Sadly, BILL, HILLARY and the DLC have betrayed us.

[CaptJasHook]

I know many people may disagree with me. But when I look back at all the damage that Reagan and Bush were doing, I can see why the Democratic party, led by the DNC shifted to the right, in order to survive. Bill may have been more conservatively centrist than most of us progressives would have liked, but he kept the party alive and managed the state during 8 years of prosperity and relative peace.

I am a veteran of the Persian Gulf war. One who came out of the service disillusioned about the use of the military. Bill Clinton was a breath of saxophone playing air; a truly likable president.

I cannot get over the anger I felt for the right for their slash and burn campaign to destroy him. Even though the evidence shows that President Clinton was a deeply faulted human, I could not believe how the Republicans were so willing to destroy the office of the president, the Constitution and America itself in its self-serving attempt to destroy Bill.

Therein lies the crux of the problem. So many of us true Blue Americans are ashamed that we invested so much emotionally into that family... only to have our loyalty... our sense of righteousness betrayed by Hillary. Hillary and Bill using the same, offensive, destructive politics that destroyed their reputations upon another Democrat. Upon a man who is trying so hard to do the right thing... an ally.

There are many of us in shock. Consider the stages of death, the death of an idea. There are so many in denial and an equal number trying to bargain with their grief over the betrayal.

[anonymous171]

1. They've become what they once fought and despised.

Or Hillary has at least.

[Triana]

2. Well said. You've described the sense of betrayal and grief very well. (n/t)

[CaptJasHook]

7. Thanks, nt

[0007]

10. Bingo!!

[rwheeler31]

3. DLC

[CaptJasHook]

8. I will correct that.

[cali]

4. What does the DNC have to do with any of this?

[CaptJasHook]

11. My apologies Cali, Confusion set in.

[cali]

17. No problem, Capt Hook

Wonderful post and I'm happy to give it a k&r. thanks.

:hi:

[CaptJasHook]

25. I truly respect your work. Thank you.

I have mostly been a lurker. I started a burst of posting, but felt like I was completely out gunned by incredible writers like yourself. So I have returned to the lurk.

[cali]

27. kind word indeed. thank you so much and

please, write more. you do it well.

[silverweb]

5. While you still have time to edit...

I think you mean the DLC rather than the DNC. The DLC is "GOP lite" -- Clinton's. The DNC is Howard Dean and the "democratic wing of the Democratic Party."

Otherwise... I agree with you completely.

[CaptJasHook]

26. Thanks Silverweb. Correction made.

[madfloridian]

6. The DNC with Dean as chair has NOT betrayed us.

Dean is taking a huge political risk by standing up to the Clintons. Few would do that.

[CaptJasHook]

13. Again, my apologies, I meant DLC

[madfloridian]

24. Thanks for the correction. I figured that is what you meant.

:hi:

[cliffordu]

9. KandR

[anonymous171]

12. Have the DLC ever really been on our side?

:shrug:

[CaptJasHook]

18. There was a time.

I can't say that they ever where truly on the progressives side. But 1992 was a year of survival. Then after the 1994 Republican takeover... will that was a bad time to be a liberal, a populist, a union household, a progressive, an environmentalist, etc. The DLC was effective in keeping the party alive. They simply didn't know when to quit.

[dmr]

32. Maybe we give the DLC too much credit

We always think the DLC saved the party. That's certainly what the DLC would like us to think. Thinking about it, though, I think the Democrats would have found their way back just fine. And, maybe our politicians might not have felt the tug of going in two different directions that the DLC brought to the party.

[movonne]

14. I second that...

[Barack_America]

15. Off you go to the Greatest Page.

:patriot:

And I understand your pain.

[newmajority]

16. Lets not confuse the DNC with the DLC

I see a lot of that going on lately. Some is honest confusion, some not so much. And it certainly doesn't help when tools like Terry McAuliffe and Ed Rendell have been past chairs of the DNC.

