Must read: Brownstein on Clinton's Pact with DLC Offering Risk, Reward

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-outlook1aug01,1,602962,print.column?coll=la-news-a_section

Clinton's Pact With Centrist Council Offers Risk and Reward

Ronald Brownstein
Washington Outlook

August 1, 2005

The new alliance between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and the Democratic Leadership Council is at once logical and risky. It's logical because it serves key interests of both partners. It's risky because it probably overestimates the extent to which their interests converge.

Clinton linked arms with the DLC last week when she agreed to direct the group's one-year project to define a new Democratic message and agenda. Clinton has participated in DLC events before, but never so prominently. It's easy to identify benefits for each side. While her husband was president, Hillary Clinton was often seen as a champion of the Democratic left. But since her Senate campaign in 2000, she's mostly aimed for the center.

The DLC post could help anchor her there. Since the group was formed in 1985, it's pretty much held the franchise for Democratic moderation. If Clinton runs for president in 2008, the DLC's stamp of approval will make it tougher for any Democratic rival to portray her as an unelectable leftist. "Getting that DLC moniker around her name is very beneficial," says a Democratic operative involved with another potential 2008 contender.

While the DLC offers Clinton credentials, she offers the group credibility. The council's influence crested while Bill Clinton, its former chairman, held the White House. But since his departure, it has struggled to find a productive role. Liberal activists routinely deride the DLC formula of moderate "third-way" policies aimed at swing voters as irrelevant to an era of intense political polarization.

<>The problem is that Clinton and the DLC may find their directions subtly diverging as the project unfolds.

more...

in her speech at the DLC.

Will Marshall who thinks all 56%+ of us Democrats who are anti-the-war and anti-torture are anti-American.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=124&subid=307&contentid=253472

that's the only word I can come up with.
and yes, its the nicest one, too.

She has always been in the DLC.

There is no telling what they will spin next.

They know that so many people nationwide hate the Clintons that we cannot win with Hillary. The DLC is not the DNC. Howard Dean speaks for me, not a bunch of rich centrist DLCers.

Howard Dean can't get anybody elected. Hillary has to move to the center to even have a chance to be elected. Once elected Hillary will definatly move back left. Get with the program, its just politics. Hillary is our best chance to win! She CAN win in the south. Get on the bus.

T.

:-)

Dean is raising money and he is committed to organization; try winning without that. Hillary moving left? You've got that in writing I hope because I remember her voting for the IWR and giving stinging speeches to AIPAC. I was just traveling in the South, three of my four latest house guests are moderates and anti-war from Alabama, there is no way that any of these people is voting for Hillary.

Anyway, ordering anyone to "get on the bus" would be just about the meme one can expect from a top-down system.

might as well be Republican in the DLC's estimation.

Gee, if the majority of the Country thinks invading Iraq was a mistake and not worth it, how the hell is Clinton representing the Center by calling for more troops?

It would be helpful if some people would think the cliches and buzzwords.

That's what got us into this shit.(Along with Diebold)

Because this is the most important election of our lifetime, right?

Comedy Fest. It bombed, big!

do not speak for us, nor for the majority of the Dems? This article parrots so many of the Corporatists talking points. It's driving me nuts!

Is it too early to get a real Progressive to "announce" so that we could get some headlines? It's just ridiculous that she's the "front runner". Who crowned her? Not the majority of Dems. I used to support her, but I feel like she's sold out since she became a Senator. Besides, HRC could not get elected in the South. She's not Southern AND she's a woman. Remember, so much of the South still wants to live in the 18th century that a woman running for President will not get the majority of the vote here in my lifetime.

Lastly, she's sold out to the Corporatists and that makes it next to impossible to explain her votes to those "centrist", "swing" voters. Believe me, I've tried. Everytime I complain about this or that piece of legislation passed by the Republican-controlled Congress and signed by the Republican President, I always get the "dems voted for it too" line. No matter that the MAJORITY of Dems didn't vote for it (like CAFTA). The fact that 15 Dems crossed the line gives perfect cover to the rest. It's not logical, but it's the way the media represent things and people get sucked right into it. That's why I don't want a DLCer anywhere near the next election. We have to get someone out there who is a real alternative. Someone that can point to their record and say they've tried to fight the corrupt establishment. HRC is not that person.

I think Hillary has miscalculated by throwing in with DLC. It is also an affront to the base of the party--something many of the leaders of the Democratic party apparently don't seem to mind doing.

"Corporate" is not "centrist," "moderate" or any other falsely social/philosophical word they use. They are the legislative branch of the corporate lobby they represent (remember when you always thought of Wal-Mart and Clintons together, like a team?). They are extremist corporatists, and they have no connection whatsoever to the "little peons" they know nothing about--we don't even own stocks and are probably unemployed or under-employed; losers. Other people have thought up slogans for what "DLC" supposedly stands for, here is mine: DLC, Dick Licking Corporate-climbers.