WP: Clinton Angers Left With Call for Unity:Accused of Siding w/ Centrists

Clinton Angers Left With Call for Unity
Senator Accused of Siding With Centrists

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 27, 2005; Page A03


Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's call for an ideological cease-fire in the Democratic Party drew an angry reaction yesterday from liberal bloggers and others on the left, who accused her of siding with the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) in a long-running dispute over the future of the party.

Long a revered figure by many in the party's liberal wing, Clinton (D-N.Y.) unexpectedly found herself under attack after calling Monday for a cease-fire among the party's quarreling factions and for agreeing to assume the leadership of a DLC-sponsored initiative aimed at developing a more positive policy agenda for the party.

The reaction highlighted the dilemma Democratic politicians face trying to satisfy energized activists on the left -- many of whom are hungering for party leaders to advance a more full-throated agenda and more aggressively confront President Bush -- while also cultivating the moderate Democrats and independents whose support is crucial to winning elections. The challenge has become more acute because of the power and importance grass-roots activists, symbolized by groups such as MoveOn.org and liberal bloggers, have assumed since the 2004 election.

The most pointed critique of Clinton came in one of the most influential blogs on the left, Daily Kos out of Berkeley, Calif., which called Clinton's speech "truly disappointing" and said she should not provide cover for an organization that often has instigated conflict within the party....

***

Roger Hickey, co-director of the liberal Campaign for America's Future, said Clinton had badly miscalculated the current politics inside the Democratic Party and argued that she could pay a price for her DLC association if she runs for president in 2008....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072601645.html

We must make the case for change, not go along to get along. You don't defeat crime by tolerating it.

and using the force of our argument to win the day.

Let us talk to people not at them.

A little more persuasion and less anger might be a good approach.

:dem:

dust up.

a. anyone in D.C. were doing any LISTENING (and they're not -- so anger cuts thru a lot of static), and
b. we had YEARS and no one's country were on fire and sinking fast (like our own).


Please get up to speed on these things, will ya? There's a lot to learn, it's a fucking national emergency, and a sense of urgency is real helpful at such times.

Welcome to DU. :bounce:

Feinstein no longer has my vote. Clinton will not have mine if she runs.

She and her ilk are asking for capitulation by liberals, not unification.

Here's the letter I sent to Ed Schultz yesterday on this very subject...


You've just lost a listener.

I tune in today, like I do many mornings, to hear that liberals and progressives should "get the chip off their shoulder" about the DLC.

Respectfully, that's ridiculous.

The DLC speaks of "reconciliation" and "unification", but what's really being asked for is capitulation. Here are a few examples of the issues that cannot be reconciled between liberals and the DLC, because they take polar opposite stances:

Liberals are for workers' rights worldwide, DLC for NAFTA.
Liberals for protection of civil liberties, DLC for PATRIOT Act.
Liberals against the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, DLC for it from the start.
Liberals for ending the failed "War on (Some) Drugs", DLC for continuing it through policies like Plan Columbia.
Liberals against using public tax money for private school vouchers, DLC for them.

Then there's the issue of luring voters. The DLC continually claims that the American public is "moderate", yet a majority of Americans support "left" policies like universal healthcare, workers' right to a fair wage, and protection of civil liberties. One would think that if the DLC's true goal was to attract voters to the Democratic party, it would recognize this and support these policies as well, but instead it supports keeping healthcare privatized, it supports "free" trade policies like NAFTA/CAFTA that destroy workers' right to a fair wage, and it supports the PATRIOT Act. Why does it go against what a majority of Americans want on very important issues, if it seriously wants to attract voters?

That's just a tiny smattering of the problem. In addition, I simply don't trust an organization that has direct financial ties to groups like the Cato Institute and Koch Industries. As quoted in the American Prospect,

<http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/7/drey... >

"And for $25,000, 28 giant companies found their way onto the DLC's executive council, including Aetna, AT&T, American Airlines, AIG, BellSouth, Chevron, DuPont, Enron, IBM, Merck and Company, Microsoft, Philip Morris, Texaco, and Verizon Communications. Few, if any, of these corporations would be seen as leaning Democratic, of course, but here and there are some real surprises. One member of the DLC's executive council is none other than Koch Industries, the privately held, Kansas-based oil company whose namesake family members are avatars of the far right, having helped to found archconservative institutions like the Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy. Not only that, but two Koch executives, Richard Fink and Robert P. Hall III, are listed as members of the board of trustees and the event committee, respectively--meaning that they gave significantly more than $25,000."

So, again with all due respect, I am simply not interested in working with people who want liberals to sit down and shut up, who want to continue corporatism and voting with and for Republican-backed legislation (like Joe Biden and the reprehensible bankruptcy bill - he voted AGAINST an amendment to exempt medical expenses, for crying out loud), and who refer to celebrated truth-tellers like Michael Moore as "rancid" and "un-American" (as Al From has). I also will not work with or vote for anyone who endorses the imperialistic notions of the Project For A New American Century, as DLCer and founder of the "Progressive" Policy Institute Will Marshall has on several occasions.

You may feel free to call that a "chip on the shoulder". I call it remaining true to my principles. By stating that it's "all about winning", you have shown me that power reigns over principle in your book. While I understand the idea that one must be in power to achieve principled goals, setting those principles aside in order to win simply results in either not picking them back up again once in office, or following them and getting thrown out in the next election by voters who will feel misled.

I wish you success with your show, and hope there can be some movement on progressive ideals, but working with the corporate-funded, right-trending DLC is not an option for me, and so I will bid you goodbye as a listener. Your show no longer has an appeal for me, and I find it sad that the DLC was once again the catalyst for a split - just as it was when I left the Democratic party to become a registered independent.

Those coveted independents, like we used to be, ARE NOT WON BY POLITICS AS USUAL!
These guys from the DLC (whic Shultz has turned into the mouthpiece for) either don't get it, or don't care.

It will be the "turning on" of the heat and truly progressive reform that will capture the imagination of the mainstream. Most people are fed up and the moderates hang onto the Repubs because they believe there is little difference between the parties.
I believe the "Family Values" platform is very weak. Most people see the repubs dedication to "Family Values" is shallow at best. A strong progressive platform will be a stronger draw for these folks if those like us (and others from similar backgrounds) are any indication.

But the Dem's are going to have to show them they really mean it.

speak for us.

takeaways from this article. The DLC is no longer in charge of those resources from the Left.

for me either!

Here's a :thumbsdown: to smarmy Dan.

Why, oh why doesn't the ultra-left get their shit together and stop believing every anti-Hillary article the right-wing media rags print.

Bashing Hillary because you don't believe her ideology is "pure" enough doesn't make her a Republican or Repub-lite.

I'm tired of all the hysteria coming from some of the anti-Hillary crowd. To some of you she is no better than a traitor.

Yikes!

The WaPo isn't fit for consumption and it just may contaminate your mind. Don't be surprised if it also gives you a rash.

Articles like this are written to extract the kind of reactions I'm seeing in this forum.

No wonder we lose elections.

The reason she is losing support (Yes, what you see on this board is she is LOSING support she previously had!) is because people are paying attention to her record and the company she keeps.

Wining and dining with WIPRO (Indian Outsourcers) is *not* populist. Supporting CAFTA (someone here mentioned she did not vote for it, how convenient as everything else she does shows she is big on "Free Trade" repub ideas.

It has become obvious to many that she has a "blood lust" for the presidency. I don't want people who are so intent on their own power. Her actions indicate to me she will sell out to corporate power. Heck she pretty much already is!

that Hillary Clinton has NEVER had a lot of support on DU. Thirty or 40 disgruntled Hillary-haters don't mean her career is over and that no Democrat will vote for her---or any Republicans for that matter.

Thats the whole point--to attract votes from the other side. You have to be clever to attract them and Hillary is certainly that.

Hillary just isn't pure enough for the far left, including yourself, I assume, and she is equally hated by the right-wing Repubs so I guess that means you have a lot of common with them.

I am not far left my friend. I am one of those Church going independents (I have only been registered Democrat for less than a year). What she considers "centrist", pandering to globalism, is not going to get her or the DLC "centrist" votes. Now she *is* doing things that might be attractive to some Republicans. Trouble is they can't get by her personality.

And as for the DLC I don't know what they are thinking? So they gain a few Republicans and lose the support of progressives? This is just not a sound strategy. But then I don't expect sound strategy from people who have little contact with us "little people", who pander to the elite. They are too out of touch to feel the pulse of the average joe.

I don't think it's her personality that people on the right don't like -- it's the nonstop GOP and right-wing talk shows that have painted her as vile over the last 12-13 years. NY seems to like her as a senator. And by all accounts, she's been a wonderful mother to Chelsea.

So many people in this country just don't like successful, powerful, confident independent women. (Martha Stewart, Teresa Heinz Kerry, Hillary Clinton)

The GOP women all seem to get a pass.

Indeed it should be illegal what has been done to her and her family.

But that doesn't mean she gets a pass for pandering to corporate interests at the expense of the average guy (gal).

I think you are wrong about people not liking a woman because she is successful, powerful, confident and independent. If they are all that and have integrity and are respectful of others, I think they will be liked. Oprah for example.

Then again one can't be liked by everyone.

Well, uh, great - it's fortunate that the Clintons have a lot of money, since Chelsea's job prospects might be ruined in the future by her mother's support for pro-corporate, pro-outsourcing, anti-workers' rights legislation and policies.

Good thing Chelsea isn't poor, so she never has to go fight in a war if the draft comes back thanks to people like her mother cheerleading illegal invasions like that of Iraq.

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, a lot of us would oppose her even if she were male. Her gender's got shit-all to do with not liking her politics. Nice try, though.

She is very fair, and it's a mistake for the democratic party to move as left as it has.

Arrg!
So many talking points! The Republicans have been so successful at framing and ostracising words.

The Democratic Party of today bears almost no resemblance to the Democratic Party that nominated JFK. Back then, there were a lot of Democratic hawks (including JFK himself). The hawk wing of the party is virtually gone. Back then, the South was still solidly Democratic -- if it weren't for the South, Nixon would have won in 1960. The entire Southern conservative wing has also disappeared, along with the Democratic congressional majority. The Democratic Party back then also had rock solid support among Catholics. In 2004, George Bush won the Catholic vote, and it seems reasonable to assume that the Democratic Party's very liberal stance on issues like abortion contributed to that.

So let's see:

Foreign policy hawks -- gone.
Southern conservatives -- gone.
Socially conservative Catholics -- gone.

What's left of the Democratic Party is far more liberal on social policy and foreign policy. As for economic policy, the DU conventional wisdom that the Democratic Party was once a worker's paradisc of socialist thought is, like so many other DU beliefs, badly misplaced. The Democratic Party had a cozy relationship with Wall Street going all the way back to the 1880's.

Those were the days -- ah, the GOOD old days (for real) -- when liberal really WAS liberal, by God, and NONE of us felt under-represented or unappreciated or harrassed.

As for Kennedy being a hawk, um, no. I wouldn't describe him thusly. One of the reasons they killed him is that he wanted and planned to GET out of Vietnam. Strong and SMART on defense is how I'd describe Kennedy and most other Dems as well.

the DU conventional wisdom that the Democratic Party was once a worker's paradisc of socialist thought is, like so many other DU beliefs, badly misplaced.

Well, that's overstated enough to morph into strawman territory, isn't it? That said, there was a time when social programs were not boogiemen issues. Remember LBJ? Does "the Great Society" ring a bell? War on Poverty? Headstart? Or how 'bout FDR? The New Deal?

You have a very strange way of remembering things AND of talking about your memories.

And as for this:

Foreign policy hawks -- gone.
Southern conservatives -- gone.
Socially conservative Catholics -- gone.

If Foreign Policy hawks mean Scoop Jackson and his protogees (all PNACers now), good riddance.

If Southern Conservatives mean racists like Strom Thurmond (once a Dixiecrat), then good riddance.

If Socialy Conservative Catholics mean homophobes and anti-abortion zealots, then good riddance.

And having said all that, just why do YOU stay here, dolstein?

I stay a Democrat because I AM a Democrat. I believe that the purpose of government is to ensure equal opportunity for all. I believe in a progressive tax system. I believe that our chief foreign policy aim should be the expansion of freedom and democracy around the world. These are traditional liberal democratic prinicples.

I suppose the fair question to pose to you is why YOU want to be in the Democratic Party, because you appear to despise so much of what the party has traditionally stood for. You certainly despise the kind of people whose votes gave the party control of the national government once upon a time.

Well, you can't have it both ways. You can't try to kick out of the party anyone who doesn't embrace your narrow left-wing agenda and then sit around and complain when most voters (including many of the same people you were so happy to see leave the party) choose the other guy.

I suppose the fair question to pose to you is why YOU want to be in the Democratic Party, because you appear to despise so much of what the party has traditionally stood for. You certainly despise the kind of people whose votes gave the party control of the national government once upon a time.

Dolstein, you have such an, uh, UNUSUAL "memory" of what the Democractic Party once stood for, that it makes your assessment of how you think *I* view the Party (both now and then) simply delusional from my perspective (and I note that I'm not the first one whose found some discrepancy between your memory and theirs/ours). Let me be clear: there is NO semblance, no hint, of Reality in your characterization of my position whatsoever. It's not even something I could sort OUT for you in a reasonable amount of time.

Well, you can't have it both ways.

:rofl:

Okie dokie, dolstein, whatever you say. :eyes:

A very misinformed, very rightwing Democrat, but hey, if you call yourself a Dem, who am I to say you're lying?

Obviously the "freedom" for corporate thugs to do whatever they damned well please to mere meat-puppet persons. The American corporate elite has not ever stood for freedom for actual people since WW II. Seems that whenever people are actually free, they always vote for their nations' resources to be used for the common good instead of the corporate good--like in 1953 in Iran.

Personally, I'm a moderate on DU, and I agree that much of the Democratic Party's decline was due to a loss of support among those groups you cited.

But at the same time, how can we grow a new coalition?

I'm not so kool-aid drinker who thinks that if the Democratic Party embraces a quasi-socialist agenda it will suddenly return to power. But I also think that many of those groups you cited are groups that are nowadays philosophically opposed to the Democratic Party. And I think we have good reasons for sticking with the philosophies we have.

Now, that's not to say that we can't make inroads among some members of the aforementioned groups. Certainly among many socially-conservative Catholics - who may be with us on Social Justice issues but are uncomfortable with us on abortion - we can make inroads by stressing that we're not "pro-abortion" and that we believe that banning abortion would be restrictive and harmful and that we believe in stressing prevention.

Likewise, I don't believe we should embrace a neo-isolationist perspective on foreign policy and defense. I think if we argue for a genuinely engaged US foreign policy, one that is interventionist in humanitarian endeavors but is also cooperative and respectful of the rest of the world, we can win over people who see us as soft on defense.

But by the tone of your post, you seem to imply you want to recapture all of those groups. For that to happen, either those groups or the Democratic Party would have to jetison much of our current philosophy. And frankly, I don't think much of our philosophy is wrong.

I don't think we should become an anti-choice party (although my belief that we should not oppose some restrictions on late-term abortions with health and life exceptions does make my abortion views unpopular on this site). I don't believe that we should embrace the idea of preventive war. We have sound reasons for thinking the way we do on both of those issues, which are key for many in the groups you cite.

As for Southern Conservatives - let's face it, the reason many of them switched was racism and anti-federal-government-sentiment. And, the truth is, Southern Conservatives were itching for an out for YEARS before the '60s. They stuck with the Democratic Party (generally) but were never happy about its direction from 1948 onward (in fact, even before that) and stuck with the Democrats only because they saw us as "the devil you know." There's little we can do to win over most conservative Southerners in states where we were once dominant - places like Mississippi, SC, Georgia. Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, and perhaps Arkansas and Tennessee offer some hope but that will come mostly from relying on Southern moderates, not Southern Conservatives.

So while I agree with your views that we must grow the party and the idea that embracing a DU-agenda will bring the Democratic Party a lasting majority would be a disaster, the solution that your post seems to indicate you support is a non-starter. It's not only morally-wrong, for we'd have to sell out on positions we hold for good reasons, it's strategically unlikely to grow our party.

I feel our best bet would be to hold on to support among youth, increase minority outreach to win a bigger slice of the Hispanic vote and keep the Black vote solid, win over suburbanites (at least a larger share), and Southern and Western moderates. There is some overlap with the groups you cite, but they are distinct from those groups.

What's your solution?

I too wonder what the deal is - if the DLC is all about attracting voters to win, why is it AGAINST policies a majority of Americans support, like universal healthcare and not giving up civil liberties via horrendous laws like the Enabling-- er, PATRIOT Act?

The Democrats were *Very* progressive. Progressive taxation was brought on because of the gap between the rich and poor. That is also a "liberal" idea.

There is an argument to be made about the socially conservative changes. The Party indeed had more socially conservative members, but otherwise the Progressive platform is truly inline with Democratic party History.

So what is the use of allowing the progressive policies to be "Dumbed down" in order to preserve the "Social Conservatives"?

Personally, as someone from that camp, who believes in such things as wiser policies toward violent material, etc, I am far more comfortable giving some ground on those issues, as the effect of the Repub and DLC Darwinian economy is far more immediate and dangerous. We cannot fix the violence in society if we are all dead and incite violence around the world.

the party has NOT moved to the left.

That's really what it comes down to. Are we going to be the party of economic opportunity for all and a strong military, or are we going to be the anti-war abortion rights party?

I think it's less a matter of the DLC trying to move the party to the right than it is the DLC resisting efforts by MoveOn to move the party even further to the left.

Somehow I think the DLC would have gone along with "bombs away LeMay" and responded to the Cuban Missile Crisis by invading Cuba.

Can't look weak on defense can we?

Here's the national defense plank of the 1960 Democratic Platform:

National Defense

The new Democratic Administration will recast our military capacity in order to provide forces and weapons of a diversity, balance, and mobility sufficient in quantity and quality to deter both limited and general aggressions.

When the Democratic Administration left office in 1953, the United States was the pre-eminent power in the world. Most free nations had confidence in our will and our ability to carry out our commitments to the common defense.

Even those who wished us ill respected our power and influence.

The Republican Administration has lost that position of pre-eminence. Over the past 7 1/2 years, our military power has steadily declined relative to that of the Russians and the Chinese and their satellites.

This is not a partisan election-year charge. It has been persistently made by high officials of the Republican Administration itself. Before Congressional committees they have testified that the Communists will have a dangerous lead in intercontinental missiles through 1963—and that the Republican Administration has no plans to catch up.

They have admitted that the Soviet Union leads in the space race—and that they have no plans to catch up.

They have also admitted that our conventional military forces, on which we depend for defense in any non-nuclear war, have been dangerously slashed for reasons of "economy"—and that they have no plans to reverse this trend.

As a result, our military position today is measured in terms of gaps—missile gap, space gap, limited-war gap.

To recover from the errors of the past 7 1/2 years will not be easy.

This is the strength that must be erected:

1. Deterrent military power such that the Soviet and Chinese leaders will have no doubt that an attack on the United States would surely be followed by their own destruction.

2. Balanced conventional military forces which will permit a response graded to the intensity of any threats of aggressive force.

3. Continuous modernization of these forces through intensified research and development, including essential programs now slowed down, terminated, suspended, or neglected for lack of budgetary support.

A first order of business of a Democratic Administration will be a complete re-examination of the organization of our armed forces.

A military organization structure, conceived before the revolution in weapons technology, cannot be suitable for the strategic deterrent, continental defense, limited war, and military alliance requirements of the 1960s.

We believe that our armed forces should be organized more nearly on the basis of function, not only to produce greater military strength, but also to eliminate duplication and save substantial sums.

We pledge our will, energies, and resources to oppose Communist aggression.

Since World War II, it has been clear that our own security must be pursued in concert with that of many other nations.

The Democratic Administrations which, in World War II, led in forging a mighty and victorious alliance, took the initiative after the war in creating the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the greatest peacetime alliance in history.

This alliance has made it possible to keep Western Europe and the Atlantic Community secure against Communist pressures.

Our present system of alliances was begun in a time of an earlier weapons technology when our ability to retaliate against Communist attack required bases all around the periphery of the Soviet Union. Today, because of our continuing weakness in mobile weapons systems and intercontinental missiles, our defenses still depend in part on bases beyond our borders for planes and shorter-range missiles.

If an alliance is to be maintained in vigor, its unity must be reflected in shared purposes. Some of our allies have contributed neither devotion to the cause of freedom nor any real military strength.

The new Democratic Administration will review our system of pacts and alliances. We shall continue to adhere to our treaty obligations, including the commitment of the UN Charter to resist aggression. But we shall also seek to shift the emphasis of our cooperation from military aid to economic development, wherever this is possible.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=D1960

You and others around have had a lot of fun claiming that so-and-so isn't a Democrat. But this is a the DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM? What are you going to do -- claim that Democratic Party of 1960 wasn't really the Democratic Party?

what neo-cons they are :eyes:

funny I fail to see the part where they advocate getting entangled in unnecessary wars so we can be more "electable" and "take the issue off the table".


do you disagree that The DLC would have invaded Cuba during the CMC?

Except for its support of the Chinese Exclusion Act and some other unneccessary xenophobia. Not proud of Kennedy's "missile gap" bullshit either. It was a complete lie.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=D1900

We declare again that all governments instituted among men derive their just powers from the consent of the governed; that any government not based upon the consent of the governed is a tyranny; and that to impose upon any people a government of force is to substitute the methods of imperialism for those of a republic.

We hold that the Constitution follows the flag, and denounce the doctrine that an Executive or Congress deriving their existence and their powers from the Constitution can exercise lawful authority beyond it or in violation of it. We assert that no nation can long endure half republic and half empire, and we warn the American people that imperialism abroad will lead quickly and inevitably to despotism at home.

<snip>

We are in favor of extending the Republic's influence among the nations, but we believe that that influence should be extended not by force and violence, but through the persuasive power of a high and honorable example.

We oppose militarism. It means conquest abroad and intimidation and oppression at home. It means the strong arm which has ever been fatal to free institutions. It is what millions of our citizens have fled from in Europe. It will impose upon our peace loving people a large standing army and unnecessary burden of taxation, and will be a constant menace to their liberties. A small standing army and a well-disciplined state militia are amply sufficient in time of peace. This republic has no place for a vast military establishment, a sure forerunner of compulsory military service and conscription.

When the nation is in danger the volunteer soldier is his country's best defender. The National Guard of the United States should ever be cherished in the patriotic hearts of a free people. Such organizations are ever an element of strength and safety. For the first time in our history, and coeval with the Philippine conquest, has there been a wholesale departure from our time honored and approved system of volunteer organization. We denounce it as un-American, un-Democratic, and un-Republican, and as a subversion of the ancient and fixed principles of a free people.

I think you have f allen for republican talking points hook line and sinker. It was Republicans like Dick Cheney in the early 1990's who voted to downsize the miltary budget, then falsely blamed such votes on John Kerry during the previous election cycle. It is this REPUBLICAN administration who do not support our troops, sending them into an elective war that they did not need to fight. Exhausting them with numerous tours of duty, incapacitating our National Gueard by shipping them to Iraq with minimal training, removing Veteran's benefits by the millions, sending out soldiers to the frontlines without proper armor or armored vehicles and much more. So the other party is the pro-military party?? Yeah, right, big boy.

Nor is supporting abortion rights a left wing phenonemon. In fact it is mainstream to be for the right of privacy, for a woman to make her own decisions about her body and not ffor the interference of the government in such a decision. More than 60 percent of Americans support Roe v Wade.

What have you been smoking? And where can I get some? What has happened is that the country has moved to the right, and organizations like the DLC have greased the wheels to allow it to occur. The right has framed and defined the arguments for 25 years now. The (so-called) left has played defense and coverup without bothering to take a proactive stance that could advance their agenda. If anything, the Democratic party has moved to the right. And it hasn't worked (except for the GOP that is).

But can it be argued that this nation was ever a truly liberal nation?

Taking a very long historical view the only time a progressive/liberal type of government was in power in the last 150 years was a short 30 or so year period that encompassed the new deal, WW2 and the post war years up til 1970.

Our leadership since then can not be considered progressive, so I again posit the query "Is this nation truly progressive, and can we elect a truly progressive slate of candidates on a large scale?"

<<<...But can it be argued that this nation was ever a truly liberal nation?>>>

Politics is rarely seen to make sudden changes unless the country is in the midst of a crisis that leads to a citizen uprising or an armed revolt. The nature of political change in a relatively stable nation is one that is gradual and incremental. Long term goals are achieved by a consistent and unified message. The right are not afraid to take their lumps for unpopular positions. They keep plugging away, using any means they can until they gradually change the playing field. There are so many things that are commonly accepted today (especially in terms of disappearing personal liberties and freedoms) that were laughed at 20, even 10 years ago as lunatic (RW version) fringe. What has become the "center" is what "right-wing" used to be. And it was done by persistance of message. While I appreciate her call for unity, it seems more like her version of unity means "just agree with me and everything will be OK".

<<<Taking a very long historical view the only time a progressive/liberal type of government was in power in the last 150 years was a short 30 or so year period that encompassed the new deal, WW2 and the post war years up til 1970.>>>

I don't think 30 years is anything to sneeze at...but Dems got complacent and lost focus. I guess we thought the fall of Nixon would just guarantee us the WH for years to come.

<<<Our leadership since then can not be considered progressive, so I again posit the query "Is this nation truly progressive, and can we elect a truly progressive slate of candidates on a large scale?">>>

Yes, if we want to work at it.

Teddy Roosevelt was a 'progressive'. The rethug party wouldn't even acknowledge him 2day.

I will remind U that this country was founded by persons influenced during the 'Age of Enlightenment'. This is NOT a conservative country READ the Constitution...it is a very liberal document. Why do U think the neo-cons R busy dismantling it!

Of course, if you're anything like the typical DU'er, you're allergic to truth weed.

But if you were brave enough to take a few hits, perhaps you'd learn the historical truth -- the Democratic Party is much more uniformly liberal now than it has ever been. Back when the Democratic Party was the true majority power, it attracted the support of Southern conservatives, foreign policy hawks, and socially conservative Catholics. Where have the Southern conservatives gone? The Republican Party. Where have the foreign policy hawks gone? The Republican Party. Where have socially conservative Catholics gone? The Republican Party. Where has control of the government gone? The Republican Party.

It amazes me that so many DU'ers are unable to acknowledge the linkage between the Democratic Party's embrace of the counterculture during the late 60's/early 70's, the subsequent defection of Southernors, hawks and conservative Catholics to the Republican Party, and the loss of the Democratic Party's majority status. DU'ers ignore the historical record and simply insist that the reason we are no are longer the majority party is because liberals have grown disenchanted with the party's moderate course, as if the reason the Democrats lost dozens of seats throughout the South and the rural West is because our candidates just weren't liberal enough. Simply amazing . . .

The conclusion is to bring the Democratic party back to one of "majority status" is to take us back to 1965. No abortion fight worries then. War..oh yeah we were just getting reved up on that then..but it took YEARS of protests..mass deaths..for it to even be acceptable to talk about being anti-war in the media. I remember somebody-Eartha Kitt and some other actresses bringing up the Vietnam war at a "ladies" tea at the White House and being shunned afterwards.

The counterculuture? Yeah, you are right. I'm one of those types (hey just like CANADA) that believe my government should have no business telling me what drugs I can take as long as it's my body-when I can die-who I can have sex with-who I can marry.

The cat is out of the bag. AND THEY HATE US FOR IT. They hate that GAYS are on teevee. They hate that women have sex, and like it and don't want to be punished by being married to some turd that beats them and has to have his six kids, and has no other option-because what-women don't work and have to have every child that GOD gives them.

But your post has a nugget of pure gold. EVERYTHING the Republicons and religious right are trying to do to this country is take us back in time. Science? Stem cell research? Who needs it..we have the bible. Abortion? HAH. Women's rights? Ha ha. We need it to be 1965 again-oh those were the days. Democratic majority-the golden years.

Because you obviously didn't absorb the facts in my post. The fact is that the Democratic Party is a smaller, much more uniformly liberal party that it was when it the majority party.

Now, if the Democratic Party wants to grow, it has to add members. You can't add by subtracting. But that's exactly what the DU community wants to do. It's not enough that social conservatives and hawks have left the party en masse. The DU community wants moderates to leave too. That's going to leave us with, oh, around 30 seats in the U.S. Senate and perhaps 150 seats in the House.

How does the DU community plan to grow the party? By appealing to the silent majority of left-wing ideologues who have never bothered to vote because none of the candidates are liberal enough! I don't know what you guys are smoking, but it sure as hell isn't truth weed.

