Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Obama candidacy basically amounts to a DLCectomy

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 12:31 PM
Original message
The Obama candidacy basically amounts to a DLCectomy
When it gets down to it, this race is a battle for the soul of the party. On record, Obama is 2 shades to the left of Clinton, maybe 3 on foreign policy matters. The difference is slight, but not minor. However, all of the "really left" candidates never stood a serious chance. Why is that?

I think it's silly to just say "Clinton and Obama are the corporate candidates" even though in some respects they pay homage to the corporatocracy that we live in. I think there's a difference even within that cage. Clinton is in there by nature and by choice, Obama is in there by necessity (or else he would have went the way of the "non serious" candidate - it's sad, but true). In this time of identity politicas, all of the other "corporate candidates" were just plain boring and stuffy for the kids (i.e. the ones under 50) and had too much facial hair for the ladies.

Anyone running outside of that frame was just not taken seriously by the voters, except John Edwards. Many say John got shut out by the mainstream media but that is a lazy argument. Mostly he suffered from the fact that his face was too pale and too male. He just never caught on. He parked himself in Iowa for years, doing retail politics and he still only placed second. The women stymied him in New Hampshire and the blacks shut him out in South Carolina. He was a victim of momentum that never came. He had an inspirational story and an inspirational message. He lacked the voice and presence to back it up. Besides, no one ever wins running for "the poor people" unless everyone's poor and usually those kinds of takeovers are bloody. Frankly, most people just don't care about the poor as long as it's not them.

All the rest: Kucinich, Gravel and the like, never stood a chance because no ever thought they stood a chance. Such challenging candidacies were less respected on the left than the ones on the right; witness Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee (who is charming and disarming but has some really wacky views on how religion should play a role in American governance).

So with the lefties out, the boring old men out, and the champion of the poor out, we are left with Clinton (still the odds on favorite in my opinion) and Obama. They both have liberal records but they both have done and said things that acquiesce to the corporate paymasters. That leaves many with disaffection. But the difference that lies within is one embraces the neodemocrat DLC and one does not. One will never be free of it and one is almost free. One will prove and re-affirm the power of the DLC and one will shift us away from it.

Now, for many here the DLC's corporate conservatism and military hawkishness is not a problem as long as it remains socially liberal (which it is). I think those who gravitate to the left because of social issues yet either don't care, don't know about, or even like how corporatist and militarist the DLC is tend to go with Clinton. I think people who reject the corporatist and militarist DLC tend to go with Obama, even though in some ways he has been forced to assent to it in order to get this far.

But if Obama, in being elected, can break the bonds of the DLC then it opens the door for a true trend in more liberal politics in the U.S. down the line. The only argument that can be forcefully waged is that the "DLC" wins elections. That's not true, but the most salient example is Bill Clinton interrupting the Reagan era and so it's hard for anyone to actually refute the "electability" argument that is used as a political bludgeon. An Obama Presidency takes away that weapon and the DLC is left with nothing.

"But, but...Clinton is so liberal."

Well, yes, on social issues she is a bonafide leftist.

However, you cannot serve two masters.

Make no mistake, she is a LEADER of the DLC. She is part of its very fabric. So is Bill Clinton, who will become her de facto chief advisor. There is a "White House in Exile" filled with the same people that filled the DLC White House in the 90's. Just as George W. Bush "got the team back together", so will Clinton. We will be returning to the 90's both in spirit and in body. Also, pay heed to Hillary Clinton's chief advisor, Mark Penn, who has been with both Clintons to the early nineties. He one of the key influential people that told Bill to run to the right in the 90's and he is not going away.

"But, but.... the 90's were so great."

In many ways, yes. But not all. We can argue all day about the boom/bubble of the 90's vs. the gains the right made in terms of corporate power.

But rather than do that alone, we need to pay attention to the fact that 2009 - 2017 is an entirely different era than 1993 - 2001. In 1993 we had a fallen Soviet Union, a weak Russia, a sleeping giant in China, a yet to be totally ascended India, and relative peace. We had not yet reached peak oil. We had not overstretched ourselves in a war with Iraq. We had not seriously faced the fact that we have to re-design our energy system in order to save the planet. We didn't have near the crisis in health care we do now, drug costs in the early nineties had yet to reach their stratospheric heights. Furthermore, we aren't likely to have another internet and tech boom to prop things up. We live in an entirely new universe of problems and issues, a "re-do" of Clintonomics is not going to suffice. The interest rates have already been lowered and we are all just in more debt. Shell games will not be enough.

Now we face a health care crisis, a budget that is strapped by a war in Iraq we should have never begun, a war on terror where our priorities are misplaced, alienation from the world, imbalanced foreign policy in the Mideast, possible peak oil, a health care crisis of epic proportion, climate change of catastrophic consequence, "guilded age" disparity in wealth, a crashing economy, and a rising tide of power in Russia/China/the European Union/India.

A new approach will be needed. The ways of the past have not really worked for all of us as we see evidently. Re-tooling entrenched interests and institutions is not likely. Obama is the only one of the two that is free to take the approach or an approach yet unseen if a new challenge arises or a current challenges comes to a meltdown.

This really is a decision between the ways of the past and the possibility of a new approach to the future. The Democratic party has to lead this but a re-affirmation of the DLC will not be conducive to any decisive change.

A Clinton Presidency will re-instate the DLC to power. An Obama Presidency will refute it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. Nothing wrong with corporations inherently
But for some industries, some jobs should be expanded across the globe. Not just migrated away. The world can use all the scientists it needs; no American in the field should be excluded.

IMHO, of course, and I'm always open for fair criticism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 01:47 PM
Original message
What wrong with corporations is they have significanly expanded their powers in recent years,
so that our whole political sphere is now completely dominated by various corporate interests.

They are going to keep people off TV who wish to discuss the American Empire and actually question if it makes sense for Americans to continue in the empire business.

For years we regulated corporations a lot and on purpose because we realized that putting so much power into an entity like a corporation was bad for a constitutional democratic republic.

It's not that corporation a or b is inherently bad for being a corporation, it's that the unrestricted power corporations are able to bring to bear because laws are passed to give them those powers then serves to purpetuate and augment the powers.

For example, one of the corner stones of the theory of US democracy is that a free press is essential to our democratic constitutional republic. Yet some 85% of our mass media is owned by a handful of corporations who often share overlapping interests in terms of governemt policy in many areas. You know the rest of the story.

Corporations limit personal liability. In a very real way they completely undermine the whole concept of personal responsibitiy, because responsibilities by their very nature contain liabilitys.

Corporations are just a human construct, an economic tool to consentrate capitol and power into the hands of a few and limit personal liability. It's stupid to set them up so as to limit our own personal and collective power as human beings. That's why there used to be real constraints and limits on corporations. They required them to be linear constructs instead of omnipotent ubiquitist overlords.

Look at single payer for crying out loud. It works very well. It incoporates society as a whole, with everyone being a share holder and an investor. And the really cool part is it isn't required to concentrate profits and power toward a small group of people. It's only requiered to collect money and pay out money. And to negotiate fees for service, drug prices, equipment, etc.

I'm tired of creating all these little feifdoms off of corporate welfare for private companies. It's time we take care of everyone. We need to limit private corporate power and increase public corporate power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
24. Great post.
I thought you might go into the corporate "personhood" issue- but you didn't. Stuck to the corporate veil and lack of accountability, which, IMO, is the root here.

Right on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
60. I agree, the problem is the amount of influence (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hawkowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
36. You are wrong
The corporation as a "legal person" without legal responsibility is inherently wrong. Corporate lawyers are making the argument that corporations are due all rights citizens have under the constitution. Never mind that corporations are neither people nor citizens. Corporations are not democracies. They are merely a device for the wealthy (the 5% of the population that own 85% of the corporations) to avoid personal liability and responsibility. At least under feudalism, the lords were responsible for the peasants defense and welfare.

