home

Team DLC?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:49:59 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Markos is riled up about Bruce Reed of the DLC working with Clinton on debate prep (not a policy position actually.) Funny how he missed this:

[DLC Chairman Al] From said Mr. Obama had an intellectual, and not just tactical, connection to the D.L.C.

“I mean his chief economist, Austan Goolsbee, is a fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, which is our think tank,” he said.

Economic advisor vs debate prep? Which matters more? For the record, having the DLC in the Big Democratic Tent is fine by me. I certainly would not want either candidate to cast out the DLC. I actually worry more about the DLC's Third Way Unity Schtick political advice. As From says, there is a very close political tactics connection between Obama and the DLC. It is what I complain about constantly. Some others used to complain about too. Not anymore apparently.

< The Lost Opportunity? | Obama's Latest Endorsement: Rolling Stone Magazine >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Team DLC? | 72 comments (72 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    To the extent (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:54:02 AM EST
    that it's necessary to have the DLC brand hanging around in order to pacify corporate America, you know what, I'm enough of a pragmatist that I can live with it.

    But I've never quite figured out how progressives could get excited over someone who gets his economic advice from the Chicago School.  I remember when the campaigns were releasing stimulus packages and I had to deal with people telling me that Obama's market-based solutions were the "true" progressive position and that Clinton's green jobs were nonsensical and so forth.  Primary season is hard.

    Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:55:36 AM EST
    I have never objected to the DLC's domestic policy prescriptions, heck I am a free trader Centrist. I think their POLITICAL advice is awful.

    Parent
    I had objections to all of the 3 main contenders (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:33:04 AM EST
    I counted myself as an Edwards supporter because by and large he was running the most progressive campaign.

    Among other things I too object to Milton Freidmanite advisors.

    That said  I will vote for the nominee.
     

    Parent

    As a Democrat (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:36:57 AM EST
    you definitely grow to expect disappointment year in year out.

    Sometimes I think the appeal of Obama is simply that he's the Democrat who hasn't disappointed us YET.

    (Although, in point of fact, he has.  Somehow that history has been unwritten.)

    Parent

    Not always (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:56:30 AM EST
    I was very hopeful in January 1993. I was hopeful again around 7PM election night 2000 when Florida was called for Gore. Been downhill since. Don't get me started about congressional Dems right now.

    As for Obama's appeal, I think that is easy to understand if you listen to what he is saying on the stump- there is definitely some reason for progressives to take heart. A lot of what he is saying isn't new- there are echos of FDR, JFK and Bill Clinton himself.

    I am most bothered by the Chicago school of econ and his attacks on healthcare mandates. The market based solutions I hope is a bit of FDR smokescreen. There can be market based solutions, provided you understand the market, its limits and drawbacks.

    Parent

    Here's why (none / 0) (#64)
    by Korha on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:25:46 PM EST
    Because nobody really cares about the DLC, partisan vs. non-partisan rhetoric, etc. Well, maybe a few people hanging out on the Internet, though possibly not even them.

    For everyone else the primary is revolving around, of course, IDENTITY POLITICS. These are the real and fundamental divisions that have opened up between Obama and Clinton, who on the substance both happen to be mainstream centrists with essentially identical policy positions.  

    Parent

    Markos is riled up (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:55:54 AM EST
    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Kos' Roots Are Showing! (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:04:04 AM EST
    You can tell he used to be a Republican by the glee he takes in attacking Democratic groups (like the DLC), not to mention the equal amounts of glee he shows when supporting Blue Dogs.

    Parent
    I sure it will be referenced or (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:57:09 AM EST
    or cross posted you know where

    Parent
    yeah, right! nothing new! (none / 0) (#55)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:23:00 PM EST


    Parent
    Odd how it's Obama. . . (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:58:15 AM EST
    running the DLC middle way campaign this time out.

    Obama's team (like Clinton's) is largely made up of ex-Clinton staffers, including Dennis Ross whom I believe Clinton carried over from the Bush I White House.

    Shhhh (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:02:34 AM EST
    That's a secret at some blogs.

    Parent
    But he is the PROGRESSIVE (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:05:08 AM EST


    Parent
    Obama? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:08:02 AM EST
    I think he is. I do not like that he is running a DLC style campaign however.

    Parent
    I'm not sure (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by kredwyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:15:54 AM EST
    that he is as progressive as has been claimed by many.

    Parent
    I suspect Obama will turn out to be (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by sancho on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:30:40 AM EST
    as Progressive as Lieberman, should he ever have have a vote that counts (which he would as president).