Now it's pretty obvious that you have nothing but contempt for those people don't think smoking pot should be legal, and didn't think it was a good idea when Jane Fonda went to Hanoi, who don't think it's a good idea to pay people taxpayer dollars for doing nothing and who don't consider the U.S. military to be a bunch of terrorist thugs and murderers. But the fact remains, unless we can convince some of these people to vote for us, we'll never be the majority again.

Why do I feel like it would taste like the Kool Aid that is so popular at the DLC??

You miss my point. If the only way to grow the party-that is get those people that believe we are evil anti-Christian, anti-American traitors who smoke pot all day long and should be shot like Jane Fonda is to return to the America of 1965-then what's the point?

Why be Democrats at all? Why not one party?

I honestly don't give a shit about the Democratic party. I give a shit about the liberties and values that are supposed to be behind the Democratic party. Women as equal members of society. The seperation of church and state. Ending poverty.

If the Democratic party of the DLC or the DNC or whatever little name it's called doesn't share those values..them I'm not a Democrat. That's my point.

Taxpayer dollars for nothing? Oh the welfare cheats. Have you bought the big lie? I guess those billions missing from Iraq, or from the Defense department are a-okay. Jane Fonda? Who gives a shit? I know who does- the Hannity listeners. What about the traitors-that let this country be attacked on 9/11??? What about the fact that no one has been brought to account for that little enterprise? I guess that's tax payer dollars for nothing. Where's OSAMA? Where's the WMD? ARE we safer? What about the billions spent to protect us? Where were they on 9/11? In many ways, I'm a hawk. I supported the WAR originally. I wanted blood for 9/11. Who knew I would have to look in the mirror of my own government?

What does it matter if we have any Dems in congress if they rubberstamp everything the current president does?

One party coming to a town near you. I used to be the most loyal Dem you can imagine. But either the DEMS are in on the big lie-or they are fucking out of their brains if they don't realize the propaganda and lies and power they are up against.

Hillary Clinton for President? What the hell is she smoking anyway? Is she really that deluded that she thinks she has a chance in any dimension of winning??? What is that, the alternate reality?

WHO CARES how many Dem voters there are if the DEMS are just like the Republicans? Who cares if the voting machines arent't fixed? Who cares that I'm arguing with empty air? I see the end of America and you are worried about how many votes the Dems get? What Democrats?

I think they are a figment of my mind.

I fully concur. If the Democratic party thinks I'm going to vote for or support in any way whatsoever candidates like the conservatives and corporatists Dolstein and his ilk prefer, they are out of their fucking mind.

Which, of course, is why I'm now an independent and only deal with people who actually have principles I share. Fuck party loyalty, that just leads to myopic, slavish devotion to people who often don't even care one whit about your needs (which is kind of the whole fucking POINT of government).

I've said it before, I'll say it again: people like Dolstein make me happy every time they misconstrue history and paint a picture of "the party that once existed" that doesn't flesh with reality. It drives people away from their ideal candidates, which is just a plus in my book. I LOVE them using rightwing terms like "McGovernite" (and oh yes, it IS a rightwing term, just Google it to see who uses it). It shows the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of their deluded positions.

And when all is said and done - I will never vote for someone who violates my principles. DLCers can stomp their feet and fume and try as hard as they can to sell shit as solid gold - I'm just not buying.

Ever.

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

Bullshit. The reason the Democratic Party took such a beating due to Vietnam was BECAUSE Vietnam was NOT a popular or just war. The reason we have been losing ever since is because the Party is simply REFUSING to take a solid stand on issues that once mattered. Organized labour was THE backbone of the party as was the working class from 1932 until we stopped trying to work for the interests of the working classes. The reason we've been losing is NOT because we are too liberal, it is because we allow for inconequential social issues to take center stage and push economic ones off to the wings. Trying to win on social issues is playing by the GOP's rules, and if we do that we WILL lose every single time. If we can get people to vote with their wallets and not based on fear then we win every time. Just look at how Clinton won in 1992: It's the Economy STUPID!

Just joking. Nice post.

get crushed by Richard Nixon?

Sorry, but if you think the backlash against the Democratic Party had nothing to do with the Democratic Party's association with the anti-war movement, as well as countercultural values (or lack thereof), then you are seriously deluded.

The Vietnam War may have been unpopular. But the anti-war movement was even less popular. It hurt us badly in 1972, and it certainly made the difference in 2004 as well. John Kerry's involvement in the anti-war movement was clearly a liability which more than outweighed any benefit he might have gained from his distinguished military service.

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

There's nothing baseless about what I said. I you honestly think that John Kerry's association with the anti-war movement was a net plus politically, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Seriously, the fact that thirty years after the Vietnam War ended, Kerry's anti-war activity was still a sore spot ripe for political exploitation most definitely proves my point.

As for saying I'm no Democrat, well, that shouldn't surprise me. Back in 1968, people like you were saying that Hubert Humphrey and Mayor Daley weren't Democrats. Personally, I'll side with the Humprey's and Daley's of the world -- the kind of people who actually built the Democratic Party -- over the likes of you every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

You sound like you've got Sweden Syndrome (is that what they call it?) meaning that you've adopted the thinking of the attackers (Republican political hacks) that brainwashed you.

Or, in this case, Schlockholm, since all he repeats is garbage.

:shrug:

was because they hated the Republicans due to Reconstruction.

they stayed for a long time because of sheer inertia.

they began to leave when nixon and reagan began pandering to racists.

then they began to get over reconstruction.

I personally would think a Dem would be glad such bigots left the party.

Post's like this are the only thing thats is holding me on to DU of late. Goodnight, its late for me right now. More latter.

That's a strong dissociative! :smoke:

You are quite correct in your analysis!

She has had the so-called "blood lust" for the presidency since at least 1992. She has worked undercover to rub out Al Gore and his populist message because it worked against her own political best interests. In other words, she gave priority to herself and her political aspirations over the suffering that has been laid upon the American people as a result of two-terms of George Bush.* Call me old-fashioned but isn't that just a little too much to ask of any country -- 8 years of George Bush* -- in order to promote your own long-term best interests? I am still not over election 2000, I am not over Ohio in 2004, and most of all, I am not over the stunning silence of the Clintons throughout all of it.

As young and middle-aged Americans die in Iraq, Social Security is targeted, Medicare is compromised, Heating Oil Assistance for the impoverished is evaporating by the nano-second, Pharmaceutical
Companies and the Military Industrial Complex enjoy the highest profits imaginable during these times of near-depression for the average one of us, and through all of this -- not to mention the Plame Affair, stagnant wages, overwhelmingly unbelievable budget deficits, not to mention the chronic lying of this mis- and illegitimate Administration, the DLC expects me to support Hillary Clinton? What IS it sniffing down there, the air around Karl Rove's butt?

It's quite insulting but not surprising the Republicans think we are dumb as excrement and cannot see what is happening to our rights and our country, but now our so-called party leaders see us through the same perverted lens. Vote for Hillary? What liberal, or even left-leaning individual, okay, what sane moderate could even consider it?

Hillary says: Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. We should be able to work with the pro-life crowd on at least some of those goals.

Media reports it as: Hillary changes stance on abortion.



With any media report on Hillary, I look for direct quotes, judge them on their own merits, which I sometimes agree with, sometimes disagree with, and disregard all else.

"I want to fit in with Republicans."

Agree about the media, but Hillary's not confronting the people who've corrupted our government. That's what I wanted from her. I've given up on her, though.

What she's been saying is "Republicans can fit in with my views." She's trying to convince them that they don't have to be scared of her, and she uses their language to attract them.

As for her not confronting the people who have corrupted our government, she does it at every speech. It just gets twisted into a pro-Republican message by the media, and we're back to square one. She said "abortions should be safe, legal and rare." That's a direct attack on Republicans. How does the media interpret it? As her selling out to the DLC and changing her position to become more centrist. Forget the fact that she and Bill were saying this in 92, it's a new position for her.

She told the DLC exactly what she's been saying all along. The media makes it into something more. They did the same thing to make Gore and Kerry look conservative, too.

The Repubs are smearing Hillary on the right by saying she's too left, and on the left by saying she's too right. Sadly, both sides are buying it. They know she's our best chance to beat them, and they are trying to destroy her early.

"She told the DLC exactly what she's been saying all along. The media makes it into something more. They did the same thing to make Gore and Kerry look conservative, too."

dammit, it's not what she says, it's what she DOES, which is always to sell out to the send-the-jobs-overseas corporatists. she's just another senate pimp for big business. i'm sorry, but real jobs and corporate greed are the real issues, and the social agenda stuff that's red meat for the christian right is only a smokescreen. it's all about big corporate types driving wages and working conditions back to the 19th century, screwing the workers, folks.

hilary, like gore and kerry, would just be yet another DLC loser. since dean won't run, we need someone who *does* stick up for working folks as our candidate (and not kucinich, because in spite of his attractive stands, he does flunk the pro-choice test, and that *is* too big a block of votes to give up on).

I have not purposely meant to come down hard on Hillary. I really don't think of her much. But getting involved in this discussion has really helped me sort out how I feel about her as someone I could not support.

The MSM rarely does Dems a favor. However I have to admit she has really done some things that really shoot herself in the foot. Can you explain why she has had so many personal meetings and supported Indian Outsourcers such as WIPRO and Tata Consultancy Services? Two of the top firms actively Lobbying to remove any remaining barriers to worker replacement with Overseas Labor?

From the article
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC01Df03.html?

"Hillary clears outsourcing air
Hillary Clinton made it apparent where she stood on outsourcing during her India visit, in an attempt perhaps to clear the Indian misgivings received during the Kerry campaign. "There is no way to legislate against reality. Outsourcing will continue," she told an audience of Indian big-wigs. She pointed out that there were 3 billion people who feel left behind and are trying to attack the modern world in the hope of turning the clock back on globalization. "It is not far-fetched to imagine ... if the Indian miracle would be the one of choice of those who feel left behind," said Hillary.

Hillary has been at the forefront in defending free trade and outsourcing. During the height of the anti-outsourcing backlash in the US last year, she faced considerable flak for defending Indian software giant Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) for opening a center in Buffalo, New York. "We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences," Hillary said firmly, despite inevitably invoking the ire of the anti-free trade brigade. "

for the war in Iraq, and trivial positioning over religious
issues like GTA3 where auto theft, cop-killing are fine but a
blow job trespasses the borders of decency. You mentioned in
one of your earlier posts that you were one of ones she is trying
to attract from the middle. I, and many other progressives, are
part of the base she assumes is rightly hers. No longer, this time
I will vote 3rd party if I don't find a candidate that I respect
and right now, Hillary is definitely not it.

...has she been smeared? Yes. Have some of her views been misrepresented? Yes. But is she a consistent, steady progressive voice? No. Does she have a realistic chance of winning the White House (as opposed to a Senate seat)? No. This is simply the truth. I understand that she has been pilloried and character assassinated beyond belief. But, she has faults of her own that weren't Coutler/Noonan/Olson flights of projection. She sells out to corporate interests, has a tin ear concerning the way she comes across to the public (humorless, dour, lecturing), thinks the way to win an election as a Democrat is to act more like a Republican, and her sense of raw ambition makes you wonder if she is interested in the true welfare of this nation and it's citizens, or just in wielding power for power's sake.

She's our best chance, so far. Bookmark it.

...I didn't agree with everything he did, but he was a nuanced and skilled pol. She is not. She may be our best chance so far...but she still has no realistic chance.

He looks that way now because he won. People said EXACTLY what you are saying about Hillary back then.

Remember Bill on the cover of a tabloid with a story about him and four flight attendants? Remember Time doing a reverse negative of him with the headline "Why don't Americans trust this man?" Remember him trailing third to Bush and Perot, and having to go on MTV and Arsenio to avoid questions about his draft dodging, womanizing, lying, influence peddling and drug use?

Hillary ain't got nothing on Bill, as far as negative image is concerned. I won't even go into Reagan in 1980.

...but I do think you are missing my point. What I am saying that she is nowhere near the skilled politician that he is. Even during the campaign, with all of the negative things that you rightly point out in your post, the GOP conceded that Bill was a hell of a politician; an affable guy that knew how to handle and counter the charges against him. Sadly, Hillary does not have those skills. She is stiff, formal, humorless and condescending in tone (ala Gore and Kerry as well, both terrible campaigners). Bill Clinton was the opposite, he was folksy, adroit with words, and a sympathetic character, that's why the GOP was so afraid of him. They had to throw the kitchen sink at him. With Hillary, there is no such worry. She is everything that Bill isn't, in raw political terms. Anyway, I appreciate the civil discourse.

Edit for sp.

They claimed he was a skilled politician only after he started leading in the polls, and it wasn't meant to be a compliment, it was more attempts to smear him. "See, he's leading in the polls because he's a skilled politician, not because there's anything good about him." By the time he left office, they were quite willing to admit he was good, but only to explain why he kept beating them.

But there are different types of good. Hillary is skilled in her ways. She is stiff, humorless and condescending. So was Richard Nixon and Herbert Hoover. Look at the differences between the presidents from JFK to Bush. You have everything from educated scholars to paranoid freaks to idiot drunks.

Bill couldn't win because he was a womanizer, W couldn't win because he was an idiot, Bush Daddy couldn't win because he was a wimp, Reagan couldn't win because he was a warmongering pschopath, Carter couldn't win because he was southerner with an accent during desegregation, Nixon couldn't win because he was a crook and he had lost eight years before and he had been a sore loser then. LBJ could win, he was the exception. JFK was too young and inexperienced and everyone knew a Catholic would never be president.

Hillary won the Senate in New York, where she had never even lived. She's the top fundraiser in the party right now. She'll do very well. Most of the people who wouldn't vote for her wouldn't vote for any Democrat. She's got the best chance right now, and the Repubs are terrified of her. That's why all the smears lately.

...regardless of the GOP's recognition of Bill's skills as a pol, even though meant as a back handed compliment, it doesn't alter the fact that he is a skilled politician while she really is not.

<<<Bill couldn't win because he was a womanizer>>>

I never thought that he couldn't overcome this charge. His victory was no surprise to me. He made Poppy look like an out ot touch amateur.

<<<W couldn't win because he was an idiot>>>

Well, you got me on that one! lol.

<<<Bush Daddy couldn't win because he was a wimp>>>

No, I figured he would probably win, just by riding Reagan's coat tails. And fer Chrissake, Dukakis???? Another horrible nominee

<<<Reagan couldn't win because he was a warmongering pschopath>>>

Well, maybe WE knew that, but his folksy, grandfatherly image reassured those who couldn't be bothered to look at the man's actual credentials and record. Plus, Carter was without friends in either the media or his own party at that point.

<<<Carter couldn't win because he was southerner with an accent during desegregation>>>

Actually, Carter's win wasn't that unlikely. Watergate was still fresh in people's minds plus Ford's pardoning of Nixon didn't sit too well with most. It was the right time for him then.

<<<Nixon couldn't win because he was a crook and he had lost eight years before and he had been a sore loser then.>>>

The anti-Christ works in mysterious ways.

<<<LBJ could win, he was the exception.>>>

True.

<<<JFK was too young and inexperienced and everyone knew a Catholic would never be president.>>>

Compared to who he was running against, it was not much of a surprise. I'm stunned that the election was as close as it was. Kennedy was media ready and friendly. Nixon....eh, not so much.

I don't remember it quite the way you do. I was won over by the populism he was representing before the people.

When will the DLC get that!

OMG. What's the phrase I'm searching for? :freak:


Oh, yes: Just SHOOT ME!!

Republican campaign started before the election dust had settled against Hillary in 2008. I am a dem in a heavily repub area. In any political discussion where I mention that I am a dem, the rejoinder is, and you're going to vote for Hillary in 2008? Her name is being used as a pejorative. To argue for Hillary is to bring forth all the vile repub talking points against dems; to let it pass further villainizes her. It is a no win situation.

I must say that the Repubs have it correct in the south. Start early, stay on task and concentrate on word of mouth in an area that thinks if you have to advertise, you ain't that good.

DIFFERENT from the other party, not something more the same. Use strength of will and ideas to convince those who are not sure about their future.

People will leave the other party for CHANGE, not for something they can stay where they are for.

Do you say, "I am going to travel 10 miles instead of the ususal 2 miles in order to get the same thing."?

No, no one does that. You HAVE TO GIVE THEM SOMETHING WORTH CHANGING PARTIES FOR!!!

Some examples may be, JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS.

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

Whoever is the next President will have to make up for the loss of jobs and that is something people are willing to switch parties over.

and the jobs are shit jobs, paying minimum wage. That's not what we want or need. The rest of us are losing the good paying jobs to India and China, and losing our company paid health care, pensions, and everything else. The majority of us are hurting.

Wealth created and concentrated at the very top doesn't help us at all.

alter the Rush Limbaugh talking points a little bit instead of just copying and pasting them verbatim. Record deficits, $6/hr Wal Mart jobs and the ultra-rich becoming mega-rich does not a great country make.

Unemployment at Historic lows? Maybe you have a microeconomy where you live that is doing well, but most of the country is struggling terribly, underemployed, and yes, unemployed.
There was a great discussion a week ago about the true unemployment rate being somewhere around 11%.

By God just look at the homeless. I don't know about others but I see more elderly and a lot of middle agers who look more down on their luck than down and out. This economy is BRUTAL. And it is not just the economy alone, it is the loss of jobs that pay enough to live.

Glad you apparently have a good job. But don't think everyone is sitting pretty because you are.

the majority no longer COLLECT unemployment compensation so they are invisible to the system that counts them.

that personal "wealth" you say is GROWING is DEBT, un-payable debt in the form of mortgages and car loans that show up as "assets".... and only on paper. a single turn of events in most peoples lives and they'll miss a payment or three, and the banks take it all back.

...superb GOP talking points by the way. Yeah, lots of minimum wage jobs out there for the taking. More and more people working 2 jobs just to survive. And yes, personal wealth is soaring for millionaires, especially those involved in real estate. Keep going by all means though....what's next? Personal liberties and freedoms at an all time high? Unprecedented honesty and straight talk from this administration?

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

...and by the way, been to Western Pa lately? I remember the term rust belt from the early 80's. Don't give me shit about knowing what 30+% unemployment was like. I know perfectly well what it was like. I was there. It still exists in many places. The result of kow towing to the right (oh, I mean "center") will give us more of what we have been getting...which is an occasional Democratic president who gets there by allowing progressive principles to slowly erode, followed by many more Republican presidents whose views were legitimized by the acquiesence of Democrats looking for that elusive middle/center ground instead of providing a forceful and coherent argument for progressive principles.

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

Abortion rights are being whittled away.
Ridiculous sentencing laws in the courts.
Unreasonable search and seizure legislation.
Unions have been marginalized.
Support for the poor....where is it? They are dying to know.
More and more jobs with low wages, no benefits.
People are less and less able to afford health care.
Materialism and worship of money.
Backsliding on clean air, alternative fuels and other environmental issues.
Militarism in place of foreign policy.
War on competition in the marketplace.

And that's just a few....

All of this done with quiet acquiescence from the Democratic Party.

the largest economic expansion in our history

jobs

after 8 years of the Bush economy, Clinton's economy will look pretty good to a lot of moderates/independents

so I don't understand your point

SHOULD take advantage of.

Some examples of what is worth switching parties for are: JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS.

That was my point. That is something that people are craving.

but the truth remains. I remember the expansion vividly. As someone who saw our business increase threefold, I couldn't find warm bodies quick enough to fill positions.

It was nice for the new hires. They had alot of bargaining power.

Now, I'm unemployed. Thanks W.

:mad:

with what you said....

"Do you say, "I am going to travel 10 miles instead of the ususal 2 miles in order to get the same thing."?
No, no one does that. You HAVE TO GIVE THEM SOMETHING WORTH CHANGING PARTIES FOR!!!
Some examples may be, JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS."

Not only do the jobs have to be threre for us, but they need to pay a living, as opposed to minimum, wage, and have health and pension benefits.

We also need somebody with the guts to roll back the tax breaks for the ultra rich, and start letting them contribute to the society that is giving so much to them, and so little to the rest of us.

Dr. Dean, or the milquetoast who replaced Eye-been Baught so he could get ready to run with McCain in '08?

Confidental to the DLC:
If I wanted to vote for Republicans, I'd fucking vote for REAL Republicans, not you pansy-assed "Republican Lites"

She has been a very vocal opponent of the administration these past few years. When she gives speeches, she hands down a damning indictment of the Bush administration. And now all of a sudden she's not leftist enough?

for more than one reason.

The DLC stuff just seems like more of the same thing.

Now, that doesn't mean that she doesn't have 3 years to make her view of Democratic party into SOMETHING WORTH VOTING FOR.

That would be a great slogan:
"Something worth voting for"

She stopped a video game company from cheating the law, made them comply, and changed nothing whatsoever. No new laws, no banning, no nothing changed. Rockstar tried to cheat the rating system by using secret code and after-market mods to get around the law, she just made them stop. She brought attention to it, they had to admit their game was at fault, and they agreed to fix the game so that it was what they advertised.

I don't see how that should upset any liberal. A corporation trying to cheat the law to scam more money off teen-agers, now that should upset us. Unfortunately, we can't seem to focus on the real enemy to, literally, save our lives.

I will just say that she pointed out a game that was already limited to who could buy it (age). A third party moded the game that could only be done by someone who had enough technical skills to do so. (this by the way for a computer programer would be equivalent for rating Windows X for allowing porn to run on it) Lets forget that part. She turned a game into the equivalent of an X movie for what would only be considered R in a movie. I would have supported her more if her arguement was against the violence in the game. The sex in it (with the 3rd party mod) was only as bad as any R rated movie that any parent can buy a ticket for their kid. The rating she wanted to give the game was the equivalent of porn.

the mod only unlocked it. As Rockstar knew it would be.

As for the porn, Rockstar has the choice of marketing their game as advertised, or changing its rating. Doesn't matter what the game would be rated as a movie, it matters what it would be rated as a game. Hillary didn't create the law, she just took a roll in enforcing it. There is a difference between watching someone rape a hooker on a big screen, and making the choice yourself to rape her in a videogame, thus the stiffer rating.

And there's no reason a parent can't buy the game for their kid, anyway.

Bottom line is still that Rockstar put the game on the shelf knowing that content was there and having a really good expectation that someone would unlock it. They cheated. If they don't like the law, they should sue to change it, but cheating it isn't the right way to go, and I have no sympathy for a company that cheats the law to make money and gets caught.

Again, Hillary changed nothing. She just made a corporation obey the law.

Again, this thread is not about video games. It is a dead end issue.

offended by things they don't seem to understand.

THERE ARE 1 BILLION MORE IMPORTANT THINGS FOR HER TO BE SPENDING HER TIME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't tell me I don't understand it. I understand it fully. I don't want to spend any more of my time on it either.

Hilary's been repug-lite for a very long time, and it's hardly sudden to many here.

The DLC blows.

Her latest idiocy of attacking video games is just more pandering to the Right.

Hilary is, at best, a Rockerfeller Republican. She has signaled her intention to vote for Roberts, as she has voted for most of Bush's extremist judges. Friends like this we don't need.

NT

We need real Democrats, ones who will bring our party back to the Democratic ideals we've always stood for. Voting for Roberts is not a vote for those traditional ideals. Roberts would be another disaster.

Hillary has spoken out against this administration repeatedly.

And what's more, let's look at the issues she has been championing in the Senate.

For example, let's take a look at the voting reform legislation she is helping sponsor.

She has language in the legislation, that would call for re-storing voting rights for ex-felons, and also calls for a national voting holiday.

When is the last time you have seen a "Rockefeller Republican" champion restoring the voting rights of ex-felons, or saying when there is a national election, we should get the day off?

I tell you, Hillary can't win for losing with some people!

There's a pretty short list of Democrats who can pass the left-wing litmus test. Let's see -- Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Boxer, Sheila Jackson Lee, Cynthia McKinney (of course). Sure, none of them would stand a snowball's chance of attracting significant support among Democratic primary voters, let alone the general electorate. But then, as history shows, winning elections simply isn't that high on the left-wing's list of priorities.

She voted for the war, for the Patriot Act, for No Child Left Behind... Which means either she is so incompetent she couldn't see they were bad ideas before voting for them, or she is so cynical she voted for a bunch of bad ideas just to be on the "popular" side of those issues.

Either way, it proves she's not got what it takes to be a good President, let alone the kind of visionary leader we need to combat the huge problems we have - - global warming, terrorism, the energy crisis, outsourcing of our economy, snowballing deficits, the assault against our civil rights...

Add to that the fact that HRC on the top of the 2008 ticket will mean we lose almost every down ticket race in the South and a lot in the Midwest, leaving us without even a hope of filibustering.

But hey, let's nominate an extremely divisive figure with almost no experience and a pathetic record. Because it's not like anything important's on the line, right?

We need people with Principle. Hillary does what is best for Hillary, not for her constituents. Just a typical politician that will continue the status quo.

She has been a very vocal opponent of the administration these past few years. When she gives speeches, she hands down a damning indictment of the Bush administration. And now all of a sudden she's not leftist enough?

yep, and she continues to vote for corporate graft and does *nothing* to keep jobs from going overseas! it's not that she's not leftist enough, it's that she does what big business wants, and screw the little guy, just like all but about a dozen of her fellow senators.

she could have picked up where wellstone left off, but she's too interested in ingratiating herself with lobbyists who control the big campaign "contributions".

damn, we need wellstone now.

I have not been keen on Hillory since she started giving the Indian Outsourcers special access to her offices. She is not pro-labor. She is greatly mistaken if she thinks those closer to the center like the DLC's ideas.

Her voting record shows me something very different than what you're seeing, apparently.

a distant third place showing for Howard Dean in Iowa?
The mainstream media may have fallen for the hype, but I remain a skeptic. The last time a candidate embraced wholeheartedly by the left-wing won the Democratic presidential nomination was in 1972, and that certainly turned out to be a disaster. The fact that subsequent left-wing "wet dream" candidates have crashed and burned in the Democratic primaries (including Howard Dean in a most spectular fashion) certainly casts down on their claims to represent the grass roots.

If the left-wing is as powerful as they claim to be, why do they waste so much time attacking liberal, moderate and centrist Democrats? Why don't they just keep their powder dry and let their votes speak for themselves on election day?

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

You must think Kucinich is charismatic.

What has the far left brought us? Bush in 2000 by their support of Nader.

--in person, anyway. The three counties he won in North Carolina were the ones he visited personally.

However, if I had a quarter for every woman I've heard say "He's SO much cuter in peron," well..............

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

*I* am one of those darn Church Going "Centrists". I was registered independant before Bush. Even somewhat supported him (for about 3 months into his 1st term I wanted to give him a "chance"). Anyone who is not pure Repub really wants something very different in the next president. They just don't quite know what that would be. I am convinced the LOUDER and more progressive the Dems move the more "middle of the road" voters they get. Iknow that is what I want...

Most "centrists" have fairly "liberal" economic and general views. It is the "social" views that may differ. I don't think that is what the DLC is standing for. They will lose us elections by pushing the Dems not to stand strong for true progressive values.

...as to your nice RW talking points. Middle 15%? No such thing I'm afraid. Maybe 5% at the very most. People are quite entrenched in their views.

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

I hope you were pissed at him calling you a repub, and you don't actually believe what you said.

Let's just fight the devisiveness by telling those who disagree to get out and quit the party?... and thus reducing the party? LOL.. Now that would be an Interesting strategy to pull the party together.

The idea that corporatism equals centrism IS absurd. I don't know anyone (left, right or center) in the non-internet world who approves of the control that corporations have in D.C. In particular, I don't know a single individual who approves of our trade policies--why in the hell would they?!.

As for the rude poster who directed you to "leave the party", pay no nevermind. I almost hope it doesn't get deleted (although it should be) b/c it shows just how shrill and desperate the corporate/DLC apologists are becoming.

As for your points about Kerry and Hillary many, if not most, DUers agree with you.

And a please allow me extend a somewhat belated welcome to DU! :hi:

edit due to anal retentiveness

:7

trashing Democrats

one has to really ask if we need them on "our" side.

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

the Democratic Party at large. Neither does the rest of the "blogosphere". So don't take it too hard.

Having spent most of my life working a blue collar job in the hinterlands of Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Utah, I completely understand the struggle you face rebuilding - a struggle many posters at this site have absolutely no inkling of...

To spend time trashing other Democrats, any Democrats, is a waste of resources we can ill afford if we expect to remove the Bush fascists from office.

I voted for him, donated money, urged others to vote for him so don't jump on me for having an opinion. But sadly, he was a horrible candidate. A nice guy? Sure. Honest? I believe so. A better choice than Bush? Absolutely. But, he was a terrible campaigner.

terrible campaigner... horrible candidate

:puke:

Hell, it's even a qualified opinion, as he laid out what he liked about Kerry.

--if he had dumped the beltway assholes who told him to take the high road with the Swift Boat Liars.

But now the People are rising up. The DLC is greatly mistaken if they think the Core of the Democratic party wants what they stand for.
The DLC and those like Hillary follow the money, not the people.

He spent more money in Iowa than anyone else and still finished a distant third. It seems that the Democratic caucus goers in Iowa -- the "grass roots" of the party, if you will -- just didn't care that much for Howard Dean, and probably cared even less for his overzealous supporters.

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

...why didn't Holy Joe save the day?

And I am one of those "energized activists" who is not impressed with the "move to right" and "safe issues"(Video games, for instance)rhetoric.

Generalizations and name calling may win the day on a message board, but like I said yesterday, it does not inspire people like me to hit the streets, phones & door-stoops again.

It is not about "the left wing"- its about folks who want real opposition to the GOP and to the war- a war that most folks do NOT support anymore.

I vote we cut the "left wing" and "DLC" labels and discuss all of this issue by issue.

NT!

--is ever so inspiring and encouraging. Most of the Dean and Kucinich people continued acting for and donating to Kerry. We do this, and you despise us anyway.

The Rethugs don't give a flying fuck about their whackjob base after the elections--witness that letter from Tennessee posted last week about the religious "values" lady who is getting slashed from TennCare and wants Bush to do something about it. But they sure give them respect and encourage them within their party, solicit their views, and even throw them a few policy bones. And all they want is a Dominionist society run by the American Taliban. Their crazy people think that they will soon fly away to heaven to watch Jesus destroy the rest of the world, and they are looking forward to watching everyone else suffer a whole lot.

In contrast, the marginal crazy people in the Democratic party just want universal health care, fair trade, and an end to unilateral wars that have nothing to do with our defense. Hillary doesn't want to coddle us or throw us any policy bones--it's shut up and get with the corporate program or get out.

splitting the rich and greedy pro-corporate voters and telling the rest of us one-paycheck-away-from-the-poorhouse hard-working folks to shut up and fall in line.

Been working great so far. When was the last time the Democrats had a majority in the House or the Senate? Wasn't it about the time that the DLC formed and said that Democrats had to stop being liberal to keep the majority in the House and the Senate?

Good Points!

Change is what we need, not more of the same!
Something worth voting for...

:bounce: :beer: :hi: :headbang: :yourock: :woohoo: :applause: :patriot:

(even though you joined before I did :P)

try to find ideas to attract moserates. The DLC thinks
they can take their base for granted. Big mistake. I will
never vote again for a person I don't feel comfortable with
just because they are a Dem. I'll vote 3rd party instead
if I find a candidate I agree with.

You'd think that these DINOS would realize that we want a populist Dem who actually stands for something WHEN IT ISN'T POPULAR OR POLITICALLY SAFE.

I'm so fucking sick of being force fed "centrist" Democratic candidates. Shrub wasn't a "centrist" Repuke, so why do we have to tolerate compromise on our side. PEOPLE WILL VOTE FOR THOSE WHO STAND FOR SOMETHING...NOT BULLSHITTERS.

JB

Come on this is about winning. Something the Clintons know something about,

I'll take either Clinton over Bush any day.

Unfortunately, the politics of ideas and ideals is dead amongst "pragmatists" such as yourself, who are apparently willing to sell their soul for political expediency.

Clinton WILL NEVER get my vote. I don't trust ANYONE who can't stand on principle...regardless of what political affiliation he/she may come from.

JB

And another thing that kind of relates to your point - many people have stopped voting for their favorite candidate, which is the way the system is supposed to work. Instead everyone tries to be a hotshot armchair political strategist. They go through all types of mental calculations and mental chess-type moves based upon what they think others will do. "If we do this, they'll do that, and if they do that, someone else will do this, and on and on...". It's becoming ridiculous, and it may be one reason why the quality of our representation sucks.

We have a system now where the individual voter is playing professional odds-maker and political strategist, and voting accordingly. I have done it too. It was very prevalent during the Iowa caucuses in 2004. Almost everyone in the packed room in my precinct was strategizing and trying to sway others on the basis of their calculations. There was very little discussion about the issues. Genuine enthusiasm for any particular candidate didn't seem to be driving anyone (except for the Dean contingent). It was all about finding the person who might best appeal to fence-sitting moderates and conservatives. I have come to the conclusion that this type of thinking has perverted the process and may be largely responsible for the shitty (and getting shittier) representation we have in this country. From now on I'm voting for the person I believe in without regard to what I think someone else will do in response.

Name one person who can?

NT!

for the Republicans?

Read that headline and opening blurb. It is carefully crafted to do two things: one, make the left mad at Hillary, and two, make the left look like extremists by opposing a "centrist" message. Split the party, trash Hillary, trash the rest of the Dems at the same time. A good day for Republicans.

Shame on any so-called Democrat, liberal, progressive, etc, who buys their lies and pornography! We haven't learned by watching Gore, or Kerry? The media is the biggest part of this smear machine. Who is Dan Balz? Is he on the RNC payroll, too? Is that even a real name? Look at that name.

We need to learn our real enemies and quit listening to the little Republican Wormtongues bent on destroying us from the inside.

wild-eyed, intolerant lefties. Also makes the Dems look like a scary place for a moderate independent to seek shelter from the Repukes.

On edit - her message isn't what I'm pissed about. Really it's not much different than Dean's "open the tent" message. It's her ties and relationship with the DLC that has me wild-eyed and frothin' at the mouth.

to be. Figuratively sleep with, I mean. Bush campaigned to the middle and his party winked at him. Our candidates try to round up support and play the game and we crucify them.

She's not doing anything substantially different than JFK, LBJ, or Bill Clinton did to get elected. JFK played both sides on Civil Rights and the Viet Nam War. Yet he's a liberal icon.

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

I ran into that again and again last fall supporting Democrats (I even have to hush at my church, the church it's self is fine but lots of righties attend).

Man can I relate!

:toast:



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x35718#35747

Hah. That's funny. Since when? All the self-described "liberals" on DU act like they'd rather feast on Karl Rove's sh*t then say a good word about Hillary, the "DLC right-wing conspiracy sell out that she is." :eyes:

I am pleased to say that I am not alone. Some of us can see the forest. People, please, do not play their divisive game. BTW, I also love Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, John Kerry, John Edwards, etc. Good dems are good dems. They absolutely do not have to agree with me on everything for me to see their worth. What the hell do you people think "big tent" means?

Edited: for spelling, of course

if I wanted to be in a party where all the elected officials were forced to think and act alike or else, I'd be voting Republican. I like the diversity, and I don't think someone is a traitor to our party when they disagree with me or even get a bit competitive come election season.

:rant:

She also voted for BANKRUPTCY Bill!!! She is NOT liberal!

but to set the record straight, she didn't vote for CAFTA (although I hav no idea whether or not you're thinking of some kind of cloture vote, which I don't know about).

Also Hillary didn't vote for or against the bankruptcy bill because her husband was in surgery at the time, though she did vote for a similar version very earlier in Bush's first term, a bill similar to which was vetoed by her husband.

Only the part were the left get's punched in the face and now we have the imprint of Rick's ring in our forehead.

The ring said "Unity"

And Rick got a big kick out of it at Charlie Murphy's expense.

Of course she will be called the early front runner for 2008, but that has more to do with name recognition. This was the case with Joe Lieberman too. She can only live off of name recognition for so long before other candidates become more well known.

the left of the party is not ready to rank-and-file this time. Without OUR votes, Democrats won't win elections.

It's not just the swing voters, folks. I can honestly say this time, I am ready to (as a fellow DUer put it) show the Democratic Party some "tough love" if it hasn't learned from its past mistakes.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.14741193

That tough love approach was behind much of the rationale of Ralph Nader in 2000: that gave us not only Bush, but failed to produce a markedly more liberal Democratic nominee in 2004.

Hopefully, however, Hillary will learn that this kind of DLCishness will not be easily forgotten by Iowa caucus goers or New Hampshire primary voters. If she keeps playing out of the Al From textbook then she will fail her first exams in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Well, let's see, 5 years of Bush??? The full frontal exposing of the corporate agenda? The attempts to silence.

What exactly is the same as 2000 and Nader? Only that some of what he predicted has come to pass, and much of the population is seeing it.

Dan Balz?

:banghead:

is that today's centrists are yesterday's far right . . . while today's far right is just out and out fascist . . .

Ok, not repub but "Repub-like" TP's:

Notice she just called half of her party "Liberal" and "Far Left"?
Verses what? The "reasonable" centrists?

I know we are not afraid of those terms. But used in the context she did, calling out "the other half" the way she did makes progressives sound like extremists and malcontents.

Anyone else catch this?

...they devote to attacking "liberals", "Progressives" and "the far left", there wouldn't be this much contention.

The DLC is the "limosine" (-liberal or otherwise) faction of the party, not "centrists". As long as they reserve their sharpest knives for the rest of us in the party, they're not going to get the "unity" they claim to be after. Unfortunately, I think they know this, and this entire flap is just another divisve stunt to position themselves as the party leadership, over and above the actual leadership.

And that is what I distill from much of what I read here. As if...

As if they are the goddamn masters of the universe. Well they are not and unless they get off their asses and act like real Democrats they are in for it.

Never mind.

The WaPo is dangerous to your mental health.

and let those pukes nominate one of their prowar clones as the Democratic candidate in 2008.


The war in Iraq, and the loss of liberties at home, are not the type of issues that any self-respecting American will surrender on the altar of political expediency. Iraq is the Vietnam of the 21st century!

Just how stupid does this guy think we are, anyway?

Here's a tip for him:

Liberals are for workers' rights worldwide, DLC for NAFTA.

Liberals for protection of civil liberties, DLC for PATRIOT Act.

Liberals against the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, DLC for it from the start.

Liberals for ending the failed "War on (Some) Drugs", DLC for continuing it through policies like Plan Columbia.

Liberals against using public tax money for private school vouchers, DLC for them.

Tell me, how are those differences "inconsequential"?

Sounds more like "irreconcilable" to me.

just check him out every Friday on the Gwen Ifil gossip-fest "Washington Whores On Parade" and you'll see what I mean.

Fuck Dan Balz and the (w)horse he road in on.

I am not sure I will again, either for Senate or President. I HAVE been paying attention to what she has been doing and that is why I am unhappy. I have written to her several times. I have gotten beat around the bush (sic.), non answers from her.

I am a life long Independent. Does this mean I will vote for a Republican? No, it means I may just stay home.

Hillary Clinton scrapes a fingernail on a chalkboard, and 250 DUers start screaming and abusing exclamation points. It's so predictable that if I was a conservative, I would simply go around posting anti-Hillary rants on leftist online systems like DU, and crank up the public outrage.

George? George who?

Remember, Hillary is not the enemy. Hillary is an errant friend whom we have to recover and redeem.

George Bush (and Team Bush) is the enemy.

It's time to cool down and figure out how to "convert" apostate liberals like Hillary. Our efforts will be far better repaid with well-planned action rather than screaming and on-line tantrums. In fact, bringing Hillary back into the fold ought to be an easy task. Why cast her out when redemption is so much easier and satisfying?

Maybe our apostates strayed because we were remiss in living up to our ideals. Maybe they needed us more than we ever needed them, and we didn't handle it quite right. But make sure you understand my point -- this isn't a call to acquiesce, it's a call to intelligent action. We can disagree with Hillary all we want; when the press corps titter that we're infighting, we can show them that they're wrong, and that the gossip page already has enough contributors.

"Yes, we still love Hillary, even if she's become temporarily insane. And yes, we still think you are right-wing catchfarts. Now go away before we sing Kumbaya at you."

Just who are the visionaries around here, anyway?

Our challenge is apostasy, not "treason" (a word which is used FAR too much at DU). If we can't do something as simple as re-enlist a lapsed liberal to the cause, we might as well just pack it in and go home and have a good generation-long sulk.

How do we win when we're convinced that we've lost? Well, I'm not convinced we've lost at all, and I'm saving my vocal volume for treatment with my primal therapist. Most of these "traitors" and exclamation-point magnets are far from lost to the Dark Side. A little dialog can change a lot of minds.

The Kool-Aid drinkers have a name: Republicans.

I don't like the current DLC agenda any more than anyone else here, but I know what I want out of politics -- I want the Progressive vision to win and to transform politics. We might as well start with those of our own who have departed from the straight and not-so-narrow. Hillary's political salvation would be a worthwhile project -- as would our own progress.

It is time to decide -- catharsis or victory. If we choose victory, then we ought to spend some effort on bringing our prodigals back to the tribe. It's do-able. It's necessary. And in the long run, it will give us more power than anything screaming fits can yield.

--p!

The war bothers everyone, it is losing support. These DLC-type Democrats are way behind the curve on this. (They want to increase troop strength while only 10% of the population likes that idea.) The Republicans have already found ways to neutralize them and elections since 2000 have shown that.

The DLC has chosen to use Repub-style rhetoric and Hillary is the "good cop" here, using unity type rhetoric while the bulk of them smear and blame real Democrats for everything, Bill O'Reilly style.

This Paul Hackett jerkoff immediately blames Demos for their lack of military savvy. Who does that nonsense benefit? First it's not true, second it's truly "eating our own" as DLC apologists like to say about the critics of their spineless champions: Obama, Hillary, Kerry, Lieberman, Bayh, Biden.

And despite this kind of talk on a regular basis from DLC types and disquiet about their agenda and rhetorical attacks on others, we are cautioned to not answer them as vehemently as they target and attempt to marginalize even slightly leftish Demos. If that keeps up they are in for a rude awakening.

So stop this tack of wringing hands over just responses to overt and/or veiled attacks on those who are the true heart of the party as seen here. They are making their own bed, let them lie in it. But not me.

Bush is just a temporary figure. Fascism is the true enemy. We don't overcome that by having "leaders" that compromise and aid it.

...when it RUNS AWAY from winning issues a MAJORITY of Americans support, like universal healthcare.

While there's nothing wrong with towing the party line and support any Democrat the grand pooh-bah's at the DLC annoint, are any of our other "factions" strong enough to become a viable Third Party....that can WIN a freaking election ?

In my perfect world.....:grouphug:

People are ranting against Clinton for calling for a more positive policy agenda? If anyone thinks we can win in 2008 by just bashing Bush they are sadly mistaken. The entire planet knows how bad Bush is, we need someone to stand up and provide a plan that will inspire. That is what had made our party great. FDR, JFK, Bill Clinton; they all inspired Americans to be better. Kerry, had the right ideas but didn't inspire people to his cause.

Anyway, I think Hillary is still the best chance (so far) in 2008. Someone like Kucinich will never win because his ideas are not an issue, his personality is (sad but true in America).

Finally, the bickering between democrats has got to stop. That is part of the problem, we fight amongst are selves so much that our message and what we stand for is muddled and that in turn gives teeth to right wing attacks that we are a party without ideas.

My rant for today. :)

:)

What is showing here is that people don't trust Hillary to be a person of Principle. They see her to sell out to corporate interests.

If we don't fight that even with in our own party we just lengthen Fascist rule.

I am. I am tired of the corporatist attempting to undermine populism through back room deals and appeasing existing power!

Hillary Clinton -Washington DC
(202) 224-4451

taking the trough positions. And willingness to take the heat from the hard-left of our party

"taking the trough positions."
Yeah, I would agree with that.

:o

We're not talking about Stalinists and Maoists who advocate forced redistribution of wealth and government ownership of all means of production, for crying out loud.

Today's "left" is yesterday's (and Europe's current) moderate.

Verbage like "Hard Left" "Left Wing", extreme left, for what is somewhere near if not more than half the party sounds an awful lot like the work or Repubs. Why are they using these terms? To unite? Naw! They are in-line and will use the same tactics of the RNC.

I am beginning to wonder if they would not destroy the party rather than give in to the will of the people. Maybe that is the plan they are unwittingly being sold by their corporate sponsers?

the repuke frame" philosophy of winning elections again. Won't waste my time. I'll work for local progressive candidates, but if Hillary wants my vote and the sweat of my brow, she'd better come a courtin' this 'liberal.'

Did she really endorse the DLC's positions on more military, stay the course in Iraq, recruiters in high schools, etc. I didn't think she was that dumb! Does this strategy reflect the whoring appeaser Bill's strategic thinking or her own??


This time round please don't anyone push the anybody but Bush or Cheney or whatever argument -- that strategy brought us Bush last time.

Maybe we should just declare the Democratic Party dead and start over -- how about the New Democratic Party or the Progressive Party ... or should we just push the DLC out and let them start the new party??

We should be focused on 2006 not 2008. One of the problems with Hillary is it’s all about Hillary, we have an open senate seat here in Maryland and “Turdblossom” has already shown up to back the BLACK Lt.. Governor’s candidacy, Laura Bush was here to raise funds for the Nazi repuke governor’s reelection. Bottom line is what has the Democratic National Party done on a high profile level to see these assholes are not elected? T:he repukes are running headline grabbing, cash generating well organized campaigns backed by the RNC while the Democratic Party is having a pissing contest over 2008 and people wonder why we lose time and time again. I can see it slipping away again, to hell with Hillary and 2008 I'm concerned right now about 2006.

OUTRAGEOUS!! Let the bashing from the left continue.

have her on a steady course. They know where the votes are.

WE ARE the cenrtrists at this point.

I am afraid I cannot agree with the "Hillary for President" thought. She has really made some poor votes, such as supporting the war, outsourcing, etc. One problem that plagued the Democrats in the last election was that they did not come out in vote in droves like the Republicans did, especially younger Democrat voters. And given Hillary's record, I just do not see how she will appeal enough to her own party; she will need to attract Independents and Republicans since she does not appeal very well to her own party (think of her as the Democratic version of McCain).

which means I will probably vote for Hillary. In the primaries however, I supported Dean and Kucinich, so I'll probably continue to support progressive candidates while voting party-line in national elections.

This doesn't mean that I wouldn't mind seeing candidates that represent the progressive wing of the party running for higher offices.

Just in time for the 2006 elections, some "leading light" (Hillary?) calls for unity with "the center" or the DLC or somebody and of course the left gets to be baited and told once again that no election can be won on our program and all we have to do is lighten up a little on that program (minor stuff like "war and peace" or democracy) and we'll get back to all that in the NEXT election. Of course, the same crap is run on labor and the various "issues" constituencies so that the only program to survive is the DLC's or some other position from a "cast of dozens". Meanwhile somebody else runs the same line on the Republican right and it's the same old shit for another 2 or 4 years until they need you to "unite" again...

The only thing HRC missed is that in the meantime, the Pubs have been taken over by a bunch of fascists. Maybe she should unite with the Republican "Centrists" instead ...all 5 of them. They could go off and create the "Same Old Shit" party (or Whigs).

Just because so many of you people piss me off.

She certainly won't get my vote or money, so maybe you should send her another $100.

I'll go spend my money on someone who actually deserves it. :)

Never voted for him, never would. Is your reply meant as an abstract post-modernist bit of theatre or something?

:shrug:

You do not recall the many Nader types who justified their not voting for Gore because there really wasn't a bit of difference between him and Bush?

The rubbish you're posting here is just an updated version of the same old stupid shit.

Perhaps you're just making that up?

Feel free to call it "stupid" and "rubbish". Says all I need to know about your politics. Clearly, we won't agree.

Now, shouldn't you go donate some more money to DLC candidates, before you run out of money thanks to policies like the ones they support?