Obama on Clinton's DLC Third Way/triangulation/"new kind of politics" 90's style

==It was Bill Clinton's singular contribution that he recognized that the categories of conservative and liberal played to Republican advantage and were inadequate to address our problems.

He understood the falseness of the choices being presented to Americans. He saw that government spending and regulation could serve as vital ingredients and not inhibitors to growth, and how markets and fiscal responsibility could help promote social justice. He recognized that societal and personal responsibility were needed to combat poverty. Clinton's third way went beyond splitting the difference. It tapped into the pragmatic, nonideological attitude of Americans.

By the end of his presidency, his policies enjoyed broad support. That he failed, despite a booming economy, to translate popular policies into a governing coalition said something about the demographic difficulties Democrats were facing and the structural advantages Republicans enjoyed in the Senate.==

Barack Obama will not be carrying the Democratic Leadership Council’s baggage in his race to become the second Black person to represent Illinois in the U.S. Senate. The state senator and professor of constitutional law has told The Black Commentator that he is acting to have his name stricken from the “New Democrats Directory,” a list of several hundred DLC-affiliated elected officials.

“I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC,” said Obama, in a statement that substantially reflects a telephone conversation with



Associate Editor Bruce Dixon, this weekend. “It does appear that, without my knowledge, the DLC…listed me in their ‘New Democrat’ directory,” Obama continued. “Because I agree that such a directory implies membership, I will be calling the DLC to have my name removed, and appreciate your having brought this fact to my attention.”

The statement caps a three-week public dialogue (see links at bottom of page) between and Obama, a veteran progressive organizer who headed the voter registration and mobilization drive that carried Carol Moseley-Braun to the U.S. Senate in 1992 – the first and only such achievement by a Black woman. Obama faces a crowded and richly financed field of contestants for the Democratic senatorial nomination, next year. African Americans make up about a quarter of the Illinois Democratic electorate.



was shocked to find Obama’s name associated with the New Democratic Movement, an affiliate of what Bruce Dixon calls the “Republican Trojan Horse in the bowels of the Democratic machinery” – the DLC. In a June 19 Cover Story that included a letter from Obama, posed three “bright line” questions to the candidate, “that should determine whether you belong in the DLC, or not.”



http://www.blackcommentator.com/48/48_cover.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3473233

What does him formally not being a member of the DLC at this point have to do with his Third Way philosophy as stated in the OP?

Here is the list of DLC members in the Senate. Those in bold are ones Obama's PAC financed.

Note: Ford, Carper, and Clinton are all part of the DLC leadership

* Sen. Max Baucus of Montana
* Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana
* Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware
* Sen. Thomas R. Carper of Delaware
* Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota
* Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota
* Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California
* Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota
* Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin
* Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana
* Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
* Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas
* Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida
* Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska
* Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas
* Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York
* Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado
* Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan

He also financed Harold Ford's losing bid. If he is anti-DLC, as advertised, why did he funnel money to most of the Senate's DLC?

See the list? It is a rogue's gallery of DLCers the netroots hates. Lieberman. Clinton. Ford. The Nelsons. Feinstein.

:rofl:

For you to brush aside his support for the DLC would mean the claims Obama fans made, or at least used to make prior to this being posted, are wrong. Which is it? Is the DLC an evil corporate tool that promotes Republican-lite policies? Is Obama the anti-DLC? Or is the DLC a-okay since Obama loves it?

Everyone makes mistakes. The true telling of character is admitting when one is wrong.

The quote from the book was from last year as well. When he has ever admitted he was wrong? Surely you agree Hillary Clinton is a DLCer. Compare her platform to Obama's. What differences are there? :)

Al Gore, the self-styled environmental candidate in the 2000 Presidential election, lost his bid for the White House because he campaigned on an outdated "populist" platform that was too liberal for most Americans, according to a new report drafted by the Democratic Leadership Council.

The 40-page report, titled "Why Gore Lost, And How Democrats Can Come Back," concludes that the Democratic Party must move towards the political right -- towards the Republicans -- if it wants to regain control of Congress in 2002 and the White House in 2004.

Al From, the DLC's founder and CEO, opened a freewheeling discussion forum by arguing that Democrat Al Gore made a huge tactical mistake by continually emphasizing that he would "fight for the people and not the powerful" as the nation's first president of the 21st Century.

-snip

http://www.progress.org/goredlc2.htm





Led by Sen. Joe Lieberman, the DLC was the raucous cheerleader for Bush's war in Iraq, the worst foreign policy debacle in our nation's history. They lauded the corporate trade policies that have left us with the largest trade deficits in the annals of time, and contributed to stagnant wages, growing inequality and a declining middle class. They championed fiscal austerity—even when the budget was in surplus—leaving us with a looming deficit in vital investments from new energy to modern schools to basic infrastructure. "Inequality doesn't matter," they argued, even as we moved into an economy in which the wealthy few captured all of the benefits from growth. One of their first policy papers was an attack on the minimum wage, which went a decade without being raised.

-snip

"We're all populists now," says the DLC's Will Marshall, but the organization still scorns the populist economics that was central to Democratic election victories across the county last year.

http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/wrong_right?tx=3

outlived its usefulness.

:)

raising money to help Democrats is a GOOD THING.

craw, don't it?

Which brings us back full circle to the OP...

Get a life, dude.

Al From couldn't have said it better than Obama did in that book.

I am pretty sure it is on that page.

Yes, I have an obsession with wanting to know what candidates stand for.

with someone who is using the DLC to bash a candidate when, well, you know.

Is it pure unadulterated opportunism?

..informed any who cared to know it was not taken out of context.

Obama's book, aside from the biography portions of it, could have been taken right off the DLC's website. (Although Obama is a better writer than Al From and Bruce Reed.)

I'm pointing out a trend and will add that it caught my attention because I think you are better than glomming onto a basher simply because it suits your purpose in a means-to-an-end kind of way.

It isn't a difference of opinion that separates people here ... it's attitude. And sometimes that attitude is manifested in an agenda that is as transparent as it is foul.

In my opinion, some folks here are laying the groundwork for some really, really bad feelings once the primary is over.

Free advice. Take it or leave it.

the horror... the horror...

oy vey

What is it you have against the DLC again?

Washington Post (Sen. John Edwards) | Editorial | September 19, 2002
Congress Must Be Clear

Quick action will ensure that politics plays no part in the debate about Iraq
By John Edwards

The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Fast congressional action to reinforce our resolve is more imperative, not less, in light of Saddam Hussein's recent overture to allow U.N. inspectors back into Iraq. That is a gambit we have seen before. Congress needs to act now to make clear to our U.N. allies and to Iraq that the United States will not stand for the usual half-measures or delaying tactics.

Drafting an appropriate resolution that a large majority of Congress could support should not be difficult. The outlines of such a resolution are already clear. In fact, the biggest debate right now is over the politics of "timing."

There's no better way to remove politics from the process than to go straight to a debate over substance. Quick, bipartisan congressional action will ensure that politics plays no part in this debate. It will also strengthen America's hand as we pursue support from the Security Council and seek to enlist the cooperation of our allies.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=250853&kaid=85&subid=65


***


Office of Sen. John Edwards | Speech | November 12, 2002
Remarks of Sen. John Edwards to the Fortune Global Forum
Washington, DC

This is the second of three speeches outlining ideas on what we need to do to strengthen America at home and abroad. A few weeks ago, I talked about America's role in the world, and next week I'll talk about ways to strengthen education in America.

But today I want to focus on our economy. America has the strongest economy on earth, but we all know this is a tough economic time. Widespread uncertainty and lingering overcapacity have held back capital investment. Confidence in our capital markets remains shaky, and the consumer spending that has been buffering our economy has begun to crack. Looking at the long term, our weakening fiscal position has seriously clouded our prospects.

These are serious challenges, but they are challenges we can meet and overcome if we make the right choices.

We need a new economic policy based on three principles that reflect the lessons of the last 20 years -- one, fiscal discipline is key to establishing an economic climate in which business can flourish; two, the private sector is the engine that drives economic growth, but we all drive faster with rules for the road; and three, everyone who works hard deserves the opportunity to share in prosperity. I am going to offer a set of proposals guided by those principles to get us back on the path towards long-term economic strength, revitalize our economy in the short-term, and restore mainstream faith in American business.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251008&kaid=106&subid=122

Besides, this thread isn't about my views on the DLC. It is about what Obama fans say about the DLC, especially as it relates to Hillary Clinton. So your position is the DLC is an evil corporate Republican-lite entity when it comes to Clinton but when Obama promotes the DLC, has the same views it is kosher? Obama: changing progressive hearts and minds one goalpost at a time.

go figure

Edwards IS NOT DLC when he actually WAS/IS

while

Obama IS DLC even though he NEVER WAS/ISN'T.

Go figure indeed. :eyes:

Obama is not formally a DLCer but holds the same views as the DLC, as the OP and his platform (identical to HRC's) show.

So in Jeff_Dem's world James Webb is still a Republican and Wes Clark is still an independent.

P.S. How do you think Obama made it onto the DLC member list? Supposedly you have to fill out a questionnaire to get on it. Did the bogeyman send one in for Obama?

He didn't know!

But Obama must be crushed!!!

Speaking of renouncing the DLC, when has Gore ever done so?

Gore is a populist.

:eyes:

Personally, i don't give a flip who is and who isn't DLC so don't lump me into the "DLC is an evil corporate whatever" category.

By my count just now, six threads on the opening GD-P page were authored by you for the purpose of criticizing Obama. However valid your arguments, isn't that just a tad obsessive and counter-productive?