Did the DLC let Gore sink to make room for one of their own?

[Q]

- My theory:

- The DLC has been working in the shadows... wrestling for control of the Democratic party since Clinton and his third way. My question is this: did they intentionally allow an election to be blatantly stolen in 2000 and then discourage Gore from running again to make room for 'pure' DLC candidates in 2004? Lieberman was a little TOO anxious to have Gore concede the election to Bush* and many 'new' Democrats turned their back on him when he needed their help in fighting against the Bush* Smear and Election Fraud Machine.

- The DLC had backed Gore until he finally rejected their 'lay low and don't swim against the corporate stream' strategy. The DLCers dumped Gore like a hot potato immediately after he put together a populist campaign that appealed directly to the people instead of corporate lobbyists. Gore's sacrilege was his call to make corporations accountable and later his speeches against Bush* malfeasance and his Democratic enablers. Gore turned out to be a loose cannon that neither the NeoRepublicans or NeoDemocrats could tolerate to gain a foothold as a popular Democratic leader.

- The DLC leadership did the same thing to the Democratic candidates against the war that they did to Gore: claiming they were 'out of touch' with mainstream voters and 'too liberal' to win in a country (they were helping move) to the right.

- I submit that Gore's presidency was 'sacrificed' and he was pushed into exile to prevent progressives from gaining power in government and thus blocking the more conservative 'new Democrat' agenda.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. I thought Gore was an integral part of the DLC??

[NYCGirl]

3. Not any more, he isn't... (eom)

NT

[Az]

11. Most Dems pay some homage to DLC

This doesn't mean they are entirely on board with them. It all has to do with the notion of playing nice with one another. I remember Gore as someone who was chaifing under the control of another. He was listening to his handlers and wanted to bust out. It was not until after the election that he really came into his own. He was sunk by the DLC and their compliance with the corps.

[MisterP]

12. until the 2000 election;

after he chose Lieberman (a DLC move) he suddenly went populist, and increasingly so. Al From was cranky because Lieberman couldn't rein in Gore's leftward run, and the bunch later blamed the populism for Gore's "loss" (after the DLC told Gore that there'd be a civil war if he pressed with the SCOTUS lawsuit--and Souter said it would've taken a day more to convince Kennedy).

[tom_paine]

2. One does wonder what the explanation for DNC/DLC weakness and cowering

is.

Your hypothesis, Q, is good as any.

But as we will NEVER know which Bushevik killed Kennedy or what the Imperial connection was to 9-11 or why the airplanes stayed on the ground for so long or...we will NEVER know the true reason.

Hell, half the DLC could be "Lucianne Goldberg"-type moles.

Not out of the question.

It would seem that eventually the Busheviks will have to take over the Democratic Party, if only to maintain the shame and make them look like a bona-fide opposition party.

[AP]

4. Gore is more DLC than Kerry (and way more than Edwards). In fact,

Edwards on the ticket shows that DLC isn't controlling Kerry.

[NYCGirl]

6. Have you seen any of Gore's recent speeches?

He's broken away from the DLC for sure.

[AP]

9. Yes, the telecoms guy who sits on lots of corporate boards has broken

with with the pro-corporate DLC.

[Q]

14. Gore and the DLC went their separate ways...

...after the 2000 election. There have been many articles on DU proving that point.

- And Edwards? The DLC loves him...calling him and Kerry 'Blair' Democrats...who agreed with the invasion and occupation of Iraq...just not Bush's* version of it. The DLC is behind the colonization of the middle east just as much as the neocons...but without the unilateral approach.

- Whether you call it 'control' or not...Kerry's thinking on Iraq and other issues is pretty much the same as the DLC.

[mzmolly]

5. That may be their thinking but it's faulty as Kerry/Gore are quite

similar on the actual issues.

[LTR]

7. Gore/Lieberman were as DLC-like as anyone

Lieberman is a known member of the group.

Sounds like a bunch of tinfoil horseshit to me. When it all comes down to the nitty gritty, they're Democrats.

[dansolo]

10. Lieberman-yes

I don't think that Gore is an adherent of the DLC philosophy. But I think he felt like he owed them during 2000. I don't think that Lieberman was really Al Gore's first choice for VP, but was pushed to pick Lieberman.

[Q]

15. If you want to talk about the 'nitty, gritty' of it...

...Zell Miller is ALSO a Democrat.

- There remains a division in the Dem party. The 'old' Democrats and the 'new' Democrats. The New Democrats took control of the party in the 90s and backed Gore until he started to move out on his own...finally admitting he didn't like the direction the DLC was taking.

- The New Democratic party supports ONLY those who sign on to their agenda and reject the 'old way' of the progressives.

- The move to exile Gore was a means to clear a path for DLCers while getting rid of the 'leftist fringe elements' still promoting social over corporate welfare.

[AntiCoup2K4]

8. Whatever the intentions of it's early members such as Clinton & Gore....

...The DLC today is nothing but a collective of neocon traitors trying to eliminate the two party system by making the Democratic party a right wing corporatist clone of the GOP.

[Killarney]

13. YES! The DLC also

killed Kennedy, forced Clinton's dick into Monica's mouth, causes all earthquakes, floods, and other natural disasters, manipulates the stock market, and is run by Darth Vader.

[Q]

16. Smirk if you want...

...but the DLC now has control of the Democratic party. They're like the Neocons in that they won't come into the light and admit they're the ones actually handling the money and running the party machinery behind the scenes.

[Sweetpea]

18. I agree but it seems like most of us are in the

"Anyone but Bush" modality.

[Still_Loves_John]

17. Gore WAS one of their own.

The Clinton/Gore years were the height of the DLC's power. The DLC has been waning ever since their tickets lost in 2000 and then in the midterms.

[FlemingsGhost]

19. Whatever the scenario, I agree Gore crossed the DLC ...

and they abandoned him at the most critical moments.

The DLC is firmly in control of the Party, folks. If one is left of "center-right," there is little to embrace. I submit that regardless of the outcome in November, there will be a significant fracturing of the Party, as "hold-your-nose Democrats" begin their exodus.