Wasn't the DLC created to Compete with the GOP Fundraising Machine of the 1990s?

[FrenchieCat]

It was always my belief that the entire DLC organization was founded around the idea that in order to stay competitive with the GOP's fundraising capabilities, the Democratic Party had to offer big corporations some of the same policies that the Republicans were offering; reduced regulation, big tax breaks, losta of trade deals, and the ceding of certain social issues.

The idea was that if you couldn't beat them, you should join them.

THE RISE OF THE DLC

its mission was far more confrontational. With few resources, and taking heavy flak from the big guns of the Democratic left, the DLC proclaimed its intention, Mighty Mouse-style, to rescue the Democratic Party from the influence of 1960s-era activists and the AFL-CIO, to ease its identification with hot-button social issues, and, perhaps most centrally, to reinvent the party as one pledged to fiscal restraint, less government, and a pro business, pro-free market outlook.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/1/24/16457/4867

Hence the DLC via Bill Clinton's Presidency gave us among other things.......

NAFTA

Clinton Signs NAFTA
12/8/93
"I do want to say, also, a special word of thanks to all the citizens who helped us -- the business leaders, the labor folks, the environmental people who came out and worked through this; many of them at great criticism, particularly in the environmental movement and some of the working people who helped it. And a group that was quite pivotal to our success that I want to acknowledge specifically are the small business people, many of whom got themselves organized and came forward and tried to help us. They made a real difference. " Bill Clinton at NAFTA signing Ceremony
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/120893-speech-by-president-in-nafta-bill-signing-ceremony.htm

1996 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT

Clinton Signs The Telecommunications Act of 1996
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is the first major overhaul of telecommunications law in almost 62 years. The goal of this new law is to let anyone enter any communications business -- to let any communications business compete in any market against any other.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 has the potential to change the way we work, live and learn. It will affect telephone service -- local and long distance, cable programming and other video services, broadcast services and services provided to schools.
http://www.fcc.gov/telecom.html

WELFARE REFORM

1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
On August 22, President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 Conference Report to accompany H.R. 3734, the controversial legislation which repeals the 60 year old social safety net for the poor and requires welfare recipients to work. The legislation is very much like H.R. 4, the previous welfare bill that the President vetoed at the urging of NOW and other advocacy organizations. And, like the previous bill, the President received severe criticism from community activists, women's rights, social service advocacy, labor, minority, and religious groups in embracing this Republican-led effort to change the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=1996_Welfare_Reform_Act

BANKING REFORM BILL

Clinton signs banking overhaul measure
November 12, 1999
The biggest change in the nation's banking system since the Great Depression became law Friday, when President Bill Clinton signed a measure overhauling federal rules governing the way financial institutions operate.

Congress passed the bipartisan measure November 5, opening the way for a blossoming of financial "supermarkets" selling loans, investments and insurance. Proponents had pushed the legislation in Congress for two decades, and Wall Street and the banking and insurance industries had poured millions of dollars into lobbying for it in the past few years.

"The world changes, and Congress and the laws have to change with it," said Senate Banking Committee Chairman Phil Gramm (R-Texas), who has fought for years for the overhaul. Gramm said the bill would improve banking competition and stability.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/12/banking.reform/index.html

DOMA

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) -- HR 3396 or Public Law No. 104-199 -- on 21 September 2000. It defines marriage as an act between heterosexuals and frees one state from being required to honor the same-sex marriage conducted in another state. As of this writing, 39 states have laws based on DOMA; 18 of those are amendments to the state constitution.

On Friday, September 20, prior to signing the Defense of Marriage Act, President Clinton released the following statement:

I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms "marriage" and "spouse".
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/DOMA.htm

CHINA TRADE DEAL

Clinton signs China trade bill
October 10, 2000
The measure is considered the most important U.S. trade legislation since passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993. But it faced a long campaign of opposition from labor, human rights and conservative groups who wanted to retain the annual review of trade relations with China.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/10/clinton.pntr/

"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."
http://www.americablog.com/2008/04/hillary-clinton-on-working-class-white.html


It is my belief that we have entered a new era in where the DLC is no longer required. Democrats, via Barack Obama, have ably demonstrated that Democrats no longer need to act like Republicans for the sake of fundraising. Bill Clinton and by extension, Hillary Clinton are no longer powerful, because the are outdated and have been replaced. The Democratic party no longer needs them, nor the Lincoln Bedroom. Period.

Since Hillary Clinton has stated in various no uncertain terms that she doesn't need anyone except for who she feels she needs when she needs them, I say good riddance!

[melody]

1. Excellent post

Good work, Frenchie.

You're right about the origins of the DLC. And you're right about how Obama's fund-raising success has rendered the DLC irrelevant. No wonder Hillary considers him such a threat.

[Cali_Democrat]

2. That's pretty damning

The creation of MoveOn.org has also shown that the DLC is becoming even more irrelevant. They have been able to raise an insane amount of money since their creation.

[FrenchieCat]

4. It is pretty damning, isn't it?

I remember Terry Mcauliffe being the toast of the town back in his "hey" days due to how he could lure in the fat cats to give to the Democrats.

[democracy1st]

21. Paul Wellstone speaks

"We have all these progressive Democrats here ready to fight on issues of economic and social justice, Democrats who know these are the winning issues and who know that when we fail to run on them we lose," said Representative Jesse Jackson Jr., Democrat of Illinois. "But, in the leadership positions of the party, we have the DLC trying to pull us in an entirely different direction."

Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone echoed Jackson's view. "There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans," he said. "I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."

It's not surprising that Jackson, Wellstone, Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus, the AFL-CIO, the venerable Americans for Democratic Action, and other upholders of traditional Democratic values are aghast at the DLC. They have seen their party taken over by an ideological force that opposes almost all of what they stand for.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_10_64/ai_65952690

[cliffordu]

3. K&R!!!!!! FrenchieCat - Excellent!

:kick:

[Melinda]

5. Depends upon who one reads and/or believes, I guess.

I'll pass on the MyDD link. My understanding of the DLC's origins differs substantially from what you've posted, but I don't wish to take away from your point, so I'll sit quietly and eat :popcorn: ;)

[FrenchieCat]

6. That is what I remembered hearing about the DLC.

I have not been one who has done any real research on them to any great extent. I just remember hearing, back in the early nineties how difficult it was for the Democratic party to compete moneywise with the Republicans. This was before any campaign finance bill was in existence. Something about soft money donations being out of control and the Republicans raking in the big bucks, in unprecedented sums.

That is why my op title is a question. Because I do not truly know, and I'm making a surmation only....key is my first sentence of the op...."it is my belief".

[Melinda]

7. Well, fundraising is a huge part of the DLC's operations...

and that being your premise, the argument you present is brilliantly stated and well executed. :)

Oh, and while I have your ear: you are undoubtedly the hardest working Obama supporter there is on DU... and you do good. I know I'm not alone when I say you are deeply appreciated. Thanks, ma'am. :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

9. It is easy to support a candidate so easily supportable.....

That's for sure! I'm only one of many hard workers. One of thousands.

Thanks for the rec! :pals:

Here's a really nice video for you. I think you will like it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x121554

[Melinda]

11. loved it... even though it made me cry.

Thanks again. :hug:

[democracy1st]

17. DLC represents the Corp wing of the Democratic party

At the national convention of a major political party, an ideologically rigid sectarian clique secures the ultimate triumph. It inserts two of its own as nominees for the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. Heavily financed by the most powerful corporations in the world, the group's leaders gather in a private club fifty-four floors above the convention hall, apart from the delegates of the party they had infiltrated. There, they carefully monitor the convention's acceptance of a platform the organization had drafted almost in its entirety. Then, with the ticket secured and with the policy course of the party set, they introduce a team of 100 shock troops to deploy across the country to lock up the party's grassroots.
This is not some fantastic political thriller starring Harrison Ford or Sharon Stone. This is the real-life version of Invasion of the Party Snatchers--with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) burrowing into the pod that is the Democratic Party.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_10_64/ai_65952690

[Melinda]

26. Thanks for sharing... may I reciprocate?

Privately funded and operating as an extraparty organization without official Democratic sanction, and calling themselves "New Democrats," the DLC sought nothing less than the miraculous: the transubstantiation of America's oldest political party. Though the DLC painted itself using the palette of the liberal left--as "an effort to revive the Democratic Party's progressive tradition," with New Democrats being the "trustees of the real tradition of the Democratic Party"--its mission was far more confrontational. With few resources, and taking heavy flak from the big guns of the Democratic left, the DLC proclaimed its intention, Mighty Mouse–style, to rescue the Democratic Party from the influence of 1960s-era activists and the AFL-CIO, to ease its identification with hot-button social issues, and, perhaps most centrally, to reinvent the party as one pledged to fiscal restraint, less government, and a probusiness, pro–free market outlook.

It's hard to argue that they haven't succeeded.

Today's is not your father's Democratic Party. Though the dwindling chorus of party progressives provides counterpoint, today's Democrats are proud to claim the mantle of budgetary moderation. They oppose President Bush's $2-trillion tax-cut plan not by arguing mainly for more spending on health, education, and welfare, but because it risks the new sacred cause of paying off the national debt. They are the party of increased military spending, the death penalty, the war on drugs, and partnership with religious faith. They are the party of Ending Welfare As We Know It, the party of The Era of Big Government Is Over.

The New Democrats, who helped bring about this shift, have surged in power and influence. The DLC and its think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), have blossomed into a $7-million-a-year operation. The New Democrat Network (NDN), which provides funds to dozens of certified co-thinkers in federal, state, and local races, raised nearly $6 million last year. Twenty U.S. senators and 70 members of the House of Representatives have formally affiliated themselves with New Democrat caucuses, and hundreds of state and local elected officials are signing on. The three men who've dominated the last three presidential tickets, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Joseph Lieberman, the DLC's most recent chairman, are all quintessential New Democrats. So are many of the party's rising stars, such as Senator John Edwards of North Carolina; Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, the DLC's new chairman; and Maryland Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend.

The American Prospect 04/23/2001

More below.

[Melinda]

28. DLC cont:

The DLC's investment in Clinton paid off, of course, after the 1992 election. Not only did the DLC bask in its status as idea factory and influence broker for the White House, but it also reaped immediate financial rewards. One month after the election, Clinton headlined a fundraising dinner for the DLC that drew 2,200 to Washington's Union Station, where tables went for $15,000 apiece. Corporate officials and lobbyists were lined up to meet the new White House occupant, including 139 trade associations, law firms, and companies who kicked in more than $2 million, for a total of $3.3 million raised in a single evening. The DLC-PPI's revenues climbed steadily upward, reaching $5 million in 1996 and, according to its most recent available tax returns, $6.3 million for 1999. "Our revenues for 2000 will probably end up around $7.2 million," says Chuck Alston, the DLC's executive director.

While the DLC will not formally disclose its sources of contributions and dues, the full array of its corporate supporters is contained in the program from its annual fall dinner last October, a gala salute to Lieberman that was held at the National Building Museum in Washington. Five tiers of donors are evident: the Board of Advisers, the Policy Roundtable, the Executive Council, the Board of Trustees, and an ad hoc group called the Event Committee--and companies are placed in each tier depending on the size of their check. For $5,000, 180 companies, lobbying firms, and individuals found themselves on the DLC's board of advisers, including British Petroleum, Boeing, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Coca-Cola, Dell, Eli Lilly, Federal Express, Glaxo Wellcome, Intel, Motorola, U.S. Tobacco, Union Carbide, and Xerox, along with trade associations ranging from the American Association of Health Plans to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. For $10,000, another 85 corporations signed on as the DLC's policy roundtable, including AOL, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Citigroup, Dow, GE, IBM, Oracle, UBS PacifiCare, PaineWebber, Pfizer, Pharmacia and Upjohn, and TRW.

And for $25,000, 28 giant companies found their way onto the DLC's executive council, including Aetna, AT&T, American Airlines, AIG, BellSouth, Chevron, DuPont, Enron, IBM, Merck and Company, Microsoft, Philip Morris, Texaco, and Verizon Communications. Few, if any, of these corporations would be seen as leaning Democratic, of course, but here and there are some real surprises. One member of the DLC's executive council is none other than Koch Industries, the privately held, Kansas-based oil company whose namesake family members are avatars of the far right, having helped to found archconservative institutions like the Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy. Not only that, but two Koch executives, Richard Fink and Robert P. Hall III, are listed as members of the board of trustees and the event committee, respectively--meaning that they gave significantly more than $25,000.

The DLC board of trustees is an elite body whose membership is reserved for major donors, and many of the trustees are financial wheeler-dealers who run investment companies and capital management firms--though senior executives from a handful of corporations, such as Koch, Aetna, and Coca-Cola, are included. Some donate enormous amounts of money, such as Bernard Schwartz, the chairman and CEO of Loral Space and Communications, who single-handedly finances the entire publication of Blueprint, the DLC's retooled monthly that replaced The New Democrat. "I sought them out, after talking to Michael Steinhardt," says Schwartz. "I like them because the DLC gives resonance to positions on issues that perhaps candidates cannot commit to."

-snip-

Joining Lewan on the event committee were several dozen of Washington's elite lobbyists, including representatives from the Dutko Group, Greenberg Traurig, the Wexler Group, Verner, Liipfert, and SVP Kessler and Associates, all with blue-chip clients, along with lobbyists for Chevron, Citigroup, Salomon Smith Barney, and others. One was Arthur Lifson, vice president for federal affairs at Cigna Corporation, one of the nation's largest health insurers and a company that stands to gain enormously if, say, Medicare were privatized along the lines proposed by the DLC and by one of its founders, Senator John Breaux of Louisiana. "The DLC is trying to bring some fresh ideas to Medicare and to dealing with the uninsured," says Lifson, whose company is listed as a member of the DLC's policy roundtable. "It builds on changes that are taking place in the marketplace, rather than turning everything on its head Hillary Care." Lifson frankly endorses the DLC as a counterweight to "populists ... at the other end of the party."

American Prospect: How The DLC Does It

This article is truly the motherload of DLC education.

[youngharry]

39. Right Frenchie

Lest we forget Hillary is the Queen of the DLC. All of her votes in the Senate were to guard her against GOP attacks in 2008. Her vote on Iraq, Iran (Kyl-Lieberman Bill), etc. and all her support for Bush in the last Seven odd years. She thought she would enter the General Election invincible against GOP attacks.. Even going to the point of saying that she would not hold Bush and Cheney accountable for their crimes, saying "that's old news, that's behind us, we're moving ahead and not looking back".

BULLSHIT!!!

Never did she think she would have to run a campaign for the nomination against someone like Obama, who isn't DLC and doesn't stand for the corporations. She always thought she was anointed by the DLC as the nominee. Too bad she ignored the American people and only represented the Corporations. SHE NEEDS TO GO DOWN BIG TIME.

MY ONLY WORRY IS THAT THE MACHINES BEING USED IN PA. ARE HACKABLE--- JUST LIKE NEW HAMPSHIRE--ONE OF HER "BIG" WINS.

[Dr.Phool]

35. Way to go, Frenchie, you dirty commie!

I remember when the DLC had their founding conference in Cleveland back in the early '90's. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry were founding luminaries. And trying to snatch corporate dollars from the Republicans was their stated goal. Gore and Kerry have since been redeemed. They created Frankensteins monster. It devoured the party for years. Drug the party to the right.

I refuse to vote for any DLCer. If I want a repuke, I'll vote for a real one. Actually, I'll vote for neither.

Spread the butter on the DLC's Hillary. She's toast.

[stillcool]

14. I like this explanation...

New Democrat Movement

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.

Official Website:
http://www.ndol.org

I like this article posted at the "DLC" website as well...dripping with irony..as they fawn all over Joe Lieberman and hail him as the great 'problem-solving-unifier' when he defeated the Democratic challenger. So Hillary-esque where words do not match deeds in the least. "We" are the enemy.

