Beware Hillary - the quintessential

face of the DLC.

If there's one political group in America that approaches the nefariousness of the PNAC, it's the DLC.

In an interview with Joe Scarboro tonight, John Edwards was given the opportunity to view a recording of a recent "morning show" interview with Hillary, where she was asked point blank whether in retrospect she thought she made a mistake voting for the IWR, and that it was wrong, she responded that she'd "taken responsibility" for the vote and worked on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Edwards commented that (1) she dodged the question, and (2) avoided admitting a mistake and (3) continues to refuse to acknowledge that what she did was wrong.

Does such arrogance and hubris and inability to acknowledge error remind you of anyone? Hillary Clinton, face of the DLC, meet George Bush, face of the PNAC.

8 years of Mr. Hubris followed by another 8 years of Mrs. Hubris? No thank you.

Stop already with the DLC War Chant!

It's like a fucking mantra. It's like the Vikings' Spam Song.

It's not even particularly true anymore. In the words of 8th graders across the nation, the DLC "is, like, so 1990, dude".

If you think Hillary is so eeevil, then you ought to check out what the Republicans are like. And if you don't like her, then find a candidate you do like and work to defeat her.

Good gawd, this place is going to be insufferable for the next two years with all the "TRAITOR! WHORE!" screaming and recycled Republican hit-pieces about Hillary and the DLC and Obama and the DLC and Edwards and the DLC and Vilsack and the DLC and Richardson and the DLC and the DLC and the DLC and the DLC ...

Victory is going to drive us mad.

--p!

Any cleansing of the DLC from the Democratic Party is invigorating, refreshing, and healing. Unless, of course, you're one of those who have been taken in by the DLC.

First, "if you're not with us, you're against us" was bad enough.

And then there's the question of political cleansing.

Wait ... was that a sudden chill I felt?

As bad as the DLC was/is, they avoided policies of political cleansing.

Let's see, who else has used the word cleansing in a political context. Anyone in Russia, Serbia, Turkey, Japan, China, or maybe Greater Germany? Like Stalin, Milosevic, Ataturk, Tojo, Mao, or He Whose Name Must Not Be Mentioned In Political Conversation On The Internet?

Do you really want to be in that kind of company? You may wish to reconsider your idea of political cleanliness.

--p!

... are you drunk? High? Extremely upset about something else? No need to answer that here. But what's the deal?

You're using genocidal talk for your animus against the DLC. "Cleansing" and whatnot. I thought you had made a slip of language and used a term you didn't intend to.

The "DLC, DLC" whining has been getting to me. Work to defeat DLC candidates, certainly. I probably will, myself. But keep the genocidal talk of "cleansing" out of it. That's real bad stuff.

--p!

"cleansing" is not just ethnic in meaning - its primary meaning has to do with hygiene.

I thought that was obvious - and I'm sure it was - but leave it up to the late-night DLC pack to distort the obvious meaning into something repugnant.

I find the instigating a bit tiresome, myself--see my commentary below.

Most people here are bright enough to know what the DLC stands for without having it spelled out for them each time the name is invoked, but since you think it's no longer relevant, it's worth going into again. From Wikipedia:



Not gonna stop with the DLC war chant.

and pointless divisive tactic, designed to get blood boiling and people at each other's throats. And at the end of the day, neither side is convinced. Vitriol over here, acid over there, a whole bunch of pissing and moaning, and NO MINDS CHANGED! Gee, what a thrill.

Why not listen to her, as well as listen to everyone else who has an exploratory committee, wait for the declarations, listen to the debates, and make your mind up based on what the candidates actually SAY, not what political interest group within a party they belong to?

There's a concept--listen first, compare all the candidates, and THEN make up your mind? Wow!!!

And that lousy quote from Edwards sure doesn't sketch in any background. keep in mind that John Edwards gleefully accepted DLC help when it was useful for him to so do. And he was a card carrying and FOUNDING member of the New Democrat Coalition, a subsidiary of the DLC. http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=85&subid=109&contentid=894

Now, he's running against, among others, at least two DLC leaders in the primary contests, so it's convenient for him to take some distance from them in order to distinguish himself from them...but he was on the same page as they were not all that long ago. Now that he can't get any cash from them, he's not so fond of them anymore. That's politics.

Of course, I intend to listen to what he has to say, too, along with the rest of the field. I certainly can't claim to have an understanding of the candidates and their positions if I do otherwise.

FWIW, If you strip the DLC and New Democrats off the Hill, the GOP gets their majority back....there's over a hundred of them up there in both Houses.

If you don't like the DLC's policies, complain to Harold Ford. He's taking over the outfit from Vilsack so he can start running for Prez.

"If you strip the DLC and New Democrats off the Hill, the GOP gets their majority back...."

What a heaping pile of putrid manure - the DLC formula for SELL OUT.

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

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

Meanwhile, I've been considering why so many people who cite "principle" also love associating those with whom they disagree with defecation.

Not about you, specifically. Just in general.

--p!

I intend to listen to ALL candidates, from all segments of the party. Unlike you, I am not prejudiced.

Interesting that the only campaign you mention by name is from the dark ages. No one left to corroborate your exploits, eh? Don't bother giving me a laundry list, I'm really not interested, and I likely wouldn't believe you anyway, to be honest.

And BTW, your use of invective like "DLC nutjob" is unappreciated. Check the rules--personal attacks are a no-go.

Your lack of maturity is disappointing.

""If you strip the DLC and New Democrats off the Hill, the GOP gets their majority back...."

What a heaping pile of putrid manure"

Ok genius, where are you gonna get 20 Senators and roughly 40 members of the House?

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

:eyes:

well, if you're a five year old, maybe.

When you have no argument, it's a real sign of weakness to resort to baseless accusations.

:eyes:

the Democratic wing of The Corporate Party. As long as they exist in sufficient numbers, nothing will get better until their influence is removed. Until then, money trumps people 100% of the time.

there is little hope for campaign finance reform. But the GOP has the same sort of thing going on. However, like it or not, if the Democratic Party didn't have their own cash cows, we'd have been treated to another SOTU with Fat Denny to the right on the TV screen.

It's problematic, the entire issue of money and politics. But if the Dems refuse to play that game, they'll lose. Big. The challenge is getting both parties to even discuss the issue, and to vote against their own (short term, anyway) self-interests. In actual fact, though, if they both could just bite the bullet, go to public financing, and get the moneychangers out of the temple, they'd all be better off. The problem is though, that cash is like high-fructose corn syrup, it's crack cocaine....and it will be a hard road to get all the politicians, even the tree hugger progressive ones (who get their crack from individual donors and wealthy entertainers rather than corporations, by and large; and no matter where it comes from, they still have to serve somebody), off of the gravy train.

If they ever did get free of the system, though, they'd find they had more time to do the work of the people....their time spent sucking up to corporate yay-hoos, which occupies way too much of their days, would disapppear.

for. what, 40 or 50 years or more.

Outlawing private funding/donations (including the candidates own $$) is the only solution, as it is the root cause of most of the problems we have in politics today, and yesterday as well. When we get to the point, as we have today, where a legislator has maybe 6 months to do any work and then spends the next 18 fund-raising and campaigning, it is small wonder that we are in the terrible situation we are.

Because the flip side of that argument is that if you are BROKE, you are effectively MUZZLED.

And that's not the way we run things in America. You don't have to have cash to exercise your first amendment rights. At least, you aren't supposed to...according to the theoretical model, anyway.

The whole matter is ripe for a revisit, but not with this crew on the court.

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

... The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity ...

(W.B. Yeats)

--p!

long live the DLC!

Wanna make a point without having to provide any evidence...just mention the DLC and everyone will genuflect at your feet!!!

And has been listed as a member in the past.

DLC's current positions are problematic. Kerry's voting pattern is not in line with most DLC current positions. (Graphics can be posted if someone disputes that.)

Kerry is not a corporatist, Hillary is. That is the issue, I think.

However, Edwards is a little full of himself here, imo. On very shaky ground when it comes to IWR, compared to Clinton. (I am helping you out here - because it is true.) See my post below.

people who must surely believe that affiliating oneself with either outfit requires that one check one's brain at the door. People who believe in boogeymen find the whole "Evil, All-Powerful DLC" construct believable.

Jeez...it's a cash-raising entity. It has an agenda. But it doesn't hold guns to anyone's head. New Democrat Al Gore took the dough, went left on them at the convention (surprising some of the DLC/ND-ers) and guess what happened? They STILL gave him money even after he repudiated some issues near and dear to their hearts.

It ain't a borg, though people would like to see it as that.

There were alternative bills that were defeated by EDWARDS version, which some people claim gave * a "blank check" to go to war (I disagree, but there is no doubt it was the version Bush preferred).

I've only heard Edwards talk about his "vote". It seems he is not in a good place to criticize what Hillary has to say about her vote, which was just that - a vote.

I am not a Hillary supporter at all, and I don't necessarily disagree with his point (I didn't see the clip), but I think he may be a bit hypocritical here. Or has he made statements that I missed, where he acknowledges his own leadership role in passing the IWR as written? In any case everytime I hear or see a statement by him, he only mentions his "vote". Nice try, but it won't fly. Kerry and others - I'm not sure about Clinton - wanted a watered down version that didn't give Bush so much power. Now they are excoriated for voting for it - unfairly I think - but let's acknowledge who played a role in bringing it to the floor for that vote in the first place.

So Edwards shouldn't admit he made a mistake. Fine.

