I am sorry Hillary supporters. Someone needs to tell you the truth.

[Meldread]

I know a lot of you are recent arrivals here at DU, so you might not know what the DLC is, but before you vote for Hillary you should know - it is important. Should she win the Presidency, the DLC will play a critical role in the Democratic Party and our Government.

The Democratic Leadership Council is a non-profit corporation that argues that the United States Democratic Party should shift away from traditionally populist positions. The DLC hails President Clinton as proof of the viability of third way politicians and as a DLC success story while progressives assert that Bill Clinton won campaigning as a populist only to abandon those positions after getting elected. Critics contend that the DLC is effectively a powerful, corporate-financed mouthpiece within the Democratic party that acts to keep Democratic Party candidates and platforms sympathetic to corporate interests and the interests of the wealthiest one percent.

It is the opinion of the DLC that economic populism is not politically viable, citing the defeated Presidential campaigns of Senator George McGovern in 1972 and Vice-President Walter Mondale in 1984. The DLC states that it "seeks to define and galvanize popular support for a new public philosophy built on progressive ideals, mainstream values, and innovative, non-bureaucratic, market-based solutions."

The DLC has supported welfare reform, such as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, President Clinton's expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the creation of AmeriCorps. The DLC supports expanded health insurance via tax credits for the uninsured and opposes plans for single-payer universal health care. The DLC supports universal access to preschool, charter schools, and measures to allow a greater degree of choice in schooling (though not school vouchers), and supports the No Child Left Behind Act. The DLC supports both NAFTA and CAFTA. The organization supports some forms of Social Security privatization but opposes financing private retirement accounts with large amounts of borrowed money.

The DLC gave strong support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Prior to the war, Will Marshall co-signed a letter to President Bush from the Project for the New American Century endorsing military action against Saddam Hussein. During the 2004 Primary campaign the DLC attacked Presidential candidate Howard Dean as an out-of-touch liberal because of Dean's anti-war stance. The DLC dismissed other critics of the Iraq invasion such as filmmaker Michael Moore as members of the "loony left". Even as domestic support for the Iraq War plummeted in 2004 and 2005, Marshall reprised his right-wing credentials and called upon Democrats to balance their criticism of Bush's handling of the Iraq War with praise for the President's achievements and cautioned "Democrats need to be choosier about the political company they keep, distancing themselves from the pacifist and anti-American fringe."

----

It goes on and on.



Welcome to the DLC, who brought us such wonderful people as Joe Lieberman and still support him to this day. Many people wonder why Hillary refuses to acknowledge her Iraq War Resolution Vote a mistake. If she holds true to her DLC credentials it is because she believes then, as now, that the war in Iraq was a just war - a good war - and the disagreement on the issue of the war is how it has been managed. If you look at those whom she keeps company, who hold her and her husband up as the most defining leaders of their organization, it is not difficult to believe that Hillary would have walked the same path to war with Iraq as Bush after the 9/11 attacks. It is likely that she would have embraced the Project For the New American Century.

Even today, after her disastrous vote on the IWR, she has voted again in such a way that gives George W. Bush the power to attack Iran.

Even if you believe that Hillary is different from the other members of the DLC, can we really take the chance that you could be wrong?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[MagsDem]

12. Please, give us the electoral math that indicates he can win

Like Obama you are long on proclamations but short on actual facts. The DLC quite vocally supports both Hillary and Obama. Your post with the picture of fingers in the ears represents you exactly. You are impervious to actual facts.

[Kittycat]

16. The DLC Wants and Needs Obama - he denounced them.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050321/berman

[MagsDem]

21. And they want and need Clinton too

The DLC is and always has been irrelevant. That's why they have never impacted a single election. And frankly it's complete bullshit for Obama supporters to pretend they are relevant.

[Kittycat]

26. See my post #25. She's on their Leadership Team. She IS the DLC.

:eyes:

[Armstead]

50. Irrelevant?

Clinton was the poster boy for the DLC, and his policies reflected it.

[defendandprotect]

169. BILL CLINTON and AL GORE CO-FOUNDED THE DLC . . . !!!!

Do you think Hillary doesn't embrace it --- ???

The DLC is, of course, a negative influence within the party --- and works to replace liberals
with "blue dogs."

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

239. that's "Al FROM" not "Al Gore"

Its a weird name, but there it is:

Producing and directing the DLC is Al From, its founder and CEO, who's been the leader, visionary, and energizing force behind the New Democrat movement since Day One." --Robert Dreyfuss, The American Prospect, April 23, 2001.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Democratic_Leadership_Council

Oh and Joe Loserman is a former chair.

[defendandprotect]

249. AL GORE WAS A CO-FOUNDER OF THE DLC WITH BILL CLINTON ---

REPEAT ---

AL GORE ---

AL GORE ---

AL GORE ---

[Hutzpa]

243. So don't expect to see Al Gore

endorsing Obama anytime soon then. Thats the reason why he has kept quite.....
no wonder....hmmmmm....this makes it very interesting.

[RaleighNCDUer]

162. Not relevant, huh? Check out the superdelegates that support Hillary

and those who support Obama.

The DLC superdelegates overwhelmingly support Hillary. They are the ones who would take the popular vote for Obama and turn it on its head, to support their candidate.

They are the 5th columnists who backed the telecom bill.

Some are merely opportunists who look to where power is concentrated, but most are the neolib imperialists, socially liberal (to a degree) and firmly believing in American exceptionalism, in the American economic and military empire, in the diplomacy of the gun. They are anti-populist, prefering to trust in an economic and political aristocracy. They are what used to be Goldwater Republicans.

[creeksneakers2]

198. The DLC offers no super delegate appointments

Are you talking about super delegates who happen to belong to the DLC also?

[RaleighNCDUer]

201. Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

If DLC support was a wash, was neutral, they'd break evenly for Obama and Clinton.

It's not just about policies - where the two are remarkably similar - but about agenda. There, they are vastly different.

[Hutzpa]

246. I like your phrase

'Neolib Imperialist"

Question: Is Claire McCaskill one of them? A'mean DLC?

[heliarc]

252. Swearing won't win the primaries for Hillary

Are you sure you mean to tell the voters of Virginia, Maryland, and DC that they are irrelevant?

[Capn Sunshine]

202. he's quite pointedly distanced himself from the DLC

So have I here in the real world. I was a member once, so was he. I worked for Clinton-Gore, so did he.

I don't think you can make the argument that either one of us would EVER go back to either again

[fightthegoodfightnow]

221. The DLC Needs Obama......

.....because they know he is going to win.

Obama........ igonre the DLC.

They have DESTROYED the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party !!!

[bjobotts]

222. Yeah? Where's Obama's NOT FOR PROFIT Healthcare plan?

[bjobotts]

223. Obama said,"I didn't say I didn't believe in war, just not this one".

[earthlover]

37. Hillary cannot win in November. Obama has a good chance.

Already, polls show Obama doing better than Hillary vs McCain.

Hillary has based much of her campaign on experience. She can't use that against McCain, who has more experience.

Hillary cannot use the Iraq War as a campaign issue. Because she supported the IWR. If she does, she will look like a flip flopper.

McCain will be portrayed by the media as a maverick. He will appeal to independents vs Clinton. However, Obama has such appeal among independents he will trump McCain's strong suit.

Hillary will motivate a strong turnout among Republicans who may not be so excited this year otherwise. At the same time, she does not excite the democratic base. A high republican turnout combined with a low democratic turnout spells disaster.

Hillary has already alienated African American voters by statements Bill and her have made during the primaries. A low turnout in the general election may be the result. Again, not good for electoral math.

Many moderates just don't like hillary. It's not that they "hate" her. She comes of the wrong way for many moderates. They may be upset with Bush, and even with the Republicans, but Hillary may be the one Democrat they would not support.

[TexasObserver]

67. You have made an excellent post on this topic.

"Many moderates just don't like hillary. It's not that they "hate" her. She comes of the wrong way for many moderates. They may be upset with Bush, and even with the Republicans, but Hillary may be the one Democrat they would not support."
---- quoted for truth

[Hepburn]

75. Let's see....

...Moderates don't like Hillary; Liberals don't like Hillary; Independents don't like Hillary....

......hmmmmmmm.....

[TexasObserver]

80. Lobbyists like Hillary. Defense contractors and Big Pharm like her.

[Hepburn]

146. Yes....those who have only the interest of us little people...

...closest to their wallets...er...hearts.

:sarcasm:

[dicknbush]

191. Independents the dumbest group of humans... since Ludites!

They say if the election is between Obama and McCain they will vote for Obama If the election is between McCain and Clinton they will vote for McCain...Dumb people and Dumber People who have no sense about what they are doing.

[dicknbush]

193. Obama Says He'd Consider Arnold For His Cabinet

Oh great!


Obama Says He'd Consider Arnold For His Cabinet
Email
Share December 20, 2007 8:29 AM

ABC's Sunlen Miller Reports: Barack Obama has often said he'd consider putting Republicans in his cabinet and even bandied about names like Sens. Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel. He's a added a new name to the list of possible Republicans cabinet members - Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Obama regularly says he would look to Republicans to fill out his cabinet if he was elected, but at a town hall event in Manchester, N.H., he was pushed to name names.

[defendandprotect]

233. I've heard this before and it keeps getting worse-!! Holy crap--!!!

THIS is just what I fear about Obama --- that he can make a speech but he really doesn't get it.

Like having Aaarnold rise in government --- !!!

And voting Repugs out and then putting them in the Cabinet --- !!!

WTF?

[ClericJohnPreston]

242. WTF?

Whats not to understand? Bi-partisanship to Obama means being Repub-lite. After all, Reagan is a role model.....

[defendandprotect]

248. Screw Obama's "bi-partisanship" and his idea of Repugs in a Dem Cabinet --- !!!

[Hutzpa]

250. What you guys are failing to understand

is, his message, his message is about unity, working across the board. Lets take a
second and think, What Obama is saying is, he can work with Republicans that
share the same values as us.

Tony Blair (Prime Minister of England) had a landslide victory in 1997, his first cabinet
had conservative and liberal dems, he was able make drastic changes then.

The key is, he used that to position himself for majority of the labor agendas,
which made it easier on his part.....I think thats the similar path Obama is trying
to travel on, we shall see.

Americans are used to being divided so much so that, positivity can be translated
as negativity.

[polpilot]

88. People who have never voted Repub told me a month ago if it's Hillary v. McCain

McCain gets their vote. Call it crazy, call it what you want, I hear this across the country.

[BeachBuckeye]

181. I get hundreds of e-mails from listeners every day and not once

have I heard anyone say they would vote McCain over Hillary. Not once!

[GreaseMan]

259. OK , now you do!

I will vote for McCain over Hillary! If this country wants to truly move on they should not let any Clinton near the White House.

I loved Bill as president and thought we had some of the best years under him. But unfortunately he could not keep his Di*k in his pants and that makes the Clinton name a target to this day. If she is voted in as President or Vice president nothing will get done because of the target painted on them consistently by the right wing establishment and talk pundits.