Lieberman Comes Back

On the one side stands what might be called the school of polarization. The Democrats in this camp have been radicalized by their anger at President Bush's policies and leadership, which they tend to view as venal and illegitimate. They believe that the Democratic leadership in Washington has been far too accommodating -- some would say feeble -- in its opposition, and that the only way to win electorally and legislatively is to fight ire with ire.

These polarized Democrats, who fueled the rise of Lamont's candidacy, have gone past disagreeing with the Republicans, to despising them. They no longer see Republicans as the opposition, but as the enemy. And they believe that the end of defeating this enemy justifies just about any means.

On the other side stands the school of problem-solving. The Democrats in this camp are also deeply troubled by the direction of the country under Bush and strongly disagree with most of his policies. But they don't believe the way to move the country forward -- or to earn the voters' trust -- is simply to repackage the hard partisanship and divisiveness of the Bush years in blue wrapping.
-----------------------------------
That is ultimately what made Round Two of the Lieberman-Lamont face-off so significant -- it provided the party with a nearly pure real-world test of these two competing approaches. Two Democrats, who, outside of Iraq, were actually pretty close to each other on most issues, ran in a state that reliably votes Democratic in national elections but where independents are the biggest voting bloc. They, in turn, were competing against a non-viable Republican candidate.

Of course, the Lamont partisans and the bloggers who wanted to purge Lieberman from the party will dispute that characterization. But once you cut through all the hyperbole and misinformation, it is clear that Lieberman was being targeted for expulsion not as a matter of policy, but of purity. He did not share the polarized Democrats' hatred and contempt for Bush and the Republican leadership, and he committed the unpardonable sin of actually working with the other side on occasion.
---------------------------------------------------------
Once the primary was over, the Lieberman campaign fully expected Lamont to follow the normal rules of politics and adapt his strategy and broaden his message for a general election audience. After all, Democrats comprised only 34 percent of the vote in the general election -- 44 percent were independents and 21 percent were Republicans.

Instead, still stuck in their blogospheric echo chamber, the Lamont campaign chose to re-run the primary and speak almost exclusively to Democrats. We marveled at how their schedule was still filled with stops at Democratic town committees and college campuses -- and how they continued to cast the race in narrowly partisan terms.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The defining moment of the general election may have been primary night itself. That's when Lamont introduced himself to the rest of the state by giving a milquetoast reiteration of his primary stump speech -- and allowed himself to be flanked by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, two of the more divisive figures in American politics. Lieberman, on the other hand, stunned the political world by giving a dynamic, forceful non-concession speech, in which he deftly framed the race to come and counter-intuitively seized the mantle of change agent.
-----------------------------------------------------------
When Lamont's polarizing strategy failed to sway the independent voters he needed, his campaign and its blogger boosters went even deeper off the deep end. They sent out mailers attacking Lieberman for being "George Bush's point man on Social Security privatization" -- one of the more brazen lies I have ever seen in a campaign for high office. They absurdly accused Lieberman of taking bribes from energy lobbyists in exchange for his vote on the energy bill, as well as creating a campaign slush fund to buy votes. And they aggressively peddled an Internet ad morphing Joe Lieberman into Richard Nixon, accusing him of engaging in "Nixonian deception" on Iraq.

Blinded by rage. If there was one thing that the people of Connecticut knew about Joe Lieberman after 24 years in statewide office, it was that they could trust him. But the bizarre tactics of the people driving the Lamont bus suggest that they were so blinded by their rage -- against Bush, the war, and Lieberman -- that they would have preferred to run over their opponent rather than win the race.
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=173&contentid=254149

[democracy1st]

18. DLC

Founded in the mid-1980s with essentially the same purpose as the Christian Coalition--to pull a broad political party dramatically to the right--the DLC has been far more successful than its headline-grabbing Republican counterpart. After Walter Mondale's 1984 defeat at the hands of Ronald Reagan, a group of mostly Southern, conservative Democrats hatched the theory that their party was in trouble because it had grown too sympathetic to the agendas of organized labor, feminists, African Americans, Latinos, gays and lesbians, peace activists, and egalitarians.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_10_64/ai_65952690

[guyanakoolaid]

8. Oh, GOD do we need to revisit the Telecommunications Act of 1996

I never understood how Clinton pushed this, allowing the monopolization of our airwaves by fewer and fewer people. These revised rules could definitely do with some re-revising, because it is crystal clear to most people that it was a bad idea.

