The DLC without Al From would be?

More tolerable?
Tolerable?
The same?

Good?
Better?
Much better?

Not a poll, just asking for opinions.

gone, never to be heard from again.

In my opinion he is one of the most divisive voices around. I would rate him as divisive for Dems from the centrists as counterpunch can be from the purported left. And I believe there is a good chance that both are funded by the right.

trying to jockey themselves into being From's successor, who it was hinted would keep the DLC centrist but would grealty reduce the attacks on non-DLC Dems and their positions while opposing radical Republican options (war, taxes, etc) from centrist positions.

but that or something like it was just barely hinted at.

Behind the DLC Takeover - Democratic Leadership Council
Progressive, The, Oct, 2000 by John Nichols

Those corporate contributors--whose names fill the lists of givers to the DLC and a closely linked political arm, the New Democrat Network--include Bank One, Citigroup, Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric, the Health Insurance Corporation of America, Merrill Lynch, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, the National Association of Mortgage Brokers, Occidental Petroleum, Raytheon, and much of the rest of the Fortune 500.

"With the DLC in a position to influence the Democratic Party, Wall Street wins either way," says populist Jim Hightower...

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_10_64/ai_65952690

The corporatists have already bought one party, now they wish to purchase another.

But, if they got rid of these anti-Democratic Party propagandist, it might be easier for mainstream Dems to listen to what they have to say..

Those three are the modern day Joe McCarthy's of the Democratic Party.

Would the DLC remain the same without them? I don't know. But it would probably be an improvement.

I mean, they're still the DLC but maybe they might get some democrats running the ship that aren't such asswipes like Al From!

also.

but when you look at the actual members of the DLC that are in office, they're all not that bad. People call the DLC the "Corporate Wing" but I see no difference between them and most of the non-DLC democrats. Corporate politicians are not a problem of the DLC but of horrible campaign finance laws that allow this to happen.

The biggest problem is these DLC elected democrats are controlled by people who would have their asses whooped if they attempted to run for even local dog catcher. They need to get them out of the organization if they are to gain any respect whatsoever.

I guess that Bullmoose Democrat blog is part of the DLC non-politico group. He can go too!

What's wrong with the national party?

They have done NOTHING positive for the Democratic party. NOTHING.

And no, getting Republicans elected with a "D" after their name is NOT a positive.

YEAH! :sarcasm:

...20th Century." and it was an accurate description. Some of Nixon's policies were actually to the left of Clinton's. Clinton was certainly a better Republican president than Reagan or either Bush, but that doesn't make him a Democrat.

Howard Dean ( a former "Rockefeller Republican" by his own description) broke with the DLC a long time ago (when he realized how vile they really were) and Edwards certainly seems to be trying to distance himself from them as much as possible. His "two Americas" thing is against everything the DLC exists for.

that I don't know. He is mostly known as the Editor of the New Republic.

have/has become a metaphor as an actuall entity.

in some ways more accurate than say a dino -- because we have something like a set of beliefs we can point to -- even if they haven't signed on the dotted line.

but I would hate to slander ANYONE by blaming Peter Beinart on them

Al From is merely the face of the EVIL that resides within the DLC. Nothing would change if Al From were to go. The ideology that created the DLC and the funding that supports it would continue as a cancer on the Democratic Party and on our democracy itself.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

In EVERY case, "Barriers to Trade" and "Restrictions on Corporations" were created to protect something valuable!