It is time to put this era behind us and try to move forward, unfortunately it looks like the clinton machine as evident in these forums will not let that happen without bringing down the whole party with it.

Thus I will vote for McCain, if Bloomberg does not hop in. But if Blooomberg does decided to hop in on and HRC is on the ticket for the dems I will vote for Bloomberg due to the fact he his a successful businessman unlike the monkey that is in office now.

There now you have had heard it! :nuke:

[Lex Talionis]

103. Well I'll be damned! That was spot on.

Obama is the only one who can really draw people like myself. Independents, who are not party koolaid drinkers. Your post was very well put. Why do you think that Bush himself, came to the Clintons defense? They are scared of Obama. That simple. If someone like me will vote for him then others will, too. The sheep are waking up, and that scares the Elites in this country. Your very correct, Hillary is the Democrat we will not support. GO BO!

[beezlebum]

141. wow

you nailed it. i have been saying that the "______ can't beat mccrazy" stuff was bunk, but you have made a convincing argument here.

[goclark]

199. Billary has certainly alienated African Americans

We really loved him and HC but he has messed with our SON!

Talking about "he is a roll of the dice, he is like Jesse Jackson, he is telling Fairy Tales" etc. etc. etc.

When I talk to my fellow African American friends they are FINISHED with both of them.

[niceypoo]

240. Republican talking point

go figure, an Obama avatar to go with it...

[ekwhite]

244. They certainly have alienated African Americans

An interesting comment I read here or on another blog pointed out that the Clinton campaign has written off the African American vote - which is why they are pursuing the Latino vote so strongly, so as to offset their loss. They are using typical Rovian divide and conquer strategies. They figure they only need enough delegates to have the superdelegates bring them over the top, and only 50% + 1 electoral vote in the fall. If they succeed, they will get into office only to ruin the Democratic party's long-term future.

[Hutzpa]

251. Good point, I've said it and I will say it again

if Billary gets the nod, they will destroy the Dem party into oblivion, most of
us will not even recognized it once they are done.

They know majority of the super delegates are DLC members, hence the meme....
counting the delegates and looking forward to the next state while saying the
other state don't matter.

Thats their game plan.

[bjobotts]

224. Bullshit. Any dem we nominate will beat McBush. We are 3 to 1 with Hillary

[bjobotts]

227. Voters are out in droves to push out the republicans out of necessity to stop this disaster.

Everything you stated is easily debunked. It's a biased perception to blackmail voters into thinking that Hillary could not easily defeatr any repub candidate. She cannot be accused of flip flopping as she did not support the war, her experience is not what she would throw at McCain but Obama's inexperience is what McCain would throw at Obama. Obama spent 1/3 of the time in Illinois senate running for congress; 1/3 of time as senator running for president, He just doesn't have Hillary's connections...a point you overlook. McBush doesn't appeal to independents, are you kidding? More war, Iraq forever, permanent tax cuts for the rich, no national healthcare...independents don't want 4 more years of Bush 3 only more to the right...they aren't stupid, Republicans will vote republican and let 'em because the polls show dems out number them almost 4to1 and dems are mad as hell and not going to take this anymore. No republican will win the WH this election...period and since that is pretty much your entire argument for not supporting Hillary...I think you should come up with less paranoid arguments. 4more years of Bush....hahahahahahahahahahahaha. I think not even if we nominate a mule.

[RazBerryBeret]

95. Not Actual facts...

because "actual Facts" will only be available after the election...
but here are actual Natioinal Poll numbers:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

[John Q. Citizen]

121. Hill is promenantly featured as a DLC leader at their site. And lots of her pledged supers are there

too.

She's their choice whether they come out and say it plain or not. There's no denying that.

Obama can win anywhere Hillary can win, but Hillary can't win anywhere Obama can win. I live in a state Hill can't win but Obama might win.

Obama can carry MO!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

206. Oh Good Grief

You write: 'DLC quite vocally supports both Hillary and Obama.'

That's amusing. The DLC, not unlike HRC, have so much invested it the status quo, the political machinery and incumbents that they can't even recognize that how we frame the question and the debate can be so much more than it is.

The fact is that Obama resonates with not only liberals, but moderates and conservatives. Hillary panders to fear suggesting she has more in common with Bush than her vote to start and continue funding this war.

[MyNameGoesHere]

76. What is this "Black as he is " shit?

He might win because he wins the most delegates and that is just fine. But your diarrhea of the mouth is disgusting. And no i would not "rather lose" like its some kind of fucking prom king and queen vote, The only people that will lose are the ones that think the other candidate will not represent them as they want. Stop trying to be a racists pig by the way.

[fascisthunter]

81. "Black as he is"... oy

[sandnsea]

2. Very nice, except

I think AmeriCorps is a good thing, and the EIC increases were also a good thing. I'm not sure why you included those in your complaints.

[Meshuga]

14. I was also wondering what is wrong with AmeriCorps

But as a whole I agree. I don't want to see the DLC setting the standard as far as defining the Democratic party.

[druidity33]

39. As a former Americorps volunteer

I can tell you that the "stipend" they give you is unliveable. The organization Americorps doesn't really run things. They depend on outside organizations to provide HealthCare and management. Some of the outfits they choose to support are plainly just taking advantage of "cheap labor" for a year. The tuition award that i recieved is unusable for me b/c i don't have any student debt and have no reason to go back to college. I can't use the money to pay off part of my wife's $30Gs in school debt either.

All in all it was a worthwhile experience. But very poorly run. I worked in NYC for a group called The NY Restoration Project (NYRP) and despite the fact that we had the highest stipend in the country ($600+) dollars a month... it was IMPOSSIBLE to live in NYC on that amount. I communted 2.5 hours each way every day so that i could live on a commune on Staten Island (the cheapest "rent") i could find. In the end i pretty much commuted 5 hours a day so i could pick up trash for about 8 hours a day.

Sound like fun?

If it's to work it needs to be better funded and Americorps management needs to be present at times.

:shrug:

[juno jones]

140. Speaking of americorps (not to derail anything, I hope)

A waitress who works at my restaurant is going to school to be a special ed teacher/administrator. She had spent some time working for Americorps and wanted to look into another job with them. She was told she had to send in a pic of herself, ostensibly to see if she would 'fit in'. All I could say was WTF!? Anybody have any insight on this?

[druidity33]

157. SOP

it was part of the application process. I worked with ALL KINDS of folk. If she's talking about a VISTA program that's different in that you have to have a specific project/organization in mind and often you are the only Americorps member there (more like an internship, really)

I doubt very much the picture is to see if she'll "fit in". It is a government program after all.

btw, i worked with members who were Rasta, Muslim, Santeria, Catholic, Wiccan, so i know they don't exclude based on religion.

also, fwiw, i finished my service with Americorps in Aug of '01 and moved off Staten Island to MA on Sept 2. I missed the WTC by 9 days. Lost an Americorps member crewmate to the bombing (bike messenger, fallen debris :( ) and managed to escape being trapped on Staten Isl for 4 months due to commandeering the ferries. Madness.


Like i said, it was a worthwhile experience (Americorps, that is), but your friend should make sure she knows as much about the Organization that she'll be working for as she can.

:shrug:

[juno jones]

194. Not really sure of the details re: VISTA etc.

She had worked for Americorp before, it just seemed an odd request.

[Blue State Bandit]

247. I have seen AmeriCorp be that rope thrown out to a life hanging over the cliff.

I am voting for Obama. The OP's pen is singing to the choir with me, and I still hold Hillary and Bill close to my heart. This program is one of the reasons why. But I believe that a good program, does not qualify as a justification to over turn my reasoned understanding of the peril we face as a nation.

The program, tho it tends to have an "amateurish feel" at times in its execution of services, plays such a pivotal roll in urban (not abreast of rural) blight reduction. It is one of the key ingredients in Ed Rendell's Renaissance of Philadelphia circa '95.

I can unequivocally say that AmeriCorps saves lives, and pull neighborhoods back from the brink. But I can not, in good conscience, allow the powers that have been running our "cut an run" congress; as so the Telecoms go, replace atrocious with as tamer version of the same. A government that I'm sure will be dogged trough out it's tenure in the white House by the Rethugs, not so much because they have such unharmonized goals, but because they can't get over not being in the divers seat, and will jeopardize everything to rest that power back.

This kind of sums up what I hope to deny fruition with my vote for Obama:

A government, in which, can only reach that at risk American that just needs a nudge from the edge of despair to thrive, that can only throw a rope over the edge.

America is there on that edge,

and this is my vote;

this is my rope,

and this,

is my hope.

[Armstead]

55. I think the OP was trying to be honest and informative

I hate the DLC. But they do have some good approaches mixed in among the junk.

(But maybe the OP poster knows something about AmericaCorp that I don't.)

[donheld]

3. K & R. This is one of Hillary's biggest faults.

[MagsDem]

23. Her fault is that Al From endorses her and Obama?

If you ask me it's the biggest reason you sheeple should have voted for Edwards instead. But please, do us a favor and stop acting as if Clinton courts them. She wouldn't even show up for there DLC showcase.

[Tatiana]

4. The expansion of the earned income tax credit was a good thing.

So was Americorps. This is what makes the Bill Clinton presidency such a frustrating thing. He had all the potential in the world to become a transformative president. He could have reinvented the way we view public and affordable housing.

He had the opportunity to do so many things and though we got a few crumbs thrown our way (like expanding the EITC and Americorps), the free-trade and neoliberal economic policies along with media consolidation have served to negate any of the positive things he did.

That's why it's really irritating to listen to Hillary say that she's her own woman and she's the one running for president, but wouldn't we like to return to the "golden days" of the '90s? The environment is not the same. We can't go back to that era even if we wanted. The Republicans have so dismantled our justice system, our economic system, our social service network and safety nets that pragmatism is not going to be enough. Crumbs thrown our way are not going to be enough to keep people's homes from going into foreclosure, children missing their parents because they are working two jobs just to make ends meet, and people losing their retirement investments because no one will regulate these nefarious corporations and hedge fund managers.

This isn't about the right-wing versus the left-wing as it is about corporations versus the public. There is a reason big business "loves Hillary," as Fortune magazine proclaimed. They know she will continue the economic policies that are so favorable to them and disastrous for the everyday American citizen.

[gargost]

17. Hillary for big business?

If you look at the "big business" donating to HRC
you will also see them contributing to Obama's campaign. Some
months back I e-mailed Obama's campaign manager re: a message
the campaign sent out saying that HRC was pandering to big
business, special interests, and Washington lobbyists. I asked
for just a few names, but instead I was asked to go to the FEC
website and sift through thousands of contributors- so I did. 


Obama is using lots of rhetoric when talking to the electorate
for one simple reason: Someone listening to Obama's comments
will not necessarily hear the rebuttals.  What happens then is
that people repeat those comments, and they become
"truth".  The same happened whe Republicans began
saying that HRC was polarizing- now even Democrats are saying
it.  

