I have opposed Hillary's candidacy since she started running. I see Hillary as the heir to the DLC throne that Bill Clinton held and massively enlarged and strengthened. Hillary is the queen of the DLC.
The DLC-- the Democratic Leadership Council-- is the right wing, the almost-republican, but worse-- wing of the Democratic party. They are corporatist, almost neocon (Al From, the DLC's founder, said, in 2003, announcing the 2003 DLC convention, which not one Democratic Presidential candidate showed up at, said, sounding very neocon, "A Democrat in that tradition who is not afraid to use American power in dangerous times,",) okay with war. These are the bluedogs dems, the Zell Millers, Joe Liebermans who routinely sell out and betray the Democratic leadership.
I'm left of the Democratic party's center, as are most progressives and liberals. DLC politicians are far to the right of the Democratic party's center and they're not happy about that. They want to move the Democratic party further and further to the right. They're willing to sell out women's rights, give up on gun control stay in Iraq as long as John McCain wants, and when it comes to corporations, they can't get too friendly too dependent.
It's really hard to tell what they like about the Democratic party. Maybe they get along with some of the union leaders who have drifted to the right, the kinds who back Republicans like Arlen Spector.
I find it highly despicable that the DLC calls its think tank the Progressive Policy Institute when they are the opposite of progressive. They support free trade and globalism openly. It's hard to see how Hillary opposes NAFTA and free trade while being one of the identified leaders of the DLC, with its pro-free trade policies. They try to sell a bill of goods that tariffs are bad for the poor.
Read their website and it looks like they would support spying on Americans. Matter of fact, we know that in the senate, the Dems couldn't block telecom immunity because of right wing Democrats. When I think of right wing Dems, I think of DLC Dems.
Want to know who are some of the people in the DLC? Wikipedia reports that New Democrats are DLCers. The link shows the Senators and governors who are DLCers. Funny, they are the usual turncoats who sell out on issues like FISA, torture, Bankruptcy...
If you're a real progressive, the DLC will make you sick. If you're a real progressive, you'll want to contribute to candidates who oppose DLC Democrats in the primaries.
The good news is that the DLC is not looking too good lately. They are less popular than they've been in a long time.
Be assured, the battle between Hillary and Obama is a battle between the DLC and the rest of the Democratic party. Don't get me wrong. Obama is no great progressive. IF he really is the most liberal voting senator, then that's a sad statement about the Democratic party in the senate. He's no Paul Wellstone, that's for sure.
If you want tacky DLC, take Geraldine Ferraro who just put her foot in her mouth, stating, ""If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
Ummm... if Hillary wasn't a woman, she wouldn't be where she is... not the former first lady, and not the dream for elderly women that this is their last shot, in their lifetime, to see a woman president. I truly wish a great female candidate had entered the race. But we just have Hillary-- a woman who is claiming that being the wife of a president is great experience-- which I just don't buy.
If Hillary wasn't a woman, she would be a right wing, DLC hack who failed at an incredible opportunity to change the health care system and who got Iraq tragically wrong and was too small to admit it.
The good news is, the DLC is losing. Ari Berman,in The Nation, reports in his article Going Nowhere: The DLC Sputters to a Halt about Barack Obama's connection to the DLC:
In May 2003 the centrist Democratic Leadership Council published its yearly list of "100 New Democrats to Watch." The DLC frequently puts out these lists as a way to publicly solidify its identification with the New Democratic movement within the Democratic Party. The 2003 list, however, contained a number of questionable additions, including then-Illinois State Senator Barack Obama. As a state senator, Obama had continually passed progressive legislation--a record that he vowed to add to when he began his run for the US Senate on a platform of clear opposition to the Patriot Act, the Iraq War and NAFTA, all positions anathema to the DLC. The puzzling addition caused The Black Commentator magazine to wonder, a month after the DLC list came out, whether Obama had been "corrupted" by the centrist group. Obama's reply to the Commentator was indicative of how the DLC plays the "New Democrat" card.
"Neither my staff nor I have had any direct contact with anybody at the DLC since I began this campaign a year ago," Obama wrote. "I don't know who nominated me for the DLC list of 100 rising stars, nor did I expend any effort to be included on the list.... I certainly did not view such inclusion as an endorsement on my part of the DLC platform." After realizing that his name appeared in the DLC's database, Obama asked to have it removed. The message was clear: The DLC needed Obama a lot more than Obama needed the DLC.
Berman's article is a must read, chronicling the DLC's losing history. They took credit for Clinton's first win in 1992, ignoring the strength of Bill Clinton's personality and the major help of third party candidate Ross Perot. And Berman documents how the DLC gradually lost its pull
"What activists like Dean call the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is an aberration; the McGovern-Mondale wing, defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home," From and Reed wrote in a fiery memo titled "The Real Soul of the Democratic Party" on May 15, 2003. Four days later, after Dean won the endorsement of the 1.5 million-member public employees union AFSCME, the DLC denounced the union as "fringe activists." But others were having second thoughts--about strategy and the DLC. As Dean surged ahead, DNC chairman and Clinton confidant Terry McAuliffe told From to quiet the attacks. All nine Democratic contenders skipped the DLC's annual convention in Philadelphia.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
The framed magazine cover, with the word "IDEAS" spelled out in lightbulbs, is based on an article Rob wrote for Writers Digest, telling the magazine's quarter million readers how to come up with and pitch article ideas.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
Or check the archived interviews at:
whiterosesociety.org
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
DLC is simply part of The Great Red Dragon Money Power
And so is the Republican National Committee. How the hell do you think they get financed? With your donations? Come on, you ain't got that much.
Others call it the Tapeworm; some call it Zionist. The name doesn't matter, we just have to quit feeding it and it will fade away. Our labor and savings are its life-blood. The only way to win is not to play.
Hillary (and Bill) are the most charming, stab-you-in-the-back couple on record. And the others left running are no better. Why do you think there are millions pouring into campaigns, when decent groups like OpEdNews can barely exist? It's simply because we have let it become more profitable to lie, steal and murder. (Character assassination!)
by
Edward Ulysses Cate (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 214 comments)
on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 at 11:35:18 AM
And all I can say about an Obama/Clinton ticket is that Obama would get all the negatives of Hillary, but virtually none of the positives. The Republicans have lots of dirt on Hillary, so if she is on the ticket, all the crap about her brother allegedly selling pardons in 1999 for $400,000 a pop will hit the headlines. We don’t need 4 or 8 more years of hearing about Clinton scandals, real or imaginary. We don't need to hear all about the donors to the Clinton library.... etc. We need to move on.
How about an Obama/Granholm ticket? Or how about Obama/Vanden Heuvel?
by
John R Moffett (78 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 591 comments)
on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 at 11:50:39 AM
due to her Canadian birth. I personally am willing to leave things that way and forego her worthy services in governing to ensure that Arnold Schwartzenegger gets no closer to the White House.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 897 comments)
on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 at 2:47:28 PM
The differences between the DLC and bluedog democrats
may be minute but they do exist. The bottom line is however that you are right Rob. Any group within a group that essentially caters to republicans would have a hard time selling their democratic virtues to any progressive democrat. I don't buy it either and consider them moreso a republican infiltration of the party then a real part of the party. Also when we see that several bluedogs actually became republicans, well that says it all really. Zell Miller takes the cake! So do Leiberman and Feinstein. When we look at the DLC, what we find are for the most part conservative democrats. The fact republicans call Hillary a liberal is almost laughable. There is no doubt she is a conservative. But when we take a long historical look at what a moderate was fifty years ago and what a moderate is today, what we are really witnessing is a subtle, deliberate move further and further to the right. Now here we are! The business of politics is big business and financed by big business. This is neither good for the democratic party or democracy itself. The fact grass roots organizations are financing Obama for the most part should be an eye opener to even a necessity for a DLC. The party doesn't need them. They make the party look weak because that is exactly what they are doing. Thru the eyes of the right, mission accomplished!
Though it can be argued members of the DLC and the bluedogs have some liberal values, whether it concerns labor unions or the right to choose, fiscally and militarily they are conservatives and in some cases, neoconservatives. This does explain why the neocons have had it so easy, even after democrat victories in the house. The DLC would argue that democrats won those seats in conservative states and might not of picked up those seats otherwise. But whoopty do! Who cares if the votes they make are anti-progressive anyway?! I'd just assume see them wearing their true colors. So here I am on the one hand glad the dems have control of the house, but do they really have control of it ? Well the answer seems obvious.
That said and although I have no other choice than to favor Obama since my progressive candidate bit the dust, I still believe we will find it a lot easier dealing with a Hillary than a McCain. But as long as this minority in the democratic party yields so much power, the threat of neoconservative control will linger on forever. Republicans have no such groups within their party that caters to progressive democrats. Why should it be the other way around? To me it all sounds ineptly stupid. But then again we come back to the big business of politics and big business itself.
Perhaps we should all simply leave the democrats and form a real progressive party. But unfortuntely most Americans have no idea about who the bluedogs or the DLC are. They don't even realize the subtle changes that makes a moderate today a devout right winger back then. They only buy it for what they are told to buy it as. What we are all told and have been told since Reagan when suddenly and out of the blue "liberal" became a dirty word.
by
Michael Shaw (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 304 comments)
on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 at 11:59:26 AM
I agree with your article and views on every single account! Great article defining the depth of the DLC. I didn't check out the list yet. Will I be stunned?
I've been telling ppl not to vote Hillary. I keep telling them never forget about "Ruby Ridge, Waco, NAFTA, Crimes Bill Act (2 things in that most unconstitutional), Welfare Reform" (caused more ppl to remain poor than unlifting--got proof), and I still hear Vince Foster calling from his grave but he just can't quite break the eternal barrier wall. Speak to me Vince :o]
And, I thought Nancy was queen. I'll be damned. A fight in the works. Oh wait, they are both DLC and Hoyer is their big daddy. Please note that Nancy has a challenger. Can't remember HER first name. Her experience is superb. Are you listening California?
I added to your list on the campaign against Hillary/ more like "awareness lesson". Too bad for the Billary supporters. They haven't done enough "in depth research" in her and Billaca. I loved them once. I really did. After I dug and researched and shined light on them, I saw a disturbing pattern...tyranny.....just like Cheney and Bush.
by
shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 211 comments)
on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 at 12:13:28 PM
is another elite DC insider, power hungry, win at all costs, dynasty seeking politician. If progressives have any chance of taking back our country, it won't be with Hillary as our leader. There is so much to be un-done, I'm not sure Obama can do it either. But I do believe he has more of a chance that she does. I AM a woman, and would LOVE to vote for a woman. Unfortunately, women seem to think their only chance for high positions lie in proving they are as "tough" as men. That's not my idea of a woman's influence which would do this country, and the world, a lot of good right now.
Thanks, Rob, for sharing your personal opinion, which usually agrees with mine, though I also appreciate the many different perspectives that you DO provide. Thanks for providing an alternative for me and many like me...
by
Judy Ramsey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 72 comments)
on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 at 12:13:34 PM
The pettiness and pretense of political campaigns sometimes lulls us into the belief that there are not substantial differences among candidates, that the positions taken again and again by a candidate like Hillary Clinton cannot be judged because she is a politician! In truth, though, there are often good and important reasons for making a choice, reasons that effect history and the lives of our three hundred millions of Americans. I called Rob on the carpet yesterday, and today I applaud his courage for telling it like it is.
The Clintons are not Democrats in the usual sense. They are opportunists and do not have a sincere thread or wisp of progressivism or liberalism in their souls. We must not allow the Clintons to take over the party again.
JB
by
James Brett (79 articles, 95 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 75 comments)
on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 at 12:46:50 PM
I found my Governor, the one that stood up to Chertoff and said No RealID, was not on there! Yeah! However, one of my senators was. This senator needs his walking papers and I am hoping that he gets the boot as he is UP for RE-election. Even if it means a repub taking his place. Actually, DLC'ers aren't much different than the repubs.
We need to go full speed ahead withering away the DLC. They have infiltrated our party and have disenfranchised thousands, not to mention all the politicians they have thrown on the sacrificial alter. Spitzer is apparently the latest of one of those sacrificial offerings
by
shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 211 comments)
on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 at 12:58:07 PM
Great article Rob, I agree with a lot of it and like you consider myself a true progressive and on the left side of the party.
Our one party system - the "corporate" party has got to end. The democratic party has morphed into a slightly left version of the Republican party.
The Universal Health Care policies more closely resemble windfall profits for the Insurance Industry. It does nothing to end the corporate greed.
The Military Industrial Complex is so entrenched in our economy through the over 50 cents on every single tax dollar, not to mention the fact that they lobby our representatives in every single district and they operate in all 50 states.
Until we get the military "guns" out of our government "politics" we are at war and the domestic enemies are running the country.
Got to ask yourself why MIC loves Hillary and why she embraces the perpetual war concept.
But frankly, for me anyway, Obama doesn't do much better.
I'm a Kuccinich fan and the MSM wouldn't even let him expand the discussion.
by
August Adams (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 387 comments)
on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 at 1:40:45 PM
It was activists on the ground who turned Franklin county blue in 2004. Activists so opposed to the fascist Bush regime they would do anything to help his opposition win. That is why the DLC chose to come to Columbus in 2005 for their conference where Hillary Clinton spoke along with Governor Rendell of Pennsylvania. AND, some of those activists stood on the street in 98 degree tempuratures for three days holding signs outside that read "We have your backbone, do you have ours?" We all remembered that Hillary had voted for the war. We followed them across town to a function where we were told to leave. We were on the sidewalk, and we STAYED. We stayed in fact, for at least an hour telling the DLC'ers about all the election fraud on '04. They were clueless. I swear on my honor we also observed many of the DLC conference staffers overtly dressed more like hookers in tight short skirts and busty sweaters. I wondered, "are they here to get some stupid guy in trouble and blackmail him while he is away from home for a wild weekend?" It sure looked that way. We stood outside on the street. Street musicians played political satire to the shock and disgust of some. I wish you could have been there. Some among them were upset at our presence and that was obvious. What? They are all "Democrats", right? People with this much money and influence over the party of the "big umbrella" have never seen a street protest? Yes, the Money Party always gets its way even if they have to use DLC hookers to make sure that happens I guess.
by
Victrola (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 16 comments)
on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 at 2:29:06 PM
It's not the first time the Democratic Party cracked open. A less rosy scenario would be if it splintered. We will never be able to control the party if we can't hold some groups together. There are caucuses other than Blue Dogs. But reality is that Ike was right. Military/industrial complex action has immobilized the Democratic Party as much as it has the Republican.
In discussing what has become known as Clinton, Inc. it would be helpful to think about Bill's second term. I think of that period as a one-two punch. First Gingrich and Clinton do a minuet over appropriations, and then Bill gets otherwise involved and is distracted.
So here we go again. Talk of NAFTA and detractors remind us that is was Al Gore who sealed the deal. Petty, but petty is the way things go. Talk about growing the economy and they make our air tankers in Europe. How will that play this fall?
Hillary has a hard time recalling her place in history. Wikipedia gives a lot of insight, aka baggage. Since hers is the legacy organization of DLC, born from what used to be Southern Democrats before civil rights, she must make up her mind where her roots are, what constituency she favors, and how she will do things differently than in the old century. Where's the bridge?
If we could let her understand that she is welcome to present discussion of the DLC, would she be willing? She can't expect us to agree with her, but we could accept her. Maybe--how she differs in outlook from John McCain. That would be somewhat neutral territory.
by
Margaret Bassett (19 articles, 1113 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 615 comments)
on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 at 7:02:29 PM
Rob - "It's really hard to tell what they like about the Democratic party."
It's called infiltration
noun
1.
a process in which individuals (or small groups) penetrate an area (especially the military penetration of enemy positions without detection)
The Party has been soooo thoroughly infiltrated...the only option is to abandon it and start anew. Only problem with that is that any viable new Party which crops up ...will undergo the very same (military psy-ops style) treatment. Yip, they've that part wrapped up. Fer sher. Having said that, discussions of this sort are mere entertainment, as are the (S)elections.
Charade, a travesty. nJoy!
by
Tony Forest (4 articles, 10 quicklinks, 119 diaries, 1064 comments)
on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 at 8:06:10 AM
