Clinton Urges Party Unity, Tough Stance

[emad]

Clinton Urges Party Unity, Tough Stance

Monday July 25, 2005 6:46 PM

By MIKE GLOVER

Associated Press Writer

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a potential 2008 presidential candidate, on Monday pressed Democrats to adopt a tough stand on national security and urged the party to show a united front to counter ``the hard-right ideology in Washington.''

Speaking to the Democratic Leadership Council, the centrist group that helped her husband, Bill Clinton, secure the White House, the senator delivered a broad speech that touched on foreign policy, health care, education and fissures within her own party.

``It's high time for a ceasefire,'' Clinton said.

The speech was coupled with the announcement that Clinton had been chosen to head the DLC's ``American Dream Initiative,'' described by the organization as a national conversation with business, political, labor, civic and intellectual leaders on an agenda for the country and party.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5165648,00.html

[jean]

1. DLC? I won't have anything to do with them. HUGE turnoff

[goforit]

35. Hell Noooooo!!!!.....Not with those sell your soul Centrist Dems!!!

Their blood is mixed with Bushes with Lieberman at the helm!!!

:puke:

[ConfuZed]

2. What the hell?

Quote:Clinton made it clear in her speech that Democrats should take a tough stand on combatting terrorism, calling for a ``unified coherent strategy focused on eliminating terrorists wherever we find them.''
-------------

How is any different than Bush policy?

[davidinalameda]

175. she wants a "coherent" strategy

that's much different from what the Bushies are doing

nothing they do makes much sense

[Eloriel]

182. Wouldn't it be nice if

a) she knew there weren't nearly as many terrorists out there than are THOUGHT (and rumored) to be out there, like most here do

and

b) she wouldn't engage in fearmongering herself in order to advance her own career?

[fujiyama]

3. Unity?

or more like lock step obediance to her DLC agenda?

She'd be lucky to get my vote in the GE at this point.

[kysrsoze]

112. Yeah, I won't be voting for her in the primaries. I'm really getting to

hate her. Still like Bill though. Hmmmph.

[Ian David]

4. We must all be tough and united against naughty videogames!

I hear that if you download a patch from the internet(s) you can see Rick Santorum perform oral sex on a dog.

I'm sorry, but I don't think we should be embracing Hillary as a spokesperson of "Enlightened Democratic Values" anymore.

In my opinion, she just "jumped the shark" with that videogame thing.

[MN ChimpH8R]

171. Indeed

HRC has been far more DLC-oriented that I had expected. Were I forced to vote for her in the GE in '08 I would do so holding my nose and choking.

Remember - sitting Senators seldom get elected president. And there are many other reasons to support someone else in the primaries - someone who is a more genuine Democrat. Someone like Wes Clark or John Edwards.

[obxhead]

5. she's not getting my vote

She keeps sounding like a republican in dem clothing.

[Fluffdaddy]

22. You can always vote for Jeb.

HC is doing the right thing..............Move to the middle for the big fight in 08

[Brooklyn Michael]

27. Or you could vote for Ralph...

That'll show those Dems, huh?

[Kitsune]

97. Yes, move to the middle in '08. Just like 2000 and '04.

What was the definition of insanity again?

[goforit]

98. LOL!!!.....too true.

[Fluffdaddy]

138. Yes move to the middle in 08 just like 92 and 96

Bill knew how to do it.

[Joz]

140. And what you got was..

a good president in many ways, but one that gave us NAFTA and censored the internet, helping the republicans regain power in 2000 just a little bit, though I think tipper gore and joe lieberman were the main factors in this area.

By the way, you have the wrong avatar. You are using the DNC one, thats the liberal part that Howard Dean runs... I think you mean to use the more conservative DLC one.

[Fluffdaddy]

150. You're right. The conservative DLC is more my cub of tea. avatar changed

Thank you :-)

I'm a centrist leaning Democrat. This is the part of our party that will get us back in power. Or we can roll with Dr Dean and have 4 years of Jeb to look forward too.

[Joz]

151. No Problem, don't know why you were claiming DNC before!

I disagree with you. I, for one, wish Dean were the candidate last year. He would have come out so strongly against Bush and destroyed him. He would have gotten people really excited about the future of America, people like tough-talkers that tell the truth, people with balls. If the election was close like it was with Bush vs. Kerry, I don't think he would have conceded so quickly, probably would have made an issue out of the election fraud and driven the republicans home red-faced and not to win any elections in the foreseeable future. Kerry was unfortunately too passive, that is why he "lost" the election, not because he wasn't a centrist.

[TankLV]

142. Keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different

result.

It needs to be clearly defined for all the reality challenged doofuses who still try their proven wrong strategy.

They will never learn.

And they will not be getting my vote anymore until they change.

Simple as that.

Want my support/vote? Give me something I can vote FOR as opposed to voting AGAINST repukes.

Thankyou, but I will sit out the next election for the first time ever rather than WASTE my vote AGAIN.

Don't like it? TOUGH! Give me a good reason to vote FOR somebody who SHARES and WILL DELIVER on my beliefs.

And just think, if enough of us withhold our vote, then - WE'LL GET THE SAME RESULTS AS VOTING FOR THE "LESSOR OF TWO EVILS" OR "VOTING AGAINST ( )"!

[Walt Starr]

162. Nope, either third party or stay home

A choice between Hillary and Jeb is not choice at all.

[othermeans]

188. Moving to the middle is moving to the RIGHT eom

[Pithy Cherub]

6. Who is she telling to come together for a ceasefire?

The DLC that bastion of "peace on earth and goodwill towards only corporations" is reaching out to make amends? :sarcasm: :eyes::sarcasm:

Too bad Hillary is affiliated with a group that has condoned so much that is wrong with America. Oh well, I have overcome this disappointment in record time...

[acmejack]

8. with the moderate republicans.

They have more in common with moderate republican corporatists than with the "wild eyed liberals". They certainly don't want to get tarred with that appellation!

[Horse with no Name]

7. Words I never thought I would utter

back in the day when she was First Lady and commented she would be our first female President.
My how times have changed...but "Fuck you Hillary"...don't you have some video games to go censor?

[UpInArms]

55. ...

:toast:

[Writer]

99. Only the government can "censor."

Through prior restraint. Hillary isn't proposing any prior restraint. Otherwise an individual or a corporation can do whatever the @#$% it wants with any form of speech.

If you don't like it? Here's the question you REALLY should ask: Why is it that a corporation enjoys the same protection under the First Amendment as an individual or the press?

[Writer]

103. If anything, the GOP would love to see the DLC wither away.

Because Bubba had the audacity of winning. Twice.

[Zhade]

122. I think it's hilarious that you self-censored in a post about censorship.

Ignore me, I just found it amusing. :D

Believe it or not, I think you ask a good question: Why is it that a corporation enjoys the same protection under the First Amendment as an individual or the press?

Of course, the reason is because an "activist clerk of the court" wrote that a ruling meant the opposite of what the judges said it meant, thus giving corporations personhood.

Why it remains that way? Maybe because corporations have so much influence in D.C. that little legislation that will hurt their bottom line (like opening them up for liability by restricting their 'right to privacy') will ever get passed.