[YDogg]

166. welcome to DU

:hi:

[Kittycat]

20. Well put.

[MagsDem]

24. Obama is no different

He is Hillary only more friendly to rethugs. Look at their policy positions side by said and in every instance he is LESS progressive. Quit the bullshit of assuming Hillary moves lockstep with Bill. She has always been more progressive than Bill. Always. And it is pure gender bigotry to judge her based on her husbands policy decisions.

[Tatiana]

38. If Congress passed a single-payer health care bill, who would sign it? n/t

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

46. what's progressive about voting for the war on Iraq? n/t

[katty]

106. Obam and Hill have similar voting records-he's just prettier

delivers a feel good, cool message complete with a big smile. Hillary's style is so very different.

[Lorien]

197. I wish that I could say that I disagree with you

but I don't. My dad is a big Obama fan now, and he really seems to hate Hillary. We used to talk about politics all the time, but now I just say "I have no horse in this race" because I honestly can't see a huge difference between the two.

[Bonobo]

87. yes, right.

[passy]

5. k&r

[johnnydrama]

6. part of their delusion

Is saying how dare Obama work with Republicans, when 8 years Of Clinton was co-opting Republican ideas and compromising every step of the way.

How can you believe both?

[JCMach1]

7. So, why is the DLC touting BOTH candidates?

Why the DLC supports Obama and Clinton?

January 11th, 2008 by Paul Silver

The actual title to this blog post at the New York Times was D.L.C. Leaders Cut Edwards Out

Democratic Leadership Council on a conference call today told reporters they’re “very happy about the two candidates” Americans are considering…I think in the end, Senator Obama’s appeal that he’s made very firmly and directly to independent voters, and Senator Clinton’s appeal to the forgotten middle class are going to add up to a very smashing Democratic majority in the fall.”…

During the rest of the call, the two men said they were pleased that none of the Democratic candidates supports a single-payer health care system, that they are all taking the environment seriously, and that they’re focusing on national security — a strength that Mr. From admits, “we’ve not always had.”... http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/newsweek-blogitics/17021/why-the-dlc-supports-obama-and-clinton/

Answer: They both swing to the RIGHT when it suits them...

[MagsDem]

11. Because they are irrelevant and always have been

The DLC seeks to gain relevance by glomming onto the democrat of choice. The DLC is complete bullshit, always has been, always will be to any dem voter that knows anything about actual dem politics. Anyone that actually posts crap like this is an an out of touch person within the dem party. It's as simple as that.

[JCMach1]

19. The point of the story was- they WEREN'T touting Edwards

back in January...

Yes, the DLC is largely irrelevant now I fully agree.

But, that kind of defeats the original argument by the OP. Doesn't it?

For me, one of my big peeves with Obama is just how far to the right he is... in that area, I see little difference between Obama and Hillary.

I have a slightly different argument about the DLC in that I believe most of their ideas have been permanently coopted by the party at-large. This is especially true with such issues as women's rights, gay rights, abortion, and gun control. The DLC policy was to keep these planks on the down-low so that candidates are viable across the country (especially in the South). These ideas have become so mainstream that often left of liberal democrats (like myself) often feel like strangers in our own party.

Obama and Clinton both play that game (DLC if you want to call it that). It's just an observation. I am not about to jump the shark and vote for Nader.

[bvar22]

159. The DLC irrelevant?

Check back over the last 7 years.
Look specifically the the inability of the Democratic Party to block ANY of the NeoCon agenda.
Bush and the NeoCons could ALWAYS rely on the support of a handful of "Democrats" to betray the Party and help implement the Conservative agenda....IWR, CAFTA, TaxCuts FOR the RICH, Bankruptcy "reform"...and ON..and ON...and ON.

Especially look at the Democratic Senators who betrayed the Party and crossed over to vote with Republicans on seating Alito and Roberts. (SEE: Gang of 14)

Now cross check the Senators and Congressman who regularly BETRAYED the Democratic Party with membership in the DLC.



If that is not enough, check out the DCCC and cross check with DLC membership.
Then research Rham Emmanuel's (DCCC) involvement in crushing the campaigns of Progressive grassroots candidates in Democratic Primaries, and replacing them with more corporate friendly DLC alternatives.



Is the DLC irrelevant?
The DLC would like you to believe that.

[Tatiana]

15. The DLC has been courting Obama since he was an IL state senator.

They were hoping to get him as their national African-American star, and instead had to settle for Harold Ford, Jr. The Black Commentator has been following this story since early 2003. By June of 2003 they had engaged in a passionate back and forth conversation with the then-candidate for Senate. They presented a series of three questions to Obama to determine whether he was really a DLC'er. Here are those questions:

BC was shocked to find Obama’s name associated with the New Democratic Movement, an affiliate of what Bruce Dixon calls the “Republican Trojan Horse in the bowels of the Democratic machinery” – the DLC. In a June 19 Cover Story that included a letter from Obama, BC posed three “bright line” questions to the candidate, “that should determine whether you belong in the DLC, or not.”

1. Do you favor the withdrawal of the United States from NAFTA? Will you in the Senate introduce or sponsor legislation toward that end?

2. Do you favor the adoption of a single payer system of universal health care to extend the availability of quality health care to all persons in this country? Will you in the Senate introduce or sponsor legislation toward that end?

3. Would you have voted against the October 10 congressional resolution allowing the president to use unilateral force against Iraq?

BC asserted that a “Yes” answer to all three questions would be “anathema” to the DLC, whose leadership “has been unequivocal in their support of NAFTA, opposition to anything resembling national health insurance, and fervently in support of the Iraq war – basic issues of war and peace, life and death, and livelihood.”

Aware of Obama’s consistently progressive legislative record, BC suggested that the only “honorable option” was that he “publicly withdraw from the DLC.”

I'll just let Mr. Obama's words speak for themselves:

Dear Black Commentator:

Let me begin by saying that I’ve enjoyed the dialogue that we seem to be developing on these e-pages, and hope it continues as my campaign progresses.

I also appreciate your desire to focus on specific issues that should be of interest to all progressives, both inside and outside of the Democratic Party. My views on universal health care, the unilateral use of force in Iraq, and NAFTA are in fact what you might expect given my previous history and voting record.

I favor universal health care for all Americans, and intend to introduce or sponsor legislation toward that end in the U.S. Senate, just as I have at the state level. My campaign is also developing a series of interim proposals – such as an expansion of the successful SCHIP program – so that we can immediately provide more coverage to uninsured children and their families.

I would have voted against the October 10th congressional resolution authorizing the President to use unilateral force against Iraq. I believe that we could have effectively neutralized Iraq with a rigorous, multilateral inspection regime backed by coalition forces. Nothing since the end of the formal fighting has led me to reconsider this stance; indeed, the inability of Saddam Hussein to mount even token resistance to American forces, the failure to discover any significant, deployable arsenals of biological or chemical weapons inside Iraq, and the on-going turmoil currently taking place in post-war Iraq, have only strengthened my views on the subject.

And although I believe that free trade - when also fair - can benefit workers in both rich and poor nations, I think that the current NAFTA regime lacks the worker and environmental protections that are necessary for the long-term prosperity of both America and its trading partners. I would therefore favor, at minimum, a significant renegotiation of NAFTA and the terms of the President’s fast track authority.

You are undoubtedly correct that these positions make me an unlikely candidate for membership in the DLC. That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC. As I stated in my previous letter, I agreed to be listed as “100 to watch” by the DLC. That’s been the extent of my contact with them. It does appear that, without my knowledge, the DLC also listed me in their “New Democrat” directory. Because I agree that such a directory implies membership, I will be calling the DLC to have my name removed, and appreciate your having brought this fact to my attention.

I do think a broader question remains on the table. What is the best strategy for building majority support for a progressive agenda, and for reversing the rightward drift of this country?

One important part of that strategy - and on this I think we agree - is for progressives within the Democratic Party to describe our core values (e.g. racial justice, civil liberties, opportunity for the many, and not just the few) in clear, unambiguous terms.

A second part of that strategy - and again, I think we agree here - is to stake out clear positions on issues that put those values into action (e.g. the need for universal health care), and to stand up for those values when they are under assault (e.g. opposition to the Patriot Act).

But the third part of this part of the equation – and on this we may disagree – must be to gain converts to our positions. My job, as a candidate for the U.S. Senate, isn’t to scold people for their lack of ideological purity. It’s to persuade as many people as I can, across the ideological spectrum, that my vision of the future is compatible with their values, and can make their lives a little bit better. Thus, while I may favor common-sense gun control laws, that doesn’t keep me from reaching out to NRA members who are worried about their lack of health insurance. I favor affirmative action, but I’m still going after the votes of white union members who oppose affirmative action, because I think I can convince them that it’s Bush’s economic agenda, and not affirmative action, that is eroding their job security and stagnating their wages. And while I may object to the misogyny and materialism of much of rap culture, I’m still going to spend the time reaching out to a hip-hop generation in search of a future.

In other words, I believe that politics in any democracy is a game of addition, not subtraction. And I believe deeply enough in the decency of the American people to think that progressives can build a winning majority in this country, so long as we’re not afraid to speak the truth, and so long as we don’t write off big chunks of the electorate just because they don’t agree with us on every issue.

All of which explains why I’m not likely to launch blanket denunciations of the DLC or any other faction within the Democratic Party. I intend to engage DLC members, just like I intend to engage everybody else that I can during the next year of campaigning, in a conversation about the direction our country needs to take to give ordinary working families a fair shake. In some instances, I may even agree with DLC positions: their insistence on the value of national service, or the need to harden domestic targets like chemical plants from potential terrorist attack, to cite a few examples I just pulled from the DLC web-site, make sense to me. Where I disagree with them – and, as we have already discussed, I disagree with them strongly on a lot of major issues - I intend to let them know, firmly and without equivocation, just why I think they are wrong.

To some, this approach may appear naïve; to others, it may appear that I’m headed down a path of dangerous compromise. All I can tell you is that in my twenty years as an organizer, civil rights lawyer, and state senator, I’ve always trusted my moral compass, and have thus far avoided compromising my core values for the sake of ambition or expedience. Hopefully, by listening to the people I seek to serve, and with the occasional jab from friendly critics like The Black Commentator, I can stay on that course, and ultimately do some good as the next U.S. Senator from the state of Illinois.

Sincerely,

State Senator Barack Obama

Candidate for the U.S. Senate

http://www.blackcommentator.com/48/48_cover.html

[TheDoorbellRang]

28. I'd never seen that exchange before. Well worth reading

The more I read about Obama, the more firmly I support him. K&R

[Tatiana]

30. That is what is happening across the country.

The more people get to know Obama, the more inclined they are to vote for him. The problem is, there are those who like to "throw sand in the eyes of the umpire," to borrow a Fitzism. There are things that I disagree with Obama on, but he is one of my Senators and I have never doubted that his goal is to improve the lives of those who are falling or have been left behind. He *is* a progressive and he does have a record to prove it, no matter how much others may try to convince us otherwise.

[JCMach1]

40. He is without a doubt a moderate progressive...

I have worries also (mainly among the base) that some will turn against him in the GE as he moves to the right to pull in the independent voters.

You can also note that Hillary has the same problem in the GE...

Sorry, I don't buy the hardline from both groups of supporters here. Both candidates are moderate progressive. Depending on the issue, sometimes more moderate than progressive.

So, I am just as adamant in casting my vote for either in the GE.

I may not love either one, but sometimes politics isn't about love. I will do what I can to get EITHER elected.

[Tatiana]

63. That is very different from implying that he is a member of the DLC.

He is not.

Just wanted to clear that up :hi:

[JCMach1]

115. Positions lately have been so polarized in GDP that, unfortunately,

most nuances of discussion have been dropped.

Glad you saw the difference I was pointing out. :)

As you recall Obama was recruited by the DLC, but basically rejected joining them.

The legacy (hangover) of the DLC will be with us much longer as a party and really holds the party back from and fresh thinking about a progressive and populist agenda.

Regardless of who wins that won't be cleaned-up overnight.

[spoiledrotten]

212. The more I hear him - - -

the more convinced I am that if he is the nominee, I will cast my first Republican vote. Pretty speeches but no substance.

[w13rd0]

29. What a great response letter...

...just another demonstration of why I'm an Obama supporter.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

48. he favors diplomacy, but the DLC favors war

The DLC's platform is incompatible with Obama's.

[writes3000]

57. Wow. I love his response. Thank you for sharing that, Tatiana. n/t

[Egnever]

69. Thanks for that. It should be an OP

[FormerDittoHead]

93. This SHOULD be made into its own post. VERY informative, and myth dispelling.

I have to say this opened my eyes up a bit...

[Mojambo]

253. The last 4 paragraphs of that letter are what have people believing in Barack Obama

And I have to admit that after reading it, I'm kinda believing a little bit myself.

[sandnsea]

18. To push Edwards out

to make it easier to push Obama out. I think they really thought America is a lot more racist than it is.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

45. "very happy about" is a whole lot different than endorses or supports

I am sure the DLC is scared that they will appear to support the losing candidate (Hillary)
and lose more of their creditability.

Everyone wants to be seen as backing a winner.

But “very happy about the two candidates” is just meaningless rhetoric.

[RaleighNCDUer]

167. Because they know that a populist movement will freeze them out.

They've been moving to the right, co-opting republican positions for twenty years, including the Clinton terms, and all we have to show for it is a pitifully weak Democratic opposition, and a lot of passed Republican initiatives.

If we are to stop the republicans the first order of business is stopping the DLC. We don't need another knife in the back like we got in the last two presidential elections.

[cooolandrew]

8. K&R

[Submariner]

9. Great post Meldread

Thanks for putting ALL the greatest 'hits' together so that even the Hillary supporters can easily read and digest her judgment based on her 35 years of 'experience'.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[joefree1]

22. Hey, you get a heart

Great post. The conspiracy nuts here are working over time.

[MagsDem]

34. Thanks that was sweet. :)

[Kittycat]

25. What the heck are you talking about? Of course she's their candidate.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

She's on their leadership team!


Either you're in complete denial, have jumped the shark - or fully support her association with such nefarious organizations and platforms.

[MagsDem]

31. So fucking what?

Tell me how the DLC has ever influenced an election in this country? They haven't. Not a single one. I'm sure she is on lots of leadership commitees that are equally irrelevant. That's what politicians do. Obama has directly sucked up to the Christian Leadership Committee, actively seeking their endorsement. How is that any different?

[Kittycat]

44. Wow, look at you with your Neo-Liberal self.

You keep on supporting her and her PAC money - you can have her. Her earmarks, you can have that too. Out thinking she could do it all with Bill's donor list and their corporate cronies. Me, I'm going with Obama, he might accept money from corporations, but not PACs, and he promises nothing in return, unlike HRC and her already proven history.

Buh-bye. You've once again proven that you have no interest in the truth behind Obama. If only the world could live in the sewer with Clinton, that might make you happy... Oh wait, we are in the sewer... So how does she plan on getting us out again? I'm tired of corporations and cronies over 'WE' the people. Clinton is just more of the same.

[PassingFair]

150. They do more than influence elections, they influence LEGISLATION.

Take a look at the Senators who torpedoed
the Immunity Provision of the FISA Bill today.

NAYs
Bayh (D-IN)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Webb (D-VA)

A couple of mild surprises there, but run those names
through your DLC-O-METER and you'll get the picture.
They vote the way their told when it makes a crucial
difference to their corporate masters.

Yes they do.

[defendandprotect]

171. And...the DLC continues to solicit "blue dogs" to run against liberals . . .

in order to continue to defeat liberal/progressive Democratic agendas ---

[PassingFair]

177. I didn't want to take THOSE puppies on in this thread!

Sometimes posters will say, but such-and-such isn't
DLC, sure enough, they will be a "Blue-Dog"....

Here's a little primer, and thanks for the "call-out"

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

snip>The differences between the Blue Dogs and the other prominent coalition of moderate Democrats, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), are sometimes subtle. The DLC describes itself as new Democrat while taking moderate or liberal positions on social issues and moderate positions on economic issues and trade. The DLC views the support of free trade as a traditionally liberal position, and similarly frames their support of an aggressive national defense as historically a Democratic Party position. The two emphasize different goals; the DLC aims to revitalize and strengthen the Democratic party, while the Blue Dogs prefer to emphasize bipartisanship.

Democrats who identify with the Blue Dogs tend to be conservatives, but have more divergent positions on social issues than the DLC. Reflecting the group's Southern roots, many are strong supporters of gun rights and get high ratings from the National Rifle Association, some have pro-life voting records, and some get high ratings from immigration reduction groups. As a caucus, however, the group has never agreed on or taken a position on these issues, and many members favor more socially liberal positions.

On economic issues, Blue Dogs tend to be pro-business and favor limiting public welfare spending, arguing instead for "individual responsibility". They have supported welfare reform, for example, as well as the Republican-backed Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005. They do, however, have differing positions on trade issues, including some supporters of labor unions, protectionism, and other populist measures, while the DLC tends to favor free trade. <unsnip

[defendandprotect]

200. Since there seems to be such a blase attitude at DU about the DLC . . .

thought I'd dump on the rest of the load . . .

I'm not sure, however, what position you're taking on DLC/blue dog alliance; however,
imo, the differences are so "subtle" as to be inconsequential ---

Additionally, as I understand it the DLC has funded efforts to raise up more "blue dogs"
to run against liberal/progressive Democratic candidates --- !!!
That seems to suggest a direct and involved alliance.

Social issues --- women's rights, homophibia, racism etal --- are very serious issues --
especially when taught and kept in place by influence of organized patriarchal religions on
government.

I don't see NAFTA and other trade agreements as "moderate economic positions" --
And, of course, Americans have been propgandized to think that democracy and capitalism
are synonomous -- they are NOT.

We need to rethink capitalism as "a ridiculous King-of-the-Hill System" -- and many are--!!!

Further, it is Congress which is elected to set democratic economic policy,
not the Fed -- and they should take on their responsibility.

And, yes, government should support the freedom to start a business -- but I'd refer you to TUCKER
and the unlikelyhood that any ordinary citizen could now get thru the maze of corporate $$$$ and
elite $$$$ to run for anything but a minor local office.

Truth be told, capitalism is finally a system for elites and eventually a monopoly of one.

Also -- many of the protections/regulations for a nation's economy have been overturned ---
the Bretton Woods Accords, for instance now permitting capital to fly off --- while labor
cannot. The many scandals we've faced in America from the Savings & Loan theft and embrezzlements
to the current problems with interest rates/lending practices are yet only two more examples of that.
Pensions, of course, have been underfunded or decades now.
Simple corruption --- of course!!!

However, the rules had to have been overturned to do it --
AND political violence in America with a full decade and more of assassinations had to be ignored.
And they were ---!!!

True, too, we have had a Democratic Party which has responsibly protected the nation without bankrupting our Treasury -- but MAINLY supplying only minimal needs for the nation -- while keeping
the Pentagon/Intelligence FAT.

Since the Republican Party is traditionally the business/corporate party it is beyond the pale
to have someone describe a corporate network within the Democratic Party as an entity trying to
do anything but co-opt it -- !!!

The "blue dogs," of course, confer directly with Bush and the GOP leadership --- which is more
than emphasizing "bipartisanship" -- !!!

Further, DLC support for an "illegal" war on Iraq doesn't seem like a liberal position.

In other words, the DLC AND THE BLUE DOGS ARE BOTH 'PRO-BUSINESS' . . .
with the DLC being sponsored by corporations ---

And with TWO of the co-founders of the DLC -- Bill Clinton and Al Gore --- agreeing to overturn
60 years of welfare guarantees under the New Deal.

If you're arguing for this "primer" . . . let me add that I think its disinformation ---








Re your post --
QUOTE ...
I didn't want to take THOSE puppies on in this thread!
Sometimes posters will say, but such-and-such isn't
DLC, sure enough, they will be a "Blue-Dog"....

Here's a little primer, and thanks for the "call-out"

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

snip>The differences between the Blue Dogs and the other prominent coalition of moderate Democrats, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), are sometimes subtle. The DLC describes itself as new Democrat while taking moderate or liberal positions on social issues and moderate positions on economic issues and trade. The DLC views the support of free trade as a traditionally liberal position, and similarly frames their support of an aggressive national defense as historically a Democratic Party position. The two emphasize different goals; the DLC aims to revitalize and strengthen the Democratic party, while the Blue Dogs prefer to emphasize bipartisanship.

Democrats who identify with the Blue Dogs tend to be conservatives, but have more divergent positions on social issues than the DLC. Reflecting the group's Southern roots, many are strong supporters of gun rights and get high ratings from the National Rifle Association, some have pro-life voting records, and some get high ratings from immigration reduction groups. As a caucus, however, the group has never agreed on or taken a position on these issues, and many members favor more socially liberal positions.

On economic issues, Blue Dogs tend to be pro-business and favor limiting public welfare spending, arguing instead for "individual responsibility". They have supported welfare reform, for example, as well as the Republican-backed Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005. They do, however, have differing positions on trade issues, including some supporters of labor unions, protectionism, and other populist measures, while the DLC tends to favor free trade. <unsnip

[PassingFair]

205. Hey, no argument, I ROUNDLY DESPISE them BOTH!

I wasn't being snarky, just posting for the benefit of
others who might not be aware of who the Blue Dogs are.

I know Wiki can be misleading in its simplicity.

Truce?

(I'm with you 100%)

:)

[defendandprotect]

230. OKay --- good and great --- !! . . . .

Personally, usually don't look to identify the poster --- I'm not that familiar with anyone
here by user name -- simply respond msg by msg.

Had I checked by name, I would have seen your earlier post.

Meanwhile, who are you voting for - ??

[PassingFair]

263. A Democrat.

I'm not being coy, I'm in Michigan and we got
HOSED on our primary.

I'll vote Obama in the general if we're lucky!

[quickesst]

13. Well...

what the heck. It beats being an American Idol worshiper. Thanks.
quickesst

[Perry Logan]

27. If the DLC were so bad, Bill Clinton would not have such a kick-ass record.

I'm not pro-DLC/ But if they were really so awful, Bill Clinton would not have racked up so many accomplishments. Pretty good for a moderate Democrat:

If this is what the DLC does, we can stop sorrying:

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.

[MagsDem]

33. Awful, isn't it

But the facts are Bill Clinton made the DLC, not the other way around.

[Windy]

35. NAFTA was not a good thing. Sorry Perry. I know you want to spout your figures

but that is the truth. I live in Michigan on a street comprised of 8 houses where two people have had their houses foreclosed on because there jobs were outsourced.

Clinton's economic policy changes were not felt for years after the fact. He also rode the tech bubble that burst after he left office. Yes, he did do some good things, but NAFTA has turned out to be one of the biggest factors in the loss of the middle class and the boosting of corporate wealth in this country.


His media consolidation measures also opened the door to fox and rupert murdoch and has drive the market away from objective journalism.


He and his foreign policy staff also greased the wheels for invading Iraq by finding that regime change was necessary in that country. That was the beginning of the imperialism that bush has captialized on to the detriment of our military and the people of Iraq and the greater middle east.


Look beyond the talking points please.

[Perry Logan]

41. No, but Clinton's stunning list of achievements suggests the DLC way is not so bad.

[Armstead]

58. A shiny surface on a rotting foundation

Sorry, but you ought to project the long-term effects of some of those "accomplishments" into the Bush years to get a true assessment.

Outsourcing didn't start with Bush. China didn't become a giant sweatshop for US corporations just because of Bush.

The ridiculous and scary gap between the richest and the majority didn't start with Bush.

The media monopolists weren't allowed to take over the airwaves under Bush.

Clinton did some good things. But compared to the underlying destructive policies he either ignored or actively promoted, he was a major failure in terms of what has happened to the US and the world.

[nolabels]

143. The funny thing is the twisted logic.........

When it's a good thing people want to take credit, when it's bad they want to blame others. Bill Clinton might of helped in the accomplishments during his years but the "We" seems conveniently lost. To our credit "We" can claim we survived the onslaught of * and republicans also (so far anyway). DLC government sell outs, the lobbyist and all the rest of thrash that inhabits DC should take note. "We" are coming x(

[defendandprotect]

172. No . . .in the end... corporatism/capitalist agenda will be suicidal ---

Want to address Global Warming === ??

Lack of MPG from Detroit --- probably mostly owned and controlled by oil industry ---

Nationalizing oil == ?

Electric Cars --- ??

Corporate interference in our elections and co-option of the Democratic Party ---

You're kidding yourself if you don't get any of this --- ??

[dave29]

108. I got to train my own outsourced replacement, and drive him around town

they actually flew him to me.

Now I am trying to figure out if I will actually have a roof over my head next month.

Thanks for that, Bill.

[mmonk]

53. Not getting caught isn't the same as being clean.

have you any idea why democrats aren't really investigating except for a little show here or there?

[newmajority]

78. SPAM for breakfast again, Perry?

All that sodium is gonna give us all high blood pressure. Maybe you should bring in some breakfast from Waffle House to commemorate Hillary's revolving position on the war?

[satireV]

113. Count =1

I like eating popcorn and watching the personal attacks..

Count=1

Your reply was a personal attack against the poster instead of dis

Keep it up. Discuss the issue instead of attacking the poster. It will look less like a Freeper board.

[Prophet 451]

Isn't posting this list to EVERY Clinton thread considered spamming? n/t

[defendandprotect]

173. I've never seen the list before . . . so I think it's helpful . . .

[Prophet 451]

111. self-delete, dupe

[RaleighNCDUer]

178. Fucking information bomb. Typical tactic of the corporatist cult.

90% of the economic crap had nothing to do with Bill at all - it was the tech boom, when computers went from 8088 dual floppies to 4 gig hard drives in less than a decade. He had nothing to do with that economic expansion - he was just along for the ride.

90% of the rest of it was overturned by Bushco within two years. All those clean water initiatives - gone. Clean air initiative - gone. Protected forests - gone. Counter-terror measures - wasted. All because he was unable to effect PERMANENT change.

He could have been a great president - but he didn't just shoot himself in the foot, he fucking blew both legs off at the knee by co-opting republican initiatives such as:

The telecom bill, which made the cosolidation of the media into 5 (five) corporations nationwide, leading DIRECTLY to the telecom immunity bill today - he set us up for unlimited, warrantless, non-accountable wiretapping.

NAFTA, which is the immediate cause of the devastation of the Mexican economy, resulting in the influx of millions of economic refugees, taking the lowest tier of jobs, even as the next tier up is being shipped overseas.

NOTHING HE DID, STUCK.

Jimmy Carter effected more permanent change in 4 years than Clinton did in 8. Because he refused to co-opt Republican positions, and was fearless about taking unpopular steps. And the DLC was formed to PREVENT us having another Carter.

FUCK the DLC.

[frylock]

187. your copy n paste skills are unstoppable!!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

241. the problem is that Bill crapped where he ate

and left a stain on the carpet of the whitehouse and his accomplishments.

[Eagle_Eye]

32. The nomination is not final until the votes are counted and the Convention is held

Texas and Ohio have not voted yet.

Florida and Michigan may get a chance to participate.

Obama has not won just yet, and that implies Hilary has not lost just yet.

The Main Stream Media likes a close race because it commands larger audiences and brings in more advertising dollar$. The MSM is making Obama compete in a close race, but there is no doubt that Hillary will prevail in the end with Obama as VP.

[Laurab]

70. Oh, I think there IS doubt. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

182. Obama will NOT take VP from Hillary

any more than Hillary would take it from Obama.

That is just, fucking, nonsense.

[Eagle_Eye]

255. Obama will be a good Vice President, and he will be set up for President in 2012

Just think of it. Twelve to sixteen years of Democratic control of the Executive branch! We will own the the Supreme Court.

We will have the opportunity to change our government back to being liberal like it should be.

[RaleighNCDUer]

265. Yes, he would be. But SHE will not offer it, nor would HE accecpt it

from her.

She couldn't dare to have a VP who is more personally popular than she. He would not be willing to be a VP in name only, because the real VP would be Bill.

By the same token, she sees herself as the major player, and would never accept the #2 spot from him.

Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama -- just never gonna happen.

[Malikshah]

36. Wow-- condescension... how very 2004 of you.

Deja vu all over again.

Get.

Over.

Yourself.


You're harming your candidate with this.

[Meldread]

42. How is the truth condescending?

:shrug:

That doesn't make much sense. There are a lot of new people here on these forums supporting Hillary, who likely do not know about the fact that she is one of the Leaders of the DLC.

[angie_love]

43. K&R

for truth. :kick:

[Malikshah]

59. What is truth? Is truth unchanging law?

The whole "sorry, but you need this truth" shtick is offensive to many.

It was used repeatedly in the run up to the 2004 Dem nomination.

The cluelessness emoticon just underscores the arrogance of the original post.

[mtnsnake]

47. Besides your lame old DLC divisive ploy, I'm here to tell you something else

You don't have to subscribe to the methodology of the DLC to be a supporter of either Hillary Clinton OR Barack Obama.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

56. Hillary = DLC

The Black Commentator - The Black Commentator - Freedom Rider ...The DLC plantation has already chosen the Democratic presidential nominee for 2008 and it is none other than Hillary Clinton. The plantation system is so ...
www.blackcommentator.com/168/168_freedom_rider_clinton_plantation.html

[mtnsnake]

62. Hillary = no such thing, so keep your lame formulas to yourself

What she equals is the Goddess of Peace and is the inspiration of true Liberals everywhere :smoke:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

168. Hillary is on the DLC Leadership Team, according to DLC website link below

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_sub.cfm?kaid=137&subid=900111

[RaleighNCDUer]

179. What on earth is that you're smokin'? nt

[ProudDad]

234. "Goddess of Peace"

Holy SHIT!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

in what fucking universe???

[Barack_America]

49. That excellent, well-reasoned analysis deserves....

...a heart!

I mean if some "anonymous" person wanted to give you one... ;)

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

51. how the DLC screwed Howard Dean over

If you like Howard Dean, you would hate the DLC.

The Assassination of Howard Dean

By Naeem Mohaiemen, AlterNet. Posted February 18, 2004.

Why did Dean's insurgent candidacy, which had energized and excited voters in every state, come to such a screeching halt? Ask the Democratic Leadership Council.

...The DLC reacted with fury to the Dean candidacy, going all out to torpedo his momentum. Although Democratic nominees soon piled on the "bash-Dean" bandwagon, earlier attacks were carried out by DLC operatives. There was even the smell of scandal when two top Democratic candidates were found sharing information about Dean in an attempt to slow him down....

http://www.alternet.org/story/17881/?page=2

[LostinVA]

52. This is probably the most condescending thing I've read all morning

That's an impressive feat.

[Armstead]

60. If you understand and agree with the DLC fundamentally you can say that

If you actively support the agenda of the DLC, and actively suport the true impact of that brand of policies and economics, then you have every right to do so.

However, there are many peopel who have been suckered by false imagery into supporting the Clintons for the wrong reasons.

(PS I support Obama, but not with huge enthusiasm, for the same reasons.)

[LostinVA]

61. I'm not a DLCer and I support Hillary

And it has nothing to do with "false imagery."

[Armstead]

74. If you support Hillary you support the DLC

Your privilege to do so. But they are inseperable.

[ronnykmarshall]

112. I love these threads.

They just need to cut to the chase and say "Listen you stupid mother fuckers, I'm so much better than you and I hate your candidate so god-damn much I'm going to post over and over and over until you see the light (my way)."

[RaleighNCDUer]

183. Actually, that's what the DLC is saying.

They are the ones who are actively anti-populist, and anti-progressive. It is in their mission statement - to prevent populists from putting up another McGovern (dedicated anti-war war hero) or Carter (originator of the Camp David accords that led to a peace between Egypt and Israel that has lasted for 30 years now).

The DLC is saying "you can't trust the people - WE know how to get things done" and so they put up opposition to every progressive candidate that runs -- Lieberman = DLC; Lamont = NOT DLC.

It was the DLCers who set up the FL and MI fiascos, to undercut the DNC and Howard Dean because they saw that his 50 state strategy, which they opposed, actually WORKED, and they can't have anyone succeed but themselves.

FUCK the DLC.

[antigop]

54. Don't forget -- Social Security and Medicare privatization.....n/t

[nonconformist]

64. Expansion of the EITC and AmeriCorps are good things.

But...

Has it ever occurred to you that some of us that are supporting Clinton are supporting her OVER Obama? She wasn't my first choice, but she's my choice over him. And I'm not a "recent arrival".

[Hell Hath No Fury]

65. Thanks for the timely reminder...

I'll let my sig line speak for me on my feelings about the DLC and their candidates. :hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

66. The Truth Is Hillary Is An Amazing Woman, An Amazing Candidate, And Would Make An Awesome President.

I think that's the truth that YOU need to learn, because you seem so ignorant to it.

[mdmc]

215. The truth is you could say the same thing about McCain or Bush

except the woman part.

HRC will make a fine president. McCain would also be acceptable. No matter what the outcome, the USA is the best country on earth and we always will be. No matter who is president!

USA!USA!USA!

Sure, the working people will need to continue to pray that they don't contract an unprofitable (to cure) disease. But, even then, we all got to go sometime.

HRC is a fine candidate, far better then McCain and Bush. But I think twice as much of BO. Either way my friend, either way.

[LeftCoast]

236. Um. No, you can't.

McCain sucks as a candidate. He can't even unite his party. Even the bought and paid for Rush Limbaugh hates him. And Bush a great candidate? We'll just leave that at a big ol' NO.

[stillrockin]

68. Voting for a DLC candidate is voting against your best interests.

She has enabled Bush every step of the way, starting with her vote to confirm John Ashcroft.

[SoxFan]

77. "Against your best interests"

So, should we show these people the door?

Gov. Mark Warner
Gov. Bill Richardson
Gov. Martin O'Malley
Gov. Ed Rendell
Sen. Tom Carper
Sen. Joe Biden
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius
Gov. Janet Napolitano
Sen. John Kerry
Sen. John Edwards
Rep. Joe Sestak
Rep. Allyson Schwartz
Sen. Ron Wyden
Harold Schaitberger (president, International Association of Firefighters)

[MADem]

83. ....

:rofl:

Half of them are the DARLINGS of the Uninformed, too!!!

[stillrockin]

107. fine with me

:think:

[RaleighNCDUer]

184. Not sure that Kerry and Edwards still belong on that list -

considering how the DLC fucked them over in 04, they've not exactly been cozy with them -- as is evidenced by Kerry supporting Obama over the DLC candidate, and Edwards being pilloried for running an anti-DLC populist campaign.

And after what Rendell said today, show him the fucking door.

[cloud75]

71. HRC has never endorsed tax credits for health care

HRC doesn't support No Child left behind Ted Kennedy (Obama endroser wrote it), HRC would like to raise taxes on the wealthiest one percent, HRC doesn't support the privatization of social security, HRC has said if she knew then what she knows now she would have voted against the IRW. Your arguement has lots of holes i just made them.

[cloud75]

72. HRC has never endorsed tax credits for health care

HRC doesn't support No Child left behind Ted Kennedy (Obama endroser wrote it), HRC would like to raise taxes on the wealthiest one percent, HRC doesn't support the privatization of social security, HRC has said if she knew then what she knows now she would have voted against the IRW. Your arguement has lots of holes i just made them.

[SoxFan]

73. Enough already

Enough. This was the 2004 pissing contest, and it is pointless to bring it up again.

Kathleen Sebelius, chair of the DLC's Ideas Primary initiative: Obama supporter.
Janet Napolitano, chair of the 2004 DLC National Conversation: Obama supporter.
Austan Goolsbee, Senior Economist at DLC's think tank: Obama supporter and advisor.
Jack Markell, Del. state treasurer, leader in DLC circles: Obama supporter.

I've been active in the DLC, and I have been supporting Obama from the start.

Obama himself was named one of the Democratic Party's one hundred rising stars to watch in 2003.
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251658&kaid=104&subid=210

[Cleita]

79. I also find her interfering with the news via the David

Shuster debacle disturbing. Will the Clintons be interfering with what the media can put out like the Bush White House is doing today? I want someone in office who will bring the news and media back to the place they were before Reagan discontinued the fairness doctrine. I don't want another royal house in residence the DLC for instance.

[rodeodance]

84. You obviously are not award of facts-or choose to deliberately ignore them Shame on you.

[Cleita]

90. If there are any facts that I don't know, then put them up.

I doubt if they will change anything though and will most likely corroborate what I think.

[antigop]

119. Cleita, Cleita, Cleita --- you want FACTS from Hillary supporters? You're joking, right? n/t

[satireV]

122. agitgop count=2

Another personal attack against a poster or group of posters rahter than discussing the issues or content.

Looks like a Freeper tactic to me.


I suppose anyone could go and make a post like this:

{sarcasm on for the humor impaired)
"agitgop agitgop agitgop ---- you want FACTS from Obama supporters? You're joking, right?"
(sarcasm off}
The more the DUers post personal attacks like yours, the more they look like the enemy. Hillary and Obama are not the enemy. Bush and the GOP are. Stop acting like Hillary is the enemy. Focus on the utter destruction of the GOP instead of dividing the Democratic Party.

[Cleita]

132. antigop is hardly a freeper nor an operative from

any campaign office. This DUer is a long time poster and a progressive who has legitimate concerns about the DLC as I do.

[satireV]

149. If agitgop is a Democrat,......

... why is he personally attacking you, instead of the DLC in the post I referred to?

It is not a good idea for agitgop to be personally attacking you, in public. It makes him and his candidate look bad.

It hurts the Democratic Party to be personally attacking one another in public like this. It's devisive and prevents the unity needed to utterly destroy the GOP. And THAT is the real goal... We can accomplish the utter destruction of the GOP if we have Sen Clinton or Sen Obama as President.

[Cleita]

151. I am not being attacked. Are you reading these posts? n/t

[satireV]

156. I stand corrected.

agitgop was attacking the Democrat you were responding to. And belittling him/her. My point still stands. S/he is personally attacking fellow Democrats when he should be attacking the real enemy.... the GOP. His refusal to admit this is hurting him, his candidate and the Party.

[antigop]

136. Yes, THE DLC IS MY ENEMY

Outsourcing of jobs, free trade, h1-b visas are destroying my friends and family.

How many of the DLC Dems voted for telecom surveillance immunity? Huh? How many?

[satireV]

147. Except for one problem ..

You personally attacked Cleita, not the DLC in the post I responded to.

Now you try and divert attention from the issue my post raised. This is another right wing attack tactic and does your candidate no good. It makes you and your candidate look badly in the eyes of others.


IOW, why not try and stop the personal attacks on other Democrats and focus on the real enemy. and no, it isn't the DLC unless you are a right winger.

[antigop]

160. HAHAHA! No, I did not personally attack Cleita. Getting desperate, are we? n/t

[satireV]

175. I apologize. I stand corrected.

You're right. You weren't personally attacking Cleita, as I also pointed out to Cleita.

Your politics of personal destruction was instead aimed at the Democratic poster she was replying to.

So I ask you... why are you personally attacking Democrats? Why not attack positions and policy ideas rather than the person? Why not attack GOP ideology?

The enemy is the GOP. It needs to be utterly and completely destroyed. And your personal attacks on Democrats doesn't help but hinders that goal. And it doesn't help defeat the GOP come this November.

[antigop]

192. The DLC policies are destroying my friends and family -- I've explained this

I'm sorry if you don't understand.

Outsourcing, h1-b replacement, free trade. These ARE DLC POSITIONS AND POLICY IDEAS that I am attacking.

If you don't get how these policies are destroying the middle class, then I suggest you do some reading and research.

<edit to add> I find it interesting that when I bring up the disastrous DLC policies, the thread is diverted to "the GOP is your enemy".

This thread is about the DLC. I am responding to the DLC policies and positions. Hillary is DLC.


For your education:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLNOSGM2jK4

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLNOSGM2jK4

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgdrh2Bc95M

I'm done with this subthread. I'm not paid to post on DU 24/7.

[satireV]

262. But you don't explain why you attack participants on the board. (eof)

[ProudDad]

235. "Hillary and Obama are not the enemy"

Partially true.

They are merely the hirelings of the enemy.

The enemy is their (and your) corporate capitalist masters...ably represented by the republican party and the DLC...

[satireV]

124. agitgop count=2

Another personal attack against a poster or group of posters rahter than discussing the issues or content.

Looks like a Freeper tactic to me.


I suppose anyone could go and make a post like this:

{sarcasm on for the humor impaired)
"agitgop agitgop agitgop ---- you want FACTS from Obama supporters? You're joking, right?"
(sarcasm off}
The more the DUers post personal attacks like yours, the more they look like the enemy. Hillary and Obama are not the enemy. Bush and the GOP are. Stop acting like Hillary is the enemy. Focus on the utter destruction of the GOP instead of dividing the Democratic Party.

[Cleita]

134. glad to see you are back.

:hi:

[antigop]

138. Well, I see you are still waiting for facts. n/t

[fascisthunter]

82. About Time.... DLC the Poison Pill

or corporate Trojan Horse.

[Marie26]

85. Someone needs to tell you: Obama isn't a populist, either.

Edwards was the only Dem preaching a populist message & he's gone.

[Armstead]

86. So between the two who remain, a choice has to be made

And I'd prefer a candidate who does not have the long and intertwined relationship with the DLC that Hillary does.

[Marie26]

99. It's just semantics

IMO he's DLC in all but name. What I don't get is that Obama supports many of the policies that the OP rails against - he was for welfare reform, his health care plan doesn't offer universal/mandatory coverage, he's friends w/Lieberman, etc. As for labor, he's hired the senior aide for Robert Rubin, the Clinton Labor Sec. that created these anti-labor practices. Most importantly, he's co-opted the DLC's language of "triangulation" and corporate financing. "Unity" and "Obama Republicans" is just triangulation under a different name. And ETC. But both Obama & Clinton oppose privitization of Social Security. They are much more similar than they are different.

[Armstead]

204. In some respects yes -- That's why I supported Edwards (and identify with DK's message)

But I think the degree to which Clinton has long been intertwined with the DLC is the critical difference. She and her husband ARE the DLC in many ways.

If Obama were to be elected, by a diverse coalition, he would have to be more accountable to progressives than Hillary would likely be.

[ProudDad]

237. There's still a real progressive and populist in the race...

http://www.runcynthiarun.org/

[End Of The Road]

89. Wasn't Edwards the least DLC of the top three?

Wasn't Edwards the most populist? What does this say about the Dem "traditionally populist positions?" Not flaming here. I don't understand why Edwards's message didn't resonate more with the party.

[Armstead]

92. It's not that his message didn't resonate

The other candidates are copying it -- at least in a safe corporate way.

Edwards failed to catch on for a combination of reasons, including lack of media coverage as a "serious finalist" after Iowa, mistrust because of perceptions about his past, the fact that he was a wealthy guy talking about poverty and being a white male in a season where the leading contenders are a a black and a woman.

Personally I think it's a shame, because he could have made a great candidate and president. But it wasn;t his message that undid him.

[BigDDem]

91. The same Joe Lieberman

that BO campaigned for?

[kristopher]

130. Obama endorsed Lamont, Hillary sat on her hands while Bill Stumped for Lieberman

[BigDDem]

142. Dont let facts get in your way!

"The fact of the matter is, I know some in the party have differences with Joe. I'm going to go ahead and say it," Obama told the 1,700-plus party members who gathered in a ballroom at the Connecticut Convention Center for the $175-per-head fundraiser.

"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf," he said.

:rofl:

[kristopher]

131. Obama endorsed Lamont, Hillary sat on her hands while Bill Stumped for Lieberman

[Deep13]

94. Oh gee, if only someone had told me sooner.

Putz.

[Pawel K]

118. Why not try to have a real response to an important issue?

[Deep13]

126. A quick perusal through this forum should answer that question for you. nt

[mzmolly]

96. This is a good point. Though, of course I'll support her if she's the nominee

because I think she really does care about "we the people".

[cmkramer]

97. Funny

I could have sworn Al From criticized Lieberman for endorsing John McCain saying we need to have a Democrat elected president. And their denunciation of Zell Miller was every bit as strong as their denunciation of Howard Dean. I agreed with them on all three subjects by the way.

[undergroundpanther]

98. Down with the DLC

And Kill the corporations, Stomp the oligarchs,and rejection to the 'values' and 'belief's conservatives that are nothing but poison to civil life..That's what I feel about that. More people need to know WHAT their enemies are about and what greed and fantasies impel them to be the manipulating monsters they are . Until the stranglehold of corporations on OUR society is broken..And how corporations dominate we live our lives is shattered forever ..There will be poisonous bullshit like the DLC to make sure the interests of certain assholes is never threatened .These corporate cons and games will insure we NEVER get together in solidarity to solve,work out or heal the problems that have become the unjust , unfair,untenable status quo . Nothing will change until we detect,and topple the monsters that so benefit from our suffering. All this noise is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

There cannot be any wealthy pigs allowed to remain so insulated, so catered to,so obeyed,so controlling, anymore they all need to pay for the damage generations of their greedy families have done to the planet,to cultures, to humanity and to us.NO more kings masters, rulers or leaders. No more obscene wealth for a few.

We need to learn to govern ourselves and care for each other and not allow One or a few isolated power robbers to rule us by fiat,by manipulation, by posse or by money.... For if one is allowed to have too much it means many have to accept having very little and a few of them having none..It means we must be trained to accept being less worthy than the rich pig and it seems this training has worked really well on some people. They close their eyes to things like the DLC because they think infiltration cannot happen. It can and it DOES,AND IT DID, in the DLC!!

Truth is if you understand what the populist message is, it means
Nobody has the right to be obscenely wealthy if people around them are made to suffer and die for that one pigs lavish perfectly pampered life.


Inequality of haves and have nots growing far apart and stark is the root cause of our suffering.Inequality causing suffering of the masses while the elites just blame us for not being able to survive despite their horrible greed,they want us all to shut up, obey and produce work ourselves to death for,fight each other for them,and never ever bite the hands of the wealthy and corporate to get what WE need out of them. Inequality and income disparity(wealthy don't share)is the cause of people's revolutions against corrupt greedy governments.War is 99.9 percent caused by the rich and their greed for profits/control.

How did we learn to accept such obscene and stark inequality as if it was OK? How did we learn to displace our anger at this financial thievery by the bosses, bullies and elites onto the poor as if poor people are the problem?

People were cultured in lies that taught us to accept inequality from birth until it became in our minds the way it has always been.
Well it hasn't always been that way,and there are alternatives,they require us to stop, think ,decide we too are worthy and reject the way things are,and stomp the status,eat the rich, and kill the corporation, and if it comes to it,bring out the guillotine.And learn to share and get along with each other without leaders telling us how to live.

[Quixote1818]

100. Thanks for posint this. K & R. nt

[From The Left]

101. Hillary's Harpies Can't Handle the Truth

Nevermind that she voted for the Iraq war and the USA Patriot Act.

[undergroundpanther]

104. Dupe

[undergroundpanther]

105. Arrgh dupe double post!Dammit jane stop this crazy thing!!

[Deep13]

128. Don't bitch the next time someone says O. supporters are cultish.

"Harpies" is a misogynistic remark.

[DS1]

139. Give us a break

42 posts. Neither side needs to be pointing at obvious trolls to support their claims.

[From The Left]

158. Andrea Dworkin is Dead

[DS1]

137. fuck off troll, don't be lumping that language in with Obama

pissant

[fightthegoodfightnow]

218. THE TRUTH

Did Clinton vote for the Iraq war and the USA Patriot Act or not?

[satireV]

152. Obama neither for or against the War Authorization

And I find your personal attacks on Hillary supporters to be thinly veiled sexism. The word harpie is of course sexist. I am sure you would never use the words "porch monkey" or "pimped out" for Obama supporters. This is pretty typical today from the M$M, right wingers, and now seeping into discussions from Sen.Obama supporters. There appears to be more sexism than racism that is acceptable from the GOP and now Dem supporters.

Fact: Sen. Obama didn't vote for or against authorizing the war because he wasn't a Senator yet. We will never know and cannot say how he would have voted.What Obama claims NOW is irrelevant.

Fact: After becoming Senator Obama, he voted 4 times to continue funding the Bush War on Iraq, totally up 300 billion dollars of borrowed money to continue the war.

[krabigirl]

196. "harpies"? buh-bye!!!

[From The Left]

102. Hillary's Harpies Can't Handle the Truth

Nevermind that she voted for the Iraq war and the USA Patriot Act.

[undergroundpanther]

109. Dupe

[undergroundpanther]

110. Elephant in the room,Hillary

Be aware I don't like Obama either.Because they are both corporate picked candidates..I think they both suck. But I will hold my nose and vote for Obama,and *NOT* vote for Hillary because I don't want a republican president AGAIN.

I would have voted for Dennis had I a *Choice*.. but sadly the corporations and the DLC shut him out and gave him no air time so everyone assumed he wasn't viable candidate and that was an artful manipulation of the public's perceptions by the corporate owned liar media indeed... He had a few flaws but he was actually a true progressive and exactly what this rightward heavy bullshit political atmosphere needed to refresh people on what being on left is all about.

It saddens me that so many people who call themselves democrats haven't a clue how right wing our culture has shifted including the 'democratic party'.So of course they won't dare suspect Hillary is an elephant in a donkey suit. Because they do not want to understand what leftist politics MEANS anymore because that takes thoughtful introspection and research and forming your own opinions and they are far too busy to take time out of their busy day to THINK. So much do corporate taskmasters run people's lives. So they see the surface talk that feels good, Hillary says what they like to hear and because they can't be bothered to question the policies and dig into political issues for themselves with any sort of critical thinking, because that takes time they do not understand what the real life implications of whom they cast their vote for might be. . They are basically hoodwinked, like most of the country by the right wing noise machine.
And they are LOATHE to admit that. Since they invested so much in preserving the 'dream' , they overlook Hillary's threat to the poor and other marginalized people by Hillary's being part of the DLC because they are mainstream and think nothing will hurt them,that the donkey label like an organic food label means it is what it is. They trust the powers that be,still.They don't realize Hillary does not support 99% of us, including the mainstreamers,she supports the few and obscenely wealthy and those non- persons, corporations FIRST.She is a elephant in a donkey suit.

[mdmc]

216. peace and low stress my friend

if i had a du heart, i would give it to you...

[AtomicKitten]

114. K&R

[robbedvoter]

116. I am here a whole year before you - but thanks for patronizing. If you were for Gravel

I would actually find some merit in your OP, but seeing the 2 candidates are barely distinguishable - in agenda, support, etc - you wasted a lot of time on that lesson.

[PassingFair]

163. It is worth is just for the MESSAGE it will send to the DLC.

Oh, it will be SO worth it!

[RaleighNCDUer]

186. Of course, the OP was addressed to newbies who don't know who

the DLC is, not to longstanding DLC apologists who are willing to see the party suicide with a Hillary candidacy.

BTW, there is a significant difference between the two candidates.

One is DLC.

The other is NOT.

[AntiFascist]

117. K&R, Hillary will not stress the pro-war stance of the DLC...

because it is not popular, but people should understand that it is an important part of the DLC platform. For years, DUers have discussed getting rid of the DLC. It seems that the only way to do this will be to not elect Hillary. Even if she wins the nomination, there is a very good chance she will not win the GE...and in that instance, a very good case could then be made to rid the Democratic party of the DLC once and for all.

[Recursion]

120. Well, EITC and AmeriCorps are both good ideas

So they're not totally worthless

[kristopher]

123. From their website: The DLC Leadership Team

Harold Ford, Jr. is chairman of the DLC.

U.S. Sen. Tom Carper is vice chair of the DLC;

U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is chair of the DLC's American Dream Initiative;

Al From is founder and CEO of the DLC.

Bruce Reed is DLC president;

Pennsylvania State Representative Jennifer Mann is chair of the DLC's Legislative Advisory Board (LAB);

Columbus (OH) Mayor Michael Coleman is chair of the DLC's Local Elected Officials Network(LEON)

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

[kristopher]

125. From their website: The DLC Leadership Team

Harold Ford, Jr. is chairman of the DLC.

U.S. Sen. Tom Carper is vice chair of the DLC;

U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is chair of the DLC's American Dream Initiative;

Al From is founder and CEO of the DLC.

Bruce Reed is DLC president;

Pennsylvania State Representative Jennifer Mann is chair of the DLC's Legislative Advisory Board (LAB);

Columbus (OH) Mayor Michael Coleman is chair of the DLC's Local Elected Officials Network(LEON)

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

[Leopolds Ghost]

127. The DLC supports warrantless wiretapping and telecoms right to do so & so do a lot of moderate dems.

That is why every single DLC Senator voted with Repubs on the warrantless wiretapping bill

to indemnify Bush and the telecoms against all oversight,

voted TODAY,

while "moderate, sensible" Hillary fans and "crossover, independent" Obama fans

were on here blathering on about "more important issues".

[Leopolds Ghost]

129. The DLC will ask Hillary to FIRE Dean if she wins the nomination --

and it would be her right to do so.

The DLC wanted to FIRE Dean IN 2006,

SAYING RAHM EMANUEL and the DCCC had WON 2006

-- DESPITE DEAN'S EFFORTS --

(to bring the Southern state parties out of recievership, liberating them from the hands of a cabal of 60's era
Dixiecrats, for instance -- allowing blacks to join the state committee for the first time making these parties
viable again, instead of a foil and a tool of racist machine Dixiecrats who vote R in November.)

[Araxen]

133. I endorse the OP

Clearly the OP has a sense of reality unlike the Hillobots.

[indimuse]

135. this is so off and sickeningly bogus!

Barack Huseinn Obama is going down...VERY SOON! Hillary will be our next POTUS!

[Maat]

144. Thanks for the post.

I agree with it.

[Kitty Herder]

145. Obama's repudiation of the DLC is one of the main reasons I voted for him.

If the DLC had their way, there would be no opposition party in this country. Just two conservative parties, but one would say a few pretty populous words now and them.

[ellisonz]

148. K & R

[proud2BlibKansan]

153. Keep it simple

The DLC is the Republican wing of the Democratic party.

[Enrique]

154. Clinton, Obama and Edwards are all DLC types

[RaleighNCDUer]

185. Obama is NOT DLC - his own statements flat out reject them

And while Edwards was connected with them prior to 04, since they fucked him over in that election, and continued to fuck with thim ever since, I don't think he considers himself DLC anymore. That's why he shifted to a populist campaign - and the DLC is overtly anti-populist.

So either you are very confused, or you are deliberately lying to cloud the issue of what the DLC really is.

May I ask, which?

[Enrique]

254. maybe Obama and Edwards don't posture themselves as DLC types

but they are DLC types, as is Clinton.

In fact, on the issues, Edwards, Obama and Hillary are pretty similar.

[RaleighNCDUer]

264. It's not the issues, it's the agendas.

The DLC was created to put a stop to populist uprisings in the Democratic party. Edwards and Obama both are relatively conservative in their outlooks, but both seek populist support for those outlooks. The DLC sees the polity as uncontrollable who'll do crazy shit like nominate McGovern or Dean, and therefore can't be trusted. The DLC wants to leave the decision making up to the pros, rather than the people.

So candidates with very similar issues can be worlds apart in agenda. Just look at how each of them conduct their campaigns - which is driven by the people, which is driven by the advisors? Which is powered by the grassroots, and which is powered by the insiders. Which is funded by hundreds of thousands of small donors, and which is funded by hundreds of power brokers?

The DLC is not just an organization of moderate Democrats - though that is what they would have us believe. There are more than a few democrats that are more conservative than most the DLCers who reject the DLC because the DLC is not supporting the will of the Democratic electorate -- they want to tell us what we want, rather than listen to what we want.

[debbierlus]

155. We aren't children -

It is insulting.

Frankly, I am a DEFAULT Hillary supporter. I know every damn thing wrong with her, AND I know every damned thing wrong with Obama. And, if you think for one minute that Obama (the corporate media darling, the protege of Lieberman, Mr. Bipartisan BS) is going to be a wit different then Hillary, then you are the one that needs to be sat down & given a talking to....

The fact is BOTH are corporate candidates. We lost Kucinich & Edwards, there are NO progressives or true dems in this two person show. I went to Hillary for the sole reason that I think her understanding of the way it works might help her stem off a full out depression. Frankly, at this point, McCain might be a better short term choice. He can deal with the Bush fallout, and maybe in four years, people will be ready for a TRUE democrat progressive leader.

Obama could be a full out disaster. He will put a false progressive face on the Presidency, without instituting any real change. The fact that so many otherwise educated & sane people can fall for canned hope is disappointing to say the least.

I am disgusted with this whole election.

[Pryderi]

161. Didn't Hillary sponsor an anti flag-burning bill a few years ago?

[George II]

164. Why such a NEGATIVE and OBNOXIOUS subject line? Is that really necessary? You have an agenda!

[krkaufman]

165. Progressives (and observers of reality) also assert that Bill Clinton won in 1992 ...

... because of Ross Perot's third-party candidacy sucking votes away from the Republican candidate.

[defendandprotect]

174. That's true . . . and, of course, for all we know we had GOP steal going on, as well--- !!!

Clinton had something like 37%+ or 39%+ and the GOP was trying to get a re-run out of it !!!

[Gman]

170. Great, thank you!

I want a DLC'er in the WH. She'll bring some sanity back to the Democratic Party.

[Baby Snooks]

176. Republicrats

There is no two party system. Both parties have been taken over by the special interests. And that is who the majority of politicians serve now. The special interest. The political affiliation is merely a means to an end. An end that does not serve the interests of the American people. The Clintons do not, did not and will not serve the interests of the American people. Neither does the DLC. And that alone should serve as sufficient to vote for Barack Obama.

Only a fool would vote for Hillary Clinton. But perhaps we are still on the same ship of fools that elected George W Bush.

[DuaneBidoux]

180. You say DLC "attacked" Dean--Do they take positions on candidates within primaries?

If they do that that IS indeed BS.

Many of the things they support I do support (or have). I fell for NCLB and so did a lot of Dems. While I don't support School Vouchers how can one not support finding ways to give people more choices in the education of their children?

I am for single payer, but neither Obama nor Clinton is even close on this one and I think Clinton's is more inclusive than Obamas.

And with EXTENSIVE modifications and corrections I am all for free trade, but the answer is to make sure that we negotiate with other countries to pull their workers and health and safety and environmental standards up to ours. Trade does create jobs, we just have to work to make sure that we are pulling the world to us, not that they are dragging us down to them.

I am voting Obama for one simple reason: I believe he has a better chance of winning than Clinton. Let's work to pull the DLC toward us, not alientate ourselves from them. Maybe I am naive. But I still have ideals and one of those ideals is going out of my way to make friends of enemies, no matter who they are, before accepting that they are indeed my enemies.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

189. Nonsense

You write: 'Let's work to pull the DLC toward us, not alientate ourselves from them. '

Right........... like that's something they would do. Nonsense.

[DuaneBidoux]

208. Okay. I envy you your understanding of all that is wise.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

209. Anyone who thinks the DLC is going to turn Left on Any Road

....... needs to get real.

You don't need to be 'wise' to understand that.

You just can't be stupid.

[DuaneBidoux]

260. Change never happens over night, but it does happen.

[dicknbush]

188. If its McCain vs Obama....I'm going for McCain! and I'm not kidding

I hate McCain but Obama will be a disaster. The Republican goofballs will chew him up and spit him out! Count on it. OH and by the way if Obama does win I guarentee the DLC WILL I REPEAT WILL HAVE A PLACE AT THE TABLE AND NOT FAR FROM THE HEAD SEAT! COUNT ON IT!

[Colobo]

219. If you prefer McCain over Obama, you're not a Democrat.

[LucyParsons]

190. wholehearted K&R

[LucyParsons]

195. also, good luck - Hillary supporters will only label you a "hater" and put you on ignore

despite your well-reasoned, accurate points, complete with citations from respectable journalistic sources

see my previous, similar post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4461878&mesg_id=4461878

[Speciesamused]

203. I would never vote for her, such a shame because

as a woman I would love a good honest intelligent woman
as the president. But she scares me. She is not in touch
with us, no matter what she says.
So fake. Ugh!! The kind of woman I would hate to
have to spend any amount of time around. No wonder
Bill was getting action on the side.



Hillary and Rupert

[Hieronymus]

207. What is the saying about the middle of the road, you find dead .....

Armadillos and something?

[Myrina]

210. ... while I am not an Obama supporter, you hit the nail on the head.

Excellent essay and required reading.

Thank you!

:applause:

[ileus]

211. Well let's go ahead and vote McCain....F that. Hillary 50 states in 2008

[LWolf]

213. For the record,

please explain, in as much caring detail as you did above, how Obama's positions on the issues you referenced differ substantially from the DLC.

I'm not a supporter of HRC. I don't think Obama can be accurately categorized as "not DLC" even though he is not an official "member," though.

[LynneSin]

214. BTW - what you just posted is NOT the truth but merely an opinion

as I've said before - I'm not supporting any candidate until after the primaries

[fightthegoodfightnow]

217. OH PLEASE

............ not the truth.......... BUT ......... you aren't offering an opinion.

Talk about a crock of ....... (use your own expletive)

Give me a break.

BTW - I don't believe your 'neutrality'.

[LynneSin]

257. I'm not offering anything except

the fact that every democrat has a different viewpoint as to what is and what isn't important

[bjobotts]

220. They are both part of the same hypocrisy...the money party

[girl gone mad]

225. It's why I can't vote for her in the Primary...

no matter how annoying Obama supporters are.

[L0oniX]

226. The DLC can go f*ck themselves. n/t

[Viva_La_Revolution]

228. Fuckin-KICKin-A

:applause:

[cascadiance]

229. F the DLC corporatists!

[workinclasszero]

232. And the damned horse they rode in on!

I hope after Obama wins the nomination he runs the DLC corporate shills out the F'in door back to the Thug party where they belong!

[Tom Joad]

231. meanwhile, Big news in her campaign today... first, another top aid leaves....

Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's deputy campaign manager resigned today, the latest departure in a staff shake-up following a string of losses to Barack Obama.

In an e-mail message to staffers obtained by The Associated Press after Clinton lost the Virginia primary today, Mike Henry said he was stepping down to allow campaign manager Maggie Williams to build her own staff. Williams replaced Patti Solis Doyle during the weekend. Solis Doyle had recruited Henry to join the campaign last year.

"Out of respect for Maggie and her new leadership team I thought it was the best thing to do," Henry wrote. "As someone who has managed campaigns, I share the unique understanding of the challenges that the campaign will face over the next several weeks. Our campaign needs to move quickly to build a new leadership team, support them and their decisions and make the necessary adjustments to achieve the winning outcome for which we have all worked so hard for over a year now."

Bill Clinton seems to have already faded into oblivion, but this we did not really expect-
A rather startling piece of news:
Hillary Clinton, following Mike Henry's lead, today decided she was leaving her position in the campaign so as to make it possible for Maggie Williams to make a really, really, fresh start with people of her choosing. "I think the campaign is ready for new faces, and according to internal polls we have conducted, it is my name and my past activity that is weighing down this campaign. I think the hillary clinton campaign can run best without the involvement of any Clinton whatsoever, given the unpopularity of the war we supported so fully." No word yet on who will replace Hillary in the Hillary Clinton campaign for President. Sources say that Williams is actually quite relieved at this move, and is now quite optimistic that this campaign can really go all the way and win the Presidency.

Hillary has said she will spend the extra downtime with her family.

[ProudDad]

238. Be Very Careful

the hillarybots are vicious, especially now that they're losing...

[George II]

256. But surely this discussion hasn't been "vicious" now, has it? HAHA!

[gtar100]

245. Still better than McCain by a large mile

These points are all good reasons to not support her in the Democratic primary but unlike so many others I've heard say, I won't vote for McCain if she's the nominee. And I won't go skulking away with my vote and not show up at the polls in November. She will be a far more intelligent and thoughtful President than any other opposing candidate the Republicans have put up. I disagree with her on many issues but not everything.

[Aleric]

261. Typo

I think you meant to write "by a large miTe" which is a much more accurate description of the distance between her and McCain.

[LanternWaste]

258. It must comforting indeed

"Someone needs to tell you the truth."

It must high comfort indeed to be a person that knows an absolute truth, divorced of all bias and opinion, and delivers it to the needy as would a physician treating a patient in denial of his own hypochondria.

Much like a door-to-door evangelical in form, format, pretension and requited scorn ...