Mythbuster: DLC members apparently prefer Obama, contary to netroots article of faith

[jackson_dem]

This is hilarious since much of Obama's rabid blogosphere support comes from a "belief" that a win for Obama will somehow hurt the DLC. Apparently the DLC itself is unaware of this!

I looked at the Senate New Democrat Coalition for senators and the DLC governor's page http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=450015 for governors. I did not look at the House nor did I pour over every DLC piece mentioning a governor. The existing sample is sufficient to give shatter the blogosphere-only myth that the DLC cabal is out to get Obama when in fact, as no less than Al From has said, both Clinton and Obama are "New Democrats" and the DLC will be happy with either.

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html has a list of superdelegates who are supporting a candidate.

DLC Senators

Clinton: 5 (Lincoln of Arkansas, Feinstein, Bill Nelson, Stabenow, Bayh)
Obama: 4 (Ben Nelson--the most right-wing Democrat in the Senate, Kerry, Conrad, Johnson)
Edwards: 0

One of the DLC senators for Clinton is from her home state so that is no surprise. Missing from the list is Bob Casey. Casey, an Obama supporter, is not a member of the DLC but on social issues he is as conservative as any DLC member.

Edwards, as far as I can recall, was not endorsed by a single DLC senator or DLC governor.

DLC governors

Obama: 6 (Seblieus*, Richardson*, Napaltoino*, Doyle, Kaine, Patrick)
Clinton: 2 (Strickland, O'Malley)
Edwards: 0

The governors with asterisk's next to their name have special importance, especially Seblius and Richardson, in that they are de facto DLC candidates for vice president.

Total from the sample

Obama: 10 (59%)
Clinton: 7 (41%)
Edwards: 0

Clinton is a member of the DLC. Obama is not. It doesn't matter--just ask people who are not armchair quarterbacks but those who are actually in the DLC. What counts is policy.

A knee-jerk Obamite reaction will be that this is because Obama is solidly ahead. No dice. That only applies to Richardson. Everyone else mentioned above endorsed when Obama was either behind or it was essentially even.

Rendell, I believe, is a DLC member but since he was not mentioned on the DLC governor's frontpage he is not listed. To cherry pick him would distort the sample as I could easily have cherry picked another DLC governor for Obama as well.

It should also be noted that Clinton still leads in superdelegates. DLC members are deviating from the norm in their support for Obama.

[blm]

1. Kerry - the furthest LEFT and the Dem who exposed the MOST government corruption

of BushInc while Clinton is the Dem who covered up the most government corruption of BushInc.

Let's HAVE this comparison.

BTW - DLC dumped on Kerry long ago. They disagreed with his Iraq withdrawal bill and their members like Lieberman and Hillary Clinton took to the senate floor to denounce the bill in June 2006.

[jackson_dem]

4. Kerry is DLC and has a voting record similar to Clinton and Obama

[blm]

5. Furthest LEFT the group ever had. And he is the TOP Dem in exposing government corruption

of BushInc while Bill Clinton has been the top Dem in covering up for the illegal operations of BushInc.

Clinton 2 was being set up to protect Bush2 into the next decade the way Bill did for Poppy Bush throughout the 90s.

Let's HAVE this comparison.

BTW - Kerry's lifetime voting record by the time he ran for office was only a 3% difference from Paul Wellstone's - Kerry had the furthest left lifetime voting record than ANY CANDIDATE in the 2004 primaries, including Kucinich.

[jackson_dem]

8. The furthest left of a right-wing (for Democrats) group? Why did he join in the first place?

Kerry is a Democrat of the type of Obama and Clinton. It is a shame Obama has to rely on myths to win. :(

[blm]

14. Baloney - Kerry is the best lawmaker Dems have had for open government. Clinton is the WORST

and his wife is no different, no matter how easily duped some are who never even READ one gawddam government report that any citizen who CARED about their country would do.

[jackson_dem]

17. That is because Kerry managed to lose what should have been a win against a moron

Had Kerry went to the Oval Office his views would have been different as presidents have a different perspective than senators. Too bad Kerry blew it for us. I fear we are going to do the same again with Obama...

[blm]

23. Kerry won. RNC stole that election for Bush and McAuliffe's DNC let them do it.

And surely you didn't miss the BACKSTABBING Clintons were doing in 2003-4.... historian Douglas Brinkley mentioned it in April2004:
http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

And surely you didn't miss Bill Clinton's 3 week summer2004 book tour where he DEFENDED Bush REPEATEDLY on his Iraq decisions when the Dem nominee was the leading critic of Bush on those decisions.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

And surely you didn't miss hearing about Carville's sabotage of Ohio Dem voters on election night.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

But then, maybe you are with that wing of the party the Clintons lead that has ALWAYS sided with protecting the secrecy and privilege of the Bushes and the powerful elite.
http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html


You certainly post as you are proud to be part of the Closed Government Democrats.

[jackson_dem]

27. Kerry lost. By 3 million votes. How did he lose to a miserable failure?

I remember Bill Clinton being sick as hell and still campaigning for Kerry in Philadelphia...

[blm]

33. Baloney - Clintons made sure McAuliffe never secured the election process after 2000s theft.

Bill wasn't sick when he spent his 3 week HIGH PROFILE BOOK TOUR in summer 2004 DEFENDING BUSH REPEATEDLY from the left, was he?

You really are loyal to the Bushprotecting cover up wing of the Democratic party led by the Clintons aren't you?

[jackson_dem]

36. State legislatures set election processes

Why didn't Kerry lead an effort to do that since he was going to run for president?

[blm]

43. Kerry performed HIS duties. McAuliffe led no effort to secure the election process after

2000s theft even as the RNC was working the entire four years GAINING CONTROL of every level of the process where the votes are allowed, cast and counted. The Clintons controlled DNC that whole time and McAuliffe who sat on his hands and watched them do it. Hillary2008.

Backstabbing Dems and sabotaging Dem voters.

Bushprotecting wing of the Dem party - Clintons' legacy.

[mtnsnake]

64. Looks like you just got owned again, blm. No sense trying to spin your way out of this.

[blm]

66. Never happened. You all better sign up for flying lessons.

Or better yet - stop trying to fuck eagles, you babychicks.

[mtnsnake]

68. "stop trying to fuck eagles, you babychicks". Now now, blm, no need to cuss

Ya know something, there are lots of little children still awake and what if one of them reads your cuss words? What would they think of you then?

[blm]

74. They'd think you guys are unaware you can access the National Security Archives and LEARN

some truths about your country's actual historic record.

[IndyHatedByBothSides]

59. Skull & Bones vs. Skull & Bones

[blm]

61. Clinton protected BushInc more than any Democrat of the last 40 years. Kerry exposed BushInc

more than any Democrat of the last 40 years.


Was Clinton Skull and Bones? Was Cheney?

Kerry was NOT loyal to Bush clique from Skull and Bones was he?

If you ever even HEARD of IranContra, illegal wars in Central America, BCCI and CIA Drugrunning, you have John Kerry to thank for uncovering and exposing those illegal operations.