    Parent
    The interesting dichotomy (none / 0) (#29)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:16:49 AM EST
    in this campaign is the focus on message vs. personality.

    You and I are all about the message.  We can agree that Obama has a much more progressive record than John Edwards, yet it's obvious to one and all that Edwards ran by far the more progressive campaign this cycle.  And that matters, or at least you and I think so.

    Others focus solely on record and personal qualities and don't really seem to think message means a whole lot except insofar as it affects whether you win or lose.  I guess it depends on whether you think Reagan's message played a big role in affecting the direction of the country, or whether it was all demographic destiny or something.

    Parent

    According To (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:28:35 AM EST
    GovTrack.us HRC is rated a radical Democrat. BHO is considered rank and file Democrat.

    Hillarious. I understand Obama's rating and agree, but Clinton a radical, what is that about?

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:31:42 AM EST
    There is not a dime's worth of difference, absent mandates, on what Hillary and Obama believe, there is a big difference on what they can do.

    Messages in campaigns matter more than just about anything for gaining a governing mandate. That is Reagan's lesson.

    I still favor Obama because Hillary carries too much baggage.  

    Parent

    for one thing, it doesn't work. (none / 0) (#56)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:23:39 PM EST
    and they have the losses to prove it.

    Parent
    Dennis Ross (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jen on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:50:55 AM EST
    was a major participant in the Scooter Libby Defense Fund:

    The Washington Note

    Considering that, it's sort of funny that Obama often uses the phrase "no more Scooter Libby type justice." LOL!!


    Parent

    Clinton is also running as a centrist (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Korha on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:28:27 PM EST
    They both are. Which is fine by me, because I'm a centrist.

    However I think it is laughable for Clinton partisans to attack Obama for being "DLC" or "triangulating" when in fact that is also the strategy being used by their own candidate. Hypocrisy at its finest.

    Parent

    Did you read this post (none / 0) (#74)
    by KellyK on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:17:37 PM EST
    Obama supporters have been attacking Clinton for this for a long time. It's called pointing out hypocrisy.

    Parent
    I don't think. . . (none / 0) (#76)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:32:10 PM EST
    anyone on the Clinton side is "attacking" Obama for running a DLC type campaign.  When I point it out that's all I'm doing -- pointing out the irony of the demento-sphere making a fetish out of calling Clinton the DLC candidate when it's at least equally applicable to Obama.

    Parent
    PS. (none / 0) (#13)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:04:31 AM EST
    Not a criticism of Dennis Ross, who I think has been excellent as a mideast negotiator.

    Parent
    So lets be clear (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:59:32 AM EST
    Its OK for Obama to reach to the otherside of the aisle, even suggesting that Hagel or others may be an integral part of his National Defense or Foreign Policy team...

    But it is completely out of line for Hillary to have a DLC member help her with debate prep...

    Logical disconnect?

    You don't understand (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:06:01 AM EST
    The DLC are Democrats, and therefore not eligible for the unity schtick.

    We're apparently going to open up the big tent and conduct a purity purge at the exact same time.

    Parent

    Oh...THAT kind of unity (none / 0) (#22)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:11:08 AM EST
    why didn't someone tell me earlier...man...if I knew that I wouldn't think Obama's campaign had a hypocrisy issue...(/snark)

    Parent
    i guess i better pack my bags and (none / 0) (#57)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:25:27 PM EST
    look at the train schedule then.

    Parent
    As I posted over there, it's odd that Kos (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by tigercourse on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:01:49 AM EST
    rails against the DLC, yet wants to see either Richardson or Sebelius as VP. His outrage is selective.

    By the way, SurveyUSA has some great news for us. In extremely wide polling (thousands or people) both Obama and CLinton beat McCain in electoral votes. What's more, they do it by winning different states. A combined ticket would be powerful.

    I think it's diary worthy. It can be found on SurveyUSA's front page.

    No, SUSA has Clinton beating McCain (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:13:11 AM EST
    but Obama at a tie with McCain. (Btw, new red-blue maps there, too, that made my day re my state.)

    Parent
    Here's a link (none / 0) (#66)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:47:00 PM EST
    to the SurveyUSA poll results via TPM.

    Both beat McCain...Obama beats him by slightly more electoral college votes than does Hillary.  Obama does better in the West and Hillary does well in Appalachia.  Hillary loses Oregon and Washington....

    Parent

    Here's a table of the results (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:51:29 PM EST
    Someone has been able to see the actual tables & results, which at present are apparently unavailable.....Here they are via a diary at Big Orange.

    Parent
    Yes, those are the stats I saw on the site (none / 0) (#68)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:54:07 PM EST
    and the ones I was citing -- thanks.

    Parent
    But in addition, the overall (none / 0) (#69)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:55:34 PM EST
    was tied 44 all between Obama and McCain but was 48-44 between Clinton and McCain.

    Parent
    Was that a national poll (none / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:12:18 PM EST
    or the aggregate of the state polls?

    Parent
    Different polls (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:16:06 PM EST
    The national poll you cite is of 1041 participants.....The 50 state individual polls are of 30,000 participants....

    Parent
    50 state polls are separate polls (none / 0) (#75)
    by tree on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:51:14 PM EST
    of 600 participants each.

    Parent
    The outrage just seems fauxer and fauxer... (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:02:02 AM EST
    ...with each passing day.

    Periodically (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:04:02 AM EST
    The boys get a case of the vapors, huffs and puffs and oh my gawds.  Hillary actually has relationships with people who happen to like her.  

    The latter (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:07:58 AM EST
    is more likely

    He did recently buy a house (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by blogtopus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:31:46 AM EST
    them mortgages get outta control, especially in the Bay Area.

    Funny how once the big bloggers start setting up 'communities' and have hired help, or have a pay firewall (like Greenwald) to get through, the jig is up.

    Maybe this explains why Atrios and Digby (and this site) still have their brains firmly attached to their bodies.

    Parent

    A person with GENUINE outrage (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:08:35 AM EST
    would not be so inconsistent.

    He's just throwing out the red meat.

    You don't know Kos (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:12:25 AM EST
    His outrage is absolutely genuine.

    Wrong, but genuine.

    Parent

    i know you're friends (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Turkana on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:11:29 AM EST
    but markos's credibility is shot. it's embarrassing.

    In criticizing Hillary? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:13:27 AM EST
    Certainly. A lot of people think mine is shot too.

    You can't worry about that. You write what you think. You evaluate the argument, not the person making the argument.

    Parent

    It's shot (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by rooge04 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:18:16 AM EST
    in that he used to be equal opportunity truth-teller. He became a joke when he decided to hop on the Obama train at the behest of his Orange masses.

    Parent
    Markos is a loose cannon (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:18:52 AM EST
    and that's mostly fine, but buying into the racism accusations represents a point of no return for me.  I'm not sure I'll ever feel like participating at that site again.

    Parent
    I may have just. . . (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:27:45 AM EST
    reach the breaking point with the current Canadian post.  It sounds like it were written by one of the less mature Obama-maniacs, not an A-list blogger.

    Parent
    It is rather um (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:29:29 AM EST
    wrong.

    Parent
    It is amazing to me (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:35:37 AM EST
    One day, the talking point from Camp Obama is that the whole affair was a hit job by the right-wing Canadian government (which, to some extent, it might have been for all I know).

    The very next day, when a paper reports that an official of the exact same right-wing Canadian government made the exact same accusation against Clinton that had supposedly been "debunked" with regard to Obama... suddenly what the right-wing Canadian government says is the 100% gospel truth!

    This is what I mean when I say we've lost tabs on the reality-based community.

    Parent

    Between you and me (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:37:13 AM EST
    I think both happened. There has been no debunking at all of Goolsbee's meeting.

    Clinton has better deniability.

    Parent

    I think it's likely. . . (none / 0) (#62)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:42:32 PM EST
    that it was Canada that approached the campaigns, rather than the other way around.  I've never been able to understand why either of the campaigns would be briefing a foreign government on a political issues during a campaign.  Much more likely that Canada, nervous, would have contacted them.

    Other than that, I assume that yes, both campaigns were approached and both tried to smooth ruffled feathers.

    Parent

    It's mendacious. (none / 0) (#46)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:36:30 AM EST
    It's not just wrong.

    And there's an update now which is ridiculous.  Absurd.  How anyone with any respect for their own reputation could write that post is beyond me.

    I'm sorry if this comment crosses the line into personal criticism (of Kos, not you) since I notice that another poster's comment was removed, presumably for that reason.  But if you don't want to see personal attacks on Markos you need to not post entries like this one.  It isn't itself a personal attack, but in the current overheated atmosphere it's like waving a red flag.

    Parent

    That is what the delete button is for (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:38:25 AM EST
    I wrote a post that challenges Kos's premise. Frankly, I think in devastating fashion.

    No need to attack him personally. Just his argument.

    Parent

    so please tell us generally what (none / 0) (#59)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:27:41 PM EST
    does it say or imply!

    Parent
    Loose cannons (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:29:06 AM EST
    run out of cannonballs. At this point, Kos on Hillary is not very impacting.

    Parent
    Never going there again (none / 0) (#63)
    by deathofrock on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:02:56 PM EST
    I've never participated at the DailyKos as an active member, or left comments. However, I have read his site daily since 2003 and donated money to several candidates he props. I have to say the Hillary hatred he and others spew is enough to make anyone sick.

    In one particular post, a comment was left about all of the scum who support her. I'm sorry, but my scum dollars aren't good enough to support anyone Kos supports anymore.

    Parent

    after yesterday (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Turkana on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:20:19 AM EST
    his arguments are no longer even worth evaluating.

    Parent
    Even more, you evaluate the evidence (none / 0) (#70)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:57:10 PM EST
    for the argument -- and that's where Markos has fallen down, as in that sharkjumping diary yesterday.

    Parent
    Never A Fan Of The DLC (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:16:27 AM EST
    but I find Obama's unity schtick far more objectionable. The Democratic Party under his lead is beginning to look more like Unity 08 all the time. You know if I wanted Republicans running Defense and State, I would vote Republican. Also, one of my pet peeves, why has Obama stated that there is a crisis with Social Security? I thought the Democrats spent months proving that there was no crisis with Social Security. Can't wait to see what other Republican agendas Obama will decide to champion if he becomes the nominee.

    On this, BTD, we agree ... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Meteor Blades on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:18:07 AM EST
    ...there is an unwillingness to judge some DLCer's advice equal to other DLCer's advice.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:27:34 AM EST
    I love Markos but he is clearly in the tank now. And I view his writings on Clinton skeptically.

    For example, his latest post takes as gospel that someone from the Clinton camp called the Canadian embassy about NAFTA and that Obama's advisor did not have the meeting.

    Reading the story, you can see it is merely repeating what was charged already - that A Clinton camp person called the Canadian embassy - a charge the Clinton camp has denied already.

    There is no refutation AT ALL nor could there be, that Goolsbee, Obama's advisor, met with the Canadian consulate in Chicago and said what he said.

    Frankly, to me it is a tempest in a teapot. Pols demagogue an issue? Man bites dog. Obama's camp blew it because they got caught in a lie and apparently had a face to face meeting.

    But for faux outrage, the story Kos fabulizes is enough.

    For the record, I bet BOTH camps did it. But the Clinton camp retained  better deniability.

    Parent

    I still (none / 0) (#53)
    by myed2x on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:14:59 PM EST
    am suspicious regarding a co-ordination not between Clinton and Harper, but between the Repubs and Harper...since the CPC is getting bruised and battered over this I hope this doesn't happen again as the process becomes Dem vs Repub in the presidential race...but keep an eye out for it.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:22:59 PM EST
    Probably true.

    Parent
    DLC (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Kate Stone on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:18:18 AM EST
    Much of what Obama is saying he will do -- centrist, moderate, reach across the aisle -- is straight out of the DLC playbook.  He is not progressive.  He is a fresh face.  And he is running against Hillary Clinton.

    My Recent Vote in Texas (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by helverings nag on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:23:56 AM EST
    was finally determined when I realized Obama (the alleged Progressive, netroots candidate) had surrounded himself with DLC, Third-Way, Chicago School advisors. To me that explained the NAFTA dustup, the earlier "Social Security in crisis" comments, and a whole host of other Freudian slips. I knew Clinton was DLC. I felt misled by the Obama campaign. Having said that, I will work for and vote without resevation for the whoever is the Democratic nominee in November.

    and it gives a preview of november (none / 0) (#60)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:29:22 PM EST
    and beyond! though personally i don't think there is a beyond with obama. the dnc will go on. they will continue to get their pay checks like after gore and kerry. no skin off their hides! naw! business as usual screwing up campaigns.

    Parent
    thanks (none / 0) (#52)
    by myed2x on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:11:33 PM EST
    for full picture on that BTD, it's appreciated.

    I know (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:26:03 PM EST
    We're not supposed to call Kos names.

    But what if the names are accurate??

    For (none / 0) (#61)
    by tek on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:36:34 PM EST
    the hundredth time I just don't get this.  Rahm Emanual was the first person to come out and reprimand Bill Clinton and tell him that he had to shut up and stop criticizing Obama.  Rahm Emanual is as much the DLC as anybody out there.

    I do find it amusing (none / 0) (#71)
    by ChrisO on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:02:49 PM EST
    that many Obama supporters seem to think a story has been "debunked" because the Obama campaign has officially denied it. I can't count the number of times a commenter has declared a topic off limits because it has been "disproven." The issue of Obama's present votes comes to mind.

    Team DLC? | 72 comments (72 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment