More blogosphere fallout from the KOS article on Hillary

[wyldwolf]

Markos Moulitsas just may be becoming the polarizing type he accuses Hillary Clinton of being. Of course, when your mission is to rally idealogical troops without concern for ever having to appear on the national stage as a candidate, being polarizing isn't necessarily a bad thing.

The latest KOS brouhaha is his op-ed from the Washington Post where he contends Hillary Clinton is too much like Bill Clinton to win a national election. I covered it in another post as well. He also implies Bill Clinton is to blame for our electoral failures in 2000, 2002 and 2004. Knowing KOS the way I do, he probably would have rather used the term "DLC" instead of Bill Clinton. He extends his implication into the last several election cycles as well, saying "Bill Clinton" is to blame for our electoral failures in 2000, 2002 and 2004.

Joe Gandelman over at The Moderate Voice chimes in:

Our view? Putting aside Hillary Clinton, here's how we see it.

The roots of the Democratic party's present tensions actually go back before the McGovernites. Many people don't remember, but in 1968 when Senator Eugene McCarthy essentially forced LBJ out of the race and Senator Robert Kennedy jumped in McCarthy and his followers were extremely bitter. They considered Kennedy a usurper: he wasn't the REAL Democratic liberal, because he was a Bobby-Come-Lately to being anti-war, and got into the race right at the time when McCarthy seemed to be catching on.

RFK was murdered, McCarthy fizzled (in 1968 and as a national candidate in the future), Vice President Hubert Humphrey ran — and Richard Nixon won. Twice.

The McGovernites were passionate anti-war activists... They were dedicated, progressive political activists in a time before "netroots." They took over the Democratic party. And lost. But their influence within the party remained dominant. If history proved them correct in their views on the Vietnam war (and some still dispute that), their sometimes politically toe-stubbing, take-no-prisoners rhetoric turned many Americans off. There WAS what Richard Nixon called "the great, silent majority" — and TGSM wasn't with the McGovernites and the way they pitched their ideas. The McGovernites were a Godsend to many Republicans for years.

What did Clinton do? If you go back and re-read the news accounts, he did indeed look for a "third way" and as he campaigned he seemed like a salesman trying to overcome a skeptical prospect's objections. On many issues on which the McGovernite/left-wing of the party seemed to alienate the majority of Americans, Clinton came up with a different plan. Or, at least, a more conciliatory, inclusive tone.

Yes. In a way he "stole the thunder" of the Republicans, moving his party (kicking and screaming in some instances) to the center of the American political spectrum, scrapping some positions that lost in the past and moving closer to positions that would incorporate a Democratic approach with a Republican approach.

YES: Clinton was NOT a leftist Democratic president. But he was one who knew how to look at the panorama of America and build coalitions that went beyond just appealing to his party's own base.

Today, we see George Bush's government by the base, for the base and of the base.

The cautionary note for the "netroots" is that they are in danger of becoming a mirror image of just that: insisting on an ideological purity that will eventually only reflect a segment of the Democratic party's base (so just where will the other Democrats GO?).

But Bill Clinton? He knew how to win elections.

Which is slightly important — and admirable — in politics.

It's always nice to get a refresher course in recent party history. I particularly like the warning Gandelman gives the netroots about becoming a mirror image of George Bush's government by the base, for the base and of the base.

Taylor Marsh adds this:

Hillary, according to Moulitsas, may also be too much like Bill Clinton, which leads him to this premise: Bill Clinton is to blame for our electoral failures in 2000, 2002 and 2004. I couldn't disagree with him more strongly...

Bill Clinton was by no means a perfect president. However, in the end he won two terms in office, had effective policies and is still one of the only people who can go anywhere in this country and fit in, be welcomed and cheered. People are currently pining for the days of Bill. Consider me one of those people. Clinton's appeal and wins are because he started out as the "original average Joe," who could sell strip club stock to born again Christians. His failings come in the same package, but the man knows how to win. At least Moulitsas adds that "eight years of peace and prosperity is nothing to sneeze at." If not a sneeze, then Moulitsas delivers a hacking cough.

Senator Hillary Clinton has many challenges going forward towards 2008, but one of them isn't because she's "too much of a Clinton Democrat..." Hillary's biggest problem is that she isn't Bill. It's not that she's "too much of a Clinton Democrat," but that she's not enough of what Bill Clinton remains.

Bill Clinton didn't cause our losses in 2000, 2002 and 2004. But if you believe he did get ready to lose some more.

[aquart]

1. I don't find Hillary remotely like Bill.

which is my problem with her. that and her votes.

[enough already]

74. She doesn't have his instincts, skills or charm

Bill would have never trashed an entire generation of young people the way Hillary did recently. He instinctively knew better. She will be a disaster as the presidential candidate.

[Liberal Dose]

2. Someone needs to bring back the base of the party. We are sick of having

our concerns kicked aside in favor of politicians trying to appeal to people who will NEVER VOTE FOR THEM. The republicans are not interested in a war on drugs or terror. The only war they're interested in fighting is the one on US. WE are their only enemy, and they are polarized against us.
I will NOT vote for or promote ANYONE who thinks Republican-lite is the answer in these desperate times. :grr:

Quote:
YES: Clinton was NOT a leftist Democratic president. But he was one who knew how to look at the panorama of America and build coalitions that went beyond just appealing to his party's own base.

[Pithy Cherub]

3. That is fallout? kos 1,000,000 visits per day,

The Moderate Voice may get one comma in their viewership number. kos's & DU's reach are far greater and more powerful. kos's very good analysis hasn't impacted his drawing power.

[wyldwolf]

4. Fallout defined:

fall·out ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fôlout)
n.

1. The slow descent of minute particles of debris in the atmosphere following an explosion, especially the descent of radioactive debris after a nuclear explosion.
2. The particles that descend in this fashion.
3. An incidental result or side effect: “Other social trends also have psychiatric fallout, and the people who suffer can't afford treatment” (Martha Farnsworth Riche).

But thank you for your irrelevant comment. :)

[Pithy Cherub]

7. See real "fallout" on kos's front page on Clinton sycophant Begala.

[wyldwolf]

14. Fallout is fallout

But I would be glad to read what you've mentioned.

[blm]

5. I agree in part, but Clinton DID effect 2002 and 2004 by offering so much

PUBLIC SUPPORT of Bush for his decisions. Pretty hard when Kerry is out there with red flags on Tora Bora and Bill and other key Dems wouldn't give him backup on it.

Pretty hard when Bill barely acknowledges IranContra in his 2004 book, and doesn't even mention BCCI, at all.

Clinton had the advantage during his election campaign of Kerry's investigatory work on IranContra and BCCI providing bad headlines for Bush1 for YEARS, especially in 92.

Kerry had Clinton SUPPORTING Bush 2 on most foreign policy.

[w4rma]

76. I agree with you, blm. (nt)

[flpoljunkie]

102. You won't catch either of them sticking their triangulating necks out to

take a stand on any issue. We need leadership, not cautiousness and hugging the middle of the road.

As for Kos, how can you take him seriously when he seemingly supports both Mark Warner, DLC chosen centrist candidate and Russ Feingold. Makes little sense to me--except Feingold won his last presidential poll, and had recently offered the censure resolution.

Speaking of Feingold, CBS news just showed the clip where Feingold said that having attended yesterday's briefing, he was more convinced than ever the NSA program was illegal.

[sandnsea]

108. Maybe it's the cautiousness and slow lead car

that you object to, not so much someone driving down the middle of the road. A hummer going 90 mph in the right direction should be in the middle of the road, especially if it's clearing the path for everybody behind it to get somewhere in a hurry. What we've got with Hillary, imho, is that annoying lead car that's blocking traffic from both directions in order to take one huge shipment (corporations) down the road.

[killerbush]

6. Totally agree wyldwolf

Markos is an idiot!!! He has the freaking gaul to blame Clinton for the Democrats losing, that he just doesn't understand that it's people like him who are the downfall of the party. His total lack of understanding of the peoples mood with liberalism and the Democratic party is stunning. The last legally elected president was not a liberal. Democrats have to learn that liberals in general, especially with people in the south and intermoutain west just don't trust that ideology.Bill had the charisma, had the ideas, and had the knowledge to overcome the Republican slime machine. It isn't that Hillary is too much like Bill, Markos doesn't like the fact that Hillary isn't more like him!!!

[adigal]

10. We lost the south and the mountain west

with moderate John Kerry. Maybe a real populist would stir those being hurt by the goverment to get out and vote and take America back from the pro-corporate Clintons.

[iconoclastNYC]

24. Exactly

It's the politics of contrast. If the D.C. Insiders and the DLC keep blackballing populist liberal candidates they shouldn't be surprised when one of them breaks away from the party and takes 10-15% of the party with them.

All i want is the DLC and the D.C. insiders to stop meddling with the primaries. No more coordinated attack ads on the front runner populist candidate. And I want a national primary.

[Clark2008]

49. But he wasn't seen as moderate, you see.

He was seen as an out-of-touch flaming liberal.

Blame the media, blame the lack of Democratic infrastructure in these states, hell, blame Kerry's handlers, but the fact remains is that unless we put forth a true liberal populist who people in the South and mid-West SEE as a moderate and stop conceding these states, we won't win.

But, once we do - then we can change the media, which will help the most. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

[Meldread]

75. Actually, that's now how anyone I know really saw it...

I live in a Southern State, one that is a deep purple that may eventually turn blue, the State of Virginia. I only know one person who was angry at John Kerry and accused him of being a liberal. Everyone generally speaking regards her as crazy, because she believes Bush is sexy (her words), and in all honesty we believe if given the opportunity she would become (as we not-so-affectionately call her behind her back) "Bush's Monica".

The VAST, VAST majority of the people I talked to and know personally kept wondering how Kerry would be different from Bush. Almost the universal response was: "It doesn't really matter who wins, nothing will change." Over half of those people voted for Bush in his first term hoping he'd be like Poppy or Ray-gun. Most of those people, ended up "holding their nose" and voting for Kerry in Bush's re-election. I was so certain we would win in 2004.

It isn't about being a liberal, a moderate, or a conservative. It's about issues. People don't give a flying fuck what you call yourself, they just want to know if you are going to give them jobs, healthcare, education, crime prevention and stay the hell out of their private lives. That's all they want. Liberals are the only people willing to give them that, and that is why they will embrace a liberal ideology. Yet when they see a wishy-washy guy up there talking about topics instead of issues, they just shrug their shoulders and say, "What does it matter?"

ANYONE who believes the talking head crap really needs to get their asses out there and talk with other everyday Americans. A Populist Candidate from the Democratic Party would just... dominate. Americans, at least not the Americans I know, do not want a politician they want a leader.

I'll repeat it again: Most American's don't give a fuck what you call yourself, Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Moderate or Conservative. They just want to know what you are going to do for them. If a politician can't articulate what they are going to to do for the American people (other than screw them over), then frankly, they don't deserve to be re-elected or be in politics. As liberals, we should set out to articulate a vision for America, one that plays heavily to a populist rhetoric, forget what the pundits say and just be ourselves. Americans will do the voting, and on the day after the election heads will explode when the Democrat wins. (Assuming of course, he or she is not assassinated by someone from the DLC first.)

[benEzra]

81. Nailed it...

People don't give a flying fuck what you call yourself, they just want to know if you are going to give them jobs, healthcare, education, crime prevention and stay the hell out of their private lives. That's all they want.

Nailed it.

But the party leadership does need to realize that "staying the hell out of people's private lives" also includes staying out of their gun safe, out of their medicine cabinet (Senator Feinstein's crusade against Sudafed comes to mind), and not trying to be everybody's mother against their will. If I wanted someone to run my life for me, I'd join a cult and pay somebody to... That goes for both the right AND the left...

[MrBenchley]

100. Yeah, Ben, that's who we should reach out (snicker)

armed boobs who run a meth lab,,,,

"I'd join a cult"
You're already part of the gun rights cult, eager to swallow any crap they ladle out, no matter how dishonest.

[benEzra]

106. So you agree with the Sudafed/Nyquil restrictions/bans?

My wife is afraid to buy Sudafed now because of NC's draconian law--if you forget and buy two packages each paycheck (2 wks), instead of going 2, 1, 2, 1, you are suddenly a CRIMINAL. And now we have the Federal law that Feinstein teamed up with W and the right-wingers to pass...

Contrary to Ms. Feinstein's belief (and yours, apparently), the overwhelming majority of people who use Sudafed and the old Nyquil do NOT run meth labs...

Nyquil is now off the market, with a less-effective subsitute taking its place under the same name. Wal-mart is busily trying to steer consumers and manufacturers into using phenylephrine (CRAP, way less effective than pseudoephedrine) because of the zealots looking over their shoulder. Meanwhile, meth continues to be smuggled into this country disguised as routine cocaine shipments...

[MrBenchley]

111. Armed imbeciles with meth labs.....

"My wife is afraid to buy Sudafed now"
Guess all your guns aren't doing you much good, then.

[Clark2008]

104. Well, I'm in Tennessee and that's what happened here

Everyone I know who was on the fence went with Bush because they saw John Kerry as an out-of-touch liberal.

You must hang out with only left-leaners (save that one woman).

[Nederland]

82. Name one state in the south or west

...that we would have won with a more liberal candidate. Take your time.

[killerbush]

101. John Kerry is NO moderate

He's about as far left as Ted Kennedy. Moderate my ass.

[Placebo]

11. Right on!

:yourock:

[adigal]

8. What is the saying "To gain the world and lose your soul.

What is the use of having a pro-war, pro-big government Democrat as president when they still follow policies that screw the little guy? What have the Democrats won then, if Hillary is president??

[papau]

12. With Hill we get single payer national health/minimum wage/jobs

I'll take it.

[manic expression]

19. We'll see

of course, I have no reason to say that such improvements would not happen under a H Clinton admn, but I am skeptical. With Bill, we got the end of welfare (and any fool can tell you how wrong that is).

I'm just saying.

[wyldwolf]

20. the end of welfare?

In what universe?

[manic expression]

21. Yes

Did you happen to miss the welfare reform Clinton signed into law. Don't be fooled by "reform", because it practically did away with the entire system.

To paraphrase a US government and politics textbook: "(This) ended the US government's guarantee of support to the poor" (or something like that). Translation: the reform ended welfare.

[wyldwolf]

28. I'm not "fooled" by anything. Welfare is alive and well

I know people on it.

[manic expression]

32. Welfare, as we knew it

is effectively gone. There is support for the poor, but it is not welfare as it existed before those reforms, not by a long shot.

Welfare to work programs are very common, even though if forces single mothers and other people to work their asses off for scraps (making the situation worse). And even then, only 37% of single mothers receive any kind of support anyway (the average support is about $1,331 a year).

Anyway, even the best case scenario of welfare is not even half of a solution to the problem of poverty. It's time to actually give society a shred of equity. Until we try to HELP those in need to get what they need instead of giving them JUST enough to survive (sometimes far less), nothing will really change.

[wyldwolf]

34. such caveats!

First you said, With Bill, we got the end of welfare

THEN you said, Don't be fooled by "reform", because it practically did away with the entire system.

THEN you said, Welfare, as we knew it is effectively gone.

The fact is, you're repeating KOS-like talking points with no stats to back your claims.

[manic expression]

35. Sure...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_reform

Enjoy.

[wyldwolf]

43. hardly sound like the end of welfare or even welfare as we know it.

[manic expression]

56. Clinton himself would disagree

he even said as much.

[wyldwolf]

59. He said as such? He said he would end welfare?

He said what was in the link you gave?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_reform


Would you like to discuss your statement?

[manic expression]

60. Of course

"The stage was already set by 1996. Bill Clinton, a Democratic President, had promised to 'end welfare as we know it' in his State of the Union Address."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_reform

Would you like to discuss that statement?

[wyldwolf]

63. sure

1. He said he would end welfare as we know it, but he didn't end welfare as you said he did.
2. The details of the welfare reform plan given at the wiki link certainly didn't "end welfare as we knew it." It was an almost exact duplicate of provisions from the Family Support Act of 1988.
3. Even after the welfare reform package was passed in the 90s, welfare spending continued to rise.

[manic expression]

64. Oh?

The welfare reform did effectively end the welfare system that had existed up to that point. You can consult the US government and politics textbook I've been using that states exactly that:

http://www.directtextbook.com/prices/0314204954

I just dug these up:

Look here:



See where it starts to dip?

Here, too:



It dips at much the same place, around 1996.

This also sees a drop in major areas:



Those are all from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, by the way.

[wyldwolf]

68. oh, yes

I never said the amount of recipients of welfare didn't go down - as your graphs indicate. Any entity, for example a company, can have a drop off in business but it doesn't mean the business has changed. But the amount spent on welfare in the several years after the reforms went into effect did change and the overall effect of welfare didn't change, or, end (as you say) or even "end as we know it."

Here are some some stats from a Harvard Magazine report:

... 2002, when the welfare legislation was set to expire... that year the welfare rolls were less than half their size in 1996. Female-headed families with children were less likely to receive welfare benefits than at any point in at least 40 years. The magnitude of the change surpassed everyone's predictions. Even more remarkably, however, the official poverty rate among female-headed families with children — based on $14,500 for a woman with two children in 2002 — had fallen from 42 percent to 34 percent during this period. At no time between 1959 (when the Census Bureau first began tabulating such data) and 1996 had this figure dropped below 40 percent.

Our research leads us to conclude that welfare reform did not increase material hardship among single mothers and their children and may well have helped reduce it. That was because the reform was part of a larger package of policy changes including a more generous Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a higher minimum wage, and expanded childcare subsidies. These policy changes were politically dependent on one another. Congress expanded the EITC in order to help single mothers make ends meet when they took low-wage jobs, and it raised the minimum wage within days of passing welfare reform for the same reason. Likewise, the money that states saved by reducing their welfare caseloads was often used to expand childcare subsidies. Taken together, these changes constitute what we will call the "welfare-reform package."