I'm haven't decided on a candidate; however, you know and I know that it was all political and he was just like your boy Kerry in voting for it.

Edwards SHOULD admit he made a mistake - in helping to craft and pushing for the IWR version that passed, rather than a weaker bill (if any) that wouldn't have given Bush as much apparent power.

His and Kerry's roles WERE.NOT.THE.SAME. The sooner he acknowledges and addresses that fact appropriately, the sooner he can get past it with folks like me. The longer he tries to pretend what you claim, that he was no more at fault than those who merely voted for it - which, btw, includes Hillary - the more he looks dishonest; and hypocritical if he tries to turn around and criticize Hillary's mea culpa. Cuz his own doesn't hold water yet.

while everyone is diddling over superficial semantics, Bush is circling the wagons preparing for a heavy duty assault on our civil liberties.. Just a little food for thought..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3074001

Sometimes I think oneupmanship is the only thing some candidates' supporters are interested in.

We have bigger fish to fry at this point in our history. I was reminded of that again when Gonzales divulged his views of habeas corpus before Congress. Yikes.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/01/24/MNGDONO11O1.DTL

without supplicating herself at the feet of the leftist fringe who would not support her under any circumstances.

Hill's targeting the middle and so is the Dem party. You may as well accept it now because party members will be asked to either lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.

All you hippies get a haircut and get in Line! You WILL LOVE HILLARY!!!
The beatings will continue until further notice.
That is all.

When people don't campaign in a state they typically do not get a large response.

See the 2004 election when HI gave Kucinich 26% (his highest total). He was the only candidate campaigning there.

Also Bill Clinton did much the same thing in '92 when he skipped most campaigning in Iowa conceding it to Harkin. Iowa is Vilsack's homestate.

And there are 3 polls showing basically the same 4 people at the top in various percentagaes, Edwards, Obama, Vilsack & Clinton.

I understand your response dealt with someone citing polling numbers but my personal opinion is that while its nice to be in the lead now its not the end of the world to be near the leaders.

of who gives a damn". Less evil is still evil.

:eyes:

That oughta bring up a whiff of cognitive dissonance, ya think?

Of course, the truth of the matter is that none of these entities is all good or all bad. They raise money, they have an agenda, but they don't whip people to force them to mindlessly follow them. They're just more generous with folks the closer they come to their ideological disposition.

And isn't that the way things work? We don't tend to shove cash at people or organizations that we DON'T like, do we!!!

1. The DLC and the Hillary/Lieberman types were precisely the unspoken people Howard Dean referenced early and often in his 2003-2004 campaign when he spoke of "spineless beltway Democrats".

2. The central point of my post was an interview Hillary gave in which she refused to directly answer a direct question - an evasive "I've taken responsibility" to an irrelevant distraction about the Senate Armed Services Committee. This should be deeply disturbing to anyone with any reservations about George Bush and the PNAC. It shows Hillary still doesn't have the spine to stand up to Bush and admit she was deceived by him about the supposed Iraq WMD, and that it was wrong and mistaken to vote in favor of the IWR.

Note how the DLC'ers on DU completely avoided addressing #2 and focused all their energy hurling childish insults at me, the OP, for daring to post a news story which displayed Hillary for what she is, and for my criticism of the DLC which has fostered the kind of spineless display Hillary just treated us to with its butt-kissing approach to the right-wingers for fear of being labeled "unpatriotic" by Dick Cheney. Its high time we ridded the party of such enabling spineless cowardice.

Two years from now, if the progressives who stand for solid principles on the internet are vigilant enough, we may manage to vote out ("cleanse", "flush out") every last PNACer and DLCer from Washington, D.C. Until then, there's very little hope for humankind.

extremely childish, boorish, sexist and wanting. You resorted immediately to insults, which have been justifiably removed, when you couldn't back up your assertions, and your opening salvo was designed to raise hackles with not only Senator Clinton's supporters, but anyone who has a sense of fair play. Then, you got suprised when some objected to both your language and methods.

Sorry, that's not the way to argue your case. If you indeed had a central point in your post, you might have put it in your subject line, rather than starting off with a baiting remark. You've shown that you come from a certain viewpoint, and that's all well and good, but using demeaning, sexist, scatalogical language and shoddy, right-wing style insults aren't good advocacy strategies, to put it kindly. That sort of approach tends to make people disregard everything you say, because you aren't couching your points reasonably, and you aren't advancing your arguments.

Inflammatory or Flame-Bait Discussion Topics

Do not post "flame bait" discussion topics. While there is no clear line regarding what constitutes flame bait, the moderators have the authority to shut down threads which they consider too rhetorically hot, too divisive, too extreme, or too inflammatory. Please use good judgment when starting threads; inflammatory rhetoric does not normally lead to productive discussion.


Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.