DLC senator or DLC governor.

DLC governors

Obama: 6 (Seblieus*, Richardson*, Napaltoino*, Doyle, Kaine, Patrick)
Clinton: 2 (Strickland, O'Malley)
Edwards: 0

The governors with asterisk's next to their name have special importance, especially Seblius and Richardson, in that they are de facto DLC candidates for vice president.

Total from the sample

Obama: 10 (59%)
Clinton: 7 (41%)
Edwards: 0

Clinton is a member of the DLC. Obama is not. It doesn't matter--just ask people who are not armchair quarterbacks but those who are actually in the DLC. What counts is policy.

A knee-jerk Obamite reaction will be that this is because Obama is solidly ahead. No dice. That only applies to Richardson. Everyone else mentioned above endorsed when Obama was either behind or it was essentially even.

Rendell, I believe, is a DLC member but since he was not mentioned on the DLC governor's frontpage he is not listed. To cherry pick him would distort the sample as I could easily have cherry picked another DLC governor for Obama as well.

It should also be noted that Clinton still leads in superdelegates. DLC members are deviating from the norm in their support for Obama.

[Califooyah Operative]

69. Bingo, except I'd add

It's not just progressives, it's the party grassroots, and a significant portion of the labor movement vs. the DLC, corporate, DC elites. This goes back to Deans presidential run, Dean at the DNC, the 50 state strategy, and now Obama's presidential campaign. The old guard is on its last legs and the gates have been crashed.

[Califooyah Operative]

71. To those talking about 'centrism':

Corporatism is not centrism. There is nothing centrist or moderate about the DLC. Follow the money.

[McCamy Taylor]

73. In the old days we used to just call it a primary and let them count the votes.

Apparently that isn't good enough any more. Now it has to be an ideological battle. Wonder what all those voters think they are doing in the voting booths? Good thing they do not know that this will be decided in a double elimination cage match between wrestlers chosen to represent the forces of progress/anarchy on the one side and rules/oppression on the other. If they did, they might just stay home this fall and let the Republicans win.

:dem:

[DerekJ]

74. Hillary is the DLC

From: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5222518


1. Hillary Clinton is a team leader of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).

2. Hillary Clinton praised the work of DLC and Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) founders, specifically with regard to their work in transforming the Democratic Party in the manner in which they proscribed (see below).

3-5. The founders of the DLC and PPI are members of or ideologically associated with PNAC; These DLC founders want to transform the Democratic Party, making it compatible with neo-liberalism/neo-conservatism.

________________

1. Hillary Clinton is a DLC team leader:

The DLC Leadership Team
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

________________

2. Hillary Clinton praises the work of Will Marshall and Al From, among others:


DLC | Speech | July 26, 2005
Remarks of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to the 2005 DLC National Conversation

(snip)

"So I would like to start by thanking Al From and Will Marshall, Bruce Reed, and all of the people at the DLC and the PPI, not only for the rich legacy of your ideas, which have helped to transform our party and reinvigorate our country, but for your determination to stay focused on the future, laying the groundwork for the next great era of Democratic leadership."

(snip)

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=137&subid=900111&co...

________________


The co-founder of the DLC is a member of PNAC: Will Marshall

3. Will Marshall:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

(snip)

With Al From, in 1985 Marshall cofounded the DLC, an important bastion of center-right Democrats that was once chaired by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT). In 1989, Marshall founded the PPI, a think tank that is affiliated with the DLC. Both organizations are sometimes described as neoconservative for their foreign policy positions. In an analysis of the two groups' stance on the Israeli offensive against Hezbollah in summer 2006, Tom Barry wrote: "In practice, though, DLC/PPI positions differ little from that of the Bush administration. As Israel rained bombs down on Lebanon, the DLC's New Dem Dispatch echoed the neoconservative camp in its plea for the Bush administration to avoid the supposed shame of appeasement in the Middle East. Adopting the same line taken by the Bush administration and the Israeli government, the newsletter recommended that the war be taken to Tehran and Damascus, which 'have become clear threats to regional and world peace, and must be isolated and sanctioned, not appeased.'"

(snip)

Marshall was one of 15 analysts who co-wrote the PPI's October 2003 foreign policy blueprint, "Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy." Using language that closely mirrors that of the neoconservative-led Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the PPI hailed the "tough-minded internationalism" of past Democratic presidents such as Harry Truman. Like PNAC, which in its founding statement warned of grave present dangers confronting America, the PPI strategy declared that, "Today America is threatened once again" and is in need of assertive individuals committed to strong leadership. The authors' observation that, "like the Cold War, the struggle we face today is likely to last not years but decades," echoes both neoconservative and Bush administration national security assessments. As the "Progressive Internationalism" authors explain, the PPI endorsed the invasion of Iraq "because the previous policy of containment was failing, because Saddam posed a grave danger to America as well as to his own brutalized people, and because his blatant defiance of more than a decade's worth of UN Security Council resolutions was undermining both collective security and international law."

(snip)

Although Marshall calls himself a "centrist," he has associated himself with neoconservative organizations and their radical foreign policy agendas. At the onset of the Iraq invasion, Marshall signed statements issued by the Project for the New American Century calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein, advocating that NATO help "secure and destroy all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," and arguing that the invasion "can contribute decisively to the democratization of the Middle East."

Marshall's credentials as a liberal hawk have been well established by his affinity for other PNAC-associated groups, including the U.S. Committee on NATO and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Marshall served on the board of directors of the U.S. Committee on NATO alongside such leading neoconservative figures as Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, Randy Scheunemann, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley, Peter Rodman, Jeffrey Gedmin, Gary Schmitt, and the committee's founder and president Bruce Jackson. At the request of the Bush administration, Jackson also formed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which, with former DLC chairman Joseph Lieberman serving as co-chair with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), aimed to build bipartisan support for the liberation, occupation, and democratization of Iraq. Marshall, together with former Democratic Sen. Robert Kerrey of Nebraska (who coauthored "Progressive Internationalism"), represented the liberal hawk wing of the Democratic Party on the committee's neocon-dominated advisory board. Other advisers included James Woolsey, Eliot Cohen, Newt Gingrich, William Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Joshua Muravchik, Chris Williams, and Richard Perle.

On February 25, 2003, Marshall joined an array of neoconservatives marshaled by the Social Democrats/USA (SD/USA)—a wellspring of neoconservative strategy—to sign a letter to Bush calling for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall and others asked the president to "act alone if that proves necessary" and then, as a follow-up to a military-induced regime change in Iraq, to implement a democratization plan. The SD/USA letter urged the president to commit his administration to "maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning." Others signing the SD/USA letter included Jackson, Kagan, Woolsey, Hillel Fradkin, Rachelle Horowitz, Penn Kemble, Nina Shea, Michael Novak, Clifford May, and Ben Wattenberg.

(snip)

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

________________


http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463

4. Democratic Leadership Council

(snip)

The DLC was established in the wake of President Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide victory, in which he won 49 states, over Democrat Walter Mondale. During the Democratic convention in San Francisco, Mondale had successfully beat back a challenge from Gary Hart, who predicted that unless the Democratic Party adopted a new image it would be decisively defeated. Mondale proved unable to respond effectively to charges from the Republican right and neoconservative Democrats that the Democratic Party was the party of progressives-which Jeane Kirkpatrick variously labeled as the "San Francisco Democrats" and the "blame America first" Democrats-who were out of touch with mainstream America. As Dan Balz and Ronald Brownstein concluded in their book Storming the Gates, "Mondale's landslide defeat exposed as a dead end the vision of regaining the White House by mobilizing an army of the disaffected with a message of unreconstructed liberalism."

