Let's talk Third Way. Some links about its founding and the founders.
One link I found at The Guardian in 2003 recounts the founding and purpose from the point of view of Tony Blair.
A brief history of the third way
What was the third way all about?
The so-called third way is New Labour's attempt to build itself an ideological foundation. In the face of accusations that the decision to re-christen the party and re-write clause IV was motivated purely by electoralism, Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson sought to prove their ideological convictions.
.....Wasn't Bill Clinton involved?
Bill Clinton's electoral success after renaming his party the New Democrats was an inspiration to Mr Blair and his fellow Labour modernisers. Both shared the belief that a new ideological compass was needed.
In September 1998, Mr Clinton and Mr Blair held a conference in New York to officially launch their new ideology. Both said they rejected the neo-liberal belief that everything can be left to the market, but also saw the traditional left-of-centre faith in state intervention in the economy as outdated.
.....What's the state of play now?
Three years on, however, the outlook for the third way looks bleak. A Republican is in the White House and Mr Schröder has turned away from his earlier fascination with the Clinton-Blair outlook towards a more traditional leftwing stance.
TIME carried an article about this in 1998. They called it the Third Way Wonkfest. The link is still there, but it's behind a firewall. I saved a few paragraphs.
Tony Blair, the New Dems and the Third Way Wonkfest 1998.
After Bill Clinton and Tony Blair finish with the elegant dinners and toasts at the G-8 summit this week in England, the real fun begins: the two leaders will lock themselves in a room with a clutch of top officials to talk about government policy for four or five hours. The Sunday meeting at Chequers, the Prime Minister's country mansion north of London, will be the third such bilateral seminar, following one at the White House, when Blair visited in February, and the inaugural 12-hr. "wonkathon" at Chequers in November, when Hillary Clinton sat in for her husband.
The lofty chatfests symbolize the intimate political relationship between Clinton, a "new Democrat," and Blair, creator of new Labour. Each claims to embody a type of politics that is not just a poll-driven centrism but a "third way," a favorite Blair slogan and a phrase that Clinton highlighted in this year's State of the Union message. "Both governments have to react to challenges like globalization and better education for workers, and we have similar perspectives on what's needed," says White House aide Sidney Blumenthal, who organizes the meetings with his British counterpart, David Miliband, Blair's policy chief.
On the agenda for Chequers are social security, welfare, crime, health policy and education, with eight to 10 participants from each side.
The DLC, a very strong think tank at the time, were very pleased that Tony Blair was in support of the Iraq War. In fact they even named the Democrats who voted for the war the "Blair Democrats."
From the WP
The Blair Democrats: Ready for Battle
Will Marshall May 1, 2003
The U.S.-led coalition's stunning success in liberating Iraq is undoubtedly a triumph for President Bush. But Karl Rove shouldn't get too giddy, because it may be a boon for some Democrats, too.
After all, four of the leading Democratic presidential contenders -- Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sens. Joseph Lieberman, John Kerry and John Edwards -- not only voted to support the war but also joined British Prime Minister Tony Blair in demanding that Bush challenge the United Nations to live up to its responsibilities to disarm Iraq. This position put these "Blair Democrats" in sync with the vast majority of Americans who said they would much rather attack Saddam Hussein's regime with United Nations backing than without it. And it puts them at odds with what Kerry called the "blustery unilateralism" of the president, which combined with French obstructionism to rupture not only the United Nations but the Atlantic alliance as well.
Like Bush, these Democrats did not shrink from the use of force to end Hussein's reign of terror. Like Blair, they saw the Iraq crisis as a test of Western resolve and the United Nations' credibility as an effective instrument of collective security.
And from Lee Fang at The Nation in 2013:
GOP Donors and K Street Fuel Third Way’s Advice for the Democratic Party
Third Way, a centrist think tank that portrays itself as a Democratic group, has some advice for the party: avoid economic populism at all costs. In a column for The Wall Street Journal today, the group argues that the party should steer clear of creating a strong safety net, and criticizes Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio’s call for universal pre-K funded through an upper-income tax increase as a foolhardy idea for national Democrats.
......Buried inside the annual report for Third Way is a revelation that the group relies on a peculiar DC consulting firm to raise half a million a year: Peck, Madigan, Jones & Stewart. Peck Madigan is no ordinary nonprofit buckraiser. The group is, in fact, a corporate lobbying firm that represents Deutsche Bank, Intel, the Business Roundtable, Amgen, AT&T, the International Swaps & Derivatives Association, MasterCard, New York Life Insurance, PhRMA and the US Chamber of Commerce, among others.
The two organizations complement each other well. Peck Madigan signs as a lobbyist for the government of New Zealand on the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade deal; Third Way aggressively promotes the deal. Peck Madigan clients push for entitlement cuts, and so does Third Way.
Notice that Humana, a major health insurance company, lists its $50,000 donation to Third Way not as a donation to a think tank but as part of its yearly budget spent on lobbying activity, up there with the Florida Chamber and other trade associations. The company views financial gifts to Third Way as part of its strategy for increasing its profit-making political influence.
What’s more, Third Way’s leadership has tenuous connections to the Democratic Party it hopes to shape. Daniel Loeb, a hedge fund manager listed as a trustee on Third Way’s 2012 annual disclosure, bundled $556,031 for Mitt Romney last year. Third Way board member Derek Kaufman, another hedge fund executive, also gave to Romney.
They call themselves "progressives", but they are not at all.
They represent everything that Bernie Sanders is opposing right now.
Bill Clinton was there at the founding of the DLC as well. The founder, Al From, made it clear they wanted to have a "bloodless revolution" in our Democratic Party.
The DLC group is sometimes portrayed as a pro-Wall Street set of lobbyists. And From did recruit hedge fund legends like Michael Steinhardt to fund his movement. But to argue these people were corrupt or motivated by a pay to play form of politics is wrong. From is clearly a reformer and an ideologue, and his colleagues believed they were serving the public interest. “Make no mistake about it,” wrote From in a memo about his organization’s strategy, “what we hope to accomplish with the DLC is a bloodless revolution in our party." It is not unlike what the conservatives accomplished in the Republican Party during the 1960s and 1970s.
Al From's words to Bill Clinton about NAFTA show whose interests the DLC and its new form, the Third Way, had in mind.
'“Politically, a victory on NAFTA would assert your leadership over your own party by making it clear that you, not the Democratic leadership in Congress or the interest groups, set the Democratic Party’s agenda on matters of real national importance.”
They may claim to be "progressives", but in thought and deed the two groups are/were "conservative."
= new reply since forum marked as read
I now support Hillary and oppose Sanders more than I did before you posted this.
Meanwhile down on Earth:
Interesting.
THIS is the dystopian nightmare that awaits!!1 
This is what that poster sounds like:
Chris: "Hey Joe, how ya doing?"
Joe: "Hi Chris, just fine. Hey, what are you reading there?"
Chris: "Oh, it's just a new study out on the danger of cigarettes. Says the tobacco companies knew all along that cigs were addictive and that they contained carcinogens. They all lied to congress about it."
Joe: "Oh yeah? Well, now I'm going out to buy another pack of cigarettes...thanks for giving me a reason! Stupid scientists. They don't know anything. And you shouldn't be pushing crap like that, Chris. It's a free country and I can smoke if I want and I can quit any time I want. Addictive my ass!"
Chris: "Hell Joe, you asked what I was reading. I never pushed anything on you". 
so was Obama for that matter.
History is good.
Ooooh-Kay....
one day Hillary is the most experienced candidate in the history of the world because she was first lady, the next day she can't be associated with Bill at all because she was only first lady
You can't have it both ways.
http://www.politico.com/story/2009/03/obama-i-am-a-new-democrat-019862
But ok, I'm not interested in parsing this to death even as Obama has demonstrably proven he's fully in line with DLC positions.
A distinction without a difference.
Those of us with ears and eyes can see it plain as day. I could give a shit if he's adopted the label or not. His actions are clear.
Hillary is also DLC and Third Way. Since you support her, it's not "extremist" to point out the policy resemblances between her and Obama. And how they differ v Sanders.
But please continue to play obtuse. It says way more about you than me. I remain amused.
Please have the last word!! I'm counting on it!
Who turned the channel to Fox News?
The best thing is the radical extremists think they are driving the Democratic Party when in reality the vast majority of the party is laughing at them.
"radical extremists"
Conservative Democrat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_DemocratWikipedia
All you do is demonstrate your leftist extremism doing so.
There you go making up new definitions again.
*adding 121 rofl smileys*
Thanks Bud! 
No relation or admiration at all to right wing politics. Yep, I don't see it either.
Well that makes perfect ... sense?
It's a canard anyway.
Your framing is still bullshit.
Go Elizabeth Warren!
Why are you so obsessed with Paul anyway? Seems like you should be proud of the Democrats who voted to protect our rights.
They keep throwing shit against the wall and finding new and creative ways to smear it around so it sticks.
I'm expecting Nazi comparisons next. "You know who else was a third way progressive?"
was the single biggest crock I have ever seen posted here in ten years. Un-fucking-believable. 
Yeah, that never gets old! And they call us conspiracy theorists?
Still cracks me up!
You're one of the few posters still posting factually rich content.
K&R!
I had totally forgotten that privatization bill.
http://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/10/clinton-signs-privatization-bill/4725/
"Because of the FAIR Act, small business will now know how pervasively the federal government is involved in performing commercial activities," said Matthew Page, director of legislative affairs for the Small Business Legislative Council, an umbrella group of 90 trade associations that had been one of the lead lobbying groups in favor of the act. "The next step is working to make sure those commercial activities are made available to the private sector."
The measure Clinton signed was a watered-down version of legislation sought since early 1997 by a coalition of business groups. Most, though not all, of the bill's initial critics-including some unions and eventually the Clinton Administration itself-agreed to the version signed by Clinton because it seemed to go only a little further than existing regulations.
The coalition supporting the bill ranged from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Corning Inc. and KPMG Peat Marwick Inc. to the Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds and the Helicopter Association International.
Done deal. 
Thanks so much.
And before Carter?
than actually support Democrats who have a record of accomplishment.
In the American political system, all change is incremental - as it is designed that way. I have no illusions about that. Instead of whining about Democrats who compromise (oh the humanity! ) and who have a record of building winning coalitions ( the vast majority of voters would never support a socialist candidate, FWIW), they ought to do something productive politically.
That's how long the reasonableness lasted. Now it's back to shadowy libertarian accusations, just like 20 years ago.
I am a firm believer that we are to care for each other, for the "least among us."
Simply doesn't make sense around here sometimes.
There is a lot of weirdness in camp weather vane...
to do to keep me sticking with Bernie is to mention ONE name these days, there are SO MANY MORE for sure. BUT this one name is the one that rises above ALL others at the moment. DEBBIE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ! As a Floridian I may have paid more attention to her long ago, but now it should be very clear to most that she's willing to do anything to make sure SHE gets the favors she must have been promised. Whatever they are. I know about her closeness with all the Rebukes down in South Florida, and other places too, she's not only DLC and Third Way I think she's worse. And she's so in the bag for Hillary that this alone makes her an unworthy DNC leader.
I give Hillary all the credit in the world for how she handled herself yesterday, but she was defending HERSELF against this onslaught of garbage by a bunch of idiotic, unscrupulous brats who got elected because most were hand picked and gerrymandered. Hillary's testimony should make it clear to the crazies out there that they elected a bunch of morons who have chewed through too many bones. A DOG would have given up long before this. At least my 2 chocolate labs would! If there was something to uncover they most certainly never got close to anything!
I can find no fault with how Hillary acquitted herself, but her policies are the same non-the-less. If not for Bernie in the race we would have NO choice but to fall on our sword again. She's NOT going to go against the Wall Streeters and Corporatists no matter what she's saying now. I knew Bill was more conservative than me, knew Obama was that way too, but I worked for them and voted for them hoping there would be more middle ground. Both have a record of some good successes, both have "personality plus" that sells well and were huge factors in their elections. How they governed was different and this country is going off the rails. They didn't create this mess, but did what they felt was expedient at the time.
Today I'm NOT a happy Democrat, but my support for Bernie is deep and real and know if he can win the nomination it's only a beginning. There's so much to fix and repair and the people of this country have to want to fight hard to turn things around. I can't support Hillary simply because I'm a woman, doesn't work that way for me. Another DLC/Third Way candidate is something I can't support. I KNOW what it is and it doesn't work for me.
In the end, because of the Supreme Court situation I may have to vote for her, but this time I can't waste energy to get out an work for her. Given what's on the other side and IF this country is willing to vote for what's on the other side, then whatever happens is what we deserve! And IT WILL BE BAD! Yep, doing the same thing over and over and hoping for a different outcome are words that everyone should keep at the forefront of there minds.
We are HERE now, it fills me with fear and remorse, can we not try to repair at least some of the damage? I've been a political activist since I was around 16, I've been at it for around 50 years and I KNOW what it means to lose. This loss will hurt the most! My tank is "Running On Empty!" a song by my favorite Jackson Browne.
So ANOTHER long post, but one with my heart and soul included.
which morphed into the Third Way.
She's surrounded herself with DLC advisors. We're not dumb
google is your friend!