But the current chair of the DNC, Howard Dean, is the first one to show any leadership at all in this party in the current decade. Barack Obama was the second. This Democratic party is headed in the proper direction, we just need to cut loose the baggage of the DLC.

And hopefully, the failure of Hillary Clinton to hijack the presidency will expedite that process, and continue the restoration of the TRUE Democratic party.

EDIT: I see the OP has already corrected his post, but I'll leave my comments as they are, because others do confuse the two.

[CaptJasHook]

20. That was my fault. nt

[paulk]

19. why is saint Obama seen as somehow above all this?

politics isn't tiddlywinks, you know.

[frogcycle]

22. didn't you see Triana's picture?

How can you ask such a thing?

[CaptJasHook]

23. I don't think that is the issue.

Obama wasn't actively involved in Democratic politics at the national level in the 90s.

Of course politics isn't tiddlywinks. It is rough and tumble. The point is that Hillary's tactics are not usually seen until the General election. And they are tactics usually reserved for more cut-throat circumstances.

This post isn't about Obama. It is about Bill and Hillary and their usage of the same politics that were used against them. It is about the damage that they are doing to the party and... eventually... the Progressive movement.

[truedelphi]

28. As odious as it is, witht he support of the media

The Clintons might manage to get her the winning spot on the ticket.

[CaptJasHook]

29. Not gonna happen.

The question is how much morale they will destroy in the meantime.

[truedelphi]

48. Wish I could believe you. To me it seems like whatever candfidate sells

Their soul to the devil is the candidate that wins. <My fingers are crossed that you are right.>

[paulk]

38. it just seems like so much tearing of hair

and gnashing of teeth. It's all so melodramatic.

It's like Hillary was supposed to roll over once Obama got ahead. Got ahead in ways that I and many other Clinton supporters found just as onerous as you found Hillary's tactics. It's a two way street, you know.


This "damage to the party" stuff is nonsense. Hillary supporters belong to the party, too.


I also find this notion of damage to the "progressive movement" equally foolish. Obama is no progressive.

[CaptJasHook]

39. Some of your logic fails me.

Let's assume that you are correct in saying that somehow Obama got ahead in ways that were onerous to Clinton supporters. I would definitely agree with you that many of Obama's vocal supporters on DU were and are purile and juvenile.

That being said, as an adult, I would never, never through those tactics back on someone and expect to win the argument. Additionally, I would not condescend to use intimidating, bullying tactics, lies and "gotchas" and expect another human being to respect me.

I have used those tactics before, and have felt ashamed of myself.

If you are correct in saying that Obama used lousy tactics to gain the lead in the nomination process. Certainly, the politician that would earn my respect would be the one who refused to engage in the same politics and instead would try as hard as possible to stay on message, attack the real opponent (ie. the Republicans) and do there best to consistently take the high ground.

From what I have seen, the candidate that has been doing that (for the highest percentage of the time in the last two to three months) has been Barack Obama. Like many at DU, he was not my first choice. Like many at DU, he was in a dead heat with Hillary for the least progressive of the candidates. However, now that we are down to two, he has shown himself to be the most dignified and electable of the two candidates.

I will tell you right now, PaulK. It is not melodrama. Wake up and pay attention to the polls, the news, and to what people around you are saying. Hillary's campaign is causing a rift in the party. Voting for her in the Fall will be very difficult for a lot of people. That is going to make a significant number of people not want to vote in November. And that is going to make the down ticket races... the ones that really count... suffer.

[paulk]

50. or maybe Obama's campaign is causing a rift in the party...

look at the polls - more of her supporters are threatening to vote for McCain than Obama's. Which makes sense, if you think HRC is more of a centrist than Obama and McCain is something of a centrist himself.

Obama's supporters on the left may very well sit this one out or vote for a 3rd party candidate. But that's no surprise, is it? The left, after all, has abandoned the party before, as recently as eight years ago.

And if the voters you speak of show so little allegiance to the Democratic Party that it would affect downticket races - why should the party go out of it's way to please them?

[CaptJasHook]

53. Thank you for responding

Obama was not the strongest Progressive in the field. Of the two remaining candidates, I would be very hard pressed to determine which is more progressive. So you definitely have me over a barrel on that point.

Your second statement is false. The Democratic party abandoned the Left, not the other way around. Regardless, that is history and I would prefer to figure out how to keep the party united in this cycle.

As to your last question, I think you are being rhetorical. If the Democratic party does not fight hard to keep itself together, then we will be crushed. I cannot accept that you are ignorant enough to believe that half of the battle in an election cycle is keeping the morale of your electorate up. It is turnout that matters when margins are as close as they are presently.

Furthermore, I may be arrogant in thinking this, however, I believe the Left activists, the progressives, the Internet bloggers, Environmentalists, etc. have done a lot of the ground work for the Democratic party for years. Yes, there is a solid block of Union support and working class voters that have been there. But don't forget that they abandoned the Democratic party in the Reagan years.

[truedelphi]

46. No Obama is not a progressive. Watch the first video mentioned in my sig

We are free to do what they tell us to do.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

21. Nicely Done. n/t

[bowens43]

30. You got that right.

It turns out that bill and hillary seem to be everything the republicans told us they were.

[Hoof Hearted]

31. Really? Cause I'm pretty sure it Sr. Hopey/Changey that's done that, and TRASHED the party

with his blind, irresponsible, narcissistic DEMAND for power and worship. His two-faced "take no prisoners" race-baiting tactics while pretending to run some kind of anointed by God, clean campaign are REPUGNANT and it's finally, FINALLY starting to catch up with him. I only hope it's not too late.

[anonymous171]

33. lol Just back from Hillaryworld, eh?

[SwampG8r]

41. i agree with her

but i have to wear these to do it

[dailykoff]

34. They certainly have

and have been since '92.

[ccharles000]

35. Hillary loves us all.

[BlueIdaho]

37. Speaking of which

Why hasn't anyone asked of SHE inhaled?

[ELY08]

36. Thank You

Well said CaptJasHook

[BzaDem]

40. You will see the result of this "new politics" on November 4th. And then it will all become clear.

[autorank]

42. k*r The investment was significant. What's the return?

She'll "obliterate" Iran for an act Iran can't commit and wouldn't, if they could. Insanity.

[Butch350]

43. That Wouldn't Work This Time...

If Barack was another colour.

[CaptJasHook]

45. I am not sure what you mean by this. Care to expand?

[jackson_dem]

44. More DLC members support Obama than Clinton. When will the netroots get over this fairy tale?

The DLC doesn't hate Obama as the fairy tale holds. They embrace him.

[newmajority]

47. The Clintons have always been the "franchise players" of the DLC.

If any "DLC members" are supporting Obama, they're probably tired of the Al From Republican bullshit.

Howard Dean, Al Gore, and John Edwards used to be members of the DLC, but now they all know better. I have a feeling that list is growing exponentially.

[jackson_dem]

49. lol the "netroots" always "knows" what Obama and his pals are "really thinking"

None of the people who have endorsed Obama have changed a single position. They are DLC. They are not blind and emotion driven like the netroots. They know his policies are compatible with the DLC, just as Clinton's identical policies are. Obama himself praised the DLC philosophy in his book and praised President Clinton's policies as "recognizably progressive." If he wins I can't wait for the netroots to be heart broken. He isn't what the emotion driven netroots "hopes" he is.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

51. I am disappointed in Bill. why does he do this to us?

[depakid]

52. After watching the Fox interview, its not hard to see that Obama's been following the same path

I don't think any objective person can honestly say that there's a progressive in this race.

Just another crappy choice among the lesser of two evils....

[Scurrilous]

54. Kick

:kick: