Does Writing Off The "DLC" Concerns Of Some Constitute "Left Bashing?"

The two sides of the divide seem to be as follows:

1) That the DLC represents all that is wrong with the Democratic Party, and that their influence must be eradicated if we are to make electoral headway in 2006 and 2008. And that there is no room in our party for those who cannot see things from this perspective because the DLC is little more than Republicanism of the Bush stripe in donkey's clothing. It is better to risk intra-party warfare than endure their presence.

2) That the attacks on the DLC and those who refuse to perceive it as a pernicious arm of neo-con evil represent an ingrained tendency toward divisiveness in our party, the kind that weakened Al Gore in 2000, allowing Bush to steal the election. The only result that can come of this destructive feuding is to make us a weaker and more easily defeated party in 2006 and 2008. Democrats should never attack other Democrats.

The problem for me is that while I am very liberal on most issues, I happen to agree with the second statement. In my opinion the last thing we need right now is a knock down, drag-out intra-party fight at a time when the real enemy controls just about everything in this country.

In response I have been called quite a few things, "left basher" seeming to be the most prevalent.

My question to you is this, does writing off the "DLC" concerns of some make one a "left basher?"

you are acting as if the people saying there is no room under the big tent are only those who oppose DLC. You are completely ignoring the public attacks that the DLC has made against the "radical left' wing of the democratic party, and their STATED goal of taking over the liberal majority.

you need to see things with a little better balance.

I'll agree there are plenty on the left (the majority, by the way) who view DLC as a threat, but I doubt they'd feel that way if the DLC did not spend all their time threatening, n'est ce pas?

"The New and Improved Republican Party" and said that their stated goal was to steer the party back into saner, more centrist waters and their goal was to take the party back over, Dems would....


...Ok, Dems would view them with deep suspicion and think it was some kind of sinister plot to win more elections and take over the world because that's what we think about every single thing any Republican ever does, but it still wouldn't sound so bad.


IF (very BIG 'if' here) the stated intent of the DLC is the actual intention of the DLC, it is not such a bad thing. Just like extremely right wing views are not sustainable or tolerable for very long in this society, extremely left wing views are not either.

I say the American people need a choice.

I don't *think* that's what I meant.

there ya go.

why not try to tell me why they are a bad thing.

check out the links provided by others and decide for yourself. I am beginning to think you are full of crap and you know about the DLC and are trying to jerk us around. you seem to be heavily opinionated about them for someone who is just hearing about them this morning. :eyes:

it must be a conspiracy? I am commenting to each post as I read it. I am a generally opinionated person. I form and reform my thoughts and opinions constantly. I am voicing them as I go.

Oh, and we are even on the full of crap thing.

The DLC isn't trying to purge the party of 'extremely left wing views'. They're attempting to push their own corporate, pro-war agenda against the wishes of the MAJORITY of the Democratic party.

Of course they would LOVE you to believe that they're fighting against the 'extreme left' of the party. But like their Neocon allies...they believe they can push their minority view on the party without any kind of mandate or consent from the rank and file.

And they're doing this by working OUTSIDE of the party structure and using the Clinton influence and corporate cash. If this doesn't offend you...what will?

But somehow I would hope we could rise above it. The wrongs of some hardly justify the same in others.

Decide for yourself what is right and stick to your guns. No one and no one point of view has a monopoly on what the truth is.

"My question to you is this, does writing off the "DLC" concerns of some make one a "left basher?"

The DLC has set out in a systematic way to crush any "leftist" movement in the Party. The DLC continually vilify the leftists in the party and openly advocate ignoring the left, at best, and ousting the left from the party, at worse. The DLC, as an organization, is not just "rightist" (this is a more accurate term than "centrist"), it is actively anti-left. Now we can debate back and forth as to what percentage of the party is on which side of the political divide, but if the "left" leaves the Democratic Party it will not be a good thing for the Party.

It seems to be unreasonable to ask the left to be quiet and play nice, while the DLC advocates the left's destruction.

We need to take our party back from the DLC and return our party to its core principles--namely economic justice.

I think our party needs to decide what we stand for. Howard Dean is leading the way. I would like to think that he would have recommended that we filibuster the one-sided bankruptcy bill--a giveaway to the banks and credit card companies. The Democrats have always stopped it before, but this time they caved--to the detriment of the party. It would have been a golden opportunity to distinguish ourselves from Republicans with the American people--in red states (have higher bankruptcy rates) and blue.

You can bet your sweet ass that the DLC was instrumental in convincing the "New Democrats" to vote for this egregious bill--a huge gift to the banks and credit card companies that left millionaires' asset protections intact.

The Democrats need to introduce legislation to ameliorate the worse effects of this bill, and they need to do it now.

Have you read this from Robert Dreyfuss, "How the DLC Does It."

http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

How the DLC Does It
Robert Dreyfuss
Representative Gregory Meeks, an African-American lawyer and assistant district attorney elected to Congress in 1998 to represent a middle-class black neighborhood in Queens, New York, was undecided last year on the divisive issue of trade rights for China. Lobbyists for big business were battling the AFL-CIO and environmental groups on Capitol Hill for every vote, and Meeks, who'd previously voted against granting fast-track negotiating authority to President Clinton, was a prize.

Sensing an opportunity, Representative Cal Dooley, a moderate California Democrat closely allied with that state's high-tech sector, moved in. As co-chairman of the House New Democrat Coalition, a bloc allied with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), Dooley was targeting fence-sitters to vote aye. Along with fellow New Democrats Harold Ford, Jr., of Tennessee and Bob Matsui of California, Dooley hooked Meeks up with a stream of corporate officials from Silicon Valley and the New York financial district. "My boss made sure there'd be support for Meeks from the business community," says a Dooley aide. "He spread the word, through groups like the Business Roundtable, that here was a guy who deserved their support."

"Congressman Dooley helped bring in businesses who otherwise Congressman Meeks would not have known, and didn't have a relationship with, to knock on his door. As a result, scores of meetings were held with the congressman," says an aide to Meeks, citing sit-downs with the CEOs of American Airlines and New York Life Insurance Company. High-tech executives helped ensure that Meeks would be one of two undecided members to accompany President Clinton on his high-profile trip to China before the vote, the aide said; and Meeks also won significant backing from industry political action committees, which ended up nearly matching labor's donations to Meeks's campaign treasury. Included were $5,000 PAC contributions from American Airlines and New York Life. And in the end, Meeks voted business's way.

The DLC's effort to win Meeks's vote was part of a vigorous campaign by New Democrats to assure legislators that business groups would replace campaign contributions from labor lost by a pro-business China vote. In The New Democrat, the DLC's monthly magazine, Washington's most powerful business lobbyist, Thomas J. Donohue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, wrote that even though some members of Congress risked losing the AFL-CIO's support, "business will stick by Democrats on the China trade vote."

Simon Rosenberg, the former field director for the DLC who directs the New Democrat Network, a spin-off political action committee, says, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way," he adds, "they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win."

Second: Prominent DLCers are already on track to derail us in '06 and '08. Hillary Clinton, for example, cosponsored a bill calling for an increase in US troop strength in Iraq by 80,000, whereas more and more of the country wants out altogether, including some prominent Republicans. And if the administration pulls a Nixon by promising (quite probably falsely, of course) to reduce our presence there while the most visible members of the nominal left are still hawking, the Dems are seen as out of touch yet again. This is just ONE example of many issues where the DLC camp is totally off-base in a potentially disastrous way, because they can't let go of the (Bill) Clintonian triangulation "strategy" that thus far has only worked for Bill Clinton, exactly once, and mostly because of the Perot spoiler effect (he beat Dole not by his triangulation, but because Dole ran a laughable campaign). Further, the DLC is NOT an official arm of the party, but rather a very powerful right-leaning policy lobbying cabal within it. They do NOT reflect the views of the majority of dems. It's the DLC that's fucking us, not the DLC "haters." They must be purged. The "knock down, drag-out intra-party fight" you fear is in fact the fight for the soul of the Democratic party, and is the key to bringing opposition politics back to Congress and to Presidential campaigns. The DLC absolutely must be stopped.

...it's the DLC that's writing off the Progressives and Liberals. It is THEY that have launched a smear campaign against anyone to the 'LEFT' of them. They attacked Dean, Michael Moore and abandoned Gore after he threw off the DLC's 'third way' and campaigned as a 'populist'. In reality...they've become part and parcel of the RWing Smear Machine.

The Defenders of the DLC are using a disinformation campaign to make it appear as if the left is unfairly attacking them...when the DLC has been smearing the left since the 80s.

Now that the 'left' is finally returning fire...the DLC is acting like whiny victims.

What 'weakened' Gore in 2000? It was the DLC that pretended that election fraud and illegal SC decisions never took place. They blamed his 'populist' campaign instead of the Bush Cheat Machine. That should tell you which side they're really on when they can't admit that Gore WON the popular vote and the election with a populist campaign.

-------

Dems Say Gore's Presidential Bid Ruined by Populist Message
Reference

By Brian Hansen

WASHINGTON, DC, January 24, 2001 (ENS) - 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 report, titled "Why Gore Lost, And How Democrats Can Come Back," was unveiled this morning by Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) officials at a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington. The DLC's 40 page report 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 the freewheeling discussion forum this morning 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.

"Gore chose a populist rather than a new Democrat message, and as a result, voters viewed him as too liberal and identified him as an advocate of big government," From said. "By emphasizing class warfare, seemed to be talking to industrial age rather than information age America." From said that in order to be successful in future elections, the Democratic Party needs to forge a "new progressive majority for the information age."

Such a coalition, From said, must "expand beyond the Democratic base" that was borne out of the progressive movements that arose during the first half of the 20th Century. The Democratic Party, From said, must reach out to moderates "and even some conservatives" if it hopes to regain power in Washington. --- http://www.sacgreens.org/dlc.html


-----

"The DLC's 40 page report 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."

This in and of itself should tell you that the DLC is full of crap. They went to the Right and still lost.

"The Defenders of the DLC are using a disinformation campaign to make it appear as if the left is unfairly attacking them...when the DLC has been smearing the left since the 80s."

But don't take my word for it but just try to convey a populist, pro Worker view over pro-corporate welfare, and they'll UNLOAD everything but the kitchen sink at you.

Yes, check out all the "usual suspects" who pass in and out periodically and you will find their (DLCers') MOs are very similar to the right wing smear machine.

Gore lost because he was not likeable. Kerry...same thing. I hate to say it, but the only reason Bush is President is because he is a likeable guy and middle America voted the same way they would vote for an American Idol contestant.

I mean, the reality is that Bush is so inarticulate when making an effort to discuss anything of substance as to appear retarded. BUT...let him ad lib and he is a likeable guy. In a greasy, used car salesman kind of way. If the public voted on subtstance and the ability to articulate a platform, Kerry would have won hands down. But they vote for the guy that they would most like to have over to dinner and the party which boils their message down to a few easily remembered catch phrases.

Noone voted for the REALITY of Bush, they voted for their IMPRESSION of Bush. And probably their first impression, at that.

few easily remembered catch phrases, when combined with media cheer leading your side and tearing apart the Dems, does indeed lead to an inarticulate, lacking in substance, with no plan except please the rich and corporate, person getting close enough that a little bit of vote fraud/crimes by the GOP were able to swing the final tally Bush's way.

Saying Gore lost because he wasn't 'likeable' sounds like a DLC talking point. To this very day the DLC won't acknowledge that Gore won with a populist campaign touting the principles of environmental stewardship and corporate/government accountability

Please don't push that kind of misinformation on me. Gore didn't lose. He won both the popular vote and the election...something that was hidden from public view by the corporate media after the fact. When will the Defenders of the DLC finally admit that the reason Gore lost is because of election fraud, a corporate media attacking him at every turn, fascist thugs and a partisan Supreme Court?

Bush didn't win the 2000 election by any standard. Please don't perpetuate this awful lie.

Gore, at a point at which our country was going as well economically as it ever had while he was Vice-President, went up against an inarticulate moron who cannot pronounce the word 'nuclear' correctly, who had absolutely NO plan for anything and who had ZERO personal credibility and beat him by 543,895 votes out of approximately 101 million votes cast. Less than one percent. Technically, you are right. He won. But why didn't he win by a landslide? That election should have been a no-brainer. Hell, on Bush's side it WAS. And he still ended up with pretty much half of the votes.

Why is that, do ya think??

And based on substance, there is no way Bush should have won in 2004. I was in total shock when he did. But he did.

Why is that, do ya think?

In your rush to climb onto your high horse, you missed my point. We are getting our hats handed to us by a party whose apparent 'leader' is a complete joke. I am not saying that I want our party to be 'like' the GOP. But whether we like it or not, they are on to something. It is a kind of gross something, but in a country where REALITY TV is king, do you honestly think ideals and moral highground are getting us anywhere?? To implement those ideals, you have to be in a position of power. To get into a position of power, you have to be elected. To get elected, the average guy has to like you. THAT IS WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY.

...purged from the voter roles and thousands of ballots are being thrown away because of 'chads' and voting machine 'problems'.

IT'S CALLED CHEATING AND ELECTION FRAUD AND ILLEGAL SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

Gore received more than a half-million more votes than Bush. What does that tell you? That Gore was unpopular? Perhaps you're just confused about what really happened?

I'm not on a 'high horse'. I'm simply tired of the type of revisionism you're trying to push on us.

The only thing the Bush GOP has going for it is cheating, intimidation, lying and ownership of the 'free press'. That you want to emulate them is telling and disturbing.

The 'average guy' wants worker's rights and a 'living wage'. Choice for women. Civil and equal rights. Free and fair elections. Corporate/government accountability. Public education for all. Social Security and a 'safety net'. Wars fought as a LAST RESORT and not for greed, oil and power.

The GOP and the DLC wants something else.

you are right. I do think that the average guy wants all that stuff. You are also right about how the election was tampered with in Florida. I think I was simply so shocked both elections, given the fact that it seemed so obvious to me that Gore and then Kerry so much more reflected what the average guy needs, that Bush won. WHY did he win? To me, it is completely bizarre that it was even close, either time.

I think election tampering can tip a close state. But I am not sure that it could slant a solid majority. I do not want another Republican President. I don't think my children can afford it. I am worried that putting the past two elections down to tampering is going to hurt the chances of a Democrat winning.

I am not trying to 'push' anything on anybody. Any more than you are. I am trying to understand how someone like Bush got two terms in the White House. I am and atheist living in Fort Mill, South Carolina. Where my son was dutifully taught last year that every state has 'A' Senator and where they hold prayer vigils out in front of the school and where they hand out flyers for "His Farm" Jesus oriented summer horseback riding camp the last day of school. I think I have a unique grasp on why George Bush got elected. And it was not because of his stand on anything. It was because he would have been the best guy to have at the BBQ and he is a CHRISTIAN. And Kerry and Gore were hard to understand. I am not kidding here. I know people who were not very pro-Bush who voted for him in 2004 'cause at least we can understand him and we know where he stands'.

I am just trying to say that in this area, we need to pay more attention to public perception and run our campaigns more like we are trying to stay on the island. Maybe I didn't say it well. But that is what I am trying to say.

What could Kerry (or Gore - who did come from Tennessee, or any non-Southern candidate) have done to let these people get to know him? How could they break through the stereotypes? Having lived in the NY and Chicago area, I really think don't think having only Southern candidates is the solution - it rules out too many good people and is unfair. But, we need to learn how to reach these people.

I agree that only southern candidates may not be a viable answer. Above all, we need GOOD candidates, no matter where they are from.

But I am telling you, something about Kerry and Gore left many people I know cold. I could take a position they were supporting and relate it in my own way and they would say, "Yeah, that makes sense." Then ask, "So who are you going to vote for??" "BUSH!"

Jeez...talk about frustrating.

The DLC wants to 'appeal' to voters that 'like' or would vote for GWB. How do they plan on doing that? Their plan since the 80s has been to water-down the Democratic agenda and platform to cater to those who wouldn't normally vote Democratic and to make it more corporate/military friendly.

The problem with this approach is that the Democratic base has been taken for granted and left to fend for themselves and without any real representation in our government. The DLC expected workers, women and minorities to vote Democratic because they had no where else to go.

The DLC gets a good portion of their funding from corporations lobbying to change the Democratic party into something more 'friendly' to their interests. This natually means an end to social welfare and a boost to corporate welfare. When the DLCers say they want to 'reform' Social Security and other social programs...what's left unsaid is that they want to privatize them and have the corporations become the 'middlemen'. It's the DLC's version of 'trickle-down' economics.

You're still arguing why people voted for Bush? The fact is that many more Americans voted for Gore and he won the election. What more do you need to know? Watch the movie 'Unprecedented' for an insight into what really took place in 2000.

Are these two interests mutually exclusive?

I agree that many people voted on impression rather than substance. I further think that the media created the impressions.

The media repeated that Bush was likable, corrected his mistakes, and showed his most positive moments. The media said Kerry was aloof, reserved, a "social loner", ignored the huge (record breaking) crowds at his rallies and allowed very little unfiltered coverage. The bias created a very distorted impression. (They distorted Teresa every bit as much)

In Iowa, there is a poll done right before the primaries of non-management hotel and restaurant people asking questions like who was the most considerate and who did you perceive as caring about people like you - Kerry ran away with the poll. (and this was before you could ascribe it to any bandwagon effect).

At the C-SPAN rallies, there were many college friends of Kerry who seemed to have remained very close with him throughout his life, as they talked, at least 3 (non-relatives) talked about Kerry being a God Parent to a child of theirs - so these clearly weren't casual relationships. There are millions of pictures of Kerry on the floor talking or interacting with children - the pictures are great because Kerry clearly enjoys himself with them and the kids are clearly engaged. During the campaign, someone on the Kerry blog pointed out that if you when to the AP photo site - every picture of Kerry with babies showed a happy or content baby while many Bush pictures show crying babies. Even his ex-wife speaks very positively of him. Kerry's relationships with his adult daughters and step-sons are enviable. The pictures of him with his daughters when they were young are wonderful. The Butler book in particular showed Kerry playing games he created with his own kids and those of his friends. I have never seem pictures of Bush interacting with the twins when they were young. (By his own admission he was drunk a lot.)

The point of the above - If the media wanted to it would actually have had much more to use if they wanted to show Kerry as a likable person with good solid relationships with his family and friends.

Cause you are exactly right.

So, how does a Democrat win a national election with the media apparently so determined for them NOT to win? Part of this problem is that a great many people still stubbornly refer to the 'liberal media' regardless of the facts. The MSM leans so far right it is a miracle it hasn't fallen completely over. Which is because it is owned by huge conglomerates and huge conglomerates see their interests as lying with the GOP. Because they do.

So...how do we get people to truly SEE our candidates for who they really are??

attacking the right left bashing?

That the DLC represents all that is wrong with the Democratic Party. And that there is no room in our party for those who cannot see things from this perspective because the DLC is little more than Republicanism of the Bush stripe in donkey's clothing.

BUT...

That however we choose deal with them, it WILL HAVE CONSEQUENCES FOR US, Progressives. Therefore we must tread carefully, and intelligently, and strategically, USING the DINOs for now while working quietly but dilligently behind the scenes to create a "farm system" for Progressives to replace the DINOs. It's not the instant gratification that so many hope for here, but it can work if we let it - unlike inter-party warfare.

NGU.

The first step is to dethrone the GOP. Then we can get to work on getting the things done that are important to this country.

...but the DLC has been working for several decades to remove the 'liberal agenda' from the party. Many of us weren't aware that this is what they're were trying to do until they actually started to admit it on their website after the 2000 election. How do you propose that we work with those who don't even want our input or to SHARE power?

The DLC is similar to the Neocons in that they want to control the party, write the platform and determine our values and principles...without seeking input from the majority of Democrats.

Who elected these guys to run our party? The answer is no one.

...of others again, Q, because you can't answer the truth in their words?

I said USE them until we can REPLACE them. And groups like Progressive Majority and Wellstone Action already have a good start on that. (Of course, they, like all Progressive groups, could still use plenty of our help. Donate or volunteer at www.progressivemajority.org and www.wellstoneaction.org.)

NGU.

I want to learn. I am asking questions and discussing these things to help fill in my own woefully inadequate understanding of these intra-party politics.

Here are some questions I have:

1) It seems to me that being anti-big business is pointless. To try and pretend that the world is not increasingly being manipulated by large corporate interests is naive. I also, at this point, do not see a way around business. The thing to me would be to somehow SHAPE the influence of business so that it works more for us than against us. To just completely ignore it or to make blanket statements that all corporate interests are bad seems...I dunno...stupid to me. SO...doesn't picking and choosing a path that lies somewhere BETWEEN the interests of big business and the average person and that has possible benefits for both make the most sense? Obviously the current "all business, all the time" approach sucks. But "KILL BIG BUSINESS" isn't going to cut it, either.

2) Equally, to ignore the fact that socially the vast majority of Americans fall roughly in the middle between right and left is also naive. Most Americans are NOT right wing neo-cons. But they ain't hippies, either. Marijuana isn't getting legalized any time soon, no matter how much sense it makes. And I don't think the other side stands much chance of getting rid of abortion...for long (the judge thing worries me). SO...doesn't it make sense to also pick and choose a path that is socially centrist enough to appeal to the majority of Americans while still insuring us the personal freedoms that are so important to this country?


I am not an extremist anything. On a personal level, I always tend to come out leaning pretty far left whenever I take those little tests which show which way you fall. But I also understand that my thoughts are not representative of the majority of people in our society. And for our society to work, the majority must be satisfied while leaving enough room for those who don't agree to breathe. That's the problem I see with the GOP. They have zero tolerance for views other than there own. But I gotta tell you, that is as unattractive in a Democrat as it is in a Republican.

Renie wrote:
>>>I am not an extremist anything. On a personal level, I always tend to come out leaning pretty far left whenever I take those little tests which show which way you fall. But I also understand that my thoughts are not representative of the majority of people in our society. <<<<

Why do you assume that?

Sure, it's possible that on some issues you may be more "left" than the majority. But maybe not. Most people in the real world don;t analyze issues based on whether they are "right" or "left." They respond to what seems to make sense to them intuitively.

And that makes it a lot more complicated. For example, someone may be socially "conservative" but very much a liberal populist in an economic sense, believing that business does need to bge regulated and the rights of workers need to be vigorously defended.

Even people who may personally disagree with, say drug use, may also be against harsh criminal sanctions against casual dope smokers. Not because they approve of marijuana, but because they have a "live and let live" attitude, and don't want to see their nice neighbors who do occasionally toke up to be tossed in the hoosegow.

I guess I am as much of a victim of the GOP message machine as the next guy. I automatically assumed that since I am told that the majority of Americans are conservatives, that they are.

But now that you mention it, I recall one of those tests being passed around by email. It evaluated you on four levels, not just left or right socially, but also economically. Nearly all of my acquaintance here are Republicans, but nearly all of them were slightly left of center or dead center according to the test. I remember asking all of them why they voted for someone so far right (Bush came out somewhere near Pol Pot!!), but they got vague when pressed. This contributes to my thinking that Bush got elected far less because of what he stands for and far more because he has some weird likeability factor for some people.

As much as I disagree with Bush, he does seem to project a quality to many of people of being real.

It's an illusion, but I think a lot of people saw that as an antidote to politicians who say nothing spontaneously, and who test all of their positions, rather than feel them personally.

That's why so many people on our side respond to people like Howard Dean and Paul Hackett and Cindy Sheehan. They basically say "This is what I truly believe." That's what we need more of.

because you advocate falling in line to preserve unity against the enemy- when what we are falling in line behind is either aiding the enemy or silent.

Where does it end?

for Democrats, but that doesn`t mean we should shy away from discussing it. As far as I`m concerned, the DLC did everything in its power to weaken and defile the anti-Iraq War wing of this party. They sent out hateful anti-left memos, they smeared us on television, they publicly called us names. It was a putrid example of intolerance and disrespect, something they continue today.

The Democratic base...people the party can not win without...are taken for granted by the DLC, although they certainly like our donations. In one of Mr. Al From`s anti-left memos, he chuckled about us all driving Volvos. Odd, I thought, since I had an `88 Subaru and never owned a pair of Birkenstocks. Didn`t matter. We were the hated Liberals...just the kind of people who needed a good old attack from inside the beltway.

Howard Dean was right on target when he acknowledged the split in this party with his "I`m from the Democratic wing" statement. He knows the difference and so do Democrats who have steadfastly held to old Democratic Party principles. After more than forty years of Democratic Party activism, I`ll be damned if I`ll shut up and pretend I`m a mini-Republican so I can win the approval of the DLC.

The DLC represents what has been wrong with the US in a political sense for the last 30 years.

That is, the elitist view has had dominance, without a countervailing political force for real grass roots values and interests.

The GOP has made a good charade of representing the interests of average people, but in reality they really represent the interests of corporate oligarchs, as they always have.

The problem is the desertion by the Democratic Party establishment. They adopted a slightly more socially liberal view, but support the same worldview as the Corporate Conservatism in terms of the core issues of Wealth and Power.

That's what the DLC represents. It is the assumption that the current holders of power -- Big Business --arethe rightful owners of democracy. The only difference between the DLC vision and the Republican vision is that the DLC types want to make the Oligarchy a little bit kinder and gentler.

Opposing that is not being "left" or "radical" or "extremist." It is actually very mainstream. If youi strip away the surface, it's even what lies below the resentments of many people who currently support the right wing. They are opposed to Elitism -- it's just that they have been convinced that the liberals are the elitists.

The reason they believe liberalism is elitism is because the DLC has successfully made the image of the Democratic Party one of elitism.

The only way to restore political balance -- and allow the nation to rediscover its true center -- is for the Democratic Establishment to become truly liberal, and start defending that.

that is the most cogent analysis I've read. Thanks for that.