[FrenchieCat]

10. That's why we are having the "Cable" problems that we are having today....

with Fox, CNN, and Fox setting the political tone pf current elections!

Clinton in signing that became responsible for the Media circus that ensued later on and got him impeached.

[democracy1st]

19. yes it needs to be revisited

all these pro Clinton acts last one hell of a long time

[KaptBunnyPants]

12. It's worse than that. The DLC was created to weaken the political power of Democratic activists.

It's an anti-democratic organization which tries to make the Democratic Party less responsive to popular sentiment. They seek to impose a top down structure on the Party so that it is every bit as harmless to established interests as the Republicans, and scapegoat the people who believe in democratic principles in the process.

Check these quotes out, the theme may be familiar...
"Real Democrats are real people, not activist elites"
"the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is an aberration: the McGovern-Mondale wing, defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home."
"Most Democrats aren't elitists who think they know better than everyone else; they are everyone else."
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251690&kaid=1

These people support the Iraq war, are for strict gun control, are for free trade, yet we "elites" are the ones who are "out of touch" with the American people. They stick all the unpopular stuff on us, and say that we make them do it with our communist activism. Meanwhile, when it's time to win an election, suddenly Hillary is a gun-totin', free trade opposing, anti-war crusader who just wants to bring the troops home. If democratic activists are so unpopular amongst the people, why is she trying to appear as if she shares the activist viewpoint on so many issues?

[democracy1st]

22. thanks

"We have all these progressive Democrats here ready to fight on issues of economic and social justice, Democrats who know these are the winning issues and who know that when we fail to run on them we lose," said Representative Jesse Jackson Jr., Democrat of Illinois. "But, in the leadership positions of the party, we have the DLC trying to pull us in an entirely different direction."

Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone echoed Jackson's view. "There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans," he said. "I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."

It's not surprising that Jackson, Wellstone, Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus, the AFL-CIO, the venerable Americans for Democratic Action, and other upholders of traditional Democratic values are aghast at the DLC. They have seen their party taken over by an ideological force that opposes almost all of what they stand for.

[SoCalDem]

38. It marginalized people like Chomsky & Zinn

You can count on ONE hand, the times we see them ever interviewed anywhere except Democrcay Now..

Think of all that brain-power...thrown under the bus for decades,.,

why?

because they are populists who favor the "little people".. and because they see through the crap..

[Warren Stupidity]

13. It used its control over fundraising to take the party to the right.

The DLC attempted to lock up big donor/corporate funding and in doing so control the party agenda and put their candidates in office. They were pretty successful until the internets got in the way.

[democracy1st]

15. Behind the DLC Takeover

Behind the DLC Takeover - Democratic Leadership Council



http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_10_64/ai_65952690

[Zachstar]

16. Ah some history. Thank you for posting this!

[JNelson6563]

20. Excellent stuff Frenchie.

I plan to reference this if needed.

Julie

[Lisa0825]

23. Great post!

K&R!

[mod mom]

24. Excellent post. I wish Clinton supporters would research just who/what they are supporting.

Thank you, FrenchieCat. :hi:

[Duder]

25. Partly true...

From: The Party's Over
by Sam Smith

'Although lacking any official role in the Democratic Party, the DLC claimed it was the voice of mainstream party thought. In fact, it was primarily a lobby for the views of southern and other conservative Democrats, yet so successful was its media manipulation that it even got away with calling its think tank the Progressive Policy Institute. By the late 1980s there was a widespread consensus among both the press and the Democratic leadership that the party's problems could be traced to several factors: the loss of control by party bosses due to excessive democratization of nomination and convention procedures; undue pandering to such traditional constituencies as blacks, liberals, and women; the need for a new and far more conservative Democratic platform.'

http://www.peaceactionme.org/december2over.html

[Blue-Jay]

27. It wasn't long ago that most of DU hated the DLC.

good times... good times...

[Exilednight]

29. I find it funny how some people on this board refuse to admit that Hillary is DLC........

Here's an actual quote from someone who believes that Obama, who is not even a member of the DLC, has all there support and Hillary is a real progressive.

Exactly. They are not representing causes that I am interested in

They want to support the DLC coroporate candidate (Obama) and I am opposed to him.

[FrenchieCat]

30. Maybe that poster will read this thread,

and realize that Bill Clinton's accomplishments really did the Republicans many favors. Most of the measures he passed have come home to roost. looking at every single policy item I listed, and one realizes how much each has hurt the American people in different ways. It is surely a shame that more people are not informed about such matters. :(

[madrchsod]

37. they are pointing out that obama has more dlc members

backing him than does hillary. there is no doubt that he will listen to the dlc people but he will hold their opinion no higher than anyone else. he has two years to change the course of this country and if he does`t then all bets are off on the 2010 elections.

[ClassWarrior]

31. Excellent point. We and the internets have made them OBSOLETE.

Buh-bye DINOs. Don't let the door hitcha where the good Lord splitcha.

NGU.

[FatDave]

32. How do we inform the rank and file democrats though?

Sure, everybody on DU knows what's up with the DLC, but when I try to explain it to my father-in-law, a lifelong pro-union democrat, he either looks at me like I'm crazy or his eyes glaze over. So how do we get the word out? Hardly anybody outside of the activist left knows that there's a power-struggle between factions of the democratic party.

[FrenchieCat]

33. Just the way I put it......That the DLC was organized back in the 90s

when the only Democrats worried about was raising money to compete with the Republicans who had the corporate world's ear. To better compete, Democrats like Bill Clinton compromised many of the Democrats' core values, which is how we ended up with NAFA, China Trade Deal, and the other issues that I listed.

The DLC as outlived its function, and we can now fight Corporate interest and we no longer have to get into bed with them.

[democracy1st]

40. Exactly You can live with the Clintons

but boy are you going to pay a price for it

[juno jones]

34. K&R!

[madrchsod]

36. if i remember correctly there are republicans

mixed into the formation of the dlc.

clinton wants to overthrow dean and the dnc so the neo liberals can regain power instead of the grass roots traditional democrats with in the party.

this morning it was repeated again that hillary will win the popular primary vote when the vote in florida is counted. they intend to fight this illegal vote and if they lose they will do everything they can to bring down the dnc

this is what happened to the republican party when the old guard was removed from power and the christian neo -conservatives became the power within the party.

[depakid]

41. I agree, except on one point

which is that Obama's taken PLENTY of corporate money the old fashioned way too. Howard Dean he ain't.

[Irishonly]

42. Thank You

I didn't know that and I thank you for giving me the information. I only knew I haven't trusted the DLC for years.

[FrenchieCat]

43. Well according to some, the fundraising issue was only one piece of the puzzle....

and I'm researching now to get a better flavor of those other issues that made the DLC be what they are; Republican Appeasers.

[InfiniteNether]

44. Yeah, well now the purpose of the DLC is to torpedo Obama by

any means necessary. The very reasons you outlined for it's purpose is what makes Obama a dire threat to them.

[defendandprotect]

45. Down with the DLC, down with the DLC leadership, down with HRC in the Dem Party . . .

[democracy1st]

46. no more Bush Clinton Bush Clinton

[defendandprotect]

50. Obama, Edwards, Kuchich, Obama, Edwards, Kucinich . . .

:)

[leveymg]

47. The Clintons were "discovered" by Mrs. Harriman , whose late husband employed the Bush-Walker clan

If you absolutely must know who it was who created the DLC Democrats, it was she. Pamela Digby-Churchill-Harriman, chief patron and "savior" of the Democratic Party while Bush-Reagan were in the White House. "The greatest courtesan of the 20th Century", as her third husband, Broadway producer Leland Hayward called her. Raised $12 million to put Bill and Hill into the White House in 1992. http://www.samsloan.com/pamela-h.htm

The Churchill girls were notorious international agents of influence. Had been for decades. Winston's sister got very close to the first Soviet Ambassador in London, close enough to set up the Russian in a phony scandal with the Labour Party that sank the first progressive British Labour Government in 1923.

The Bushes and the Clintons were just hired help, employed by the same family that also ran U.S. and British military intelligence from WWI through WWII. Cousin Winston ran the Tory Party and SIS from London, while Gen. Marlboro Churchill, head of MID, otherwise known as Army Intelligence, was in charge of things on this side of the Pond. That coincided in America with the first Red Scare, false flag bombings on Wall Street, and the Palmer Raids right after WWI. Just a coincidence, but the European fascist movements also started getting big money from Harriman and Morgan banks at this time. That's right, it's all in the family.

The more things change . . . as they say.

If you don't believe me, just look it up for yourself.

[leftstreet]

56. That link is dead.

Do you have another one?

Thanks

[nichomachus]

57. Try this

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:qy_V4EqRZZoJ:www.samsloan.com/pamela-h.htm+samsloan+pamela+harriman&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

[leftstreet]

59. Hey thanks

I don't know why the first one wouldn't work for me, but this one works fine.

[Cha]

48. Our only hope to put the dlc out of it's

neocon misery is to elect Obama.

[leveymg]

49. The DLC and Clintons were created by Pam Harriman , whose late husband employed the Bush-Walkers

If you absolutely must know who it was who created the DLC Democrats, it was she. Pamela Digby-Churchill-Hayward-Harriman, chief patron and "savior" of the Democratic Party while Bush-Reagan were in the White House. "The greatest courtesan of the 20th Century", as her third husband, Broadway producer Leland Hayward called her. Raised $12 million to put Bill and Hill into the White House in 1992. http://www.samsloan.com/pamela-h.htm

The Churchill girls were notorious international agents of influence. Had been for decades. Winston's sister got very close to the first Soviet Ambassador in London, close enough to set up the Russian in a phony scandal with the Labour Party that sank the first progressive British Labour Government in 1923.

The Bushes and the Clintons were just hired help, employed by the same family that also ran U.S. and British military intelligence from WWI through WWII. Cousin Winston ran the Tory Party and SIS from London, while Gen. Marlboro Churchill, head of MID, otherwise known as Army Intelligence, was in charge of things on this side of the Pond. That coincided in America with the first Red Scare, false flag bombings on Wall Street, and the Palmer Raids right after WWI. Just a coincidence, but the European fascist movements also started getting big money from Harriman and Morgan banks at this time. That's right, it's all in the family.

The more things change . . . as they say.

If you don't believe me, just look it up for yourself.

[Major Hogwash]

53. That's interesting.

I didn't know about the Churchill girls.
Thanks.

[quantass]

51. Very good read

[Kurovski]

52. K&R. (nt)

[Arugula Latte]

54. FABULOUS post, FrenchieCat!

:toast:

The Internet has broken the back of the DLC and its corporate toe-sucking minions.

[MessiahRp]

55. Great post!

Goes over every way that the Clintons and the DLC set the table for Bushco's theft of America and explains pretty much the entire downfall of our society the past 8 years. If you push along neo-con principles, it's only going to get worse hen a neo-con gets in and can push the borders of all of these policies even further because they were already push to the edge by a non-neocon so how would this be that extreme?

I have always said the political sprectrum under Reagan-Bush-Clinton moved so far to the Right that the center-right became the left and the middle left is alienated as if they were Socialists.

It's sickening.

Rp

[Califooyah Operative]

58. That and replacing labor and liberals with corporate special interests. nt

[futureliveshere]

60. Great Post! The current credit crisis and recession show how many of these bills have destroyed...

America's ability to stay globally competitive. While they no doubt allowed for some consolidation and a short term boost, the level playing field was thrown away. This means that we will have to spend a lot of money and time to clean up the mess the Clintons created due to their misguided policies.