If you are pissed off about the coverups of those matters left outstanding throughout the 90s that protected the secrecy and privilege of Poppy Bush and his powerful cronies you have Bill Clinton to thank for that.

[mtnsnake]

67. Looks to me like Kerry was in bed with Bush, not Bill. That's why Kerry quit on us.

Too bad Senator Kerry doesn't have Hillary or Bill's fight in him. If he did, we wouldn't be looking at a second term of Junior.

[blm]

69. You never heard of IranContra, BCCI, CIA drugrunning then did you? If you did, it was

because Kerry UNCOVERED those illegal operations of GHWBush and Jackson Stephens and other powerful cronies.

If you didn't, it's because you are young and never understood that those operations of Poppy Bush and his cronies were covered up and their secrecy and privilege protected by Bill Clinton throughout the 90s.

[mtnsnake]

71. If Kerry uncovered all that, then he should be ashamed for not doing anything about it

[blm]

75. He investigated BCCI for 5 1/2 yrs and handed the report to new Pres Clinton - what did he do

with the outstanding matters?

[jackson_dem]

81. The same thing every president from Adams to Bush does regarding his predecessor(s)

Guess what Obama, if elected, will do with any records regarding Bush's term?

[blm]

85. Nope. Clinton could have FACILITATED the access to documents for the investigations

that were CURRENT at the time he took office.

He was also elected BECAUSE the American people were sick of the stonewalling and obstruction of the Reagan and Bush years.

Are you GLAD BCCI matters were deep-sixed and champion the move as the right thing to do for this country?

Do you think Jackson Stephens deserved protection, too?

[jackson_dem]

103. Get real

No president is going to let his predecessor get embarassed. As to why he won, it was because of the economy.

[mtnsnake]

106. BINGO.

[blm]

107. Not those bad headlines throughout 91-92 over new IranContra, Iraqgate, BCCI revelations?

And you are ...... how old?

[jackson_dem]

121. Iran-contra sure hurt Bush 41 in 1988!

:sarcasm:

1990-91: Bush had astronomical approval ratings--until the economy tanked.

[blm]

127. Bush's role in IranContra wasn't even revealed in 88. You don't know your history.

It was those bad headlines that BROKE TRUST of Bush with the American people. ANY president can weather a downturn in the economy if the people trust them. You really don't remember the bad headlines? Or didn't you read them?

[jackson_dem]

He left office respected, although unpopular

[karynnj]

195. If he had a report that said that further investigation was

needed on how A. Q. Khan was able to build a nuclear bomb - he might look into it. This was not a matter of putting the Bush people on trial, but determining if some of the exposed bad things were on-going.

[karynnj]

194. He did everything he could - and more than any other Senator would

Maybe if the lameass governor of Arkansas had not SUPPORTED arming the rightwing thugs in Central America, he might have risked his career - as Kerry did his - to stand up against the Reagan administration using Mena, Arkansas to bring cocaine to the US and guns to Central America. Kerry investigated it and that investigation led to the Contra part of Iran/Contra. Kerry, a first term Senator, was then not included on the committee - he did help interrogate some of the people he had interrogated earlier in closed sessions- it was lies to Kerry that led to the perjury counts. Here is part of what he did:
"John Kerry had the chance, at that point, for the first time in a secret session -- and declassified since -- to ask administration officials questions. One of the people he asked questions of was Elliot Abrams, who was the person who was in charge of the Contra policy. Through that hearing -- I read the transcript many months later -- John asked Elliot question after question after question. Very specific questions, one leading to the next, about what he knew and didn't know, about that airplane that went down in Nicaragua, that was moving weapons to the Contras.

It was a long hearing. John asked most of the questions. When that hearing got out, no one said very much to the press. The hearing was in a secret hearing room of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. …

I remember David Durenberger turning to John as they were just getting out of that room, and as I was waiting for him. Durenberger at the time was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He was a Republican from Minnesota. He said, "They're not telling the truth. These guys are not telling the truth. Keep going. Don't stop. Stay with it, John. Stay with it, John."

Here's the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, a Republican, telling a junior Democrat, who doesn't have any committee, or any particular jurisdictional rights here, "Keep going." And it was John's questions that caused Eliot Abrams to wind up getting indicted for not telling the truth to Congress. John's a prosecutor. John follows the facts. The facts matter."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/interviews/winer.html Incidentally, Durenberger endorsed Kerry in 2004. I think that MSNBC's Abrams is suppose to be a cousin of Elliot Abrams.)

On BCCI, Kerry pursued it until his committee was ended, he then took it to the justice department and when that didn't work - he took it to NYC DA Morgenthau, who had juristiction because one of the USA connected banks was in Manhattan. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html

In the wake of the work on BCCI, Kerry wrote legislation that provided tools to deal with international money laundering - because they provide a resource to weaken internation criminals including non-state terrorists, but they were never passed until they were included in the Patriot Act. Now who was President until January 2001. (Here's a Finance Committee hearing on international money laundering now - The first time Kerry speaks he does mention some of that background - but the more significant questioning is the second time near the end. Kerry clearly things not enough is being done in the Near East now. (Click on the word "FINANCE" http://www.kerryvision.net/2008/04/kerryvision_newsreel_35.html)

As to bringing these up in 2004 - bringing up Iran/Contra months after Reagan's death would have had downsides. He did bring up BCCI in speaking of knowing how to deal with terrorist money networks - doing more would raise the question why more was not done from 1992 when the final report was written and 2001 - Gee who was President? Kerry's number one issue dealt with A.Q Khan and Pakistan.

[jackson_dem]

72. Good point. If Kerry won like blm believes why did he quit?

[blm]

77. McAuliffe's failure to secure election process where the votes are cast and counted assured

that Kerry would never have the legal evidence necessary to make the court case.

DNC told Kerry they would not support a fight, and the Dem party election legal team said there was no legal case to make.


Some say McAuliffe was just incompetent - others believe his failure to secure the election process was deliberate to protect Hillary2008.

[jackson_dem]

80. Kerry kept millions in the bank for a legal challenge. Why didn't he spent it?

Oh yeah, didn't he transfer it to his campaign accounts instead of using it for GOTV, running ads or a legal challenge?

If McAulliffe was this bad why didn't a giant like Kerry lead an effort to oust him? Did he utter a peep about McAullife?

[blm]

87. You don't know wtf you're talking about. Kerry had THREE legal cases in Ohio that he COULD

be part of because the evidence was there for those matters.

And Kerry DID want McAuliffe out but you know damn well that Clinton had the grip on the party and Kerry had but 5 months to run a general election campaign and was STUCK with the Dem party infrastructure that had been collapsed in too many crucial states - some say deliberately collapsed by those uninterested in Dems prevailing in 2000, 2002 and 2004.

YOU side with those who collapsed the party infrastructures.

[jackson_dem]

105. So why didn't he fight and opt to pocket that cash for a possible 2008 run?

Clinton left office in January of 2001. Kerry, if he is a leader worth a salt, could have organized an effort to oust McAuliffe during the intervening period. He didn't. Why?

[blm]

118. I don't think Kerry believed Clinton would go as far he did to protect Bush.

But what you are claiming he SHOULD have done, was an IMPOSSIBLE task. He would've had to completely throw over every Clinton loyalist along with it, and expect the American people would understand all the matters in BCCI without being able to show them the documents that pieced it all together that only a president could access.

He'd be PUBLICLY fighting Bush and Clinton. Most Americans had no clue who Kerry was in 2003, and barely even learned much about him in 2004, thanks to Bill's dominance of the media with his book and his public support of Bush's war policy at the very time the party and the public SHOULD have been learning more about the Dem nominee.

Now, we have a bunch of Dem voters who STILL don't even know much about Kerry, though Kerry has effected this nation's HISTORIC RECORD more positively the last 35 years than any other single Democrat.

Only ignorant asshats would pretend otherwise and continue to denigrate Kerry and his work.

[jackson_dem]

125. So Kerry wasn't willing to lead. This is why he is now an Obama shill instead of in the White House

[blm]

131. You only reveal your own lack of conscience when you say that. You SIDE with deceit not truth

and you don't even care what truth is as you boast of your certainty that no president should CARE about the citizens' access to this nation's true historic record.

Why don't you just go to sleep and leave the political battles to those citizens who DO care about truth.

[mtnsnake]

128. Someday you're just going to have to admit that Kerry lost by himself & nobody else

blm, for your own sake, ya gotta stop blaming Clinton for Kerry's loss to an imbecile. It's just not healthy to keep thinking that.

[karynnj]

196. Best quess - If he ousted McAuliffe in spring 2004

He would have started an obvious split in the party and the DLC/Clinton wing would have been obviously not behind him. Not to mention, had McAuliffe been doing his job putting someone new in right before the start of teh general election would be disasterous.

[mtnsnake]

88. Maybe the reality of him losing to an imbecile hasn't hit home with her yet

Ya know, sometimes that does happen

[blm]

90. Why did Clinton go on a 3wk highprofile book tour repeatedly DEFENDING that imbecile

and his decisions at the exact same time the Dem nominee was criticizing the imbecile?

Why did Clintons want to protect Bushes all these decades while Kerry had worked to uncover the corruption of BushInc?

[mtnsnake]

92. Have you ever seen past presidents NOT chum around together??

Where have you been, blm? It's like an unwritten rule that past presidents do NOT attack each other, but instead work together for the good of the world. I detest Poppy Bush, but if I was a past president, I'd be obliged to get along with him just like Bill did.

[blm]

95. Carter defended Bush1 for three solid weeks when Clinton was running against him?

Are you sure?

[mtnsnake]

101. Did I ever remotely say anything like that??

Ya gotta stay away from that kind of spin, blm. When there is no presidential campaign going on, Carter is friendly with old man Bush, too, as most living past presidents are.

[blm]

104. Except Bill was speaking FOR Bush DURING a campaign - and did so AGAINST

the very issue the Dem nominee was leading the criticism.

My - you are so FOR Bill's protection of the Bushboy in the summer of 2004. You are so ....understanding his....NEED to be protective of the Bushboy. You even seem to be applauding Bill's generous support for Bush as if it was his DUTY.

Duty to.....who?

[mtnsnake]

109. You sound almost as if you're saying that he campaigned for Bush. Exaggerate much?

[blm]

124. Thrre weeks of high profile book tour where he repeatedly defended Bush.

Read his book. He also conveniently forgot to mention one word about Kerry's work uncovering global terror networks, though Clinton wrote his book after 9-11 and knew before he turned it in that Kerry was the nominee.

Gee - why would Bill never mention one word about BCCI or Kerry's work tracking global terror networks in his book even after 9-11?

[karynnj]

192. Kerry fought a great fight in an impossible race

Given this year, more may remember that Bill Clinton's 1992 race was not a that of an excellent well run campaign. It was a race ANY Democrat would win his President Bush was at 33% approval.

Maybe if Clinton had had the sense not to waste the month of July 2004 with his paperweight release - and book tour. Leading every paper and talk show to revive the Monica story. (June was lost to Reagan's death). Imagine if Kerry had July to introduce himself better before the SBVT attacked again.

[Ysabel]

205. kerry didn't lose / what blm said...

[blm]

16. Myth: Clintons are Dems. Truth: They are COVERUP Dems for the Bushes groomed by Jackson Stephens

to protect BushInc from impeachment after the Dec 1992 BCCI report and indictment for all the other illegal operations outstanding throughout the 90s.

[mtnsnake]

70. Why do you always kid like that? Clintons are the rock stars of the Democratic Party & you know it.

[blm]

79. Soon enough the truth will be more widely held. Bushes and Clintons. Try making friends

with an archivist who works for America and its citizens instead of getting your fan points from TeamClinton.

[mtnsnake]

86. Try reading non-fiction instead of Marvel Comic Books

That would be a nice start.

[blm]

89. Never saw those at National Security Archives site. Have you READ the BCCI report, snake?

Have you READ the CIA drugrunning report?

Have you READ anything about the growth of global terror networks and the official governments who facilitated that growth over the last 3 decades, snake?

[mtnsnake]

91. Have you ever picked up a copy of the 41st & 42nd reading of the inert CIA detailed Security Report?

When you do, study it and then get back to me.

Do you realize that if anyone but you took 1/100th of what you're saying about Bill Clinton serious, that he would've been exiled to some remote rock in the middle of the North Atlantic by now.

[blm]

94. Name one thing that I said that isn't accurate. You attack me, but can't show where I am wrong.

Tuff cookies, kiddo.

[mtnsnake]

96. I didn't attack you at all, blm. Heck, you cussed at me though upthread. Ouch!

[blm]

97. Nope. Just stated a fact using a colorful word.

- back to mr blm.

[mtnsnake]

99. ahhh, I'm cool with that

:evilgrin:

back to mr blm.

Huh?

[creeksneakers2]

122. I've pointed out to you before many times

That Bill Clinton had almost nothing to do with Jackson Stephans. I still don't know where you came up with the idea that he did. Stephans opposed Clinton in every Arkansas election save one, and he only went with Clinton that time because the opponent stole a large sum of money from the Stephans family.

Stephans is a right wing Republican admirer of Ronald Reagan.

There are many scandals and events in politics. Forget about BCCI. That was years ago.

[blm]

134. BCCI matters left outstanding ended up flying jets into buildings. You certainly need to pretend

Jackson Stephens was not a serious part of Clinton's life yet that not serious part of Clinton's life underwrote his primary campaign AND just happened to have BROUGHT the BCCI bank into this country - the very BCCI whose matters were deep-sixed by the new president, the very BCCI that was staked by Dubai royals also protected by the matters swept under the rug by Bill Clinton throughout the 90s, the very Dubai royals lining Bill Clinton's bank account in recent years by the tens of millions via Yucaipa.

Forget about BCCI - that was years ago.....MY ASS!

[karynnj]

189. Kerry is Kerry - he does fit into any pidgeon hole

He has more in common with Obama - from their shared roots as activists that are somewhat unusual for politicians - to their more liberal point of view.

When the DLC started it included people like Tim Wirth and Gary Hart. It started slightly before Kerry joined the Senate. The Clinton essentially became the Dlc and the DLC became them in the 1990s. Kerry agreed with them on somethings and against them on others. I assume he joined because he was interested in being part of the discussion. Joining doesn't make you give up your values or opinions.

Why did the uber populist Edwards join and VOTE with them even on the bankruptcy bill? Now that you support Clinton, who with her husband is the posterchild for the DLC why are you trying to define Kerry with the label of a group that doesn't even want him.

[ProSense]

6. No he isn't/doesn't:

Votes: Rice, Roberts, extending Bush tax cuts, Kerry-Feingold, cluster bombs, Kyl-Lieberman...

[jackson_dem]

9. You can cherry pick anyone's record. Ask Kerry himself. He is a DLC member for a reason

[ProSense]

13. No he isn't, but you also said the voting records are similar: no they're not.

You can look at Kerry social votes up and down and see a huge difference, but that's besides the point. Your OP is nonsense: Obama has support from a lot of people across the spectrum, from progressives to Republicans. What does that have to do with anything than people believing in his ability to lead the nation?

[jackson_dem]

19. That is NonSense

Their records are similar, cherry picking notwithstanding.

Obama is supposed to be the DLC's worst nightmare. That is a common belief among the blogosphere. It is a myth. If it were the case the DLC would have opposed him in droves.

[ProSense]

24. Again, support from members of a group do not transfer the group's ideals onto a candidate.

That's nonsense!

[jackson_dem]

28. Is the DLC out to get Obama or not?

If you live up to your name you know what the answer is. ;)

[ProSense]

32. You make up your own myth to debunk it? If the DLC wants war with Iran, which Democrat will comply?

Obama's positions are not a secret so in effect your OP is moot.

[jackson_dem]

34. Clearly the DLC sees no difference between the two on Iran

For good reason. Look at their records. ;)

[ProSense]

46. Do the Republicans want war with Iran? Do they want to stay in Iraq long-term?

So what does that say about Obama's support from Republicans.

You are confusing the ideals of a group with those of its individual members and transferring those ideals to the candidate.



edited for clarity

[NJSecularist]

51. Don't you love how jackson creates his own strawman myths?

And then debunks them as if he is doing us a favor...

[mtnsnake]

93. Don't you love how none of you can debunk what he says because it's the cold hard truth?

[jackson_dem]

108. It is amazing how impervious to reality many Obamites are

If he were anti-DLC the OP would never exist. The DLC is clearly comfortable with Obama. Get it? The Dee L Cee--the evil cabal to blame for everything wrong with the Democratic party--has no problem with their progressive savior...

[mtnsnake]

117. Even in post 76 the DLC writing for Obama is right on the wall with valid links & all

Yet, like you say, they are impervious to reality. It's almost as if they're embarrassed to learn that their candidate has so many DLC tendencies that he appeals to the DLC more than any other non card-carrying politician out there.

[jackson_dem]

120. Many of them are motivated by one thing and one thing only: hatred of the Clintons

They don't need rational reasons to support Hillary's opponent. His last name suffices.

[blm]

15. He WAS - to keep a foot in the goings on. He managed to stay liberal MUCH to Al From's discomfort.

You really don't much about the actual RECORD of governance of Kerry AND the Clintons over the last twenty five years do you?

[blm]

12. Plus, Kerry LED Alito filibuster while Clinton-Schumer led the senate caucus fight against

the filibuster and tarred Kerry in the press for leading it.

Then Dems started bombarding Clinton's office with pro filibuster phonecalls and she came out the next day for the filibuster, though she would not speak for it on ANY of the news programs. Bottom line - she didn't WANT it and her top goon Schumer did her dirty work for her.

[jackson_dem]

22. And Obama wanted to vote to confirm Roberts until he was pressured by progressives

Did Clinton ever consider voting for Roberts and Alito? Obama's heart told him to vote for them, his political calculation told him to vote no. Ironic for a man who spent a year chiding Clinton and Edwards as allegedly following calculation, not principle like St. Obama claims he does...

[blm]

25. Clintons - Bushprotecting leaders of the closed government Democrats. That's YOUR team.

.

[jackson_dem]

41. What does Clinton have to do with Obama wanting to confirm right-wing judges?

I supported Edwards. That is my "team."

[blm]

45. Clintons made sure Roberts and Alito would be nominated when they undermined Gore in 2000

and sabotaged Kerry in 2004.

They made sure Bush2 was possible by protecting the secrecy and privilege of BushInc though there were many outstanding matters that should've put Bush and his cronies in jail.

Evidently you know nothing about GHWBush, Jackson Stephens, Dubai and Saudi involvements in BCCI and the funding of global terror networks. You must think they DESERVED Bill's protection throughout the 90s.

[jackson_dem]

110. Gore's loss had nothing to do with the Clintons

Gore sucked as a candidate.

[merh]

60. Gee, is obama or kerry a chair of the DLC like Hillary?

Just wondering if that means anything to you at all.

[jackson_dem]

111. All three are DLC. What is your point?

And Obama is the DLC favorite, contrary to netroots popular belief.

[merh]

115. You didn't answer the question

Do they hold the rank of chair?

[jackson_dem]

119. Who cares? That is as irrelevant as asking what their favorite color is

[merh]

133. No, it is not irrelevant.

Hillary is a chair, she is the face of the DLC. If you are going to play this game play it honestly.

And hell, Hillary said that Obama was too liberal, you do remember that, don't you?

Here this person responds to your silliness better than I can and I do share his sentiments.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032503082.html?hpid=topnews

“But as Obama heads into the final presidential primaries, Sen. John McCain and other Republicans have already started to brand him a standard-order left-winger, "a down-the-line liberal," as McCain strategist Charles R. Black Jr. put it, in a long line of Democratic White House hopefuls.”

“Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign has also started slapping the L-word on Obama, warning that his appeal among moderate voters will diminish as they become more aware of liberal positions he took in the past, such as calling for single-payer health care and an end to the U.S. embargo against Cuba. "The evidence is that the more have been learning about him, the more his coalition has been shrinking," Clinton strategist Mark Penn said.”

I have been silent about the neocon, Republican-Lite, Democratic “Leadership” Council (DLC), and their poster girl, Hillary, during the Primary season -- but enough is enough. Just like Joe LIEberman, Hillary is helping McCain to split the Democratic Party -- just as the DLC has been doing for over a decade. This is twice that she has recently sided with John McCain against Obama, and she was dead wrong both times. The first time was when she said that McCain was more able to be CIC than Obama, and now she is calling Obama a “Liberal” as if that were a bad thing.

First of all, Americans overwhelmingly want a return to moderate Liberal values, and that includes getting our Citizen-soldiers out of harm’s way, and out of that stupid, stupid, war in Iraq. The 2006 Congressional mid-term elections proved that beyond a doubt. Liberal Middle Americans also want to put the brakes on our rapidly crumbling infrastructure (roads, bridges, ports, airports, etc.) and to permanently fix things like Social Security and Medicare. Liberal Americans want health care, regardless of how it is paid for, and increased taxes for the common good are acceptable to most.

When Hillary calls Obama, and in turn me, a “Liberal,” she is implying that Liberals are less patriotic than Conservatives, but she is really telling the American people that she is just another neocon Republican-Lite DLC corporatist. She forgets the fact that American Liberalism is the foundation of the great advances made by this country of ours. She forgets that the Constitution was written, and amended, based on the Liberal values of the American People. Hillary forgets what America and its People stand for, and she promotes neocon-style facism by representing corporations instead of the People who voted for her.

If Hillary is nominated as the Democratic Presidential nominee, I will vote for her, but only because McCain would be much worse. And then, I will work even harder to replace her, and all of the neoconservative DLC and Republican corporatists, because they have perverted our Representative form of government for their own (and their corporate sponsors') benefit.

http://www.democrats.com/node/16085

[jackson_dem]

147. And that has what relevance to DLC members preferring the "anti-DLC" Obama over her?

[merh]

154. She and Bill are the DLC

sorry that folks who are a part of the DLC don't see her as the leader she thinks she is. Just another example of how she really can't seem to lead, even in small numbers.

DLC members of the party want a win in November, they see Obama as a winner. How sad for HRC that they don't see her in that same light.

[karynnj]

197. Obama was NEVER DLC and Kerry clearly hasn't been since Jan 2005

Following HRC's lead, nothing counts before January 2005 - so Kerry's ok.

HRC is DLC leadership as was BIll and your darling Edwards was for the entire time he was in teh Senate compiling the record that he completely disowned.

[mtnsnake]

123. If someone steals and he doesn't get caught, does that mean he isn't a thief?

Just because Obama isn't a card carrying member it doesn't mean he mean that he doesn't have DLC written all over him. Have you read any of the links which associate him with the DLC traits? You do realize, don't you, that one of his main campaign themes, "reaching out to Republicans", is one of the most DLC-type themes we've seen of any presidential candidate since the inception of the DLC.

[merh]

138. You do realize that Hillary is a DLC chair, don't you.

Bad Hillary supporter, bad mouthing her little organization. *tsk tsk*

And you do know that Hillary called Obama a liberal, don't you.

You guys need to get your scripts right, you mustn't attack Hillary's little club and you mustn't contradict her statements.

[mtnsnake]

142. You do realize I never said she wasn't a chair. Do you realize Obama's close friend is THE chairman?

...the one and only Harold Ford who said how Obama wants to work closely with the DLC? Check out the links I provided way downthread if you don't believe it.

Bad Hillary supporter, bad mouthing her little organization. *tsk tsk*

WTF? Do you honestly think that just because someone is a Hillary supporter that it automatically makes them a DLC lover? That's precious!!

With that kind of half-assed logic, then every Obama supporter should consider themselves a DLC lover/defender, too, considering he's got DLC written all over him and he's running a DLC type campaign much more than anyone else of all the 2008 candidates.

[merh]

145. So, Obama is not a chair

Hillary is one of the chair.

I have republican friends, I am not a republican.

Get it.

[jackson_dem]

148. Netroots "logic": Obama will fight the evil DLC cabal--the DLC wants him to win despite it

:crazy:

[mtnsnake]

150. Its amazing isn't it.

...quite the logic they have, I agree.

[jackson_dem]

151. More: the DLC cabal is a fearsome, ultra-effective machine that hijacked the nation

Yet they are too stupid to realize the "real Obama", unlike some random Obamite in the blogosphere who, if lucky, maybe shook his hand once. They know more than people like Richardson who met him a zillion times, saw him up close, knows people who know Obama, and so on....

[karynnj]

188. Following HRC's example - I think that nothing before January 2005 counts

I mean that's the standard she is working with - I guess it works for Kerry too. (though that means I can't point out that Kerry voted againt the 2001 banruptcy bill that HRC, Edwards and other DLC people voted for.)

Kerry voted for Kerry/Feingold and against confirming Rice - unlike Clinton and Obama. He also was by far the toughest person interrogating her, though Boxer had more fireworks. Kerry's record since 2004 is far closer to Kennedy's than to Clinton's. Kerry also was a co-sponsor of Feingold's resolution to censure Bush along with Boxer and Harkin.

As to DLC, there is no post 2000 list. (which is why people who left office years ago are on it.) Kerry did not go to the DLC conference in 2005, 2006, or 2007. I don't know if there was one in 2008 yet - but if there was, Kerry was not there. He did go to the Take back America conference in 2006 and gave an awesome well received speech and got rock star like applause while HRC at the same conference got booed. His Iraq position was very much in line with teh TBA crowd - a not very DLC crowd. http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3296

In 2005, Al From listed the potential DLC Presidents - as you KNOW the VP ones, you likely know that he listed Clinton, Warner, Vilsack and Bayh. He did not list Kerry - who polled higher than Bayh, Vilsack and Warner ever did - so this was likely not just that he was considered to have less chance than this group.

Little Clarkie a couple of years ago called Kerry's office which said that he is not part of it. Can you find an article on the DLC website that pushes anything Kerry did starting January 2005.

So - using HRC's standard that nothing before 2005 counts - Kerry has been vilified and harrased by the DLC. He certainly wasn't one of them. (In fact, Marshall Wittmann, a DLC guy, morphed nearly into a SBVT in May 2006 after Kerry gave his Dissent speech and spoke of the need to have a deadline in Iraq. He linked Kerry's 1971 testimony with his 2006 position - as many of us do, it is the same principled stand against failed policies - but he completely trashes Kerry for it. Kind of defeats your DLC comment.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[jackson_dem]

29. Yes, facts tend to get in the way of myths

:(

[blm]

30. Heh - I know. But I seize these opportunities to put the stark truth out there.

Trust me, sniffa....this stuff is truly child's play turned opportunity.

They WANT to fuck with the eagles yet none of them bothered to learn how to fly.

Fleas. And I don't mind the occasional flick.

[jackson_dem]

31. Funny. You are operating from a myth

Your premise is that somehow Democrats who are more conservative have a rabid aversion to open government (as if Bob Casey being conservative on abortion influences his views on whether certain papers should be released :eyes: ). Open government is not the province of one wing of the party, and Kerry himself declared what wing of the party he belongs to. It isn't your wing. It is the wing Obama and Clinton are part of. :)

P.S. Why is that poster frequently telling Obamites what to do? There is no Clinton supporter who herds sheep.

[blm]

38. Baloney - You are loyal to COVERUPS and Bushprotecting- you hate HONEST Dem lawmakers

and you want the Bushes protected into the next decade by Hillary just as Bill did for Poppy throughout the 90s.

You actually think you can pretend the rest of the Dem party into it.

Just like the Bushprotecting Clintons did for so long,

[jackson_dem]

39. Are you channeling Joe McCarthy?

Seek help dude...

[blm]

44. Are you pretending you don't KNOW the Clintons protected the Bushes throughout the 90s?

Seek the National Security Archives, dude.

[sniffa]

35. Yeah, but look at who you're talking to

Nothing of substance, and he won't engage. No reason to give in and grant attention.

Like I said, I appreciate it, but it's a futile attempt if it's aimed at the OP or others like him. It may be good for some lurkers and such, but the fact that an HRC supporter is going the DLC angle should make any person not living in a cave or under a bridge roll with laughter. :hi:

[jackson_dem]

37. This is classic from "sniffa"

sniffa doesn't even grasp the basic point of the OP, which is not surprising :rofl: , yet is barking orders to Obamites as to what to do.

[blm]

48. I think sniffa's pretty fucking funny......

Reminds me of O'Donoghue. You remind me of O'Rourke.

[sniffa]

52. This guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_O'Donoghue

If so, thanks. :D

[blm]

54. Yep.

PS: M O'D LOATHED O'Rourke. Thought he was a talentless, derivative hack.

PSS: You have a slash in O'Donoghue.

[sniffa]

56. Woot!

That's kinda what I strive for. :D

If I could just transition to standup, I could be the next Bill Hicks... or I could just steal his material and be the next Dennis Leary. :woohoo:

[blm]

58. Now, maybe you can better get my drive to pound away at the powerful and their minions.

Drive an ice pick into the brain......or 900 (if you have to) heheh



>>>>>>
For O'Donoghue, "nothing was sacred," Perrin said. "His satire was aimed at getting a rise out of even the most jaded. 'You must drive an ice pick into the brain pan,' O'Donoghue once said. 'Did I say an ice pick? I mean 900 ice picks.' "

O'Donoghue wielded those picks with deadpan precision. His first prominence came via National Lampoon with such savage pieces as "A Child's Letters to the Gestapo," "The Vietnamese Baby Book" and "Magical Misery Tour," a "dream is over" deconstruction of the Beatles, later adapted for the first Lampoon album, "Radio Dinner."

In "How to Write Good," another Lampoon classic, he shared his sure-fire technique for ending any story: "Suddenly, everyone was run over by a truck. The end."

His was not so much black humor as it was bleak humor, the literary equivalent of that giant foot that suddenly would stomp onto the scene in the "Monty Python's Flying Circus" TV series. He'd been impacted profoundly by a long childhood bout with rheumatism, during which he found escape through the radio and books, which he read voraciously. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Kenneth Grahame were among his favorite authors.

His own misanthropic outlook was expressed in his concept of the "others," those who did not share his worldview, a group that later would include network television censors and movie studio executives.

Perrin remembers Bill Murray's eulogy of O'Donoghue: "He hated the horrible things in life, and the horrible people in life. And he hated them so good."

>>>>>>>>

[NashVegas]

100. self-delete

[blm]

47. I know - but mr blm was called into newsroom tonight, and I need the amusement.

.

[jackson_dem]

62. You do realize how your manic rantings about Jackson Stephens and alleged Clinton evils sounds?

Apparently not... :D

[blm]

65. You do know that there is a place called National Security Archives where you can act like a CITIZEN

who cares about the truth and the historic record, don't you?

Apparently not.

[mtnsnake]

78. He's nothing of substance? HAHAHA!!! I suppose you're DU's Mr Substance Poster Child

Good gawd, sniffa, jackson_dem has posted nothing BUT substance. Where the hell have you been?

[blm]

83. Apparently he doesn't reside under rocks where one picks up next day's proClinton talking points

from Mark Penn and Terry McAuliffe.

[Freddie Stubbs]

193. Clinton and Obama vote with the Democratic party more often than Kerry does:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/party-voters/

[karynnj]

200. Look which Democrat votes with the party the least - Kennedy !!!

Here are a couple of votes that count against Kerry - I am positive he still believes as he did then.

6/22/06 Vote 181: S 2766: Kerry Amdt. No. 4442; To require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq, encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security, and achieve victory in the war on terror. Yes No No

(Yes, Kerry voted for Kerry/Feingold!!! OMG - and the "Dem" vote was NO.

1/26/05 Vote 2: On the Nomination: Confirmation Condoleeza Rice, of California, to be Secretary of State No Yes Yes

(Yes, Kerry voted against confirming Condoleeza Rice, when the "Dem" vote was yes.)

What this shows is NOT that Kerry was more likely to vote with the Republicans, but that he was MORE willing not to follow the party line. This is a bad metric for what you want to show. Note - Kerry's percent is just higher than Leahy, Dodd and Sanders.

[anonymous171]

2. In another thread, didn't you say that because Hillary lead in asian SDs

that she had widespread support of the asian community?

[jackson_dem]

3. Good point: Obama's best states are DLC states

[cali]

7. golly, who knew that VT is a DLC state

your OP is the most desperate and pathetic piece of crap you've spewed so far- and that's saying something.

[knight_of_the_star]

184. FAIL

Ad hominem ad nauseum

[madrchsod]

136. illinois is a dlc state? interesting

[bvar22]

168. Hey, Obama is leading in Florida!!!!!

according to jackson_dem.

[jsamuel]

10. one of the biggest myths of this election has been that Clinton v Obama is = DLC v Progress

Some progressives are being led off a cliff by following Obama. On policy alone, Clinton is more progressive than Obama. Now we hear that what Obama said about getting troops out of Iraq was a slyly crafted message to obficate that he would leave 60-80 thousand troops in Iraq. Progressives would be wise to hold this guy's feet to the fire.

[jackson_dem]

21. Yup! It is a shame these people are being fooled into voting for Obama

Edwards was the most progressive candidate.

[madrchsod]

137. i was.... oh shit i forgot..... i voted for dennis in illinois

but now i support barry

[LWolf]

166. Not quite, lol.

Dennis Kucinich was, and is, the most progressive of the lot. I would cast a vote for Edwards, though, if he were still running.

[LWolf]

165. I agree. n/t

[Solon]

185. You got that right, the fact is that they are both Centrists, does it really matter if one is DLC...

and the other isn't if the policies aren't substantially different?

[Joe Chi Minh]

11. That makes interesting and encouraging reading - in terms of democracy,

apart from any other consideration.

[crankychatter]

18. They're nothing if not politically savvy

First off, you have a filthy mouth...

"netroots article of faith" and "Obama's rabid blogosphere support"

The anonymity of the internet makes you brave... you would't talk to a starving pandhandler in this way... the panhandler might stab you. This is evidence of social pathology and physical cowardice.

The conflict is between those that favor the old system of PAC funding for campaigns in exchange for favors (completely illegal)

vs

The rest of us

the DLC has a horrific history of complicity with the Republican Agenda. but they're not the sole problem.

People across the political spectrum are SICK AND TIRED of the Military Industrial complex and other Privateers having super-citizen status and more influence on our leaders, than we, the voters do.

Your candidate takes money from the PACs that profit from death, then gets up on a stump and makes speeches for peace.

Do you get paid for being such a snyde, sneering, pompous agent provacateur? Or do you just dig it?

Hey, sorry about beating you up after school... get over it.

[jackson_dem]

20. If you say so. I have not seen any DLC member supporting Obama say this

But the netroots "knows" what the DLC "really" believes...

You are unaware of where Obama gets his money. You can be sure the DLC is not ignorant of the facts about Obama.

[blm]

50. Not all DLC is created equal. Most don't protect the Bushes and line their bank accounts

by the millions from Dubai and Saudi royals they protected when they deep-sixed BCCI matters for GHWBush and Jackson Stephens throughout the 90s.

Do they?

[Zhade]

40. FACT: Obama had his name removed from the DLC roster.

Doesn't sound all that pro-DLC to me.

[jackson_dem]

42. What do you "know" that actual members of the DLC don't?

[blm]

49. You do know that some pols joined to try and INFLUENCE the DLC and balance out their

leanings rightward, don't you?

Imagine if the DLC had NO liberal influences like Kerry pulling leftward AGAINST their pull to the right in the 90s? You wanted the Lieberman-Clinton Dems to pull the party even FURTHER RIGHT?

[jackson_dem]

112. Kerry "told" you why he joined the DLC?

What fight has Kerry fought within the DLC to change it? 0...

[SoxFan]

53. WHO FREAKIN' CARES?

Jeez, people, enough already.

Both Clinton and Obama have support from all segments of the party. There are New Dems supporting Obama, there are old school labor Dems supporting Clinton. Both of our candidates have shown an ability to tap all parts of the ideological spectrum of the Democratic Party, and that's a strength, not a weakness.


BTW, your characterization of Bob Casey as a "DLC Democrat" really isn't accurate. The DLC is actually quite liberal on social issues. Casey is more of a labor-populist, while Rendell is more in line with the DLC's fiscally conservative tendencies.

[jackson_dem]

63. Probably 80% of the blogosphere

DLC members do run the gamut on social issues but the "DLC" bogeyman would encompass someone like Casey. Casey is under attack from these same elements in his own state for being a DINO due to having conservative social views on some things. This is part of why he endorsed Obama...

[SoxFan]

167. Al From backed Rendell over Casey

The DLC has never been as big on Casey as you believe.

[bonito]

55. Great discourse tks blm n/t

[Flabbergasted]

57. As was said months ago here: "The DLC would have a prominent place in Obama's presidency."

[bobthedrummer]

73. "Know Your DLC: Current DLC Leadership Team and other Democratic Leadership Council links"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5396391

Fact: HRC is a DLC Leader, Obama is not.

[mtnsnake]

84. Obama's campaign is DLC without the official DLC stamp on it. He wants it both ways

His campaign theme of "reaching out to Republicans" is as DLC as it gets. Even his personal friend and head of the DLC, Harold Ford, said that Obama has expressed interest in working with the DLC.

[bobthedrummer]

98. By simply following the funding of DLC and comparing it to Obama's campaign

one can see that your "analysis" is made-up. How many of Obama's supporters are corporations, venture capitalists, etc?

Third Way Foundation profile from Source Watch (has many independent funding links connecting DLC with RW)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Third_Way_Foundation

[jackson_dem]

114. His biggest contributor is Goldman Sachs...

[bobthedrummer]

126. They don't vote eom.

[jackson_dem]

129. Sure they do, just like Exelon whose executives purchased Obama in Illinois

[bobthedrummer]

132. You are a real hoot! eom

[madrchsod]

139. oh noooo .....exelon!

they bought obama with my hard earned money...dam them!

actually i did contribute to obama by paying their salaries!

[jackson_dem]

113. What is your point? That Obama is so palatable to the DLC they prefer him to a DLC chair?

Ok. I accept that. ;)

[bobthedrummer]

135. You lost the game of defining the context/perception space way upthread-bye, bye!

:hi:

[mtnsnake]

76. According to this, Obama is highly touted by the DLC for such obvious reasons:

You are right, jackson_dem. For that matter, anyone in the know realizes just how much Obama and the DLC love each other, even though Obama isn't a card carrying member, but that's because he wants it both ways. I mean, just look at this alone...

Ford predicted the DLC will play a major role in the issues debate that unfolds in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary process. The group will not side with any one candidate, he said, even though the organization has close ties to a number of potential nominees, from Vilsack to Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Joe Biden (Del.) to Gov. Bill Richardson (N.M.). Even Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) has expressed interest in "finding ways he could work with the DLC," according to Ford. (Ford describes Obama as a "personal friend" and says they talk regularly.)

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/01/fords_next_move.html

From a year ago:

DailyKos straw poll shows shows Kossacks prefer John Edwards 37% to Obama’s 27% with Wesley Clark a distant third at 14% (the Blogometer has checked these numbers at 6K, 13K ,and 16K votes and there has been no change in the %s). Netroots ambivalence towards Obama’s candidacy seems to stem from two related sources: 1) his perceived centrist/Liebermanesque/DLC rhetoric; 2) and his inability/refusal to lead take the lead on a major progressive issue (especially the war).

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/01/obama_wire_the.html

The DLC doesn’t necessarily pre-select candidates, but they do keep an eye out for possibilities. Obama has been on their watch-list for some time. Now that they see his sex appeal, they may rally behind him. He could be Hillary without the polarizing effect, a real possibility to hold the office.

http://pieceofmind.wordpress.com/2007/01/18/obama-lieberman-and-the-dlc/

[jackson_dem]

116. Obama agrees with the DLC on merit pay and is "open" to privatizing education

He is less progressive than Clinton on economic issues, such as trade and the mortgage crisis. Is it any wonder the DLC prefers Obama?

[mtnsnake]

144. It is no wonder that the DLC prefers Obama & that most teacher's unions prefer Hillary

because of what you stated.

[jackson_dem]

152. The states that have the most DLC type voters all went for Obama by large margins

Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Carolina, Alaska etc. Clinton has won most of the progressive states like Massachusetts, New Jersey, California, and Rhode Island.

[Samantha]

82. LOOKING AT THE BIGGER PICTURE

Bill Clinton, along with Hillary, have controlled the DLC since he left office. He won a special place in the DLC heart by becoming the first DLC member to win a two-term presidency. Since the departure from the White House, he has pulled the strings of influence there.

Because various members of that organization have decided to support Obama does not suggest the DLC as an entity promotes his candidacy. It simply means some "right-thinking" individuals who are members have bucked the Clintons in favor of a candidate they perceive is more worthy of the office. Kudos to them.

Sam

[jackson_dem]

102. They don't control the DLC as the OP shows

[bobthedrummer]

130. "Know Your DLC: Current DLC Leadership Team and other Democratic Leadership Council links"

spend a little time in this informative thread and you might realize you're wrong, or just keep repeating the DLC's programmed lies.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5396391

[merh]

140. thank goodness you posted this

I was wondering where you were

:thumbsup:

[jackson_dem]

146. Who to believe? DLC members themselves are delusional internet posters?

[Ysabel]

202. hahaha like you...?

[Moochy]

141. "Clinton still leads in superdelegates"

Hang in there baby!

[Eric J in MN]

143. Are you troubled that Obama is supported by John Kerry...

...Deval Patrick and Bill Richardson?

Are you expecting those three people to be a negative influence on Obama if he becomes president?

[jackson_dem]

149. I don't fear the DLC, which is one of many factions in the party

I am troubled by how many votes Obama gets due to ignorance or delusions.

[karynnj]

203. That's because YOU have the chutpah to say that

others don't know what they are doing. In fact, this year, Obama was the ONLY one of the top three who was NEVER DLC. Edwards was DLC and voted as true to DLC as anyone.

[AX10]

153. DLCers for Clinton: "Bad" / DLCers for Obama: "Good"

[mtnsnake]

158. LOL!

True! It's funny when you think about it. Here we have one candidate, Barack Obama, who's running the most DLC type campaign of perhaps any candidate since the DLC's inception and another candidate, Hillary Clinton, a card carrying member, who is actually way less DLC than Obama when it comes to substance and platform.

To see which one is bringing the DLC to the table, you don't have to look any further than the candidate who is running with his "Reach out to Republicans" theme, a hallmark of the DLC if there ever was one.

[jackson_dem]

172. lol yeah! The DLC is no longer a cabal, its members believe in "hope and change"

Even though Nelson, Seblieus, Conrand and company haven't changed their positions at all. Obama is the candidate of the right-wing of the Democratic Party. His progressive supporters, who view him as a progressive savior, can't handle this fact.

[MethuenProgressive]

155. Obama's the most DLC Senator since Lieberman,

I prefer progressives, like Bill and Hillary Clinton.

[rodeodance]

163. that is another myth--that BO and his fans are 'progressive"

[mmonk]

201. Yeah. The member of the DLC leadership is the least DLC and real progressive.

You're quite funny.

[Califooyah Operative]

156. The DLC is not as powerful as it used to be and it's 'member's are getting freeer

and more independent. America's moved to the left and they're catching up and choosing to go with the future over the past. The DLC leadership still overwhelmingly supports Clinton.

[jackson_dem]

169. Wrong. The DLC leadership has been neutral, aside from Carper who endorsed Biden

No DLC member has changed his or her position in 2007 or 2008. They just prefer Obama...

[Califooyah Operative]

176. And the Ford memo? nt

[quakerboy]

157. My reaction

has to do with coattails and the states that these people live in.

[jackson_dem]

170. But look at those states

If that were true Richardson and Patrick would have endorsed Clinton. Seblieus is the only governor on the list for who this might apply.

[Enrique]

159. oh, man, this makes things too complicated

this other thread told me that Obama vs. Clinton is "that simple"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5397208

[BootinUp]

160. lol nt

[BootinUp]

161. The heck with this, I'm going to go read my favorite hillary hate

threads! Maybe I'll stop over at Dkos too! /sarcasm

[rodeodance]

162. REC

[LWolf]

164. Not a surprise, since his positions fit the DLC. n/t

[cloudythescribbler]

171. jackson_dem is emerging as one of the LEADING Obama-bashers on DU nt

[jackson_dem]

173. There is nothing wrong with being pro-DLC. The DLC represents a part of our party

[cloudythescribbler]

174. The Clintons & Al From EMBODY DLC politics, Obama at least CLAIMS a new politics, that is NOT DLC

and many of the threads (actually more than three on GDP in the last 24 hours are unashamed Obama-bashing)

LOL

[jackson_dem]

175. So does Obama--just ask people who are in the DLC, unlike "netroots" keyboard jockeys

[cloudythescribbler]

181. Yes, it is all too true that Obama's platform's similar to HRC's, but there R indications he'd ....

be a more progressive president than Clinton, if only modestly so.

As for "keyboard jockeys" this is a favorite term used on the internet itself, as here, often by people themselves quite "active" on the internet. For my own purposes, what matters is working, in the various ways one can, in connexion with a movement (in my case the reborn sds/mds) rather than just engage in political discourse unlinked to any kind of progressive politics, ESPECIALLY politics autonomous of the major parties. This is true whether it's idle political discussion in the barroom or the barber shop, or on the web, vs organizing related activities, whether on the web or by telephone or in the streets, as long as there is a substantial tie-in to actual organizing efforts.

BTW -- what grassroots organizing are you involved with, may I be curious to ask?

[Dr Fate]

199. Keyboard Jockeys? Should we assume you are not typing from a keyboard as we speak?

I see DLCers and their sympathizers on DU and on the blogosphere all the time- nothing wrong w/ that- but they and you are "key-board jockeys" as much as anyone else who types posts on the internet from their computers...

[Yotun]

177. Your analysis is quite pathetic

First, its disingenious to say that it 'doesn't matter' that Hillary is a DLC chair- if it doesn't matter for Hillary, then it shouldn't matter for anybody else in your sample, and the fact that they support Obama should not point out anything about his DLC support?

Why the double standard? If the poll matters because Obama supporters are in the DLC, and that fact matters for them, it should also 'matter' for Clinton.

Second, no one person is the same- to point out that Kerrys endorsement somehow means that Obama is pro-DLC just proves that. Each of those politicians also has seperate, personal agendas, policies, and reasons to endorse. And to point out that Obama said 'he will attempt to find a way to also work with the DLC' is meangingless since Obama has said he will work with everybody. If anything his statements are very unenthusiastic about the DLC.

But thirdly and more importantly, its a bit pathetic to look at endorsements NOW, with 80+% of the race done, and Obama certain to win the nomination. Political markets barely give Hillary 10% to win this. Its quite logical that DLC members, like many other democrats, will have endorsed the inevitable nominee by this point, and the mere fact that Hillary, with no way whatsoever to win this nomination STILL has SOME comparable support in terms of DLC and superdelegate support really points out who is the favored one. Do you have comparable numbers for BEFORE the race started? That would be more interesting- is anybody willing to do that, and do a proper investigation, not just a half-assed poll?

[Perry Logan]

178. Sometimes politics can be truly hilarious.

[AtomicKitten]

179. Nice try. The Clintons ARE the DLC.

[bobthedrummer]

204. WORD

[6th Borough]

180. HRC is a a DLC chair...

She is listed as as one of the 5 members of the DLC leadership.

[Mezzo]

182. BO has always been in bed with the DLC. I've been saying ir forever. nt

[mmonk]

183. Adherence to the DLC ideology is currently in flux.

It's one of the dynamics of this race. While there are similarities in Obama and Clinton, there are some very real differences in approach and possible power sharing within the party and in dealing the world on the foreign policy front IMO. Some see or read events within the party differently currently and see new dynamics emerging.

[Perry Logan]

186. Thanks for puncturing another DU balloon.

[flpoljunkie]

187. It's not because they are DLC they support Obama, it's because they are worried about HRC at the top

of the Democratic ticket--how it will affect the downraces--from, Governor on down through members of Congress and their legislators who may be on the ballot in November, 2008. They also remember how the Clintons put themselves first when Bill was president, to the detriment of the Dems in Congress.

That, and the fact that they like Senator Obama, respect him and his judgment and feel he would make a fine president of the United States.

[lojasmo]

190. N of 17 = you fail.

Obviously not a random sample either.

Double fail.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

191. how many DLC supers are still out--and why are they out?

thanks.

[Dr Fate]

198. Good. I'm glad that some DLCers have decided to team up with us "far left nutroots" types.

I wonder if the DLC's Obama supporters still think "the nut roots" are an ineffective, out of touch fringe?

For me, the DLC/BlueDogs/Centrists have always been catch-all labels for DEMS who are resisting DEM activists and the ground-up model...

In any event, I always thought that the Clintons were the top members of the DLC- so if members their own organization oppose them, then they must have a good reason.

If certain DLCers want to change their tune or buck the top leadership, fine by me- I dont see what the controversy is.