Pondering the Mondale defeat, a gathering coalition of Southern Democrats and northern neoliberals expressed concerns that the Democratic Party faced extinction, particularly in the South and West, if the party continued to rely on its New Deal message of government intervention and kept catering to traditional constituencies of labor, minorities, and anti-war progressives. In 1985, Al From, an aide to Rep. Gillis Long (D-LA), took the lead in formulating a new messaging strategy for the party's centrists, neoliberals, and conservatives. Will Marshall, at that time Long's policy analyst and speechwriter, worked closely with From to establish the DLC and then became its first policy director.

In his "Saving the Democratic Party" memo of January 1985, From advocated the formation of a "governing council" that would draft a "blueprint" for reforming the party. According to From, the new leadership should aim to create distance from "the new bosses"-organized labor, feminists, and other progressive constituency groups-that were keeping the party from modernizing. From's memo sparked the formation of the Democratic Leadership Council in early 1985. According to Balz and Brownstein, "Within a few weeks, it counted 75 members, primarily governors and members of Congress, most of them from the Sunbelt, and almost all of them white; liberal critics instantly dubbed the group 'the white male caucus.'"
(snip)

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463

________________


http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1534.html

5. Progressive Policy Institute

"Don't look now, but neoconservatism is making a comeback-and not among the Republicans who have made it famous, but in the Democratic Party," declared writer Jacob Heilbrunn in a May 28, 2006 op-ed for the Los Angeles Times. In "Neocons in the Democratic Party," Heilbrunn argued that a new generation of Democratic "pundits and young national security experts" are trying to revive the Cold War precepts of President Harry S. Truman and apply them to the war on terror. "The fledgling neocons of the left are based at places such as the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), whose president, Will Marshall, has just released a volume of doctrine called With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty . Their political champions include Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman and such likely presidential candidates as former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)."

(snip)

PPI, founded in 1989 by Marshall and Al From, is a project of the Third Way Foundation, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization. As the think tank for the Democratic Leadership Council, the PPI says its mission "arises from the belief that America is ill-served by an obsolete left-right debate that is out of step with the powerful forces reshaping our society and economy." PPI claims to advocate "a philosophy that adapts the progressive tradition in American politics to the realities of the information age and points to a 'third way' beyond the liberal impulse to defend the bureaucratic status quo and the conservative bid to simply dismantle government."

Marshall and From have long advocated for a "third way" in the political debate that consists of free-market principles that largely echo the right-wing platform, making their organization's name misleading. Indeed, one of PPI's five strategies includes "confronting global disorder by building enduring new international structures of economic and political freedom" (PPI Overview, June 1, 1998).

Marshall is president of the Third Way Foundation and of PPI, and From is the foundation's chairman. Paul Weinstein is the institute's chief operating officer. In fiscal 2004, Third Way board members included Linda Peek Schacht, Charles Alston, William Budinger, William Galston, and Susan Hothem, according to the IRS Form 990 provided at GuideStar.org. PPI staff includes Marshall, Steven Nider (expert in foreign and security studies), Michele Stockwell (education and social policy), David Kendall (health), Edward Gresser (trade), and Jan Mazurek (energy and environment). PPI senior fellows include Weinstein, Andrew Rotherham, Marshall Wittmann, and Fred Siegel. PPI operates on an annual budget approaching $3 million. Seymour Martin Lipset, a leading neoconservative political sociologist, is a former PPI board member, according to a 2002 report by Capital Research Center.

The core principles of the "third way movement" are set forth in the DLC/PPI's 1996 publication, The New Progressive Declaration: A Political Philosophy for the Information Age. As the New Democrats explain, the enduring progressive values must be adapted to the information age, which translates into policy recommendations that are very close to policies articulated by the administration of George W. Bush: uncompromising support for free market and free trade economics, a strong military with a global presence, an end to the politics of entitlement, rejection of affirmative action, and an embrace of competitive enterprise while at the same time rejecting a key role for government in development policy. Expressing the opinion of many progressive Democrats, Robert Kuttner, American Prospect editor, wrote that the political approach of the DLC amounts to "splitting the difference with a Republican administration" (American Prospect, July 7, 2002).

(snip)

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1534.html


----------

[Enrique]

76. great research

I dug up another disturbing piece of info on Hillary.

She has been married for decades to -- get ready for this -- BILL CLINTON!!!!

OMG! This Bill Clinton character was a founder of the DLC!!!!

Bill Clinton signed the legislation on Iraq called for in the PNAC LETTER!!!!

I cannot vote for anyone thus associated with those evil letters: DLC and PNAC.

[DerekJ]

79. Is your post supposed to be in her defense?!!! "a Bill did it too" defense is LAAAAMMMEEE at best

[Enrique]

83. no, it means your damning info is already well known and processed

your kind of post seems to assume that it has some damning info that if everyone knew they couldn't possibly support Hillary.

But in fact everyone knows Hillary is a centrist.

Bill Clinton's relationship with the evil initials DLC and PNAC is not a secret. He served two terms as president. Everyone knows exactly what kind of president he was, exactly what actions he took as the most powerful person in the country.

Some people such as myself took this information and voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 (Gore was a cofounder of the evil initials DLC).

And some people such as myself now think this was a mistake, and look at Hillary a little different.

[DerekJ]

86. "And some people such as myself now think this was a mistake, and look at Hillary a little different

Ok I am trying to process your post. So right now, you don't see The DLC as a problem, and you look differently at them?! Or you recognized it was a mistake voting for Nader, because that enabled Bush to take over the white house, so you are now ready to elect a DLCer?!!

[Enrique]

91. I see them as a problem

I don't like them. I prefer candidates that oppose them.

At the same time, I believe that Bill Clinton, founder of the DLC, was a good president. I believe that Al Gore, also a founder of the DLC, would have been a good president.

I also believe that Obama is equally friendly to the DLC, though I also think he would be a good president, as would Hillary.

[JCMach1]

77. Can't wait for your thread in Nov. about how the DLC and Hillary brought down Obama

:eyes:

[Political Heretic]

78. Obama is not a progressive.

I support Obama, and I've given lengthy explanation for my belief that he is a transitional candidate that can help reframe political discourse in the united states so that in the future we could support more progressive candidates.

But let's get real - Obama himself is a center-left politician. DLC? No. But to call him a progressive is to so water down the term that it effectively has no meaning.

[Enrique]

I'm so glad to read your post

I like Obama and completely respect people supporting him.

I totally don't respect people pretending something that they have no business pretending, i.e. that Obama is significantly more progressive than Hillary.

[Freedom Train]

80. Obama is hardly more progressive than Clinton

They're both running on more or less the same platform. THAT'S what's essentially the problem here. We are left with two mushy middle-of-the-road moderates when we COULD have had someone so much better. Yes, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Richardson and Kucinich were ALL better than these two. And of course Gore...

[Laelth]

82. That's the heart of the matter. I agree.

It's not simple, really, but if you look at who's lined up on each side, I think the OP makes a good point that the DLC is at war with the "Democratic wing" of the Democratic Party.

I hope the good guys win.

-Laelth

[izzybeans]

84. I think the DLC is splitting on this one. You are right for the most part

but those members of the DLC who were there because they thought they had to triangulate to win or were coat-tailing the Clintons now realize they need not do that. The split is between them and the true triangulating heart of the DLC. A very good thing.

[NashVegas]

87. Not True.

If Obama can show that he can control the progressives and get us to pipe down, he'll be president.

[mmonk]

88. Somewhat though not totally. She is part of their leadership.

But I look at more as a fight between Clinton loyalists who feel their power is essential in the party and for control of the message. They are anti-Dean and more entrenched than the Obama movement.

[lumberjack_jeff]

89. I thought it was the smart and beautiful people...

against the ignorant white fucks.

I just love reductionism. Especially by those who boast of an education which should enable them to know what it means.

Failing, yet again, at health care reform is not progressive.

[Lilith Velkor]

90. Bullshit, both of them are stank-ass centrists.