[Stray Roots]

9. The Iraq war is the hard right agenda

Quit attacking dems that oppose it and their wil be peace.

[rayofreason]

10. Does anyone know...

...if this is being reported anywhere else?

HILLARY CLINTON TO SUPPORT BUSH COURT NOMINEE
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3hcr.htm

I have found nothing other than this, and it could just be Drudge debris, but she is positioning herself for 2008....

[Zorra]

11. The corporate elitist DLC is exactly what fractured the Democratic Party.

What do we unite behind, the Democratic Party or that other new party known as the "Third Way"?

What is the motivation behind their shoving this RW bullshit down our throats anyway?

Look at this propagandistic crud from the OP article:

"It doesn't surprise me that she's becoming more moderate," said Leroy Comrie, a city councilman in the New York borough of Queens. "I think the country is becoming more and more moderate, more and more conservative."

Far too many Democrats keep shoving that kind of deadly poison down America's throat.

And that is part of the reason that we have a radical RW extremist government right now. I will post this again because the logic and common sense of the statement below is brilliant:

“Democrats moving to the middle is a double disaster that alienates the party's progressive base while simultaneously sending a message to swing voters that the other side is where the good ideas are. It unconsciously locks in the notion that the other side's positions are worth moving toward, while your side's positions are the ones to move away from. Plus every time you move to the center, the right just moves further to the right.” George Lakoff

[Joz]

146. delete me - posted in wrong place.

[dolstein]

12. I love it when Hillary pisses off the hard left

Hillary isn't from the Jane Fonda pacifist wing of the Democratic Party. She's from the FDR/Truman/JFK wing that believes in a strong military and isn't afraid to back up rhetorical support for freedom and democracy with military force.

[K-W]

13. Thanks I needed a laugh today. EOM

[VegasWolf]

178. Good one!!!

:toast:

[Algorem]

14. She's from the Me for President wing isn't she?

[confludemocrat]

170. I'd sooner vote for Kerry than her and that's saying something!

She is never there when something big comes u-- she's too busy positioning herself. And they are always concessions.

[Lerkfish]

15. hm...if by "hard left" you mean "rational people who oppose illegal war...

started by lying republicans to benefit their corporate owners and use the abstract concept of terrorism to completely destroy our civil liberties"

then, yes, I'd agree. I'm pissed off at anyone who supports this illegal, immoral, and personal war of Halliburton, PNAC and the Carlysle Group.


If you refer to me as "hard left", so be it. I refer to you as "hard rightwing" republican light.

now, doesn't that make you feel all tingly inside?

[Lost4words]

18. I am against all things DLC.

And the longer time goes by the more I realise that the clintons didnt do the USA any favors. Take your NAFTA and stick it up your tail pipe.

I am sorry I wont bother voting for establishment DINOS! Ever!
:puke:

[marbuc]

60. Whatever happened to our "big tent?"

I am so tired of the "DINO" label. A Dem is a Dem, and no one owns the right to the name at the exclusion of another. There are many types of people in the Democratic Party, and discounting a large segment does little to advance our agenda, and in fact will cede power to the Republicans for the forseeable future.

We all represent different shades of the same ideology, and on the most basic level all want the same thing. I hate to break it to the inflexible ideologues, but a hard left candidate will encounter great difficulty winning in the heartland and deep south, yet we cannot give up these regions as unwinnable.

We have to take what we can get, and if this means running candidates like Mark Pryor, the Nelsons, Blanche Lincoln, etc., then so be it. Believe me, the alternative is far worse. On the national level, I will easily choose a candidate like Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, or Hillary Clinton over the likes of Jeb Bush and George Allen, and not lose a bit of sleep over it.

[Iowa]

61. I used to think that way...

Now I don't. Zorra (up-thread) said it very well.

IMO we have lost the battle over the short term. Neocons have done a masterful job of manipulating the clueless. These people have been sold a bill of goods. So over the short-term, we're screwed.

So what do we do? Do we go with the DLC plan and try to become more like Republicans in hopes of winning an occasional close election? Do we follow the DLC and concede that the country is moving to the right, jump on that bandwagon, and make an effort to slow that decline a bit? I don't think so. It will only prolong the pain. The DLCers will never lead this country down a progressive path because they are driven to lead for the sake of being leaders, and they lack any sense of passion to serve the common good. Most have endured no personal hardships, and it shows. They are cardboard cutouts with zero ability to inspire because they aren't sincere and they stand for nothing beyond winning the next election. These are people who would probably perform ably in a middle management position with a large corporation, but who lack the makeup to be great leaders. They aren't FDRs or Trumans - not even close. Ultimately they are enablers of the far right, or whoever happens to be doing well in the polls lately.

I believe we're at the point where we must present a progressive vision for the country and let the chips fall where they may. At the core we must be about creating conditions that will improve the day-to-day lives of the common person and reject all compromise with corporations. If that means defeating DLC types, so be it. If it results in big Republican gains over the short term, so be it. Eventually the pain they cause will likely result in a backlash so intense that we will bury their old, tired ideology for generations to come. I don't believe the sheeple get it, and I think we're past the point of winning them back. Our only hope is to stand for something good and decent, and only for things that serve the common good. It's long past time to get out of bed with the corporations. DLC types will prop up the necons for decades and serve to move the country further to the right. So I see them as part of the problem, not part of a solution. They'll not get my support. I could certainly be wrong, but that's my thinking on it.

[54anickel]

94. I like the way you think! It scares the sh*t outta me, but you're onto

something there. Time to stand ground for the common person. The thought of the Repubs winning again is scary, but what we've been caught up in doesn't bode well for a better future anyway. Just hope there's something left to pick-up after the short-term.

:toast:

[marbuc]

114. I guess I don't see what

the irreconcilable differences are that should cause such a fracture. I do not see them as "Republican lite (another term I hate)" Sure, they support the war on terrorism with a little more aggression than I might like, they support CAFTA while I don't, but otherwise I like them juat fine. I certainly don't see them "as cardboard cut outs with zero ability to inspire," and I don't accept your premise that they are conceding anything to the far right, or enabling them in any way. There are many "New Democrats" that I like very much, including: Max Baucus, Maria Cantwell, Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan, Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry, Bill Nelson, Debbie Stabenow, Rahm Emmanuel, Jay Inslee, Harold Ford, and the list goes on and on.

Regardless, I do not think we should become one mind in the form of the DLC, nor do I think we should hold hands and sing kumbaya like some on the far left might like to do. Politics is about building coalitions. The DLCers nor liberals alone will not not lead us down a progressive path, but together we will get there. There will and shoulld be much debate and disagreement on how to accomplish this goal, but the last thing either side needs is the other to throw a hissy fit and abandon the party. Can't we all just get along?

[Iowa]

118. Hi marbuc. I guess for me it it comes down to this:

The DLC seems quite content to let corporate interests set the agenda and work off that. They play it safe and piddle around the edges with special interest legislation that doesn't even begin to address the needs of the people. I'm just waiting for a group of them to cave on Social Security. If that occurs, you can bank on it being a group of DLC types. Pointing to the other side and saying they're much worse, while true, just isn't enough of a reason for me to prop up DLC politicians anymore. We deserve better and I think it's time we reached for it. If that means bringing down some of our own, so be it. No great loss, IMO.

I don't believe that these people are on my side. It's as simple as that.

[marbuc]

157. I've heard a few people here say the DLC is beholden

to corporate interests, and "content to let them set the agenda and work off that." However, I don't see that as the case. I don't have time to go back and check the vote count, but I am fairly certain the majority of "new democrats" voted for the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance legislation, and generally want to get corporate money/influence out of politics. I also doubt most will cave on social security (Ben Nelson being a possible exception.)

I don't ask that you support the DLC or its policies, only acknowledge that they are a wing of our party, and are not nearly as bad as the alternative. There are conservative (blue dog) Democrats, but that is what works in some parts of the country, and if there presence is necessary to win back a majority, then so be it. They will side with the Dem majority caucus an overwhelming majority of the time.

[Iowa]

183. You make good points marbuc...

That was my line of thinking not too long ago. I've just become fatigued with that approach and have "lost the faith", so to speak. I'm tired of waiting and would prefer to shake things up, even if it fails. But I do respect your thinking on it and see the merit in what you are saying.

Cheers! :toast:

[thegreatwildebeest]

206. There is more to that...

to corporate interests, and "content to let them set the agenda and work off that." However, I don't see that as the case. I don't have time to go back and check the vote count, but I am fairly certain the majority of "new democrats" voted for the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance legislation, and generally want to get corporate money/influence out of politics. I also doubt most will cave on social security (Ben Nelson being a possible exception.)

There is more to that, however. Clinton signed NAFTA afterall, gave us "Workfare", and many DLC'ers have been ridiculously in the pockets of some of the larger timber and resource extraction company.


I don't ask that you support the DLC or its policies, only acknowledge that they are a wing of our party, and are not nearly as bad as the alternative. There are conservative (blue dog) Democrats, but that is what works in some parts of the country, and if there presence is necessary to win back a majority, then so be it. They will side with the Dem majority caucus an overwhelming majority of the time.

I think they are, in fact, WORSE. They're not merely a wing of the party, but have consistently spoken as if they ARE the party. Time and time again they have either sided with Republicans against other Democrats (where was party unity then?) and have sided with Republicans on what are essential issues, not mere window dressing. When the DLC calls for political unity it means hewing to THEIR line. Most progressives and other more left individuals have squashed their own voices and opinions to let the moderates go only to have the moderates lose it anyways on being a platform of Republican lite.

[Zhade]

125. It's impossible to get along with people who want you out of the party.

Thankfully, I'm no longer a member of the conservative-trending Democratic party, I'm an indie.

Part of why I'm out is the attitude, as expressed by such DLC luminaries as Al From and Will "I endorse PNAC ideas" Marshall, that liberals should basically sit down and shut up, that they are "anti-American" (said of Michael Moore).

You can't work with people who want you out of the party - and that goes for the other side, too. As Zorra has said, the "third way" is basically a new party-within-the-party, and liberals and DLCers are eventually going to go their own way.

[marbuc]

158. I am also not a big fan

of Al From and Will Marshall. They have said some things I consider divisive, and bad for party unity. The majority of new democrats I have little problem with.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[marbuc]

160. If you're calling me a republican or a troll

this is inappropriate, and could not be more wrong. I see myself as a moderate Democrat; not a blue dog, not a "liberal," but I value the contributions of both to our party.

[Zhade]

124. See my post just downthread. They're not even good strategists.

On top of their other (corporatist, right-leaning) flaws, they ignore real winning issues and stand on the OPPOSITE side of them from the majority of Americans.

[Iowa]

180. Good post Zhade!

I agree with everything you said downthread.

I look at it this way - A huge wolf is standing at my door. I have two choices:

1) I can cower behind the door and throw a little of my limited food stash out the window in hopes that will keep him from coming in to devour me. It's almost a certainty that he'll starve me out, or come in and eat me anyway, but at least I buy some time.

2) I can grab a baseball bat, fling the door open, confront the beast with everything I've got, and take the chance that he'll eat me before help arrives (plus there's a chance that the wolf is a coward who will cut and run when confronted by an angry and determined foe - a very real possibility).

Neither choice is appealing, but I choose number two because the first option is a terrible way to live. But that's just me. I would rather go down fighting the good fight today than endure a slow decline for years and years. And there's always a chance I'll win.

I just don't see any light at the end of the tunnel with the DLC approach, and I'm sick and tired of living that way. Nobody is representing the people anymore and the wolf is grinding us down.

[Zhade]

123. Could you please define "hard left"...

...and then explain how such a candidate's stances are markedly different from the majority of the American people?

I mean, we're not talking Stalinists or Maoists here. Those are simply not going to happen (and I'm glad of that). So what do you mean by "hard left"?

Are you talking about candidates who push for forcible redistribution of wealth? For the government to own all methods and means of production? What, exactly?

I know it's "left" to support worker's right to a fair wage. Most Americans believe in that, I think.

It's "left" to support universal healthcare - numbers show the majority of Americans are for that, as well.

What about civil liberties? Protecting them is "left", isn't it? Pretty sure most Americans believe in strong protection of their civil liberties.

I could go on, but I think my point is clear: the DLC claims it's all about luring voters...yet many of its members support things like NAFTA (which destroys Americans' desired fair wages), keeping health care in the private sector (which helps keep 45 million Americans completely uninsured), and the misnamed PATRIOT Act (a policy so egregious toward civil liberties that liberals and conservatives have joined together against it, with even a few states passing resolutions to defy it).

If the DLC is ignoring these obvious winning issues, and it claims to want to be a winners' organization - why? Is it really all about luring voters, or is there more to it?

[SharonRB]

176. I agree with everything you said

As Hillary says, we need to bring the party together -- the far left and the more centrist -- or we will never win anything. We need to stop fighting each other and concentrate on fighting the Repukes. I doubt I'd vote for HRC in the primary, but if she's the candidate in the GE, she will get my wholehearted support. And, as Bill said a long time ago, we'd buy one, get one free if she won and that can't be all bad.

[othermeans]

192. How about Liebermann and Feinstein?

[Kelvin Mace]

19. I am a member of the "hard left"

and I object to illegal wars like Vietnam and Iraq (plus the dozens in between).

Hilary is, by the old definitions, a "right of center" candidate. The idea that the Clintons are "liberals" is hysterical.

Supporting the Iraq invasion was WRONG and there is no way around it. She has started pandering to the right with her talk on abortion and video games as she did about Iraq.

[dolstein]

36. By old definitions, Hillary Clinton is a "liberal"

Liberals used to have no problem whatsoever about confronting communism, fascism and totalitarianism with military force. FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ -- none of these guys would pass your litmus test.

[Kelvin Mace]

42. They do pass my test

except for JFK's foray into Vietnam.

Hilary supported the Iraq invasion when everyone with half a brain knew it was a complete lie.

[K-W]

44. Who needs facts when we can have machismo. EOM

[HereSince1628]

45. Shit, by current standards both Clintons are liberal

liberalism only implies tolerance and open-mindedness.

The problem for American workers, the historic base of the Democratic Party, is that both Clintons haven't a whole hell of a lot of concern for American workers and American strategic interests as workers would define them.

I totally agree that Democrats have no problem with military solutions. But I don't think those who oppose the "pragmatism" of the DLC really aren't opposed to the legal application of military force when it is necessary

[K-W]

46. Liberalism is about liberty.

The idea that each person is entitled to certain rights, etc

I dont think Hillary is a liberal because I dont think she supports universal rights. For instance she seeems rather unconcerned with Iraqi liberty since she supports continued occupation.

[HereSince1628]

47. Being tolerant and openminded, I can accept that.

[HereSince1628]

53. Here is something from Wikipedia that you might find interesting

"...liberal with the purse, or liberal tongue, usually as a term of reproach but, beginning 1776–88 imbued with a more favorable sense by Edward Gibbon and others to mean "free from prejudice, tolerant.""

----
my comment begins here...

If you consider "liberal" to be the opposite from "conservative" and accept the scholarly work of Jost et al on conservatism, you would believe that liberals are not motivated by fear, do not accept explanations based on appeals of authority, do not believe that the word is divided into simple dichotomies characterized as black vs white which is to say they have a tolerance for ambiguity, and accept as answers to problems information that isn't based on authority or tradition.

[Zorra]

50. Liberals still have no problem confronting totalitarian fascist aggressors

- Why do you think we despise Bu*h and the PNAC so much?

Liberals understand the necessity and practicality of a strong military. It is not this point on which most liberals differ from Hillary Clinton. Where liberals differ from Hillary Clinton is: Liberals oppose corporate control of government, while DLC members such as Hillary Clinton embrace corporate control of government.

And it is this significant difference that has always defined, above all else, the main difference between Democrats and Republicans.

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes strong than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power."
Franklin D. Roosevelt

[PunkPop]

159. "old definitions" is right

Your whole argument is based on old myths and historical characterizations that have no relevance. The communist "threat" no longer exists.

Fascism and totalitarianism, on the other hand, are thriving - the problem is it's right here in this country. It's American's pathological weakness for boogeyman myths, and their hard-ons for militaristic posturing that are screwing up this country by making us less free and putting us in debt up to our eyeballs.

Claiming Hillary is in the same mold as FDR, Truman and LBJ is pure BS. It has no meaning. These are different times.

[Fluffdaddy]

24. Thank you........... The Jr senator from NY is playing it just right

[bpilgrim]

30. oh, look... a DIVIDER

and none of those you mentioned endorsed a pax-americana

fyi

peace

[Dr Fate]

33. So that's why she pretended the DSM did not exist?

Because she was afraid that telling the truth would make her look weak?

Oh well, at least she can talk about video games.

[alcibiades_mystery]

48. Bluster Bluster Chest Puff and Muster

Listen to dolstein, end up like Custer...

Just wondering, did you support the Iraq War? Were you a proponent of the WMD canard? Aren't you embarrassed yet?

[Zhade]

126. Snort!

Very nice, I like the rhyme scheme.

And yes, he supported the war, and I doubt he'll EVER be embarrassed, even though many of us told him before we even invaded that there was no reason to invade.

He was wrong. When you've been here as long as some of us, you'll realize holding your breath for an admission he was wrong will leave you unconscious.

[mazzarro]

51. Well she and the DLC/centrists can do without me and my vote!

eom

[Zhade]

127. Indeed.

I mean, if the DLC doesn't like liberals, fine - let's see them succeed without our votes.

I for one will never vote for Feinstein again, and will not vote for Clinton if she runs in the GE.

The great thing is that no matter how much pro-DLC agitators chide and scold and wheedle and snipe and whine and pretend to actually have some meaningful insight in policy debates, I STILL won't vote for their corporatist, right-leaning fascist-enabling cowardly candidates. PERIOD.

I love that feeling. It's great, and I feel zero guilt. I mean, I wouldn't feel guilty for not voting for a Republican, so why feel bad for not voting for an aspiring one?

I get great joy from knowing that DLCers hold absolutely no sway over my vote whatsoever. I relish the fact that they simply cannot force me to vote for DLC candidates, no matter how much they wish so fervently they could.

Keep dreaming, guys. Not gonna happen. And I'm laughing as you try and fail, over and over. The more you condescend and offer apologia for corporatism and pro-illegal war stances, the more the DLC is exposed for what it is through your words and actions, the wider my smile gets.

The DLC, of course, WILL be obsolete someday, and likely sooner than later. I plan to party that day.

Ex-DLCers who have seen that their once-beloved organization is not what they thought it was will be the most welcomed at that shindig!

[alcibiades_mystery]

52. Yeah, good ole Give 'em Hell Harry

Recalled MacArthur when he started spouting grandiose nonsense about an unwinnable and stupid war with China, much to the fury of the Republican minority, and told the Red Baiters to sit and spin when they smeared Dean Acheson. Good stuff. Would that Hillary would have the same fortitude...

[dolstein]

63. Yeah, good ole Give 'em Hell Harry

Who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaka, and waged a long and ultimately unpopular war in Korea. Truman was no shrinking violate when it came to military force. If DU was around back then, they'd be calling Harry a war monger and urging people to back Henry Wallace in '48. The certainly wouldn't be calling him a liberal.

[bpilgrim]

193. Who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of the war

against the advice of his military leaders in theater as the Japanese were suing for peace.

our first SHOCK-n-AWE to the world.

you must getta woody think'n bout what the chimp or his successor might do, eh?


http://media.globalfreepress.com

peace

[alcibiades_mystery]

196. There's a difference between waging an unpopular war

and waging an unnecessary, costly, and unwinnable war. Truman knew that difference, and exercised his knowledge when he shit-canned MacArthur. You apparently do not know that difference. As for your disdain for DU, you know where the browser url box is, yeah?

[ronnykmarshall]

57. Be prepared to called a "Freeper".

[OzarkDem]

64. Check again

Those of us who represent midwestern Dem values know the difference between Truman and DLC values. They're not the same, believe me.

[Q]

117. A 'strong military' that is used for preemptive, preventative wars?

Mrs. Clinton and anyone else that supports Bush's lies and wars won't get my vote. Ever.

Misusing a strong military is a war crime.

[eridani]

119. When have we ever supported freedom and democracy?

I mean since WW II, tha last known instance in which we were on the right side. Unless you meant the freedom of the Masters of the Universe to treat everybody else in the world as disposable human garbage after they're done using us to get richer. And since when is preferring self-defense to imperial thuggery "pacifist"?

[IndianaGreen]

131. Anyone to the left of Hitler is hard left to you, dolstein

The Left will never support a prowar candidate. We need someone to stop the carnage, and the DLC and their slate of candidate clones is not the answer to our nation's problems.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

164. Yes, we all love a Democrat that isn't afraid of a quagmire, don't we?

[FreeStateDemocrat]

181. Just like the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam defended freedom.

[radio4progressives]

197. Clinton doesn't make me angry, they make me seriously ill. n/t

[Skwmom]

201. She pisses off a lot more than the hard left. If the Democrats

think Hillary will lead them to victory they are dreaming.

[liveoaktx]

16. Ceasefire? When the DLC is calling for war-mongering?

I won't vote for ANY DLC candidate. They don't represent my interests and are only a few degrees shy of being Republicans. I I wanted to vote for corporatist war-mongerers, I'd vote Republican. And that I for sure can't and won't do.

[Strawman]

23. Sounds more like she wants "unconditional surrender" from liberals

Guess were supposed to get out the pom poms for her and STFU. No thanks.

[K-W]

25. Not to mention small d democrats.

The idea that policy should be formulated by elites is not democratic in the slightest.

[Kelvin Mace]

17. We would be happy to discuss unity

When will you stop working with the other side?

[IChing]

21. you mean like this?

How to Heal Health Care
By Bill Frist and Hillary Clinton
Wednesday, August 25, 2004; Page A17


At a time when much of our public discussion is riddled with disagreement, there is an emerging bipartisan consensus in one vitally important area: that the challenges facing U.S. health care require major, transformative change. Some steps are already underway. Recently the Department of Health and Human Services announced a 10-year plan to build a new health information infrastructure. And while there is no consensus yet on all the changes needed, we both agree that in a new system, innovations stimulated by information technology will improve care, lower costs, improve quality and empower consumers.
>>>>.snip
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30277-2004Aug24.html

[Kelvin Mace]

43. Please....

You seriously believe Frist cares about people's health in anything other than a way to line his pockets?

[IChing]

54. That and killing cats, amazing she co-authored that op ed piece with

a piece of shit, fascist.

this is the type of "unity" she is authoring for our party and every democrat should
see this, to know what unity really means.

I of course, should of put the sarcasm on my earlier post.

[Kelvin Mace]

56. Ah, sorry, misread it.

[IChing]

59. No worries, But Clinton's op -ed, co-writing with Frist in the WP is scary

but I think a lot of people who support her haven't read this op-ed .

I'm glad there is not a republican senator in NY but that's about it.

[EST]

121. Straight out of the "Mr. Newt" playbook.

[Zhade]

20. Under you, perhaps? Fuck off.

Seriously. Fuck OFF, Clinton. I am SO not interested in ANYTHING you have to say anymore.

[TankLV]

145. Like I really care what SHE thinks anymore?

Please!

I have more intelligence than she thinks!

It will certainly be fun/tragedy to watch the dolstein dems wail and wonder what happened to the dem party when we don't show up for the party!

I for one am tired of frat boy politics.

I will watch a movie or something if there is no candidate I can support.

Support the "party" when they tell us we're scum, delusional, suport every fucking thing the repukes put out, "only lees so", and expect us to still support it?

Just what planet are they living on?

[Endangered Specie]

26. I swear, it is hard being one of the few remaining Hillary supports

on this board, and that might change soon. :argh:

[Zhade]

128. The sooner, the better. She isn't deserving of your support.

Believe me, I used to LOVE her...then I got to know her.

[HereSince1628]

28. I"m ready for an American Dream initiative chosen by the elite

I'm sure that the elite will do a good job of representing their,er our, best interests.

[K-W]

31. Funny that they name thier initiative after a propaganda ploy. EOM

[JABBS]

29. Does this officially mean that Hillary is ...

the party's "unity" pick to be the 2008 presidential nominee? This sure seems like a major step in that direction.

If so, then say hello to President Bill Frist.

[Dr Fate]

32. Go play a video game or somthing- we have actual issues to take care of.

n/t

[Dave Reynolds]

34. From what I've seen from dear Hillary,

she wants to "counter the hard right ideology" with a softer, gentler right ideology.

No sale.

[DFWJock]

38. I know...

lets all get behind some far-left liberal, thats a sure way to win
an election in Merka.

If not, lets all back Ralph, how could we lose??

[Dave Reynolds]

39. How about a true opposition?

Or else we could just vote Republican, we can win that way, right?

[Zhade]

130. Please define "far left liberal".

I'd be interested in your version.

[Zhade]

129. Yeah, she's "soft right".

NT!

[goforit]

37. We need a new REALITY party with a strong in yo face leader!!!

I nominate Wilson

or Gore

or Dean!!!

The rest of the elected Dems need to be impeached or resign!

[DFWJock]

40. Well Im a flaming liberal and proud of it but...

I got a major NEWS FLASH folks....WE ARE IN THE MINORITY, big time.
Who was the last liberal president we had?

[Fluffdaddy]

58. Word

[Writer]

65. Total word. Underscored.

We keep making the mistake of believing that FACTS win elections, when voters really vote on EMOTIONS, IMPRESSIONS, AND BELIEFS.

Terrorism, religious issues, and the soft-side of parental culture are what's invading our belief system at the moment. And, yes, the Terror Attacks of 2001 do play a role in that.

In the early 90's it was jobs, the deficit, and the environment. We spoke to those issues and won.

We must capture the phenomenology of current American culture. Not scream FACTS into people's faces. You don't exactly win over folks that way.

Ever wonder why the Murkin's think we're elitists? It ain't just because of the chewin' tobacco and bad beer, people. :beer:

P.S. I expect Howard Dean to follow with these same principles very soon. Go Howard!

[Joz]

153. FDR!

and most people would say, oh I don't know, that he wasn't a bad president.

[DFWJock]

155. Thanks for making my point

Elected in the 30's - and I agree, a great president.

[Joz]

198. and the 40s. n/t

[martymar64]

204. Jimmy Carter

Our Last Real Human President.

[ninkasi]

41. What a shame...

I hate to see her pander to the right because she thinks it will make her more electable. I don't want any more moving to the right. We're already so far to the right in this country, that any further will truly be an official fascist state.

I think we need to move further left...much, much further left, to undo the damage done by the years of the Chimperor's disaster of a presidency. Why agree to accept more of the same policies which have already bankrupt our treasury, started an illegal war, and torn up our Constitution?

Are we losing jobs to India and China too slowly? Are too many people still working at jobs that pay a living wage? Too many of us still have health insurance, or maybe the water and air isn't toxic enough yet. Maybe too many women can still make their own decisions regarding their reproductive systems, or we still haven't called for public executions of gays and lesbians.

By becoming centrist in today's political climate, all of that will change, and the rich can become rich faster, and the rest of us can begin our slide to living hell sooner.

[sweetheart]

49. If she supports ending the drugs war

I'll support her.

I'm easy.

;-)

[FiveGoodMen]

62. I promise you

she won't.

[54anickel]

66. Clinton to Direct Creation of Democrats' Agenda

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-072505dnc_lat,0,4442905.story?coll=la-home-headlines

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The Democratic Leadership Council, an organization of influential party moderates, named Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton today to direct a new initiative to define a party agenda for the 2006 and 2008 elections.

The appointment solidified the identification of Clinton, once considered a champion of the party's left, with the centrist movement that helped propel her husband to the White House in 1992. It also continued her effort, which has accelerated in recent months, to present herself as a moderate on issues such as national security, immigration and abortion.

In her new role, the New York Democrat immediately called for a truce between the DLC and liberal elements of the party, which have engaged in a ferocious war of words over the Democrats' direction since President Bush won reelection in November.

"Now, I know the DLC has taken some shots from some within our party and that it has returned fire too," she told a gathering of the group here. "Well, I think it's high time for a cease-fire, time for all Democrats to work together based on the fundamental values we all share."

more...

[Eric J in MN]

67. Do we share any values with the DLC? nt

nt

[President Kerry]

74. YES we do. We can't afford to be split apart..

If GOP can fragment us, they'll have a stranglehold on power as they do now. As bad as their policies are they're smart enough politicians to show loyalty (how McCain can still support the POS-in-chief is beyond me).

[OzarkDem]

79. Dems aren't fragmented

anymore so than usual. The DLC faction represents an incredibly small portion of Dems, mostly those inside the beltway or in public office. Average voters, particularly swing voters, know nothing of them, nor is the DLC in touch with issues that appeal to them. Time and again, DLC candidates fail to win support from voters.

To say the party is split between traditional Dems and DLC is an exaggeration at best.

[President Kerry]

81. although I'm a liberal (a lot more so than the DLC) I'm not going

to willingly want to lose the support of anybody in my party, even if i disagree with them somewhat. Eyes on the prize people! What Hillary said sounds right and reasonable to me.

[still_one]

83. it all depends

Take the Iraq war. I for one will NOT support anyone for President who doesn't pull our troops out of Iraq within one year. If we haven't trained the Iraqiis by then we never will

[Teaser]

84. Our troops will be gone from Iraq before the next election.

The military is already mutinying. They won't permit the army to be ground into dust over there. Watch.

[OzarkDem]

92. Not according to the DLC

They support expanding the military and staying in Iraq. Better read the fine print.

[Teaser]

116. DLC don't matter.

Whose got more guns, the army or the DLC.

The same argument holds true for the Bushies. Is PNAC more heavily armed than the marines? NO?

In about one more year, when things are worse in Iraq, the generals are just going to start saying "no" to the President in public. They are already doing it in private.

People here are underestimating the resistance of the army and marines to the idea of self-immolation.

[still_one]

95. I think they support the fourteen permanent bases

we are constructing

[Teaser]

115. Nope.

The brass don't give a damn about those bases. The Bushies do, but if the middle level commanders have to choose between ditching those bases and their units utter decimation, they will force the Bushies to ditch that dream.

[OzarkDem]

91. Sending my kid to Iraq

isn't going to win my support for any Dem candidate. Sorry.

The real issue is - the DLC doesn't have any real support among voters. Its a useless appendage of the Dem Party. It brings nothing to the table, ergo, there's no division.

[still_one]

96. The DLC brings money, but wrong ideas

ideas are more important than money

[OzarkDem]

101. Actually

they don't even bring that much money anymore, either.

[Zhade]

132. Well, yeah - it's CORPORATE money.

Does anyone over the age of, like, FIVE believe corporations don't want a return on their investment?

Do DLCers just not read the history of corporate abuse in this country, or do they not care? To think massive corporate funding won't result in the gradual privatization of the government and the placing of corporate profits over things like workers' rights, a clean environment, and other issues is naivete at best, rank stupidity at worst.

[Thrasybulus]

80. We fight like hell to keep the party from drifting right.

We don't demonize centrist Dems but I see it this way.

Either we liberals are right about the 3-E's; Environment, Economy and Eraq and Repubs can't sustain these policies for very much longer or we are wrong and * is going to lead us into a millennial epoch of glory.

If we are right -AND WE ARE- when the facade crumbles people will turn to those that stood firm and said the king has no clothes.

If we are wrong then the Repubs deserve the credit and the chance to continue their wonderfully beneficent policies.

[papau]

68. "high time for a cease-fire" - sounds good to me! :-)

:-)

[Rebellious Republican]

71. I second that emotion....

:toast:

[TankLV]

149. I totally agee - and the DLC can start.

If not, they can kiss my aas.

And who is the one always criticizing the "left" and anybody THEY don't like? Hmmmmm?

DLC - I agree - YOU go first - YOU stop the "infighting".

GIVE US SOMETHING TO VOTE "FOR"!

[neuvocat]

69. I don't think so.

The DLC has done more to destroy the democrats and roll over on Bush's agenda and get us into the world of crap we're in now. She's starting to get on my nerves.

[HereSince1628]

70. Like the F!@ing DLC speaks for the party!

Well, they think of themselves as the elite, what do we expect? Hubrice!

[cygy2k]

73. nm

This really doesn't purtain to this exact topic but to the board in general. I think we all need to get better at not "hating" certain democrats. There is obviously room for opinions and such but everybody seems to hate the candidates/politicians that they don't agree with. We need to work harder to get democrats elected everywhere and take back the agenda.

The think that made us strong in the mid 90's was that we all stuck together to defeat the repubs in full, not just one candidate. Let stand united and take back the agenda!

[54anickel]

77. I have nothing against Hillary, but did you read the article? It's the

DLC that gets to me. Come on, they support CAFTA? The corporatist made sure they had a good handle on the DLC when it came into being - That way they have the best of both worlds. Doesn't matter if it's a Dem or Repub that wins anymore. The deck is stacked.

On edit:

Do you suppose the DLC is feeling more than just a wee bit threatened by Dean and the DNC? I mean, giving this to Hillary is like bringing in the big guns, isn't it? :shrug:

Funny, when I read the thread on Dean I was in agreement that it may be time to open the tent. When I read this article, I was completely turned off, and I'm fairly new to the notion that there's 2 distinct Dem committees. Could just be the references to CAFTA and corporatists in this article though.

[54anickel]

72. As I read this is was like fingernails on a chalkboard. I think the first

thing they need to do is change the name of the organization, cuz I don't think they'll be leading anyone. Their just Repug followers.

[wli]

75. hmm, DLC... I'll pass

The last thing this country needs is two Republican parties.

[Cha]

76. I think it's the other way AROUND,

clin-ton!...

"Now, I know the DLC has taken some shots from some within our party and that it has returned fire too.."

How about.."The dlc has fired off some shots and that didn't get us anywhere..cause all we got in return were some Huge Shots fired BACK!"?

[OzarkDem]

78. LA Times got it wrong

Do they seriously think the DLC controls the Democratic agenda? Or were they just typing up the DLC press release without reading it?

[AtomicKitten]

82. Let's Not Forget that Bubba Won in 1992 and 1996

... and Hillary has access to the man with the plan. Not thrilled with the centrists in the DLC but I LUV Bubba. As much as I abhor Hillary's move to right, I also acknowledge and applaude her brilliance in playing the game of politics. I, for one, am willing to allow her the space she needs to kick the every lovin' shit out of the Republicans in 2008. Just imagine how their heads will spin!! Yes, I think she can do it. Perhaps with Obama as her running mate. You go, girl.

[Zhade]

133. BC won because he was BC, not because of the DLC.

Well, that and Perot splitting the conservative vote (and damned if he wasn't right about NAFTA).

HC is just not ever getting my vote. Way too right-leaning for me. Sorry, DLC, no sale.

[AtomicKitten]

165. Premature voting

Thanks for making up your mind early.

[Teaser]

85. I agree to a ceasefire

if they stop firing.

[creeksneakers2]

86. I liked the DLC back when they wanted to nominate moderates

Now they want to nominate Republicans, so I hate them. I'm waiting to see if Hillary can drag the DLC back. Her association with them at this time bothers me.

* I'm getting more and more annoyed with the way the press covers Hillary. They can barely go a full paragraph without assigning some self serving motive to everything Hillary does. They keep repeating she was far left. Other than health care, I don't know where they get that idea.They are so consumed with picturing her as a far lefty that they have to explain away everything she does as a move to "appear more moderate." While saying that, they are saying she's disingenuous and they say it every single time they talk about her. The press has always seemed to feel some obligation to insult the Clintons.

[Zhade]

134. Universal health care isn't even "far left".

In fact, by DLCers' logic, it's a MODERATE position, since a majority of Americans support universal health care and DLCers insist (without much support, I might add) that the majority of the country is moderate.

[Writer]

87. I am all for this!

Unification is a terrific thing.

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[Zhade]

135. She's asking for capitulation, not unification.

I mean, certainly her and her fellows don't intend to change their 'centrist' stances, so it's basically calling on liberals and progressives to hop on the DLC bandwagon.

Sorry, just not interested.

[VegasWolf]

88. I'll wait until I hear what Dr. Dean thinks as to an agenda. Anymore

DLC and I'll be voting 3rd Party.

[Samantha]

89. No DLC for me, thank you please

Let's see. What did the DLC do when the election 2000 controversy arose? Nothing.

Who came out and publicly ask Gore not to run in 2004, although he was polling way ahead of number 2. That would be the DLC, warming up for a 2008 Hillary run.

Who came out publicly and said they were worried about Dean getting the nomination and if his momentum continued, they would try to stop him. I wrote a thread here entitled something like Stop Dean Runs Full Spead Ahead and posted an article from the Washington Post quoting the Democratic elite saying they would definitely try to stop Dean.

I am not voting for Hillary if she gets the nomination. I'll write someone in first.

[cosmicdot]

100. another DLC attempt to end-run Howard

Hillary can "direct" the DLC to disband; and, to unify behind the DNC so we Democrats can "work together based on the fundamental values we all share".

That would be Leadership.

Hillary, by your accepting this role, you divide us.

We don't need 2 organizations defining the party agenda, especially one seed-funded by Republican right-wing foundations.

While you're Directing, how about calling for a moratorium on Help America Vote Act spending ASAP. That would be Leadership, too.

We Democrats are not as divided as this portrayal. We won 2000 and 2004; and, had the 2002 midterm not been Diebolded in key races, we wouldn't have lost seats that year.

[Zhade]

136. Nice note on HAVA!

And I of course agree with the "seed-funded by Republican right-wing foundations" point.

[Joz]

148. great post, great points n/t

[Massachusetts]

90. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEADING!!!!!!!

READ THIS MONTHS HARPER'S EDITORIAL BY LEWIS LAPHAM "MOVING ON", AND PASS IT ON.

[54anickel]

102. Wanna maybe give a clue?...eom

[depakid]

93. It's actually high time for a crossfire

Dems will never get anywhere until they get rid of the DINO's at the top. The party is all but irrelevant now- and people percieve them as impotent (which in fact, they are).

The record's pretty clear that DLC (and their ilk) are FAR greater enemies to both the country and the party than Republicans, although I suspect even a massive defeat in 2006 won't drive that point home.

It sure hasn't in the past.

[seriousstan]

104. Clinton to Direct Creation of Democrats' Agenda

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The Democratic Leadership Council, an organization of influential party moderates, named Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton today to direct a new initiative to define a party agenda for the 2006 and 2008 elections.

The appointment solidified the identification of Clinton, once considered a champion of the party's left, with the centrist movement that helped propel her husband to the White House in 1992. It also continued her effort, which has accelerated in recent months, to present herself as a moderate on issues such as national security, immigration and abortion.

In her new role, the New York Democrat immediately called for a truce between the DLC and liberal elements of the party, which have engaged in a ferocious war of words over the Democrats' direction since President Bush won reelection in November.

"Now, I know the DLC has taken some shots from some within our party and that it has returned fire too," she told a gathering of the group here. "Well, I think it's high time for a cease-fire, time for all Democrats to work together based on the fundamental values we all share

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-072505dnc_lat,0,4442905.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[lancdem]

105. It would be great if we could agree on a common agenda

I hope it's possible.

[Zhade]

137. Hmmm. Liberals are for workers' rights worldwide, DLC for NAFTA.

Liberals for protection of civil liberties, DLC for PATRIOT Act.

Liberals against the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, DLC for it from the start.

Liberals for ending the failed "War on (Some) Drugs", DLC for continuing it through policies like Plan Columbia.

Liberals against school vouchers, DLC for them.

The list goes on.

Reconciliation? Doubtful.

[madfloridian]

106. Does the DNC set agenda? Or is the DLC still doing it?

I thought it was the DNC.

Howard Dean speaks for me.

[gulfcoastliberal]

107. The DLC needs to go...

Too bad they appear to still wield so much influence:

The session amounted to one of the first multi-candidate "cattle calls" for the potential 2008 contenders.

"I thought I was at a New Hampshire J-J dinner," joked Warner, in a reference to the Jefferson-Jackson party dinners that are frequent platforms for presidential contenders.

[goforit]

108. Here comes another EGO trip!!

[bemildred]

109. Gee, the DLC wants to get along now.

We must be getting traction.

[PassingFair]

110. Ooookkkkaay then.

"I think the nation fully understands what we are against," Vilsack said in an interview. "I think it is incumbent now to show what we are for."

What EXACTLY ARE we against, Mr. Ball...er Vilsack?
And what PRAY TELL are we for?

I'm glad the "nation" fully understands, maybe they can explain it to me...

Howard Dean is MY Party Chair.

[5thGenDemocrat]

111. If Hillary directs the creation of the '06-'08 agenda

Count me out. I won't vote for her for President and I won't support any agenda she has her bloody hands in. And I sure can't think of many "fundamental" values she (or the DLC) and I agree on.
John
Stay in New York, Hillary, where you (kinda sorta) belong.

[Phoonzang]

113. Tommy Verceti, Carl Johnson, and I don't like this....

I was willing to give Clinton a try but she went to far when she attacked video games. "Oooohhn nooo...not SEX in video games!" Please.

You think Bill could dress up in drag and pretend to be Hillary? *sigh* If only. Clark '08!!!!

[ngGale]

120. Getting to be a one party country ...

one for them and one for us, never the twain shall meet. Why just once, can't somebody stand up and say...pull out of Iraq, the Prez is a liar, start impeachment proceedings. :puke:

[Puzzler]

139. Yeah, right....

"``It's high time for a ceasefire,'' Clinton said."


Bullsh*t!

The Repugs have moved the political spectrum so far to the right that any compromise will leave the Dems way to the right of center.


-P

[Joz]

141. Kerry

Can somebody explain to me why Kerry is part of the DLC? His views are considerably more liberal than Hillary and the rest of the people I see listed as members. I'm surprised his ideology supports DLCism. Plus I don't see him being too active in the organization. Last I checked he was still a potential 2008 presidential candidate (fuck yeah!), yet he was not present at this meeting of potential DLC candidates for '08, not that thats what it was or anything. ;)

[gulliver]

144. Dems need credible leaders. Hillary has no prayer ...

... of ever becoming president. Please don't tell me she actually takes herself seriously as a presidential candidate. I'm losing all respect for her and getting sick of both Clintons.

[Joz]

147. Who cares!!

Who cares what she or the DLC says anyway. Isn't it the democratic base of the party that has a large say in determining the candidate during the primaries? And isn't that us? I see most people here are not down with hil, so if the base isn't cool with her how is she going to get nominated?

I'm fairly new to the primary game though having been independent up to this year, so clue me in if I am mistaken, for perhaps Dean was highly supported over Kerry here a year and a half ago, I don't know.

[leesa]

152. You first! How about publicly stating the war was wrong and call for an

immediate pull-out. O/w, STFU.

[bushisanidiot]

154. We've got to win the next election. The repukes are destroying our

country. It sounds like the DLC is trying to shake things up a bit because the strategies of the last two dem. presidential candidates did not win us the white house. What Hillary is saying about faith, etc. sounds to me like she's on board with what Dean was saying. We need to frame the argument from our perspective and stop letting the repukes paint us as embryo-hating, family-hating, morally inept people. We're the OPPOSITE of that and we need to let voters know it.

So, instead of screaming the same old slogans at the repukes every election season, we could try a different approach.. that doesn't mean TURNING INTO REPUKES, it just means changing the language we use for slogans, etc., while giving the SAME message we always have.

i will most definitely vote for hillary if she wins the primaries.. if she runs at all. i'm pretty sick and tired of one white male after another leading this country and screwing it up. it's time for a change, dammit!!!

I'm with ya, Hill!!!

[AlGore-08.com]

179. The DLC is the one screaming the same old slogans

The NYTimes piece had Vilsack cranking out this old chestnut:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/politics/26candidates.html

"We can't afford to be anti-, against everything," Mr. Vilsack said. "America is waiting for us. They are desperate to know what we are for."

The last thing the DLC want is change. They refused to support Gore in 2000 because he ran a populist campaign, they freaked out in 2004 over Dean's campaign for the same reason.

Gore's populism won in 2000. It was the DLC and their "we need to show we're strong on defense and morals and distance ourselves from our gay, female and minority base" strategy that lost us 2002 and 2004.

The DLC calls for unity now only because they are in danger of losing control of the party.

[natrat]

156. why not urge paper ballots an joe lieberdouche types

[Walt Starr]

161. The DLC gets in a bunch of attacks against the Left

Then calls for a CEASEFIRE?????

fuck that noise, and fuck the DLC. No DLC, not now, not ever.

[Walt Starr]

163. I used to be a Friend of Hillary

But no longer.

No Hillary in '08. She's got the Joementum and if she gets the nom, there are other choices I can make.

[Doremus]

166. "It's high time for a ceasefire,'' Clinton said.

Well, you and your fellow DLCers long ago rolled over for the junta -- the only thing left is to turn around and bend over.

No kool-aid, thank you.

Which Dems are working FOR the corporations? Here's the only litmus test you need.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00044">US Senate Bankruptcy Bill Roll Call

[confludemocrat]

168. Your link is not working for me. needed the reminder it would provide-nt

[Doremus]

174. Try this one.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00044

Better yet, here's the list:

Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Not Voting
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

[Doremus]

169. I should add Hillary was conveniently absent that day.

Not only is she a DINO, she's a cowardly DINO.

[confludemocrat]

167. Hillary touts list of caves-ins to the hard right. No fucking way.

The DLC seeks to concede everything that is dear to our ideals. Bill Clinton is no model, he and his methods are over and we don't need a redux with Hillary.

[goforit]

177. Whooo hooo.........The Centrist Bush appeasers have no chance!!!

1776 will sure to erupt once again.

[noamnety]

172. I smell MEDIA BIAS

Some have suggested ...

I'm pretty much done with a column now when I hit that phrase.

[DemBeans]

173. delusional...

``It's high time for a ceasefire,'' Clinton said.

My, what a short memory. We did have a ceasefire last year under John Kerry, when many of us put aside our strong anti-war beliefs to work on his behalf.

Not again. Not ever again. Hillary will NOT get the free pass that Kerry got in 2004, because Bush will be out of the picture. To see her demanding this now is utterly bullshit - it's just NOT going to happen. Not with this Democrat.

[ibegurpard]

184. Hillary is seriously overestimating her political cachet

if she thinks that hitching herself to their wagon is going to do anything to help them. It will just drag her down as well. Although I'm not sure she needs to do much more to damage the standing she has with many of us. She's been a big disappointment in many areas.

[Name removed]

185. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DFWJock]

186. You guys are right

being a moderate is TERRIBLE, just awful.

Lets nominate Dennis Kucinich/Zoe McPeacetrain, that'll get the
White House back for sure!!

[Carolab]

187. Hey, Hillary, blow me. If she's the candidate I'll vote Green.

I won't get fooled again by the vote DLC-ABB deceotion again.

[DFWJock]

189. Hey

Thats a great idea, we'll show the rethuglicans, VOTE GREEN.
That always works out well.

[Carolab]

190. I'm not getting into this argument all over again.

I'm SICK of Democrats ramming DLC losers down our throats.

Might as WELL vote Green and vote my CONSCIENCE instead of voting for Hillary. She'd LOSE anyway.

[DFWJock]

191. Thats what my friends

who voted for Nader said in 2000.

Not a dimes worth of difference, right?

[Carolab]

194. READ THIS and LEARN

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x142689

[Carolab]

205. More from the LAT

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-072505dnc_lat,0,4442905.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Aparently they want to swing the Democratic party to the corporate right. The DLC tried to torpedo Howard Dean and has viciously attacked progressives in the past. They just endorsed CAFTA. Now Hillary is joining them. Many people like Barrack Obama refused to be even listed as a supporter of the DLC because of their past behavior. This is the same group that wanted Tim Roemer to be head of the Dem party, an anti-choice, very conservative Dem. These people want to be the kings of the Democratic party.

This pretty much sums up why I think the DLC needs to be religated to
the scrap bin of bad ideas.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0304-27.htm

What the hell Hillary! Why!

[Deja Q]

195. Ceasefire? They're using AK47s, we're using popguns...

[mhr]

199. I Now Live In NY State And Will Never Vote For HRC

Because she sold out and voted for the illegal war in Iraq.

She is a traitor Democrat as far as I am concerned.

[NightOwwl]

200. Hillary, do me a favor...

...and just SHUT THE FUCK UP! WHY THE FUCK do you want to turn the Democratic party into the party of moderate Repulicans? I am so SICK OF THIS SHIT! LEAVE US ALONE!

[Barkley]

202. More troops for Iraq is not a 'tough stand' its stupid!

By the time 2008 comes we'll be the only country left in Iraq.

Where are we supposed to get all of the extra troops she wants?

We've spent $315 billion in Iraq already.

The Iraqis don't want our occupation and our reputation in the Arab world disintegrated. Bush has created terrorism in Iraq where there was once none.

UN sanctions killed 500,000 Iraqis, Bush's shock and awe killed another 100,000 and this woman is talking about being tough!?!?!

These poor people drink water that's contaminated with worms!?!?!

For God's sake leave these people in peace.

[Darranar]

203. A "united front" coincidentally controlled by the DLC, of course...

with a stance on "national security" guaranteed to butcher innocent people.

Let's not forget that caving in ensures a reduction in the Left's voice in the Democratic Party, which ends up moving this country's political center even more to the right.

And the reward? More lost elections. We've heard this trash before.

No, thank you.