Corporations have calculated your worth not as a human being, but in dollars. Either as a profit or a liability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
groovedaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #36
77. "Corporate lawyers are making the argument that corporations are due all rights citizens have..."
They've already made the argument back in the late 1800s and the Supreme Court sided with them:
corporations = legal person.
I know, it's bullshit and needs to be changed but the precedent is old now. It's going to take a constitutional effort to reverse this but it will be well worth the effort!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Popol Vuh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
75. I beg to differ
I feel the same way about it that was expressed by the founders of the U.S. They feared them because corporations inherently seek to better their bottom line and prevent competition from threating their position. As a result they inherently use their vast wealth to pursue political power and write laws favoring them which is always at the expense of others on many different levels. Also, since all businesses strive for the most success, corporations inherently become monopolistic due to their strength.

This is why for the first one hundred years is was illegal for businesses to donate money to politics and illegal for businesses to own stock in other businesses. When businesses become large they inherently wield too much economic and political power not only resulting in concentrating wealth but also taking control of government from the hands of the people and into their hands.

One of the best things I think could happen to us is for This SCOTUS case to be thrown into the shredder.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liam_laddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #75
85. Shredding SCOTUS
Ooooo, yeah, like in "Fargo." Great idea!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
groovedaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #85
112. Ahhh, that was a wood chipper - probably better for effect! n.t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
103. That's why Obama obeyed the insurance corporations and dropped Universal in his health plan
jobs should be expanded across the globe only when people migrate freely at near zero cost to wherever the job is - capital must not migrate lest the area that developed with the capital is turned around into a slum.

And our future life can not be held captive to those that have capital and there threats to move that capital.

There must be controls on corporations - and Hillary is the "pro corporate" person that has discussed such controls. As usual Obama has a vision of a new way that will give us hope - shades of 9/11, 9/11 and a verb Rudy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ekwhite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #1
114. There is actually a lot wrong with corporatism
Corporations, left unchecked, lead to despotism, such as in Chile and Argentina, where corporate managers participated in the torture and murder of thousands. Corporations profited from the Nazi war machine and the holocaust, making money from supplying guns, bombs, and Zyklon B to the Nazis, while making use of Jews and Gypsies as slave labor in Nazi work camps.

The current multinationals wink at repressive governments while using cheap labor to produce poor quality goods that they sell at outrageous profits. Corporations, by definition, care about nothing but money. They are money-making machines, and will not work for the public good unless they are forced to, or unless it makes them money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
2. Yes, for me it is a rejection of DLC ways...
Well said!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 12:43 PM
Original message
recomended.... thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vi5 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
4. That's what does it for me...
The differences between the two candidate's policies are to me negligible. However one represents the epitome of the beltway insider and croneyism. With a Clinton presidency I picture a liberal version of what we had with Bush and lots of less qualified people being rewarded with positions simply because of their loyalty to the Clinton machine and their status as insiders.

No more. I'm done with that and I won't stand for it any more. No more Mark Penn's. No more Terry Macauliffes. No more Rahm Emmauelles. None of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. No more Mark Penn's. No more Terry Macauliffes. No more Rahm Emmauelles.
That does have a nice ring to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #7
42. I thought that Rahm had gone over to Obama with Axelrod.
Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
76. That I Will Agree With... However You Statements About Edwards Seem
a bit off! I DO think he caught on with what many Democrats, who ARE the "big tent" Democrats! Those who remember what it was like BEFORE the DLC and the rest of the crap! I also agree that Obama DID agree to let himself become part of the CORPORATE SYSTEM, out of NEED! It's called money, and NOT necessarily message. His message of HOPE & CHANGE is not a reality. But yes, he IS a bit to the left of Clinton!

Clinton, on the other hand "sold out" a long time ago AND as WHITE female woman the same age as she is... my birthday is 10-25, hers is 10-26, I simply can't "go there!" So much for the older white women theory as far as I'm concerned.

So Edwards DID get panned, not doubt in my mind, BUT he HAD a certain integrity to stick with his message and his BELIEF that this country CAN and SHOULD do better! WE ARE better than what we've become, but as you say.... those under 50 have been lulled into a different lifestyle, and a different outlook. One that I see is a little too narcissistic, mainly because I see FAR TOO MUCH APATHY!!

Those of us who take politics seriously are here, we know what is going on, yet some are still putting down "roots" and many roots are shallow! THE POOR & POVERTY?? Many don't understand it, many have never seen it, AND many think the lifestyle they lead will continue, no matter what!

Here is where TIME WILL TELL. My wish is that it will either "wake them up" or that they will one day be touched by the fact that living in this instant gratification society, they will see that so much of it can be wiped out in the blink of an eye. This is just an overall perception, I KNOW many here have fallen on some hard times, but so many many others have yet to experience it.

I grew up rather poor, but RICH because I had a GREAT family. I didn't feel poor, but knew there were so many "things" I could never have. Therefore, it has stayed with me to this day, even though my married life was one that gave me "more" than my parents had. Old habits die hard and my kids and grandkids laugh when I save certain things, "just in case." I try to save money when I can. I NEVER spend change while shopping, I put it away then use it for gifts for others, or when I actually need something. I have seen kids throwing change away like it doesn't even matter... I just pick it up, and save it. I have found many many "old" coins that way. I'm not saying all of us feel this way, but it's something to think about.

ENOUGH... off the subject, but maybe not!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #4
71. I'm curious though, aren't you a bit afraid that once Obama is elected and steps
Into the matrix of Beltway life, that his soul will be eaten away as well??

The thing that is wonderful about Kucinich is that you know his soul would never be eaten away.
(I hope he can maintain his seat in Ohio.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HeraldSquare212 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
5. Nice discussion - and as an Obama supporter, I like the fact that you don't exaggerate
the difference between him and Clinton. There is a difference, and obviously I think it's an important difference, but there's not as much of a difference as I would like. But as you say, excising the DLC will be great progress toward a true Democratic agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ingac70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
6. K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
8. Hillary is an OFFICER of the DLC
chair of its American Dream Initiative.

Obama says he's not afilliated with the NOT a member of the DLC and never has been.

:headbang:
rocknation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. I am sick of this foolish back and forth
All of the major candidates have support from DLC-aligned Democrats.

Hillary is supported by DLC CEO Al From.

DLC president Bruce Reed is a close friend of John Edwards.

Progressive Policy Institute president Will Marshall is close to Joe Biden.

Bill Richardson is a regular participant at DLC state policy discussions.

Kathleen Sebelius is chair of the DLC's Ideas Primary project, and she's an Obama backer.

Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman chairs the DLC Local Elected Officials Network, and he's an Obama backer.

Janet Napolitano was the chair of the 2004 DLC national conference in Phoenix, and she's an Obama supporter.

Delaware State Treasurer Jack Markell is a leader in the DLC and a frequent presenter on financial issues at DLC events, and he is an Obama supporter.

The DLC is not some monolithic Borg collective. The people involved are smart, experienced Democrats, and don't always see eye to eye on presidential choices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. There's a difference between these sorts of associations...
and being woven into the fabric of the DLC's ideology.

Let's face it, if you get far enough in politics, you will have friends and associations of all kinds. But when one candidate is a leader of the DLC and the other purposefully is not in it, there's a REAL difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #12
57. Just shows how deep the DLC infection goes. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #12
87. We should be putting pressure on the BlueDogs while we're at it....
to vote more progressively, as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fenriswolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
9. thanks
in all honesty I get as tired of the blind obama supporters as I do of the clintons blind supporters. Their is very little differance in terms of stated policy and no differance in votes. What makes the differance for me is that with the clintons come their political baggage, their horrible advisors, and just the clinton mantra of more power. They are a liberal version of the bush machine I agree, with obama it just seems the normal political triangulation and centrism. I can see obama moving to the left after the GE, with hillary she will stay center.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalLovinLug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #9
83. what mantra for more power?
I agree with the excellent post, and the premise that it would be a healthy thing to dis-empower the DLC corporate overlords, maybe revamp and create a new DLC.

And fenriswolf, I agree that the Clintons have their baggage and bad advisers, but please don't echo the right wing talking points of "all the Clintons care about is grabbing power" OF COURSE they are interested in grabbing power. Why is that an issue? EVERY candidate wants this same thing. The Bush crime family wanted power. But the same can be said for the Kennedys, or even Franklin D. Roosevelt for pity's sake. For that matter how is Obama going to move us forward without "power"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
10. The dlc's are trying their
damnest to take over the Democratic party..just like bushites took over the repukes. Give 'em enough rope and they hung themselves but karl rove on face the nation is still giving his asshole comments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
11. K&R
for the DLCectomy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stimbox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 02:27 AM
Response to Reply #11
44. He may not be a member but he is DLC approved and friendly "New Democrat".

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251658&kaid=104&subid=210
Obama's platform reads like the DLC Congressional Agenda
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=450006

Hillary is out and proud DLC
Obama is on the down low.

No matter which one you vote for you get the DLC program.

Tastes great!
Less filling!

Wake up kids, you are being duped.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VenusRising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #44
92. Note the Date of May 15, 2003.
Now note this date of June 26, 2003.

Obama didn't even know that his name was on the New Democrat list, and as soon as he was alerted to the fact, he had his name pulled.



Obama was one of the first Dean Dozen for Democracy for America.

He is not on the down low, as you so "eloquently" put it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stimbox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #92
94. He is not a member but his positions are the same as other DLC New Democrats.
The DLC likes him and his positions. He doesn't have to be a member to benefit from their support.
He is still listed on their site as one of the 100 to watch. He has the same agenda as the DLC.
He rejected them only because of the taint, or baggage as the article puts it, that they have.
He snubs them in public, but his positions are straight up DLC.
Why is it so hard for you Obama supporters to grasp. The DLC has 2 dogs in the race.
They are hedging their bets. Their platform gets enacted no matter which New Democrat wins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VenusRising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #94
97. You have no idea which candidate I support.
But I dislike dishonesty period. The fact is that he is not a member of the DLC while the other candidate clearly is a leader within that organization. And I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but on major issues like war, environmental issues (drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, cluster bombs), transparency in government, and ethics, there are no similarities between the two candidates. But have your delusions of them being the same. It's just like when Nader tried to tell everyone there was no difference between Bush and Gore, and I will never ever fall for that crap. If you can't find the differences between the candidates, you aren't really looking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stimbox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #97
98. Oh ok.
Like voting to continue funding the war?
Taking money from the clean coal and nuclear industries.
Little tiny nuances here and there, but no real difference.
I'm sorry your savior is cut from the same corporate cloth as Hillary and the DLC.
He's going to create a whole new generation of cynics if he wins and fails to live up to his adoring fans expectations.
It's status quo as usual.
I'm sorry I don't believe the hype.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VenusRising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #98
99. My candidate is already out.
But nice try projecting. :thumbsup:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stimbox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #99
100. You sure are defending your non-candidate with a vigor.
I too dislike dishonesty and disingenuousness.
Which is why I feel that something is not right with Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VenusRising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #100
101. I'm only pointing out the truth to your distortion.
If Obama had his named removed from the DLC roster, then he isn't a member. The screenshot you post is from 5 years ago, which is obviously not current or correct as of the time of the screenshot that I posted.

I just know that the DLC has been a major obstacle in getting real progressive policies passed and Hillary is part of that. Obama disavows them, and that's a HUGE difference. Someone who is in the leadership of the DLC WILL enact DLC policies just like the PNACers enacted neocon policies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stimbox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #101
102. That screenshot IS of a current page on the DLC site.
Here is the link: http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251658&kaid=104&subid=210

He is not a member but his platform is similar to the DLC's platform.
He is a New Democrat. His positions are not that different.
If Obama were a progressive, he would have been cast out along with Gravel, Kucinich and Edwards.
The DLC likes Obama and his positions. They support both candidates. He is just as corporate friendly as Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VenusRising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #102
104. We'll have to agree to disagree on this.
Similar is not the same or equal to. I don't think either candidate is progressive, but one is more likely to be more friendly to progressive ideas than the other. The DLC is an anathema to democracy and as long as one candidate belongs and one does not, there is a huge difference in my eyes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stimbox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #104
105. Good enough!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newmajority Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
13. There's only one way to deal with cancer.
Eliminate it. Cut it out.

Don't negotiate with it. Don't compromise with it. Kill it or it will kill you.

And the DLC *is* killing the Democratic party, there is no question of that.

We have an opportunity to take them down. Let's not waste it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
14. We are exchanging DLC for Conservative Democratic Rule.
Look carefully at the stares and which Senators support each
candidates. Example how often does Sen. B Nelson vote with
Gop.(One example)

Upper Class Affluent better educated are Pro-Business.
You may not call them Corporatists .

This is not to flame just think about reality.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #14
26. Not sure who you mean "upper class affluent", people w/ good jobs have been screwed by the corps
and they are NOT pro-business. The corporations have taken their pensions, taken their retirement medical plans, reduced benefits, and shipped jobs overseas while enriching the executives.

The "better educated" know how they are being screwed by the corporations.

THAT'S the reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
16. More rec's than replies? Preposterous! Sound in people!
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud2BAmurkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
17. Except if he is nominated and loses, then a resurgence of the DLC. Think people think
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. I'm honored you graced my thread with your presence P2BA
:thumbsup:

With your logic we are supposed to be afraid of an Obama candidacy because it might spur the resurgence of the DLC and instead support Clinton, who is a leader of the DLC. Yeah, that makes total sense....in an alternate universe where the very laws of logic do not apply.

My wife, standing over my shoulder, just asked of you "does he really believe himself?"

Honestly, I think you are an Obama campaign plant to make Clinton supporters look really, really stupid. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newmajority Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #19
70. Please! We don't want him!!
Of course the Hillarites don't seem to want him either. Guess it's time to "stone" him and send him back to RimJob's trailer park.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #17
88. That's right. Just lay down your swords and go home....
You're not suggesting "thinking".
You're suggestion total capitulation.

Again.

I think progressive dems are willing to go
to the wall this time.

At the very LEAST the DLC now knows that the
PEOPLE ARE WATCHING.

That you CANNOT continue to TRASH YOUR BASE
and win in the primaries.

The ouster of Joe Lieberman from the party
was a shot across the bow that they ignore
AT THEIR OWN PERIL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrattotheend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
18. I think you are dead-on
The fact that Obama went out of his way to repudiate the DLC a few years ago makes me very optimistic. While he has taken the safe route on some votes to make himself more viable in a general, I believe that in his heart, he is a bleeding heart liberal, and he might be that rare politician who is able to frame liberal positions in rhetoric that conservatives and independents find less threatening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Khaotic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
20. Good Ridance DLC


The DLC is what has sold out the Democratic Party.

They paint themselves as such great moderate folks. They say they care about the people and can help the little guys while giving the corps a blow job.

If you get on your knees to the corps, you're not helping the little guy. Striking backroom deals and believing what you're being told. Pretty soon you're in so deep you're like Lando Calrissian in the Empire Strikes Back being told to pray the deal doesn't get any worse.



The DLC is the Lando of the Democratic Party, but they're not helping anyone and I don't see them having a change of heart. I don't trust them to wheel and deal so we can cross our fingers and hope they have our intentions in their head while they're livin' large w/ their fat cat friends.

Hillary doesn't just have her own intentions at stake, she brings the entire Clinton machine, the DLC, and "moderate" sellout Dems to the table.