Predictions of widespread destitution turned out to be wrong for three reasons. First, some of the law's provisions were not as severe as critics assumed. States were supposed to require a rising fraction of their caseloads to participate in work-oriented activities, but any reduction in a state's welfare rolls below the 1995 level counted toward the required target. In 2002, 50 percent of welfare recipients were to be engaged in work activities, but if a state's caseload had fallen by 50 percent since 1995 — as was commonly the case — then the work requirement was fulfilled. The dramatic decline in welfare receipt greatly eased pressure on states to force the least-able women toward work. Another example is what happened with the seemingly draconian five-year lifetime limit on welfare receipt, which states were allowed to shorten even further. Many did so. But states have considerable flexibility in determining who is subject to time limits: they may exempt 20 percent of their caseload from time limits on federal funding. Furthermore, time limits may be waived in practice for the vast majority of recipients assisted by state funds. As a result, states can substitute federal and state funds as needed to retain longer-term recipients

Those who predicted disaster may also have underestimated the magnitude of the increase in government support for low-income workers. President Clinton's talk of "ending welfare as we know it" referred not just to negative incentives for single mothers to avoid or exit welfare, but also to positive incentives to join the workforce. The welfare-reform legislation included some of these incentives, such as greater childcare spending and stricter enforcement of child-support responsibilities. Expansion of the EITC, the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and a minimum-wage increase were enacted separately, but they were still linked to welfare reform politically.

The EITC, a tax credit that goes to working parents with low earnings, is refundable, so it is essentially a cash benefit for those with no income-tax liability. For a minimum-wage worker with two children, the EITC has the same effect as a 40 percent increase in annual earnings.

SCHIP provides health coverage to children from low-income families who are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. Because Medicaid eligibility also expanded over the course of the late 1980s and 1990s, all children in families with incomes less than 185 percent of the poverty line — roughly $34,500 for a married couple with two children in 2003 — are eligible today for health coverage through Medicaid or SCHIP

Overall, a fascinating study detailing how built-in provisions and companion legislation actually put welfare recipients and former recipients in an identical and sometimes better position than welfare had done.

http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/110489.html

Although many opponents of welfare reform predicted that it would increase hardship, the official poverty rate for female headed families with children fell from 42 percent in 1996 to 34 percent in 2002. Skeptics have nonetheless argued that declines in official poverty rates may have been accompanied by increases in material hardship, since single mothers who entered the labor market often incurred new expenses and lost valuable noncash benefits. We investigate this possibility using the Current Population Survey’s Food Security Supplement. Food-related problems declined among mother-only families between 1995 and 2000 and rose between 2000 and 2002, but the decline was far larger than the subsequent increase. These changes parallel changes in the official poverty rate during the same years. In contrast to previous economic expansions, the proportional decline in poverty during the late-1990s was at least as large among mother-only families as among two-parent families. We argue that this change was linked to welfare reform and other social policy changes that encouraged single mothers to enter the labor force. As a result, single mothers’ material standard of living probably improved more during this economic expansion than during earlier ones.

http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP04-027/$File/rwp04_027_Winship_Jencks.pdf

I would suggest you examine the graph on page 40 from the US Bureau of the Census AND Administration for Children and Families that show the poverty rate among welfare families declining to below 40% for the first time in over 30 years after welfare reform.

(Scott Winship is a doctoral student in the sociology and social policy program at the Kennedy School of Government. Christopher Jencks is Wiener professor of social policy at the school.)

----------------------------------------------------------

[manic expression]

88. Oh, wow

First, the fact that people started to get out of poverty at that point had little to do with welfare reform. In reality, it was due to the economic upswing. Secondly, Your studies mention nothing of the fact that single mothers are now forced to work for no gains, and you ignore the fact that families headed by a single parent are 5 times more likely to be in poverty.

So because some people started getting out of poverty, it was because of welfare reform? Pure foolishness.



See that? It started dropping before the reforms went into effect (at around 1994). That means that the reforms had nothing to do with the trend at all. As you can also see, the rate of poverty started to climb very sharply in 2000, continuing today. If welfare reform was the reason for the drop in poverty, why would this trend occur? Easy: because welfare reform was never the reason.

(image from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States)

Oh, and this is without mentioning that the poor are effectively screwed over by these policies.

[wyldwolf]

89. oh, it was just a coincidence? LOL

no, the entire welfare reform package and companion legislation did it. You either didn't read the provided study or you have your fingers in your ears going "lalalalalalala"

[manic expression]

91. Oh, you didn't read what I posted?

There was a very strong economic upswing before and after that point. You can see the poverty level dropping BEFORE THE REFORM WENT INTO EFFECT on the graph in my previous post. 4 years after the reforms, the poverty level started to rise again, which means the reforms had nothing to do with the initial pattern. Interestingly, those on welfare were given 5 years to get off of welfare, and the poverty level started to rise at just around that exact point.

Riddle me this: why did the poverty level start to drop BEFORE the package was passed? Why did it rise a mere 4 years later?

Until you actually respond to my arguments, you are the one with your head firmly buried in sand.

[wyldwolf]

93. no, you clearly said...

...in post 64, See where it starts to dip? in reference to poverty and welfare reform. Now you're saying there was a very strong economic upswing before and after that point.

Contradictory.

[manic expression]

95. A reference

that shows people on welfare started to recieve less and less at that point. That doesn't mean more people were poor or more people were rich (even if you cut off welfare entirely, it wouldn't make more people poor, it would just inflict terrible troubles on those who are). However, you tried to make the case that the welfare reforms were in some way the reason poverty started to decrease, and that is patently false.

[wyldwolf]

98. no, you said they dipped into poverty at that point

..and then contradicted yourself.

You're making this up as you go, working Google in overime trying to make your point. But you're showing a severe lack of knowledge on the topic and of its history. You need more than a 1968 reference point.

[manic expression]

114. Looking for this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2626689&mesg_id=2630598

If so, I said that "it dips". The graphs clearly refer to the benefits and support people were recieving, which undeniably took a huge dip at the point of reforms. This indicates how the poor were being mercilessly screwed, thanks to the efforts of Clinton and the Republicans.

You have also failed to address the fact that people did not get out of poverty because of the reforms, as the trend started prior to their passing, as well as the fact that poverty is now increasing after the reforms have gone into effect. You can ignore it as much as you like, but it won't make you any less wrong.

[manic expression]

65. More

From the wiki article:

"One of the bill's provisions was a time limit. Under the law, no person could receive welfare payments for more than five years, consecutive or nonconsecutive.

Another controversial change was transferring welfare to a block grant system, i.e. one in which the federal government gives states "blocks" of money, which the states then distribute under their own legislation and criteria. Some states simply kept the federal rules, but others used the money for non-welfare programs, such as subsidized childcare (to allow parents to work) or subsidized public transportation (to allow people to travel to work without owning cars)."

OK, first, people get kicked off of the system after 5 years (which means they are left to the wolves, regardless of what their situation is). Secondly, it is widely known that the states are completely apathetic when it comes to the poor and welfare. Using block grants only ensures that most of that money doesn't go anywhere near helping the needy.

[wyldwolf]

62. certainly

1. He said he would end welfare as we know it, but he didn't end welfare as you said he did.
2. The details of the welfare reform plan given at the wiki link certainly didn't "end welfare as we knew it." It was an almost exact duplicate of provisions from the Family Support Act of 1988.
3. Even after the welfare reform package was passed in the 90s, welfare spending continued to rise.

[Andromeda]

31. Not true.

Welfare is still there as a safety net for those who need it. The only thing that's changed is the work incentive program which is mandatory. I consider that a plus since it offers incentives for recipients to be productive members of society.

It's not perfect but for the most part it's been pretty successful.

[manic expression]

33. Please

the "incentives" force people to work for wages that get them only pennies more than they would get while on welfare. How is that an incentive when you are working over 60 hours a week in very hard positions? That's exploitation. They are not "productive members of society", they are "productive for those they serve and not themselves". Single mothers are now made to work long hours while their kids are who knows where doing who knows what (and really, do you want to know?). People are made to work without reaping a solitary benefit or a single net gain. That's not "incentive", that's oppression, and that's incensive.

Yeah, 18,000 people dying every year because they can't afford health insurance is "pretty successful"; 67% of single mothers without any support of any kind is "pretty successful"; people forced onto the streets after they couldn't make rent because someone got sick, or got accused of stealing at their job, or couldn't find work, or had to pay off another bill, or had something stolen (probably by another impoverished person) is "pretty successful"; having someone get their food stamps cut off because they were lucky enough to get a raise, which actually makes it just as hard to get by (I'm not making this up) is "pretty successful"; Vietnam vets freezing to death under bridges and people dying because they didn't have blankets or heat during the winter is "pretty successful"....

:sarcasm:

:puke:

[iconoclastNYC]

37. Great reply! Bravo.

It's astonishing how many heartless democrats hold positions of leadership in our party.

Our party needs to return to its traditional* values such as public policy guided by compasion and community.

* - pre Regan Democrats

[Andromeda]

103. Have you ever been on welfare?

I have. I was a single mother struggling to support a child while working for a low wage and taking classes at PSU at the same time. This was long before Bill Clinton was president.

At the time I was on welfare nobody could go to school and receive welfare at the same time in the state of Oregon. I went before the board and begged and pleaded to be able to go to school while supporting my daughter with assistance. The money I received wasn't much and we barely survived on it but I knew it wouldn't be permanent. The board consented to accommodate me, but for only a limited period of time. When my benefits ended I chose to work through the work study program at the university---for pennies, and I got student loans to cover the rest of my expenses. It was tough but we survived.

I don't know of a single person in my situation who didn't want to work. They were on welfare because they didn't have a job or didn't have the skills to get a decent job. They knew that if they went to school that they would lose their welfare benefits and so they stayed home without any hope to get out of poverty.

I could quit work, stay home and draw welfare or go back to school, get a degree and get a higher paying job. That made more sense to me, after all living on welfare is not the kind of lifestyle you choose---it just happens to be there if you need it and it was never meant to be permanent.

Don't lecture me on "life" because I've lived a long time and have been through more than you'll ever know and there is no way you could appreciate that because you don't know me.

Most people would rather work and have some self-esteem and if they don't have job skills they would be more than willing to learn skills that would enable them to be self-supporting. I would have jumped at the chance but at that time they didn't offer you a way to get out of dependency on welfare. You had to make your own way which made it a lot harder to improve your situation.

[manic expression]

115. So

you've been on welfare. Did it help? Would you have rather been unable to get welfare benefits? If you answered yes to any of those questions, that shows that the system, while woefully insufficient to alleviate poverty, was one that did help. Clinton's reforms did away with them. Today, a single mother who works through the welfare to work programs will earn only scarcely more than if she was receiving full benefits. I ask you again, how is that an incentive? Full time minimum wage jobs are, as you most likely know, terribly underpaying and very demanding. While on these welfare to work programs, it's understandably hard to get an education at a high level, working such hours (among other demands). I ask you, how is being an under-payed, overworked waitress or cook or maid etc. being a "productive member of society"? People who are made to work in such conditions are only productive for those on the top, not for society.

As to those people who stayed at home for those reasons, that is not unreasonable. It is not their fault there are no jobs available to them which pay decently. It is not their fault rent and other expenses are ridiculously high. Where the fault lies is with the system which gives them the option of not working and getting very little money or working extraordinarily hard and receiving little better (sometimes "little better" can turn into "worse"). Again, I do think the system has changed, and for the definite worse.

Were you off of welfare before the reforms went into effect? If so, the reforms were exactly what I was talking about, and I do suspect that your situation would have been considerably altered had the reforms been enforced at the time.

And about my lack of personal, intimate experience on the subject? I don't need to be hit by a truck to know that it hurts. What today's economy, and the response from the state does to people is little different.

[bobbieinok]

57. and isn't there a 5 year limit??? people left Clinton's adm when

he co-opted the republican anti-welfare program.......and the republicans were furious with him

[wyldwolf]

58. Welfare reform...

... was advocated by Roosevelt, JFK, and RFK.

Clinton's welfare to work program was based on a plan by JFK.

It wasn't anti-welfare and it wasn't co-opted from the Republicans.

[manic expression]

66. No way

it was passed and pushed by the Republican Congress. I don't care who you say served as the historical inspiration for the bill, it did effectively end welfare, as has been demonstrated thoroughly.

By the way, was welfare even around when FDR was first in office?

[wyldwolf]

69. yes way

All mentioned Presidents advocated welfare reform.

[manic expression]

87. Not in the same way

Please, if you think what was passed had anything to do with the visions of those presidents, you are fooling yourself. As mentioned before, it was mostly due to the Republican conservative demands.

Also, you didn't answer my question: was welfare even around when FDR was first in office?

[wyldwolf]

90. most definitely

was welfare even around when FDR was first in office?

I forget you don't read much. Welfare was put into place during the great depression.
After FDR did this, he said:

A large proportion of these unemployed and their dependents have been forced on the relief rolls. The burden on the Federal Government has grown with great rapidity. We have here a human as well as an economic problem. When humane considerations are concerned, Americans give them precedence. The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole our relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of a sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers.

The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief.

[manic expression]

92. Well,

it only took you a few posts.

If you are seriously saying that what FDR said 60 years ago has any bearing on what Clinton and the Republicans did in the 90's, you are delusional. Furthermore, FDR was saying that people who had lost their jobs needed jobs to get them off of welfare, not that the government should kick them off after 5 years.

[wyldwolf]

94. well...

If you are seriously saying that what FDR said 60 years ago has any bearing on what Clinton and the Republicans did in the 90's, you are delusional.

Prove I'm delusional. Prove what FDR said had no bearing on the 90s welfare reform.

Furthermore, FDR was saying that people who had lost their jobs needed jobs to get them off of welfare, not that the government should kick them off after 5 years.

Right. But also welfare would have to end. He proposed a welfare to work program much like Kennedy and Johnson proposed and was borrowed by Clinton.

See, the problem with the far left is they have scant knowledge of party history.

[manic expression]

96. I did

"Prove I'm delusional. Prove what FDR said had no bearing on the 90s welfare reform."

OK. Read a history book and look at the differences in the economy of the Great Depression vs the 80's and 90's. Want more proof? How about the fact that at least 60 years of socioeconomic change had occurred (ever hear of the "White Flight"?). Seriously, get a grip.

"Right. But also welfare would have to end. He proposed a welfare to work program much like Kennedy and Johnson proposed and was borrowed by Clinton.

See, the problem with the far left is they have scant knowledge of party history."

FDR wanted people to get jobs, but didn't encourage a plan that would kick anyone off of the welfare rolls. That's exactly what Clinton, the Republicans and people like yourself have accomplished. No one wants impoverished people NOT to get jobs, that's not the point of welfare; welfare alleviates, by virtual necessity, the problems and burdens thrust upon those with the least. It is simply unreasonable and cruel to expect a single mother, or a single father, or a couple for that matter, to work the only jobs available to them, minimum wage jobs, and simultaneously provide sufficiently for themselves or their kids. Refusing to aid those in poverty, which is what the welfare reform clearly did, is condemning those in poverty to further suffering.

FDR, on the other hand, wanted people to get jobs that would sustain the worker and his/her (mostly his, at this point in history) family. At the same time, he recognized the obvious necessity and correct reasoning for such programs. Must I remind you that he was the person who rammed such programs into law?

I would post a similarly snide comment about centrists and apologists, but I would most likely break DU rules. However, know this: the far left didn't sign into law a very conservative and Republican measure, one that is undeniably wrong and unjust, and one that has left countless people out in the cold.

[wyldwolf]

99. no you didn't. Your posts are getting more vague by the post

Your hurling "facts" out of your butt to fill in the holes of a naive set of beliefs.

FDR wanted to end welfare as his SOTU speech clearly showed.

He created work programs and training to achieve it.

As was proposed by JFK, LBJ, Ted Kennedy in 1988, and Clinton.

A comparison of the economies, as you proposd, only bolsters my argument. The 90s was the time for reform.

[manic expression]

113. And your meaningless

insults do nothing to hide the fact that you have nothing. There is little "vague" about my posts, but perhaps an inability to comprehend logic may make it seem that way.

If what you posted was FDR's SOTU, that shows that his aims were not nearly in line with what Clinton and the Republicans did some 60 years later. FDR had work programs, while Clinton just kicked people off of support after a few years. Any idiot could tell you that those two "reforms" have nothing to do with one another.

The fact is that every Democratic politician and leader in history could've proposed "welfare reform", but the NATURE of the proposal is what matters. You need to come to grips with the reality that the reform of Clinton was pushed almost completely by the Republicans, and Clinton effectively ended support for countless people simply because he bowed to their political strength.

You have bolstered the viewpoint that your argument is as mistaken as it is insane. You cannot seriously believe that the economy of the Great Depression was remotely like the economy of the early 90's (not to mention an obscene amount of socioeconomic shifts, such as the rise of suburbia). If you are really saying that, you need to read up, a lot. Furthermore, the only reason the 90's became a time for reform was because the rabid conservatives had been pushing against support for the poor. The economy was recovering and soon thriving at the point of the reforms Clinton signed into law, so once again, you are simply incorrect.

[adigal]

22. With Hillary, these ideas will be demonized

and have less chance of getting through.

[iconoclastNYC]

25. Sure.

Because Bill lived up to all of his campaign promises right? Because he whipped his Democratic congress so effectivly and got us Universal healthcare.

No he didn't. And Hillary would have even less of a chance doing it. Hillary is a sell out. I want a real progressive Leader. Not a corporate Democrat from the DLC machine.

[Clark2008]

50. If that's true, why didn't her group push that under her huband?

:shrug:

[Placebo]

9. Good to know I'm not the only one who thinks this way!

Trashing Bill Clinton and the Clinton legacy is an easy way to win points among a lot of the so-called "netroots", especially if you throw "DLC" in there, but it is not going to get us anywhere if your goal is to win elections.

If the majority of Americans still, to this day, would rather have Clinton as president than Bush, that should tell us something; and that "something" is not to join the republican party in tearing down the one democrat America appears to still overwhelmingly approve of.

"But if you believe he did get ready to lose some more." -- Amen.

[wyldwolf]

15. I would venture to say that the reason KOS didn't use the term "DLC..."

...is because the rank and file voter doesn't have a clue what the DLC is.

[Armstead]

13. Bullshit analysis -- Truth interspersed with a lot of "merde"

It's true that there was a pressure to take the Democratic Party further to the left than the "center majority' in the 1960's and early 70's.

But the answer was NOT to abandon liberalism or to gloss over the very real issues that "the left" was raising. And the answer was NOT to become partners with the GOP in gutting eonomic democracy and turning the whole damn country over to the Corporate Elite and replacing all humanistic values with the Religion of the Bottom Line.

The so-called "center" today is far right -- thanks both to the GOP and to Corporate Democrats like Bill Clinton and the DLC.

The fucking Democrats could have kept this country on a TRUE middle course if the party establishment had taken what the "left" was saying and put it into a more palatable package combined with traditional economic liberalism and progressive popoulism.

Instead they hve helped to create a situation where it is necessary to seem "radical" just to get back some reasonzble balance and undo the damage of the last 30 yers.

[TayTay]

18. Clinton 'won' by selling out the base of the Dem Party

He acquired the soft, socially liberal Wall Street types and sold out working America on NAFTA and other economic issues. He 'won' (even though he never got a majority of votes cast in either 1992 or 1996) by pretending to not be a Democrat.

No thanks. Never again.

[liberalpragmatist]

16. Democrats made gains in '96, '98, and '00

Bill Clinton was not a perfect president and some of his policies should stand up for debate. Kos blames Clinton for making Democrats weaker than they were in '92. That's a simplistic analysis. The fact is, the Democratic majority in Congress rested on the support of conservative Southern Democrats who were drifting towards the GOP. It would have happened some day anyway; due to Clinton's disastrous first two years, it happened in '94, but it otherwise would have happened at some other time. Those were NOT seats that were lost because Clinton was not liberal enough.

After that, the Democratic Party made gains in Congress and in the governorships in every subsequent election through 2000. In 2004 even, polls showed that few voters thought that Kerry would be a "tax and spend"-type. That was the biggest knock against Democrats and Bill Clinton firmly undid that perception; Neither Kerry nor Gore suffered from that but from other factors.

[iconoclastNYC]

26. 1994 - Democrats lose 54 seats in the house

"The U.S. House election, 1994 was an election for the United States House of Representatives in 1994 which occurred in the middle of President Bill Clinton's first term. As a result of a 54-seat swing in membership from Democrats to Republicans, the Republican Party gained a majority of seats in the House for the first time since 1954."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._House_election,_1994

I'd argue it was because Democrats were so disallusioned by Clintons sell-out agenda that they didn't bother to campaign or get out and vote.

[wyldwolf]

29. Your argument would be wrong.

[iconoclastNYC]

36. wow Clinton avatar disagrees with

My anti-Clinton statement with out so much as a word of text to back up his point of view. genius!

[wyldwolf]

44. Democratic Losses in 1994: The Quarterly Explanation

You know, I don't believe a far lefty can earn his stripes until he tries to make the argument that the Democrat's losses in 1994 were because of the DLC, Bill Clinton, or in this case "Bill Clinton's sell-out agenda." It must be in chapter 1 of their playbook. Some of them have to know it is a complete bogus argument, yet it certainly serves to motivate the two percenters against "the man!"

Every three months, the tired subject gets brought up again. I can just imagine the person who does it smiling, patting themselves on the back, and saying, Gotcha! Problem is, we've heard it all before and have debunked it before.

The poster linked to above proudly links to a Wikipedia article to prove that the Congressional losses did, indeed, happen (as thought we'd forgotten.) If you're into using Wiki. Check out the entry for "Rubber Gate"

The House banking scandal broke in early 1992 when it was revealed that the United States House of Representatives allowed members to overdraft their House checking accounts, but were not being penalized by the House Bank.

This is also sometimes known as Rubbergate (from "rubber" bounced checks and Watergate)... 77 Representatives resigned or did not run for reelection as a result of the scandal... In the early days of the scandal, when the media began reporting on the loose practices, Republican Minority Whip Newt Gingrich, along with 7 freshman Republicans referred to as the Gang of Seven or "The Young Turks," made the strategic decision to publicize the scandal in an attempt to sweep lawbreaking congressmen, most of them Democrats, out of power...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubbergate

Three things were at play in 1994 that caused the losses:

1. The Democratic party of the 70s and 80s and grown corrupt.
2. Americans were increasingly distrustful of the Government.
3. The Democratic party had moved left out of the mainstream and became the party of special interests.

The House Banking Scandal is a prime example of the corruption that was running rampant in Washington in the 7s and 80s, culminating with the Democrat's losses in 1994.

An article in the Boston Globe took up the issue of Democratic losses a week before the last presidential election. When a party holds power for too long, Adrian Wooldridge, reporter for The Economist, said in the article, "it grows fat and happy, it also grows corrupt." The classic example, he pointed out, is the Democratic Party of the 1970s and `80s, which, spoiled by generations of congressional power, "became a party of insiders and deal makers without any sense of the principles they stood for and eventually collapsed" when they were turned out in 1994.

Philip A. Klinkner, author of "Court and Country in American Politics: The Democratic Party and the 1994 Election," presents a very interesting and expansive theory concerning the major Democratic losses in 1994 that Wooldridge and Teixeira only touched on. Klinkner explains the circumstances surrounding the 1992 election provided ample evidence of a radically changed political environment. Several observers have commented on the growing volatility of the electorate since the late 1980s (Greider 1992; Phillips 1990, 1993, and 1994; Germond and Witcover 1993; Greenberg 1995). By most accounts, this phenomenon reached a new high in 1992, as voters expressed growing disgust with the federal government, elected officials, special interests, and politics in general, and a greater willingness to support outsider candidacies, even those of such diverse figures as Jerry Brown, Pat Buchanan, and Ross Perot.

By the early 1990s, distrust of the government, especially the entrenched power (that would be the Democrats) was evident among much of the public. In 1964, over 70 percent of the public said that they could trust Washington to do what was right most or all of the time; by early 1994, only 19 percent expressed similar confidence (Phillips 1994: 7). In 1964, when asked, "Would you say the government is run by a few big interests looking out for themselves or that it is run for the benefit of all people," nearly 40 percent more people agreed with the latter than with the former. In 1992 that sentiment had reversed itself, with 60 percent more people believing that the government was run for the benefit of special interests than those who believed it was run for the benefit of all. (Stanley and Niemi: 169).

As the party of governmental activism, the Democrats were bound to suffer from the rise of popular cynicism toward government. At the same time that Bill Clinton was winning the White House, voters preferred having "government cost less in taxes but provide fewer services" to having "government provide more services but cost more in taxes" by 54 to 38 percent (Milkis and Nelson 1994: 395). http://academics.hamilton.edu/government/pklinkne/94.htm

The more common explanation for the 1994 Republican Revolution, though, is that liberal Democratic ideals -- or at least the way they were presented -- no longer resonated with the majority of Americans. According to Ruy Teixeira, a fellow at the Center for American Progress and at the Century Foundation, the danger for the dominant party isn't ideological bankruptcy but ideological drift. "Certainly you can make the argument that, if a party's far enough away from the mainstream, if they don't lose they don't get enough impetus to correct their behavior."

This was no better exemplified than by Bill Clinton's healthcare plan, which support for collapsed, which set back his presidency and figured in the Democrats' loss of control of the House of Representatives in 1994. They've never recovered from the loss.

Soon after Clinton took office in 1993, he promised health insurance for millions of Americans who had no coverage. But before long, the plan was a shambles, derailed by concerns that it would cost too much and create a huge new bureaucracy. "People have not gotten over 1994 yet," Karen Pollitz, the project director for the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute, said of the Clinton plan. "President Clinton tried to fix everything at once. It was not well received. And not only that -- the Democrats got turned out at the next election."

So, technically speaking, Clinton's attempt to enact a left-liberal policy, along with the already existing dustrust and corruption, partially contributed to the Democrat's downfall in 1994. A two decade long move to the left by the Democratic party - capped off by the failed healthcare plan - corruption, and government distrust, brought us down, not your assumption that "Democrats were so disallusioned by Clintons sell-out agenda that they didn't bother to campaign or get out and vote." What you call Clinton's "sell out agenda" did not occur until AFTER 1994.

But I'll show you how easy it is to use simpeton reasoning to arrive at a the conclusion you want.

In 1938, Republicans gained 81 House seats running against Franklin Roosevelt. Again In the mid-term election of 1942, the Democrats lost 44 seats in the House of Representatives.

To use your exact words, I'd argue it was because Democrats were so disallusioned by (FDR's) sell-out agenda that they didn't bother to campaign or get out and vote.

George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis suffered huge defeats in their 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1988 presidential runs.

To use your exact words, I'd argue it was because Democrats were so disallusioned by (their) sell-out agendas that they didn't bother to campaign or get out and vote.

The Republicans won control of the Senate in 1981 and retained it for six years.

To use your exact words, I'd argue it was because Democrats were so disallusioned by (their) sell-out agendas that they didn't bother to campaign or get out and vote.

[Douglas Carpenter]

47. what positions did the Democrats hold in 94 that were to the left of

the mainstream. For that matter what positions did the Democrats hold in 80, 84 or 88 that were by any wild stretch of the imagination left of the mainstream??

On what positions did the Democrats by any wild stretch of the imagination move to the left and out of the mainstream over the two decade prior to 94?

recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News

http://alternet.org/story/29788

1. 65 percent say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.
2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").
3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.
4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.
5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.
6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.
7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."
8. 69 percent believe America is on the wrong track, with only 26 percent saying it's headed in the right dire

Borrowed from:
LynnTheDem


a super-majority of Americans are liberal in all but name
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/alterman
Public opinion polls show that the majority of Americans embrace liberal rather than conservative positions...
http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2002-04-16-liberal.shtml
The vast majority of Americans are looking for more social support, not less...
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/borosage-r.html

http://people.umass.edu/mmorgan/commstudy.html

Some more polls:

http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/analyses/Democracy_Corps_May_2005_Graphs.pdf

http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html

http://www.cdi.org/polling/5-foreign-aid.cfm

[wyldwolf]

48. you're quoting recent polls and applying them to the 60s through '94

But I'll ignore that and concentrate my answer on the time period in question.

First off, I said The Democratic party had moved left out of the mainstream and became the party of special interests.

As Ruy Teixeira, a fellow at the Center for American Progress and at the Century Foundation, stated, the party was guilty of ideological drift and had drifted left of the mainstream. This had everything to do with the special interests. As Philip A. Klinkner, author of "Court and Country in American Politics: The Democratic Party and the 1994 Election" said (quoted in my post above): ...voters expressed growing disgust with the federal government, elected officials, special interests... with 60 percent more people believing that the government was run for the benefit of special interests than those who believed it was run for the benefit of all.

Low and behold, the Democrats were running the government.

And who were the most offended at special interest pandering? Whites. White males in particular, who had slowly been exiting the party since the late 60s.

I gave a statistic above stating that 60% more people believed the government was run for special interests and not for the benefit of all.

Here are some drilled-down stats on conservative gains between 1992 and 1994:

In 1992, the GOP had 53% of the southern white vote. By 94, they had 65%
White males increase from 51% to 62%
White "Born Again" Christians from 66% to 76%
Whites 30-44 years old 51% to 61%
Whites in general 50% to 58%
Men in general 48% to 54%

Why the shift? Because the Democrats, as I stated, were percieved to have moved too left on issues like...

Affirmative action: The mother of all wedge issue in 1994. This issue alone had the potential to give the GOP victory in 1994. The Color Bind: The Campaign to End Affirmative Action by Lydia Chávez is a good starting point in understanding how crucial this issue was in 1994, and how mainstream America felt about it in 1994. Hint: The Democrats are right about the issue, but have been on the wrong side of the debate since the 60s.

Gun control: The 1994 Assault Weapons ban worried Democrats leading up to the 1994 mid-term elections. Democratic leaders were concerned that they would lose control of the House. House Democrats told Clinton that a vote for the assault weapons ban before the elections could hand pro-gun Democratic voters to the Republicans. When the vote was taken on the assault weapons ban, it passed by only a razor-thin margin. The bill was signed into law on September 13, 1994.

... some Democrats believe their support of the assault weapons ban cost them control of the House and Senate in 1994, and that the gun control issue hurt Al Gore's standing in key states during the 2000 presidential election.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/guns/

These are just two issues the Democrats lost points on from the 60s to 1994. Others would include national defense.

[Douglas Carpenter]

51. there's little difference between the wings of the party on these issues

including gun control issues and affirmative action. So yes I agree that on issues of perceived social conservatism the Democrats lose enough votes to at times in close races to make a difference between winning or losing. Even the DLC holds moderately liberal positions on these very same issues. I don't think President Clinton or Senator Clinton or the DLC or any of the major "centrist" grouping are or were even proposing changing their positions on these issues that might have affected the outcome of those past elections.

To be perfectly honest I don't know with any certainty why the Democrats went from being a majority party to being a minority party. I doubt that it can be fairly blamed on any wing of the party. And I don't see a whole lot of value in trying to do so. A great deal of polling even suggest that ACTUAL positions on issues has only marginal advantage or disadvantage during elections. I am more interested in figuring out how the Republicans went from being a almost permanent minority party to controlling all branches of government.


vote smart:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=BC032003&type=category&category=Gun%2BIssues&go.x=6&go.y=6

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2005 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2005.
_____________

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2005 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 96 percent in 2005.
____________________

2005 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 85 percent in 2005

2005 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 95 percent in 2005.

2005 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 96 percent in 2005.
___________________________

2005 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 0 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 0 percent in 2005.

2005 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 25 percent in 2005.
_________________________

[wyldwolf]

52. In the context of this discussion, the "wings" of the party are irrelevant

On most social issues, there is almost universal agreement among Democrats, of that we can agree. But the Democrats came down on the wrong side of the issues of the day in '94 to achieve electoral victory in an environment skewing conservative on issues.

I am more interested in figuring out how the Republicans went from being a almost permanent minority party to controlling all branches of government.

By pandering to disaffected southern whites and evangelical christians.

[iconoclastNYC]

53. Isn't about time we pander to OUR base?

And we won't do that by pretending to be Republican.

No conservative democrat will ever admit to the possibility that less Democrats vote becasue they feel the Democratic party has abandonned them.

We'll never win over the theocrats and the hate mongers that the Republicans added to thier coalition in the 80s and 90s. We need to target the 40% of people who don't vote, and give them faith that our party cares about thier needs and will make a differnece for them in Washington.

We need to start talking more about the issues that a majority of america wants that get blocked by the obstructionist Republicans:

1. Universal Healthcare
2. A living wage
3. Energy Independence via windfall profits tax, or even nationalizing the oil industry
4. Do something about the outsourcing of the American economy and the massive trade deficit that is threatening our national security

Conservative Democrats (marshalled by the DLC) are the reason our party can't win. They are traitors to our cause and I question thier loyalities.

Will Marshall, chairman of the Progressive Policy Institute, wrote earlier in Blueprint, the DLC's magazine, that Gore suffered from abandoning the Clinton-Gore ''reform-minded centrism'' and used instead a ''business-bashing populism.'' He said further that Gore often looked and sounded like a throwback to the doomed Democratic campaigns of the 1980s, replete with vintage class warfare themes and appeals narrowly tailored to constituency groups.

[wyldwolf]

54. and who is our base, exactly?

No conservative democrat will ever admit to the possibility that less Democrats vote becasue they feel the Democratic party has abandonned them.

Until there is one shred of evidence to support it, why should they?

We'll never win over the theocrats and the hate mongers that the Republicans added to thier coalition in the 80s and 90s.

THAT's he spirit! :eyes:

We need to target the 40% of people who don't vote, and give them faith that our party cares about thier needs and will make a differnece for them in Washington.

Do you have single piece of evidence that people who don't vote abstain because their needs aren't being met?

Conservative Democrats (marshalled by the DLC) are the reason our party can't win.

After all the stats I posted above that contradict that infantile statement, you're still clinging to that lifeline?

They are traitors to our cause and I question thier loyalities.

By "our" do you mean the New Left from the late 60s? Sounds like it.

Will Marshall, chairman of the Progressive Policy Institute, wrote earlier in Blueprint, the DLC's magazine, that Gore suffered from abandoning the Clinton-Gore ''reform-minded centrism'' and used instead a ''business-bashing populism.'' He said further that Gore often looked and sounded like a throwback to the doomed Democratic campaigns of the 1980s, replete with vintage class warfare themes and appeals narrowly tailored to constituency groups.

So? Marshall is allowed his opinion. It is a fact that Gore didn't campaign on the Clinton economy.

[Douglas Carpenter]

55. pandering to disaffected southern whites and evangelical christians.

It has been my experience and I believe that most polling would support the notion that most such people who vote Republican are rarely right-wing ideologues. They are usually drawn into voting against their broader interest on the basis of highly emotional issues. I don't believe very many analyst seriously believe today's right wing Republican Party holds the center ground of public opinion on most issues and probably never did at least on most issues. It's hard to imagine the most folks in Peoria or anywhere else actually shared or share the worldview of Newt Gingrich.

I tend to think that if given good-solid reasons to vote Democratic even disaffected southern whites and evangelical christians can be "pandered" back into the fold.

If my memory serves me correctly voter turnout in 94 was somewhat low among the constituency that tends to vote Democratic. The conservative organizations were highly motivated; especially the NRA. The liberal organizations were relatively unmotivated that year.

[benEzra]

80. The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch was a HUGE issue

among gun owners, and it is mind-boggling that the party leadership fell for it in the first place. Part of it is the DLC's near-total misunderstanding of gun-owner demographics, which is why they thought talking up hunting while fighting for sweeping bans on nonhunting guns would fly, when in fact 80% of gun owners are nonhunters. Party leaders' egregious misunderstanding of existing Federal law, particularly the National Firearms Act.

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

It was the DLC, not the party at large, that pushed the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch onto the national party agenda and made it a top legislative priority in 1994, 2000, and 2004.

Another question is why the HECK is banning long guns even on the legislative agenda, when FBI Uniform Crime Reports show that long guns are almost never used in violent crime in the United States?

[MrBenchley]

83. It was only a huge issue to the scum of the earth, Ben....

Nobody else thought beebos ought to be able to get their meathooks on assault weapons.

But Iet's have a big laugh....show us which moderate or liberal group said an assault weapon ban was a BAD idea....or argued that the Democrats ought to let it laugh.

For a second big laugh, since you want to pretend it's such a winning issue, show us which Republican was shit-stup[id enough to say, "Yes, Americans ought to be running around with assault weapons and that's why I'm blocking the renewal." Even a shithouse-rat-crazy turd like Tom Delay had to hide behind procedural gibberish whyen he blocked renewal of the ban.

[benEzra]

84. Hi, MrB!

Hi, MrB! Haven't seen you in a while.

So, tell me again why banning rifles with handgrips that stick out is such a pressing issue? Considering how rarely all kinds of rifles combined are used in crimes...

Look at the FBI Uniform Crime Reports and the 2005 line-of-duty police officer deaths, and tell me again how rifles are "the weapons of choice of criminals"?...

Why the issue should be important for those of us who DO own guns is fairly obvious...particularly the, oh, 80% of us who don't hunt.

I realize it's an article of faith in New Jersey that everywhere else in the nation is Just Like You, but you already have your gun-ban utopia in New Jersey. Fine, keep it. But let those of us who live elsewhere live by our choices rather than yours...

[MrBenchley]

85. Peddle it walking, Ben.....

So DO ytell us which liberal groups opposed the ban...and which Republican actually came out and said he wanted them in stores. I'm still waiting, laughing.

"Why the issue should be important for those of us who DO own guns is fairly obvious.."
Because you don't give a rats ass about anything but your fetish.....

[benEzra]

86. Argue with these facts, then:

Of 14,121 homicides in 2004, only 393--2.8 percent--were committed with all types of rifles combined. That's less than half as many people (933) as were murdered using fists and feet.

Source: Crime in the United States 2004 (U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2005), Table 20: Murder by State, 2004, by Type of Weapon.



Or this fact: of 122 police officers killed in the line of duty in 2005, 55 were homicides. All rifles combined accounted for THREE.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060515/ap_on_go_ot/fbi_officers_killed




Tell me again how rifles are "the weapons of choice of criminals"...? And why it's so damn important to send the guys with machine guns door-to-door to confiscate them?

[MrBenchley]

97. No, I'll just repeat MY questions

So DO tell us which liberal and moderate groups opposed the ban on assault weapons...and which Republican actually came out and said he wanted them in stores. I'm still waiting, laughing.

I'll also point out that not even the Republicans want to have anything to do with the gun loonies. When it was discovered Richard Dyke, president of the scummky company Bushmaster that evaded the assault weapon ban, was chairman of Chimpy's re-election effort in Maine, he ran for the hills. No doubt because it was such a winning issue...(snicker)

[derby378]

116. Your setup is becoming tiresome

Amendment II Democrats

[derby378]

117. By the way, what IS an "assault weapon?"

There's no Federal definition for one. Maybe they don't exist except in Josh Sugarmann's mind. Hmmmm...

[Douglas Carpenter]

109. speaking of Ruy Teixeira

I'm sure you have read the book he along with John B. Judis wrote, The Emerging Democratic Majority. Now given that he is very much a centrist he certainly does not support the view held by some here on the left that the Democrats lost by "selling out". But the thesis that he does put forward is quite contrary to the view put forward by some "centrist" that it was the new left and the McGovernites who ruined the party. The second chapter basically sums up his thesis with the title, "George McGovern's Revenge". Mr. Teixeira argues that the social movements including the radical social movements of the 60's; the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, the gay and lesbian rights movement, the environmental movement and especially the peace movement; all culminating in the 72 McGovern campaign is what laid the foundation for the emerging Democratic majority.

Of course Mr. Teixera is not advocating for a left-wing agenda; that is clearly not his persuasion. He is stating in his analysis that in many way the so-called new-left much of which materialized in the 72 McGovern campaign created the skeleton of what will likely emerge into a Democratic majority hopefully by the end of this decade.
_______________________

Regarding the survey which indicated that "60 percent more people believe that the government was run for the benefit of special interests than those who believed it was run for the benefit of all." I would say that 100% of people on the left would agree with that statement. There does seem to be a profound difference over what the term "special interest" means and who the "special interest" are. As John Dewey said, "politics is the shadow cast on society by big business".

[wyldwolf]

110. I came away from that book with this take...

That, for now and since then, the McGovernites DID sink the party. BUT because minority groups ("the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, the gay and lesbian rights movement, the environmental movement and especially the peace movement") will collectively and eventually be the majority, and will swing the pendulam back to the Demcrats.

The GOP isn't dumb. They realize this which is why they are courting black and hispanic voters.

However, I don't believe that the time is now.

[Douglas Carpenter]

112. Perceptions went from The Prairie Populist to Amnesty, Acid and Abortion

I believe it was in April 1972 when Time Magazine ran its first cover story on the McGovern phenomena. The front of Time read "The Prairie Populist". The article was full of stories of how ordinary people from all walks of life stopped what they were during and through themselves all their energy into "the peoples campaign" and "the peoples candidate".

Two months or three months later the imagery had turned to flower children promoting, amnesty, acid and abortion.

How did this perception change so dramatically and so quickly and who worked so hard at changing this impression? Most young students or young people people with a university education looked a little bit counterculture in those days. Just look at old pictures of Bill and Hillary, Robert Reich or Sandy Berger when they were campaigning for McGovern in the primaries "against the machine". But I'm afraid to say this disingenuous manufacture of changed imagery wasn't only cooked up by the Nixon people. Much of it, probably most of it was promoted by those within the party who were determined to stop the Prairie Populist no matter what the cost.

Regarding the Book, The Emerging Democratic Majority, Mr. Teixeira and Mr. Judis placed most of their emphasis on demographic changes that have happened since the early 70's to explain the Republican majority and the Emerging Democratic majority and relatively little emphasis on any wing of the Party.

I read the book about two years ago and I have just started rereading it last night. I don't think they are beating the drums for any particular thesis on who is to blame for anything. If I may say so, it might be worthwhile to take another look at the book when you have time. I don't agree with every word and I suppose you might not either. But it is worthwhile.

[fujiyama]

38. That's a difficult argument to make

I'm wondering what "sell out agenda" you are referring to in his first two years? Remember that Clinton had originally set forth a very ambitious agenda, many of which were failures (job package, health care). He had also originally promised that gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military but eventually faced stiff opposition from a conservative Democratic senator in San Nunn. He eventually compromised on "don't ask, don't tell".

Note that most of Clinton's more conservative policies were enacted AFTER '94 (such as welfare reform, etc).

The poster above is likely correct that the shift was coming eventually. Many of the seats the party lost were in the south and were in conservative areas.

[iconoclastNYC]

39. Gays in the military for one

Nobody that I know thinks that Don't ask Don't tell isn't worse then the original policy. It was a unprincipled compromise in many people's opinion.

THe health care bill was a disaster and crafted in my opinion to not upset business interests. As a result it was overly complicated, hard to understand, and easy to ridicule.

All he needed to do give expand Medicare to all Americans.

If you ask me the Clinton health care was designed to fail on purpose by the Wall Street Big money DLC types who propelled Mr. Clinton to office.

After the Clinton Universal Healthcare fumble it was downhill from there.

I think it could be argued that domestically Bill Clinton acomplished the least he could possibly accomplish and still remain popular by his party.

Conservative Democrats want to lionize Clinton. He was a decent President. But for a DEMOCRATIC president I'd argue he was mearly average.

[Radical Activist]

17. McGovern didn't lose because he was liberal.

Its ridiculous that conservative Democrats always trot out that example. We have to remember that Nixon used the powers of his office to manipulate the election, they made a bad mistake with VP selection, and the moderate party establishment leaders did nothing to help McGovern.

[iconoclastNYC]

27. Thank you.

[Donna Zen]

30. Thank you

The most "liberal" thing they drag out about McGovern was his opposition to Vietnam. Well? Vietnam, now that went well (hairball). Let's see. McGovern flew dangerous missions, studied for the ministry, and was an educated and highly respected Democrat. Oh yeah... that's a good reason to smear his name.

[Bucky]

40. Yes, Nixon cheated. But he cheated so Dems would nominate McGovern

From early on Nixon's hatchet men realized McGovern would be the weakest candidate. They didn't cheat (much) after the primary. The bulk of the dirty tricks campaign was to knock out everyone but McGovern. I suspect a similar idea is occuring to all these Republican commentators who keep insisting that Mrs Clinton is our strongest candidate. They want to run against her and are trying to sideline everyone else.

I really wish they'd stay the fuck out of our politics.

[Douglas Carpenter]

42. not true at all -- the Nixon tapes reveal that when the Wallace

assassination attempt occurred on 15 May 1972 Nixon wanted Chuck Colson to have McGovern campaign literature planted as would-be assassin Arthur Bremer's apartment attempting to paint Bremer as a McGovern supporter and knocking McGovern out of the race before the California primary. Other investigations of CREEP revealed a vast series of dirty tricks and plans for dirty tricks well after McGovern had already been nominated.
A major reason for the Watergate breakin was to try to find material to smear McGovern.

this from the BBC files - link :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1848157.stm

"In May of 1972, Arthur Bremer attempted to assassinate White House hopeful George Wallace.

The tapes reveal that Nixon wanted to pin the blame on supporters of Democrats George McGovern and Edward Kennedy, whom he might face in the November elections.

"Just say he (the shooter) was a supporter of McGovern and Kennedy," he said to HR "Bob" Haldeman, his chief of staff, and Charles Colson, then special counsel to the president.

"Now, just put that out!" Nixon said, his voice rising for emphasis. "Just say you have it on unmistakable evidence"

links:

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/col/scheer/2002/03/06/nixon/index_np.html

http://www.webcom.com/ctka/pr599-bremer.html

[eridani]

67. Not only that, some actively worked for Nixon

And was McGovern right or wrong about Vietnam?

Does defense mean defending actual American citizens, or just imperial bullying to destroy any other government that dares to put the interests of its people ahead of those of the US elite?

[Douglas Carpenter]

73. he certainly was not prepared to deal with the viciousness of both

Richard Nixon and certain Democratic Party insiders at the same time.

The McGovern candidacy and campaign was one of the most successful insurgency campaigns ever through most of the primaries.

Once he became the nominee-apparent, party insiders led by the Humphrey, Meany, Daily axis were determined to stop him no matter what. It may have been Pennsylvania Republican Senator Hugh Scott who coined the phrase, Acid, Amnesty and Abortion. But the party establishment quickly picked up on the theme and let lose a hateful smear campaign against the this former Methodist minister, World War II bomber pilot and hero; the person Barry Goldwater, Robert Kennedy and many others called the most decent man to ever sit in the U.S. Senate. Even after he had secured enough deligates to win on the first ballot they tried to change the rules to deny him the nomination up to the very last minute.

I think almost everyone agrees that it would have been hard for anyone to defeat Nixon in the particular year of 1972 even under better circumstances. And clearly somethings just plain went wrong.

The Eagleton affair of course damaged him more than almost anything else and probably turned a loss into a landslide loss. Once he had sown up the nomination (supposedly) he had to fend of a last minute effort by more conservative forces who were determined to block him no matter what; no matter how much it damaged the Party. He simply didn't have time to concentrate on fending off this last minute assault and mend fences and work on questions like finding a solid running mate. All of Sen. Eagleton's closest associates recommended him highly and none of them had ever heard of any problems. Sen. Eagleton himself denied that there was anything that could in anyway weaken the ticket. He even denied it when specifically asked by Frank Mankiwitz, McGovern's Chief of Staff. When the story first broke, Sen. Eagleton claimed that it was a minor issue and involved minor treatment for exhaustion. This is when Sen. McGovern made his famous, "I back Tom Eagleton 1000%" remark. It was based on what he had been personally told both by Sen. Eagleton and those close to him. When it became clear that his illness and his treatment was much-much more serious. The national media as well as most of the Democratic Party leadership clamored for Sen. Eagleton to step down. A week later when Sen. McGovern concluded that there was little choice, he called upon Sen. Eagleton to step down. Then the same fickle media which had been calling for exactly that-suddenly started to paint McGovern as heartless and disloyal. This was especially damaging since Sen. McGovern's strongest asset was his reputation for loyalty, openness and honesty.

Sen. McGovern has frequently said that the one thing in politics he has never understood is, "what is wrong with changing your mind in the face of new information?". Trusting President Johnson in August of 1964 he actually voted in favor of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. He still says to this day that he regrets that vote more than anything else he ever did in politics.

[MrBenchley]

71. McGovern lost because he was a disaster as a candidate....

Do the name Thomas Eagleton ring a bell?

[iconoclastNYC]

23. Read his op-ed for yourself

OP (who may or may not be part of the Clinton/DLC machine that is pushing Hillary on us against our better judgmenet) is willfully mischarecterizing the content of the op-ed in attempt to swift boat Markos and prop up Hillary.

Read the op-ed for yourself here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/05/AR2006050501717_2.html

Some excerpts:

"And therein lie Hillary Clinton's biggest problems. She epitomizes the "insider" label of the early crowd of 2008 Democratic contenders. She's part of the Clinton machine that decimated the national Democratic Party. And she remains surrounded by many of the old consultants who counsel meekness and caution. James Carville, the famed longtime adviser to the Clintons, told Newsweek last week, "The American people are going to be ready for an era of realism. They've seen the consequences of having too many 'big ideas.' "

"Meanwhile, pollster Mark Penn, a brilliant numbers guy, has counseled the Hillary team to ignore the party's netroots activists as "irrelevant." (After all, didn't Dean lose?) Little surprise that in late March, the Daily Kos's bimonthly presidential straw poll delivered bleak results for Clinton, with just 2 percent of respondents making her their top choice for 2008."

Yet staying away from big ideas seems to come naturally to Hillary Clinton. Perhaps first lady Clinton was so scarred by her failed health-care reform in the early 1990s that now Sen. Clinton shows no proclivity for real leadership as a lawmaker. Afraid to offend, she has limited her policy proposals to minor, symbolic issues -- such as co-sponsoring legislation to ban flag burning. She doesn't have a single memorable policy or legislative accomplishment to her name. Meanwhile, she remains behind the curve or downright incoherent on pressing issues such as the war in Iraq.

On the war, Clinton's recent "I disagree with those who believe we should pull out, and I disagree with those who believe we should stay without end" seems little different from Kerry's famous "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it" line. The last thing we need is yet another Democrat afraid to stand on principle.

[Douglas Carpenter]

41. actually the "McGovernites" lost any dominant status in 1973

when corporate lobbyist Robert Strauss became Chair of the DNC; threw out the McGovern mailing list and purged as many McGovern people as he could. link: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050131/borosage

This likely contributed to the nomination of the much more conservative Jimmy Carter in 1976 and 1980.

In 1984 the conservative party establishment succeeded in nominating former Vice President Walter Mondale who in spite of his history as a hawkish Hubert Humphrey liberal actually ran on a platform to increase military spending and keep most of Reagan's tax and budget cuts.

In 1988 the party establishment nominated moderately fiscally conservative technocratic pro-big business Gov. Dukakis who ran a platform little different from that of Bill Clinton.

The McGovern influence did remain in terms of keeping a number of reforms such as open caucuses and open primaries that encouraged democratic participation of ordinary people. Also the inclusion of woman, black people, minorities an ordinary working people did remain at least somewhat intact long after 1972.

Before George McGovern began his reform work for the Democratic Party the entire Democratic Party establishment was very much a white boys club. Caucuses were frequently for insiders only were often not publicly announced. At the 1968 Democratic Convention only 14 percent of delegates were women, only 2 percent were under thirty and only 5 percent were black. McGovern changed all of that. The whole principle of
of public disclosure of campaign contributions was introduced and first practiced in a Presidential campaign by Sen. McGovern.

[Disturbed]

45. Bill Clinton has charisma.

Hillary Clinton does not. Many people went along with Pres. Clinton on things that now are seen as huge mistakes. He still remains popular. He was an average Pres. Sen. Clinton is being pushed by the RW and the Corp Media and Conservative Dems. She is trying hard to garner support from Moderate Repubs. Liberal Dems and Leftists cannot stand her. Everytime her name is mentioned on DU there are extreme views of her. I feel that the RW really wants her to run because they feel that she cannot win.

[Douglas Carpenter]

46. agree -- my prediction if she is nominted and I will bet money on it

1. Hillary will almost certainly lose decisively, although I hope I am wrong and would support her or almost any Dem in the general election; but not the primaries. She is an extremely polarizing figure to put it mildly and I do not believe that she could likely win the votes of many Republicans or independents and thus would not do well in battle ground states much less red states.

2. We will be hearing for the next 30-40+ years that she was the candidate of the "left" and she lost because she was just tooooooooo liberal and this is another example of how the left ruined things for the Democratic Party. In spite of of her hawkish tendencies and embrace of neoliberal economic ideology -- she is widely perceived in the mainstream media as a liberal/left figure. Thus I repeat my predictions above, she would likely lose and liberals and progressives would get blamed again for pushing the Democrats to run one of their own.

2. (a) Whoever is the nominee of the Democratic Party in 2008 (even Gov. Warner) if they lose we will be hearing for the next 30-40+ years that they were the candidate of the "left" and this is another example of how the left ruined things for the Democratic Party

2. (b) Whoever is the nominee of the Democratic Party in 2008 (even Sen. Feingold) if they win we will be hearing for the next 30-40+ years that they won because they ran a centrist campaign and ignored the left.

[mrgorth]

72. Exactly

I'm sure Frau Clinton would make a great President. The problem is that she will lose at least 48 states.

[CTLawGuy]

61. If the base is not supposed to be represented

what's the point of being a Democrat? Why not just be an independent?

[wyldwolf]

70. what is this base you speak of?

[CTLawGuy]

77. I define the base to be

the class of persons who fit two elements:

(1) who are registered (or who call themselves) "Democrats"
(2) who regularly vote in the Democratic primary (or caucus)for at least major races. Regular does not mean invariably, but in general they are likely to vote.

[wyldwolf]

78. good definition, and I'm glad so see it

Usually, people in these parts (DU) define the base as some mythical liberal group with strict ideology.

That being said, I believe the current Dem leadership does represent the base, they just don't always accommodate every subset of the base. And in reality, they can't.

[CTLawGuy]

79. the problem is

sometimes they take the base's vote for granted and go to the right to go after independents, which will generally tend to annoy liberal members of the base more than moderates.

[Turn CO Blue]

105. Liked the Big Dog. Can't stand Hillary. She's a fake & a sellout.

[LittleClarkie]

107. So was BIll, probably

But he was better at hiding it.

She's not the politician he is.

[The Magistrate]

118. Locking

The most recent post kicking this up from the depths was an invitation for someone to provide a definition of "assault weapon", which is pretty far off from comments on a blog about Sen. Clinton being a polarizing figure....