We're not talking the Democratic Party of FDR or JFK, we're talking about a part of the party that's almost as corrupt as the GOP. Why settle for that??

Obama doesn't have to answer to a machine that brought him to where he is. He doesn't have to answer to the DLC, or to the moderate blue dog dems who are in w/ the Christian Reich to moderate our rights for some holier than thou reason.

Kick this thread ... it's good for the Hillbots to know more about the DLC and their ilk!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NeedleCast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #20
93. Props for Lando Reference
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tokenlib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
21. All you have to do is read the greatest quotes of Al From...
..and you will know how opposed to traditional, historical "New Deal" democratic principles the DLC is. The DLC embraces corporate personhood and detests government as an agent to improve the lives of the poor and struggling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
22. Very well written
K&R and Bookmarking
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psyop Samurai Donating Member (873 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
23. Finally, an authentic narrative...
I see how you got your name, B&C - you were not distracted!

This post is a keeper.

k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
25. I find the difference smaller than you do.
Obama may not "embrace the neodemocrat DLC," but his positions on issues fit like a glove. He's missing only the official DLC label. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. That's part of the point I'm trying to make...
The DLC has used Clinton's electoral success as a bludgeon. You can't be taken seriously as a candidate unless you assent to a certain degree to their positions. The tyranny of success.

However, Obama has made a conscious decision not to be an acting part of the DLC. They don't own him.

And when he's "big dog", he gets to make the new rules.

...or so my theory goes.

He can't go around bashing the DLC now as he needs a lot of their support (aka the Sebelious's of the world) but he is the only one of the two who can break from it, and in turn break us from it.

With Clinton, you know you will get a DLC Presidency, and probably more to follow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. I agree that he can't go around bashing the DLC now.
But, why would you think his presidency is going to differ from a DLC presidency, when his platform fits their positions so well?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Well, 2 main things:
1.) he is miles ahead of Clinton on governmental transparency and reform.
2.) he does not embrace the hardline hawkish politics that the DLC has promoted and has only quieted down on because the Iraq war has went so badly. (see www.fpif.org for details).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
27. We cut Lieberman out for his IWR vote, why not Hillary?
What is the difference between the two, pre 2006?

Really.

The DLC IS like a cancer.

Attempting to pick and choose which candidates
get funding, which field offices are viable.

They have run us into the ground and cut deals
with the corporations for LONG ENOUGH!


K & R for this OP!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
28. And it's about time, too. n/t
:dem:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 08:18 PM
Response to Original message
32. The DLC has already won
Both celebrity candidates are New Democrats. You won't hear Al From complain about Obama like he did about Dean...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #32
89. Baby steps....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
33. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
34. Not necessarily. They won't stand down that easily.
Obama has a lot of support from moneyed interests, don't forget. You don't have to have formal membership in DLC to get that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibertyorDeath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
35. Great analysis

Rec!

Image courtesy of SheWhoMustBeObeyed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #35
39. Man - if we only could do one thing this fall, it should be spreading THIS picture
all over EVERYWHERE. Says everything we need to say.

mccain = 4 more years of bush.

And as for the DLC, I'd love to see it done away with. Everything about them involves shitting on their base - US, the liberals and progressives who brought them to the dance to begin with. And let's just remember the ABSOLUTELY STELLAR track record DLC'er bob shrum has over the last couple of presidential election cycles - advising everybody to shun the left and go toward the center, even center-wrong. His advice is the kiss of death.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillrockin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 11:59 PM
Response to Original message
37. Good riddence, DNC!
:hi:

We want our party back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
38. Amen
Edited on Mon Feb-11-08 12:04 AM by Armstead
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bjobotts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 01:02 AM
Response to Original message
40. Good intentions vs connections. Neither are that progressive. They share the public's
Edited on Mon Feb-11-08 01:12 AM by bjobotts
concern for republican obstructionism and corruption but Obama started of with a good bill on nuclear power but had given so much up in the way of compromise that by the time it was done it was just more of the same. Look, both candidates are leaving the corporations and their lobbyists in place by having a for profit healthcare system. the ins. co. will still deny treatments for various reasons in order to keep costs low and profits high. Laws will be influenced by their "army" of lobyists for health ins. and big pharm. donating millions to our legislature. Obama comes into politics like they all do and really is no different than Clinton in playing the power games involved. Both are DLC as neither is calling for accountability or a big cut in the defense budget and both continue to threaten Iran with regime change(against our UN charter treaty agreement) unless there is a behavior change in Iran. Having connections gained through exposure in groups like FBI,CIA, Defense dept., State etc means having a way to find out behind the scenes info and having ways to go around obstuctionists. Both have good intentions for the country but so much has been destroyed that so much must be 'restored' before getting to the progressive agenda we claim we want. Our politicians are too cautious and always behind the publics timing. We have Medicare and Medicaid which can be used for all without a for profit healthcare system. Scientists already have a plan to take us off being dependent on oil with the next forty years with the oil corps. being the only entities blocking it. Our candidates are less progressive because they don't believe we can get these things accomplished because of the profiteers stopping us collectively achieving these goals for their own personal profits. Billions generated by these tax cuts for the wealthy are bringing us a whole generation of aristocrats who feel they should be a ruling class because of their birthright and their wealth.

btw. The rights candidates stood out more because of the money they generated from the wealthy (all agreed wealthy keep their tax cuts). Kucinich and Edwards had a huge following for the amount of money and press coverage they had available. Imagine if their names and remarks were mentioned the same amount of times and in the same amount of places in the media as O & H were...Imagine if their names and positions were as common place in the news as the other 2. If the field were equal including debates and press and funding allowed...they would still be in the race on equal footing with O & H. By now EVERY ONE would have heard about Kucinich's NOT FOR PROFIT health care plan and getting out of Iraq. The media has had a lot to do with pushing candidates off on us. They have been unequal and actually made a point of trying to silence the message of the other candidates besides O & H. It's a gradual process of propaganda and message control worked out by media attention specialists. They've got our number.


I fear that even with a Democratic WH that not much will have changed in another 4yrs. The republicans and neocons have no intention of treating bipartisanship as anything other than "date rape" and will continue to obstruct every thing dems attempt to do, so healthcare and the budget won't have changed much at all. Impeachment was the answer and now there will be no accountability and it will be years undoing and restoring what the WH has done to the DoJ. The DoD will keep finding more ways and reason to keep us lingering in Iraq. The DLC is another face of the money party and only Kucinich and Edwards knew what the real fight would encompass. Obama will need to grow some fangs eventually, Hillary is used to it. She knows how nasty these neocons are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ingac70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 01:12 AM
Response to Original message
41. K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
incapsulated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 01:16 AM
Response to Original message
43. "An Obama Presidency will refute it."
Total fantasy based on pure projection.

Break down their stances on everything from foreign policy to economics and there is barely any light between them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 06:31 AM
Response to Original message
45. Obama is not anti-DLC
Edwards, Obama and Clinton are all pretty much centrist candidates, certainly none of them is a DLC-slayer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 06:36 AM
Response to Original message
46. That was fantastic analysis. Some of the best I've read.
Please allow me to repost this on my myspace blog for my community friends, with proper citation of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 06:36 AM
Response to Original message
47. Freeing our beloved Party from the *stranglehold of DLC control* is a VERY GOOD THING!
Go Obama! :patriot: :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 06:38 AM
Response to Original message
48. That was fantastic analysis. Some of the best I've read.
Please allow me to repost this on my myspace blog for my community friends, with proper citation of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caseycoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 06:47 AM
Response to Original message
49. K&R Thanks for posting this! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 06:53 AM
Response to Original message
50. If the DLC is so bad, someone will have to explain why Bill Clinton's record is so good.
Edited on Mon Feb-11-08 07:00 AM by Perry Logan
Not perfect--just very, very good.

I'm not pro-DLC. But if they were so terrible, it seems like their front man, Bill Clinton, would not have such a good record.

A few highlights:

longest economic expansion in American history--a record 115 months of economic expansion
More than 22 million new jobs: more than 22 million jobs were created in less than eight years -- the most ever under a single administration
Highest home ownership in American history
Made the Federal government smaller (a feat matched only by Harry Truman; if you like small government, vote Democratic)
Lowest unemployment in 30 years: unemployment dropped from more than 7 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000; unemployment for African Americans and Hispanics fell to the lowest rates on record, and the rate for women was the lowest in more than 40 years
Largest expansion of college opportunity since the GI Bill
Connected 95 percent of schools to the Internet
Lowest crime rate in 26 years.
Family and Medical Leave Act for 20 million Americans
Smallest welfare rolls in 32 years
Higher incomes at all levels: after falling by nearly $2,000 between 1988 and 1992, the median family's income rose by $6,338, after adjusting for inflation; all income brackets experienced double-digit growth; the bottom 20 percent saw the largest income growth at 16.3 percent
Lowest poverty rate in 20 years: the poverty rate declined from 15.1 percent to 11.8 percent in 1999--the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years
Lowest teen birth rate in 60 years
Lowest infant mortality rate in American history
Deactivated more than 1,700 nuclear warheads from the former Soviet Union: efforts of the Clinton-Gore Administration led to the dismantling of more than 1,700 nuclear warheads, 300 launchers and 425 land and submarine based missiles from the former Soviet Union
Paid off $360 billion of the national debt: under Clinton, we were on track to pay off the entire debt by 2009; what a difference a stolen election makes...
Converted the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus
Lowest government spending in three decades
Lowest federal income tax burden in 35 years
More families owned stock than ever before
Most New Jobs Ever Created Under a Single Administration: Republicans really chew the rug when you mention this one, so it's worth repeating constantly
Median Family Income Up $6,000 since 1993
Unemployment at Its Lowest Level in More than 30 Years
Highest Home ownership Rate on Record
7 Million Fewer Americans Living in Poverty
Largest Surplus Ever
Lower Federal Government Spending: after increasing under the previous two administrations, federal government spending as a share of the economy was cut from 22.2 percent in 1992 to 18 percent in 2000--the lowest level since 1966
The Most U.S. Exports Ever: between 1992 and 2000, U.S. exports of goods and services grew by 74 percent, or nearly $500 billion, to top $1 trillion for the first time
Lowest Inflation since the 1960s: inflation was at the lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5 percent, down from 4.6 percent during the previous administration
The child poverty rate declined more than 25 percent
The poverty rate for single mothers was the lowest ever
The African American and elderly poverty rates dropped to their lowest level on record
The Hispanic poverty rate dropped to its lowest level since 1979
Lowest Poverty Rate for Single Mothers on Record: under President Clinton, the poverty rate for families with single mothers fell from 46.1 percent in 1993 to 35.7 percent in 1999, the lowest level on record
Smallest Welfare Rolls Since 1969: between January 1993 and September of 1999, the number of welfare recipients dropped by 7.5 billion (a 53 percent decline) to 6.6 million. In comparison, between 1981-1992, the number of welfare recipients increased by 2.5 million (a 22 percent increase) to 13.6 million people
Lowest Federal Income Tax Burden in 35 Years: Federal income taxes as a percentage of income for the typical American family dropped to their lowest level in 35 years
Higher Incomes even after Taxes and Inflation: real after-tax incomes grew by an average of 2.6 percent per year for the lower-income half of taxpayers between 1993 and 1997, while growing by an average of 1.0 percent between 1981 and 1993
AGAINST TERRORISM

# PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to kill the Pope.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
# Bill Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
# Bill Clinton brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
# Bill Clinton did not blame the Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.
# Bill Clinton named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
# Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to tighten airport security. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
# Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for better tracking of terrorist funding. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
# Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for better tracking of explosives used by terrorists. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
# Bill Clinton increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.
# Bill Clinton tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.
# Bill Clinton detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries.
# Bill Clinton created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
# Of Clinton's efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama".
# Paul Bremer, current Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Bill Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden.
# Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Bill Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort".
http://liberalslikechrist.org/about/clinton.html
ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Bill Clinton issued an Executive Order on Environmental Justice to ensure that low-income citizens and minorities do not suffer a disproportionate burden of industrial pollution. Launched pilot projects in low-income communities across the country to redevelop contaminated sites into useable space, create jobs and enhance community development.

President Bill Clinton sought permanent funding of $1.4 billion a year through the Lands Legacy initiative to expand federal efforts to save America's natural treasures and provide significant new resources to states and communities to protect local green spaces and protect ocean and coastal resources. Won $652 million for Lands Legacy in the FY 2000 budget, a 42 percent increase.

Launched effort to protect over 40 million acres of "roadless areas," which include some of America's last wild places. Dramatically improved management of our national forests with an ambitious new science-based agenda that places greater emphasis on recreation, wildlife and water quality, while reforming logging practices to ensure steady, sustainable supplies of timber and jobs. Balanced the preservation of old-growth stands with the economic needs of timber-dependent communities through the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan.

Adopted a uniform tailpipe standard to passenger cars, SUVs and other light-duty trucks, producing cars that are 77 percent cleaner -- and light-duty trucks up to 95 percent cleaner -- than those on the road today. Set new standard to reduce average sulfur levels in gasoline by up to 90 percent. Once fully implemented in 2030, these measures will prevent 43,000 premature deaths and 173,000 cases of childhood respiratory illness each year, and reduce emissions by the equivalent to removing 164 million cars from the road.

# Approved strong new clean air standards for soot and smog that could prevent up to 15,000 premature deaths a year and improve the lives of millions of Americans who suffer from respiratory illnesses. Defending the standards against legal assaults by polluters.

# Accelerating Toxic Waste Cleanups. Completed cleanup at 515 Superfund sites, more than three times as many as the previous two administrations, with cleanup of more than 90 percent of all sites either completed or in progress. Secured $1.4 billion in FY 2000 to continue progress toward cleaning up 900 Superfund sites by 2002.

# Providing Safe Drinking Water: Proposed and signed legislation to strengthen the Safe Drinking Water Act and ensure that our families have healthy clean tap water. Required America's 55,000 water utility companies to provide regular reports to their customers on the quality of their drinking water.

# Established EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) that provides grants to States to finance priority drinking water projects that meet Clean Water Act mandates. To date, the DWSRFs have provided $1.9 billion in loans to communities.

# Awarded nearly $200 million in Department of Agriculture (USDA) loans and grants for over 100 safe drinking water projects in rural areas of 40 states. USDA grants and loans target rural communities plagued by some of the nation's worst water quality and dependability problems.

# Expanded Safe Drinking Water Act protections to protect 40 million additional Americans in small communities from potentially dangerous microbes, including Cryptosporidium, in their drinking water.

# Ensuring Clean Water. Launched the Clean Water Action Plan to help clean up the 40 percent of America's surveyed waterways still too polluted for fishing and swimming. Secured $3.9 billion since 1998, a 16 percent increase, to help states, communities and landowners in reducing polluted runoff, enhancing natural resource stewardship, improving citizens' right to know, and protecting public health.

# Strengthening Communities' Right to Know. Strengthened the public's right to know about chemicals released into their air and water by partnering with the chemical industry and the environmental community in an effort to provide complete data on the potential health risks of the 2,800 most widely used chemicals. Nearly doubled the number of chemicals that industry must report to communities, while expanding the number of facilities that must report by 30 percent.

# Expanded the community right to know about releases of 27 persistent bio-accumulative toxins (including mercury, dioxin, and PCBs). These highly toxic chemicals are especially risky because they do not break down easily and are known to accumulate in the human body.

# Secured $83 million in FY 2000 for two major new efforts to restore salmon in the Pacific Northwest: $58 million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, which provides resources for states and tribes to protect and rebuild salmon stocks; and $25 million to implement the historic Pacific Salmon Treaty with Canada, which established two regional funds to improve fisheries management and enhance bilateral scientific cooperation between the two countries and provides funding to buy back fishing permits in Washington.
# Expanding Wildlife Refuges. Added 57,000 acres, including lands along the last free-flowing section of the Columbia River, to the Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge to protect salmon habitat in Washington.

# Forging Partnerships to Protect Habitat. Completed 255 major Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs), compared to 14 before the Administration took office, to protect more than 20 million acres of private land and over 170 threatened and endangered species. These voluntary agreements protect habitat while providing landowners the certainty they need to effectively manage their lands.

# Strengthening Protections for Wildlife. Signed legislation that strengthens protections for wildlife by mandating that the most important use of our nation's wildlife refuges is giving refuge to migratory birds and other animals reliant on this rich system of natural habitat.

Protecting our Oceans and Coasts

# Creating Comprehensive Oceans Policy. Directed the development of key recommendations for strengthening federal oceans policy for the 21st century and appointed a high-level task force to oversee the implementation of those recommendations. Convened a National Ocean Conference in June 1998 that brought together government experts, business executives, scientists, environmentalists, elected officials and the public to examine opportunities and challenges in restoring and protecting our ocean resources.

# Strengthening Our National Marine Sanctuaries. Secured a funding increase of over 100% to better support national marine sanctuaries -- homes to coral reefs, kelp forests, humpback whales, and loggerhead turtles. Supporting the five-year Sustainable Seas Expeditions to explore, study and document ways to better protect underwater resources.

# Preserving Coral Reefs. Issued an Executive Order to expand protection of coral reefs and their ecosystems to address issues of coral reef management, expansion of marine protected areas and increased protections for coral reef species.

# Protecting Marine Mammals. Led negotiations resulting in a multilateral agreement to protect dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Issued new standards to protect the endangered northern right whale from injuries from ships by instituting a first-ever ship reporting requirement in two areas of right whale critical habitat. Fought for creation of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, an area of more than 12 million square miles off the coast of Antarctica.

# Banning Ocean Dumping of Toxic Waste. Led the world in calling for a global ban on ocean dumping of low-level radioactive waste. The U.S. was the first nuclear power to advocate the ban.

Introduced "Better America Bonds" to generate $10.75 billion in bond authority over five years to preserve open space, improve water quality and clean up abandoned and contaminated properties known as brownfields. Local communities can work together in partnerships with land trust groups, environmentalists, business leaders and others to develop innovative solutions to their community's development challenges.

# Provided leadership critical to successful negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol, which sets strong, realistic targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and establishes flexible, market-based mechanisms to achieve them as cost-effectively as possible.

# Investing in Clean Energy Research. Won more than $1 billion in FY 1999 and in FY 2000 for the Climate Change Technology Initiative, a program of clean energy research and development that will save energy and consumers money. Extended the tax credits for wind and biomass energy production through 2001, reducing emissions and reliance on imported oil.

# Growing Clean Energy Technologies. Issued an Executive Order to coordinate federal efforts to spur the development and use of bio-based technologies, which can convert crops, trees and other "biomass" into a vast array of fuels and materials. Set a goal of tripling our use of bioenergy and bioproducts by 2010 to reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by up to 100 million tons a year -- the equivalent of taking 70 million cars off the road.

# Improving Scientific Understanding. Increased funding for the United States Global Change Research Program to more than $1.7 billion in FY 2000 to provide a sound scientific understanding of both the human and natural forces that influence the Earth's climate system. This record research budget continues strong support for the "Carbon Cycle Initiative" begun last year to improve our understanding of the role of farms, forests, and other natural or managed lands in capturing carbon.

# Energy Efficiency Standards for Appliances. Issued new energy efficiency standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers and room air conditioners that will save consumers money and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and dependence on foreign oil. The new standards will cut the average appliance's energy usage by 30 percent and save more than seven quadrillion BTUs of energy over the next 30 years, more than seven times the annual energy consumption of the entire state of Arkansas.

# Promoting federal Energy Efficiency. Issued an Executive Order directing federal agencies to reduce energy use in buildings 35 percent by 2010, reducing annual greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of taking 1.7 million cars off the road and saving taxpayers over $750 million a year. Forged new partnerships with industry to develop and promote energy-saving cars, homes and consumer products with the potential to save Americans hundreds of millions of dollars in energy bills and significantly curb greenhouse gas pollution.
http://www.environmentalcaucus.org/gore.html

PS: What about corruption?

Forget about it. As measured by the total number of convictions and forced resignations, Clinton's was the cleanest administration since Teddy Roosevelt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cooolandrew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #50
53. Bill did do good things he didnt question that, but existance of the DLC is what makes Nancy Pelosi
Edited on Mon Feb-11-08 07:55 AM by cooolandrew
..ineffective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CRH Donating Member (671 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #50
67. Good post, and quite a list, ...

I hope you don't mind if I copy these accomplishments. I am opposed to the DLC, but you make a very good contribution in your support of the record of the first Clinton administration. Perfect it was not, but it was a damned sight better than 12 years of Reagan and Bush.

The list will aid me in trying to view politics apart from white and black, light and dark, blinders, and add some shades of gray.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #50
69. cut and paste
neither good nor bad, simply the same thing I see you do in other threads, cut and paste that same block of copy.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newmajority Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #50
74. Hey, Perry brought breakfast! SPAM omelettes for everyone!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 07:16 AM
Response to Reply #74
111. I'll have the hash browns, while waiting to hear how the Evil DLC's guy had such a smashing record.
Edited on Tue Feb-12-08 07:16 AM by Perry Logan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnlal Donating Member (974 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 07:28 AM
Response to Original message
51. Can't agree more!
Thanks for stating clearly what my biggest misgiving of Sen. Clinton has been since she announced her candidacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cooolandrew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 07:48 AM
Response to Original message
52. Yep, those who don't know DLC please research then carefullyconsider your vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
54. Re: "on social issues she (Clinton)is a bona fide leftist"- I don't agree.
If one vote can be interpreted to take away her bona fides as a leftist, and for me it did, it was the vote against banning the cluster-bomb type weapons (with which the Israelis inundated Lebanon).

Most are familiar with the work Princess Diana did to publicize the horrific injuries these weapons inflicted upon civilians, women, children, and how they continue to kill and maim long after a military conflict has been officially resolved. Those painted bright yellow particularly attract kids to pick them up.

Some interpret Clinton's vote against banning these inhumane weapons as an attempt to look militarily tough enough to lead a nation at war; others - particularly my Manhattan liberal (truly bona fide leftist) friends said the vote was more to keep from offending Clinton's pro-Israeli constituents/donors.

I'm politically active - personally and professionally. I understand that concessions must be made and triangulations are needed to win office. But everyone should have a line over which they will not step, a compromise too far, so to speak.

Add to that thought the fact that many have said they support Clinton for her work for women and children. Speaking as a woman and as a mother, let alone as a human being, I would cut off my hand before I pushed a button voting against a ban on these weapons.

If she wins the nomination, I will vote for her. But at the deepest emotional and psychological level, I no longer respect her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
55. Delete - dupe, sorry, key stuck on my computer
Edited on Mon Feb-11-08 09:13 AM by Divernan
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
56. And yet another delete/dupe - see above.
Edited on Mon Feb-11-08 09:14 AM by Divernan
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Myrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
58. Although I support neither, this is an amazing essay.
Thanks! :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
59. Thanks for putting all that effort in to this essay
I think this para nails where the division lies and the nature of it:
Now, for many here the DLC's corporate conservatism and military hawkishness is not a problem as long as it remains socially liberal (which it is). I think those who gravitate to the left because of social issues yet either don't care, don't know about, or even like how corporatist and militarist the DLC is tend to go with Clinton. I think people who reject the corporatist and militarist DLC tend to go with Obama, even though in some ways he has been forced to assent to it in order to get this far.

To me the division has nothing to do with black/white, man/woman, religion or the rest of the crap the MSM keeps trying to sell as the division. The MSM won't even bring up the real division for fear of it actually becoming better understood by the masses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CRH Donating Member (671 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
61. Good Post, a real world appraisal of the dynamics behind the origins of the Obama campaign.
You have voiced much of what I have been feeling. The real vote here is a separation from the DLC power structure. What Obama's positions will be if this succeeds is a whole different question. There are certain realities in the future that will change the economy and therefore, the politics that govern the economy.

One can deduce from Obama's close advisers and initial base, (minus the groupie stampede to affirmation), that the movement will try for a solution from within a corporate structure. If the economy is to retool and become reliant on less intense energy consumption, the natural cause and effect will be adjusting to a less per capita consumption within the society, and a slow per capita shrinkage of the economy. To state this publicly would be political suicide both within the party and the body politic as a whole, because it confronts every past model and theory of ever growing capitalist markets needed for future sustenance.

However the reality of finite resources and a deteriorating environment that supports life and economy, is now being realized beyond the mumbling left. If the Obama movement succeeds through the general election, and carries a respectable majority in the legislature, a benevolent bully pulpit setting a future course toward conservation, slow economic contraction, and re-education of perception away from frivolous consumption, could be the first steps toward addressing the trilogy of social and economic demand on the future; I.E., the energy behind the post carbon society and its utilization, the adaption to a changing climate and better environmental synergy, and the needed institutional education of, and eventual voluntary reduction of, global population.

In words these adjustments or changes don't sound so formidable, but in reality, humankind has never faced such a challenge with the stakes so high: that of mass die off, social chaos, and possible near extinction. Viewing past politics, policies, and global human cooperation, the odds are clearly against peaceful political and social, evolution.

The question down the future political road, is if the lofty thoughts of political and social change the Obama movement claims as its voice and banner, is in reality a melding of corporate and individual self interest toward addressing a future forced to change, or if the rhetoric falls victim to supporters individual and/or group interests, instead of the collective whole.

The answer to this will only be seen in post general election actions, if the Obama movement pulls off the stunning upset against the entrenched political power of the DLC. That the future model uses and respects the power behind the corporation to effect the needed future reorganization and reeducation of the society, both institutional and individual, is secondary. Indeed harnessing corporate capitalism might be the most efficient method. The dominate emphasis needs to be placed on 'harnessing' the thrust of private enterprise into an economy to serve the people, as the people serve and are, the economy. One can not flourish without the other, and chaos and social poverty serves, neither.

Time will tell, future actions will paint the picture.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LaloBorges Donating Member (115 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
62. You assume
Your assumption is that Hillary Clinton does not know any other way but that of the 90's and that she cannot adapt to the new politics and help fix the mess we are in. You also assume that because Obama has no experience that he can improvise a new way that can ultimately disengage him from the "status quo" and the dependencies of the old politics.

It is a good exercise, your expose on Obama's behalf but, I do differ as I find that inexperience and unproven political action cannot be of any benefit to the country.

I am not underestimating Obama's intelligence, I believe that he and his wife have the intellect to someday prove they can be in the white house, but not next year; and yes, that is my opinion.

Hillary Clinton has been able to adapt, quite successfully to the new politics, she has an understanding of what it takes to deal with the opposition, with international politics, and understands better than any other candidate that the Iraq issue is not solved easily. Anyone who believes that Obama will take the soldiers out of Iraq in 60 days will be very disappointed, that is not feasible and would prove counter productive. Yes, they need to come out, but it must be done with precision and good planning, which is exactly what Hillary is proposing.

I don't buy your argument that having Hillary Clinton in the white house is a return to the 90's although I do hope that some good of the 90's comes back, like peace, a strong economy for all, a sense of pride, etc..

One last thing, if you don't think that Obama's solution to the Health Care crisis is old politics then what do you call it? He is not trying to change anything that has not already been proposed or put in place by the republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gloria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
63. How does rewriting the nuke safety bill "break bonds" with anything???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian_rd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
64. Why does noone remember Ross Perot?
Without him, Clinton would have definitely lost to Bush in 1992, and maybe in 1996 as well. The DLC does not win elections. They never win elections. They are are losers from dawn to dusk who walk around with a swagger like they're some clever unstoppable machine. They're effing losers. Without Ross Perot, the Democratic Party hasn't won a presidential election since 1976.

They only won in 2006 because the Republican Party was so incredibly incredibly bad that it would have taken more effort to lose than win. And if anyone thinks that a Democratic victory in November is a forgone conclusion, you are very very wrong. Never never never underestimate the ability of the Democratic Party to lose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ozone_man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. That giant sucking sound
was Clinton's NAFTA sucking the jobs out of the country. Perot was right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian_rd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. He was most definitely right. And if Clinton was actually liberal, he would have stopped it ...
... instead of ushering in the new century with the crown jewel of right-wing elite economic policy: "More for us, fuck the peons."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #64
72. On ereason that Ross Perot isnot remembered is that he
Had one fact of new American New WOrld Order correct - NAFTA equalled a giant sucking sound.

And he very much emabarrassed the Repugs - for instance in the conservative state of Oklahoma -he took 25% of the vote. (Not the Republican vote - the total vote!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CRH Donating Member (671 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
68. Kick, n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
INdemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
73. Some may remember
A Harry S. Truman Quote

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone
who acts like a Republican,people will vote for the
real Republican every time"
Harry S. Truman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
78. I read your post only so far....after the first paragraph I began to
read it with jaundiced eye. When I reached your analysis of Edwards and you blindly seeing the corporate media through shortsighted rose colored glasses the whole post became highly suspect and I stopped reading altogether dubbing it a waste of time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neo-wobbly Donating Member (124 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
79. Not enough
Sure, Obama will repudiate the DLC, a good thing in and of itself, but how will he be any different? I have six issues I am looking for agreement on:

1. Iraq - get us out. (no permanent bases, etc)
2. Bush - in jail. (I oppose Capital punishment)
3. Education - funded. (more details, but drop NCLB)
4. Health care - for everyone. (no "available for everyone" crap)
5. Civil rights - restored/given. (Patriot Act, FISA, etc)
6. Drugs - legal. (and tax the hell out of them!)

I don't expect to find a candidate I agree with completely, but I will not vote for anyone unless they agree with at least one of these. So far, I'm limited to writing in Kucinich or Edwards, or voting 3rd party, and I don't usually write-in.

P.S. By what stretch of the imagination is Clinton "liberal"?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stimbox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #79
96. The DLC approved candidates don;t agree with your issues.
You might want to look at Mike Gravel.

http://www.gravel2008.us/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
80. yes, it makes so much sense to run a campaign where one of
your prime objectives seems to be attacking and alienating a faction of the party. A faction of the party responslible for the only two wins in the last seven elections. A faction you will need on your side for the general election.

That Obama is one smart fellow....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
81. DLCectomy is morphing into a high colonic-but even if
Obama becomes nom and is eventually elected alot more work will need to be done. It won't happen overnight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xxqqqzme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
82. Agree! One of the tragedies of this election
is that Dean's effort to re-vitalize the party will be lost. Whoever is elected POTUS - if a democrat - Dean will be gone. If HRC the dlc will once again control the party as you say. The democratic base will once again be ignored in favor of corporate money. It will be back to business as usual. There will be no more 'progressive' voice. It's back to the right of center.

I am very concerned because, even though I reside in a blue state, I see what the consequences of dlc control are in the state party. We have a state party chair, who embraced the dlc (cuz it gave him power) that has long since outlived his relevancy. The CDP is lazy and fat. We are very close to losing our majority in this state and the CDP is acting like it is going to be all democrats, all the time. With the dlc back in control, I believe the state parties will once again become fallow and languish.

I have reached the same conclusion as you...it is the primary reason I cannot support another Clinton presidency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billyoc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
84. And not a moment too soon.
DLC delende est.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
86.  Top Obama adviser is lobbyist for Pfizer, Carlyle Group, Monsanto and NRA and..
Edited on Mon Feb-11-08 05:54 PM by ElsewheresDaughter
Hmmm.. Obama has lobbyists for big Pharma, energy and the NRA working on his campaign.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/28/mercado_mosk.html

Hillary is open about her lobbyist connections. She doesn't campaign against lobbyists, or claim to be the champion of reducing lobbyist influence in Washington.

Obama does. Which is why his campaign being full of corporate lobbyist advisor's for companies like Pfizer, Carlyle Group, Verizon, and others is an issue.

"You've got to have a president in the White House who is not simply subject to the whims of corporate lobbyists" Barack Obama

Hypocrisy

Also, "doing the same things" is completely against Obama's platform of "change."

I'm not attacking Obama. I've donated to his campaign and followed him for four years.

But it's time to look past rhetoric and really examine what these candidates are about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jlacivita Donating Member (48 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 03:14 AM
Response to Reply #86
110. ElsewheresDaugther did you read your own link?
The article you posted says there is one (not the many you state) lobbyist who works for a lobby that represents "big Pharma, energy and the NRA".

It also goes on to state that Obama's campaign does not allow federal lobbyists and is insisting that he resign his position with the lobby before joining the campaign. There's nothing inconsistent about that.

If it dilutes his anti-lobbyist message in your eyes, thats respectable, but don't misrepresent the information.

"Which is why his campaign being full of corporate lobbyist advisor's for companies like Pfizer, Carlyle Group, Verizon, and others is an issue."

Verizon? Uhm, i assume you're referring to the fact that Mark Keam, wrote in support of obama on his my.barackobama.com blog in his personal time. If that makes someone a campaign adviser, then obama's got the biggest amateur campaign adviser group ever assembled on his my.barackobama.com site.

Pfizer? This must refer to Vassiliadis, a nevada state lobbyist, who advised the campaign in nevada only. Vassiliadis is a state lobbyist whose work has no federal scope. There's no contradiction here with obama's stance against federal lobbyists having too much power in washington.

Carlyle Group? They're not a lobby. They're a equity company. they've hired lobby's, like plenty of big companies, but again, this isn't a contradiction of obama's stance.

This is hardly "full"

Now it would be great to look at these things and have a dialog about what they say about Obama, but the significant distortions you posted only hurt us as a community because they spread FUD and don't promote constructive discourse.

This reminds me of when Hillary (i believe) tried to attack Edwards for taking money from relatives of lobbyist in one of the debates. Edwards said something about that being different, and I agree. Its a clear stand to have a rule that says no lobbyists. Discounting that stand based one wives of lobbyists or ex-lobbyists is playing semantics, and taking attention away from the fact that you (or you candidate) haven't made a similar stand.

ps: this is my first post, but i've been enjoying all the threads on here for about a month!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StClone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
90. That's an OBAMANATION!
Edited on Mon Feb-11-08 06:36 PM by StClone
LOL! My newly hatched political neologism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MagsDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
91. Oh get real!!!
I have seen a lot of bullshit statements made by Obama supporters to excuse his poor qualities as a candidate, but this shit about why Obama sucks up to the corporate money -- "Clinton is in there by nature and by choice, Obama is in there by necessity (or else he would have went the way of the "non serious" candidate - it's sad, but true)."

Here's a clue for you -- he is fake. F A K E. No one forced him to be the corporate whore he has been for Rezko in Chicago. Please stop pretending he is some pure candidate who just couldn't help writing letters to get govt money for a slumlord. Rezko made Obama. And god knows what Obama will do for all the people he owes after this campaign.

You guys really, really, need a ride on the reality train. Bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
95. Uh, Kucinich and Gravel never stood a chance because 80 percent of America would never agree with
them.

Sorry, but it's true.

Not to mention that if Ron Paul could raise 20 million in two quarters, why couldn't they raise more than four million in the entire race?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bjobotts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #95
106. working for the interests of the poor middle class doesn't raise alot of money
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beregond2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 02:03 AM
Response to Original message
107. DLCectomy
You have expressed my thoughts precisely. I talk to so many people who say: "But...I like Hillary...I don't know Obama...and the nineties were great." That is about as far as their analysis goes. I very much doubt that 99% of the American people know what the DLC even is, and that's a problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JCMach1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 02:18 AM
Response to Original message
108. To the left of Clinton? Keep telling yourself that...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
syberlion Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 02:46 AM
Response to Original message
109. When Accountants Rule...
It's not the lawyers, it's the accountants. Now that corporations enjoy full person-hood, including effectively choosing who can and cannot be seated at a primary debate (thank you GE). It's the accountants that tally up what is and isn't profitable, what will and will not make money for the most important people in those accountant's lives. The Share Holders.

The Share Holders, don't care one whiff where the money's coming from, as long as their stock goes up and as long as they get a tidy dividend check, who cares who's being poisoned, or dying? So, the accountants know they need to watch that bottom line, cut jobs, close factories, sell off wet-lands, do what ever it takes to make a profit. Why? because no one's looking up from their ledgers long enough to see the human cost, the global cost of just watching the bottom line.

Accountants look for ways to save companies money and when you are talking about large corporations, you are talking about big moves. Shut down the factory in Michigan and build one in China. You eliminate having to pay the matching taxes and you save on the higher hourly wages. Your Share Holders will be grateful. Grateful enough to vote the board back in and that lets the board members keep cashing their checks.

So you see, it's a democratic system that's gotten us here. All those share holders voting for those board members to keep the dividend checks rolling into their pockets. This system is now being extended into the governmental process. As with share holders, those with the most shares have the greater influence.

There are people on Wall Street that see this current trend in politics as inevitable. What is occurring is a repeat of what Theodore Roosevelt faced when he began the process known as "Trust Busting." We are there, again. The media, Big Oil, Financial Institutions, Food Producers, are all in the hands of a very few and this concentration is harmful to a working democratic republic. Because those interests have greater sway then the majority of the population of our country.

Even the democratic party isn't truly democratic. If the delegate count remains even or near 50-50, guess what? It will be the Super Delegates, who are not pledged and for the most part have not pledged. Most democrats I know are wanting to abolish something as arcane as the electoral college, yet the democratic primary system has something rather similar with these Super Delegates. at one time, Joe Lieberman had a vote! is THAT the kind of system you want for the primary process?

A new approach will be needed as B&C stated in the post. To do that there must be new leadership. Someone posted the DLC has never won an election and I agree. Were it not for the conservative republican votes pulled off by Ross Perot, there would be no Democrat in the White House since 1976. Neither of these two left standing were my choices and therefore I have had to research and understand where each stands. I will fully support whomever is the nominee because we cannot afford to allow a republican to radically alter the Supreme Court. THAT is what is at stake this election is extremely important.

One side note, the nastiness in DU is just a symptom of what is taking place, We The People know we are being shoved to the side, placed on the back burner and left to simmer. Well, it's time to boil over and start making changes. Those that state they could never support the other democrat in the GE, just remember Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education and ask yourself, what would this country be if those decisions had gone the other way?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 07:56 AM
Response to Original message
113. The DLC is the main reason I'm voting Obama.
It certainly is not due to any infatuation. It's kind of a last wall of defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 04:40 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC