Edwards founding member of DLC group with Lieberman

[Radical Activist]

Let's take a trip down memory lane and remember than John Edwards was a founding member of the Senate New Democrat Coalition in 2000. It was the Congressional arm of the DLC.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=426&kaid=103&subid=111

The fact that people are presenting Edwards as the more progressive choice in this election blows my mind. Obama has the record to back up the rhetoric. Obama didn't just discover that he's a progressive like some Johnny-come-liberal lately. Edwards shift in his views and rhetoric from his Senate career to today makes him a bigger flip-flopper than Clinton ever was.

Despite the spin and distortion of Obama's words as supposed "right wing talking points" those who have watched Obama's career know that he has the consistent progressive record and he hasn't changed. Obama is the one who has always stood up throughout his career for labor, choice, the environment, equal rights, and getting rid of corporate influence in politics.

Anyone who has worked as a left wing community organizer like Obama has knows that unity is the first step toward change.

[TeamJordan23]

1. I agree, Obama has stayed consistent his whole life. Edwards just recently became a 'populist.' nm

[laureloak]

39. That's a lie. Get your facts straight.

[dogishboy]

2. "Obama didn't just discover that he's a progressive "

That's right. Too bad he did just forget that he's a progressive

[Radical Activist]

11. Please.

Because a few blogs and writers backing Edwards are eager to spin everything Obama says that suddenly makes him conservative? Because Edwards throws out more read meat to progressives in his stump speech? Some of us look beyond a slick stump speech to what the candidate has actually done. That's why I support Obama. His platform is entirely progressive.

[dogishboy]

22. No, because Obama repeats right wing arguments

and attacks democratic constituencies like trial lawyers, boomers, seniors, activists from the 60's and GLBT's

[Radical Activist]

29. "Uses right wing arguments."

I'm sure that if someone wanted to play the same game as Edwards supporters are playing that anyone could comb through Edwards speeches and find enough lines that someone could spin as "right wing arguments" in the same way people have done to Obama. It wouldn't be that hard. Obama has never attacked any of those groups.

[dogishboy]

32. A non-denial denial

Go ahead and "play the same game as Edwards supporters are playing"

See if I care

But I noticed you can't refute my claim that Obama uses right wing arguments.

[Radical Activist]

33. When you provide no examples

and offer no proof of your argument then there's nothing there to refute. And I know the tired old stuff you'll post if you decide to cut and paste something. Its all tortured spin.

[dogishboy]

35. I gave examples

from my earlier post:

"trial lawyers, boomers, seniors, activists from the 60's and GLBT's"

[onehandle]

3. Edwards is worse than Hitler.

That's why the ultra-right Ralph Nader endorsed him.

Cherry picking the "DLC" word. Sad.

[melody]

5. lol - yup n/t

[OKNancy]

9. LOL - just like a lot of the weird stuff posted here

Just because Edwards once was in the DLC doesn't make him a Republican or a bad guy...any more than Bill Clinton being friendly with papa Bush makes him a rightwinger.. BFD as far as I'm concerned.

[onehandle]

10. Bill Clinton eats kittens.

How dare you mention that monster here!

[aquart]

16. Eats kittens with puppy sauce. Tastier that way.

[Radical Activist]

12. Cherry picking?

It was an important part of Edwards career. I'm glad Edwards has a liberal message today. He does say excellent things that I like to hear. But some of us do care about looking at a persons record before they swing left to pander to liberal primary voters. That's why I didn't support Dean either. The new rhetoric didn't match the record. That's how you know someone.

How do I know Edwards won't move back to the middle when it becomes politically expedient like he did as a Senator?

[onehandle]

21. Name a candidate who has a Real chance at winning the nomination who...

...won't move back to the middle on some issues when they are in office.

Democrat or Republican.

[Hieronymus]

58. Thanks .. your sense of humor is appreciated. The Hillaryites think

that because Edwards is rich and has a big house, he can't be a progressive. That would have come as a surprise to FDR, JFK, and RFK.

[onehandle]

60. I'm not impressed by three initial progressives.

I have four initials in my name. I'm 33.33% more progressive than those guys.

You know what else has three initials?

The DLC!

:+

[Hieronymus]

65. Wow, I really thought you had a sense of humor.

[melody]

4. Do we really have to insult each other? Can't we stick to problems of record and interpretation?

Edwards is far from perfect, but he has experience, he has fought the demon corporate monster in court, and he knows
the lay of the land.

I don't snipe at Obama with names, why do that to Edwards?

I really wonder sometimes if we don't have outsiders floating "working" talking points here, the way we attack each other
personally.

[Radical Activist]

19. I've seen every world Obama utters

spun and distorted by Edwards supporters who claim everything Obama says is a "right wing talking point." It goes from Sirota on down to every little blog on the internet. Its ridiculous and disingenuous.

This is part of Edwards' career. If calling Edwards DLC is an insult then there's no one to blame for that besides Edwards. He was part of the group. I didn't have to make something up or make a tortured spin on his words to claim he isn't a real Democrat like the threads attacking Obama.

[melody]

28. Calling him "Johnny Liberal" and various other things is an insult

And a petty one.

I've not said one bad word about Obama. In fact, Obama is my second choice. My only problem with him is the issue of his name
in the minds of the electorate and the fact I find him more troubling on a couple of issues. I have no need to insult him
or slam him without some kind of constructive critique. The same with Hillary.

Those who use the same tactics as the people they are criticizing have no right to complain, imo.

[OKNancy]

6. Obama is a moderate

He doesn't stike me as a progressive at all. All that non-partisan bullshit and let's work together with the Republicans sounds a lot like that Bloomberg group to me.

[robinlynne]

8. AGreed. if it weren't for that sit at the table with the right talk, I would like him.

But I really think it is now clear that the right needs to be taken out. They do not negotiate.

[Radical Activist]

13. His record is progressive.

Look beyond the spin on his words.

[last1standing]

7. So do we support someone who recants being DLC or someone who endorses it?

I love these false arguments and half-truths people try to fool others with. They must believe themselves to be much more clever than normal DUers.

[Radical Activist]

15. Who endorsed it? Clinton?

I'll take the candidate who has never endorsed or been part of the DLC: Obama.

[wyldwolf]

26. but Obama's policy proposals are as DLC as they come

[denem]

40. Bingo

For some reason Obama wants to be elected.

[wyldwolf]

25. who has recanted it?

[dogishboy]

36. Edwards recanted being DLC?

In which dimension?

[Pastiche423]

42. johnnyboy sure has had to recant a whole slew of things, hasn't he?

That's because his spiel these days does not reflect what he has done and what he "was".

Have you even read his voting history?

[last1standing]

44. You use Molly's avatar but haven't bothered to check out her best book?

http://www.amazon.com/You-Dance-Them-What-Brung/dp/0679754873

I hope that helps because you obviously need some rudimentary lessons about politics. Another lesson you could use would be about catching flies with honey, but i don't suppose more than one thing at a time for you would be effective.

(I would have been much more polite about this if you hadn't been so snide with your post).

[Pastiche423]

46. I wasn't being snide

I was being truthful. Not a word in my post was not true.

[last1standing]

48. Maybe this will help you with your understanding of the word "snide"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/snide

snide (snd)
adj. snid·er, snid·est
Derogatory in a malicious, superior way.

snidely adv.
snideness n.

When you post as you did, you are being snide just as I am now. How does it feel?

[Pastiche423]

49. Sorry you can't handle the truth

[last1standing]

50. LOL! I guess that wasn't a snide post either.

You either need to learn how to read or how to lie better because neither is really working that well for you.

[Pastiche423]

52. I haven't lied yet

[last1standing]

53. You either lied or did not know the meaning of the word "snide". Your choice.

Because you were snide, which does not mean "to lie". Unless, of course, that is how you talk to friends, family and co-workers. If that's the case then we just converse on different levels. Personally, I try to be polite to people until they are rude to me as you were. After that, I'm either going to ignore you or play with you. You just happened to fit into playtime.

Now if you'd like to begin discussions in a polite, positive manner, I'd be happy to do the same.....

[The Traveler]

14. Edwards

Has been speaking out for the poor for over a decade. He's been wrong about a lot of things, but he has been on the right side of that discussion for a long, long time.

Unity cannot be the first step. Unity is the result of conducting an honest debate. An honest debate cannot happen without the exposure of truth. The exposure of truth will require investigation of recent American history and revelation of those results to the American people. As just one example, like many others I suspect many members of the Bush administration are guilty of war crimes according to international law. If so, do we achieve unity by sweeping that under the rug? Or do we accept the division that will be inevitable result of seeking justice? I myself do not see this as a easily resolved matter. The topic of corporatist influence and control of government function can turn out to be an even more delicate matter, but that one is not a discussion we can long avoid.

We can get together and sing around the camp fire ... but that is meaningless unless a new and honest consensus is achieved, and the nation is not there yet.

[Radical Activist]

17. Ask a union organizer....

There is nothing corporate CEO's fear more than a public unified to work together on their common interests. You can never combat corporate power without unified public support behind you. It takes more than a fiery speech.

[The Traveler]

54. I think we were talking about different

levels of unity. About 1/3 of the population still thinks the Bushistas are cool and that the corporatist plunder of America is the way to go. I think it will be difficult to find a unified stance with them.

[GreenArrow]

55. Edwards: Right message (mostly)

Wrong messenger.

[CoffeeCat]

18. Al Gore was also a DLCer...

Let's travel ACCURATELY down memory lane.

The DLC, of which Al Gore was a member, was once a place where more centrist Democratic
views were represented. This back when "centrist" meant some decent, reasonable things.

Today's DLC has been hijacked by the neocon wing of the Democratic party. They're
warmongering toadies.

Yes, Edwards was a part of this in 2000. So much has happened in the past eight years.
During those years the DLC has slowly morphed into a nest of corrupt, corporate-centered
yahoos. Anyone can see the John Edwards is not a part of that mess.

It makes sense that both Al Gore and John Edwards took time off from the Senate, after losing
elections, and emerged more populist and progressive. Being away from DC can do two things to you.
You either decide you want a piece of the power-elite warmongering, corporatist pie--and become
a consultant or a lobbyist---or you grow, change and decide that enough is enough.

It's obvious that Edwards has grown since his time away from government. I believe that running
with Kerry forever changed him. He saw America up-close-and-personal and it moved him. His
empirical experiences only further cemented his populist ideals and concern for those who
are underprivileged.

Edwards was on the DLC course, but he jumped off of that train long ago. He also had the
decency and fortitude to denounce the Iraq war and admit that his vote was a mistake. I like
a man who admits mistakes and can learn from them.

I'm an Obama precinct captain, but I will stand up for John Edwards any day. Both Edwards and
Obama are fighting to take on extraordinary challenges and I applaud them both.

[Usrename]

20. Obama chose Lieberman as his mentor in the Senate.

If you want to play "guilt by association" then you should watch out for the shitheads that Obama holds near and dear.

And I know, we all heard about Lieberman's progressive record during his race with Ned Lamont.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ShadesOfGrey]

43. Yep and Obama endorsed Lieberman over anti-war Lamont...

in last years democratic primary. Edwards endorsed Lamont.

[saracat]

23. As was Gore.Gonna throw him over too?

[Jane Austin]

24. Good post!

Very clear and well written.

Nothing to get in the way of your point.

[Yael]

27. He came to my house party last weekend and ate a live baby

We simply cannot allow this man to be President!!!11!1!

:silly:

[IndyOp]

30. DLC founded in 1985 - John was fighting for little girl with CP

The DLC was founded in 1985. The past chairs include former President Bill Clinton, former Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa, Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, former Rep. Dave McCurdy of Oklahoma, former Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana, former Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia, former Sen. Charles Robb of Virginia, and former House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri.

Your post is referring to one temporary committee in the Senate that supported one DLC policy -- did you post false information on purpose?

In 1985, Edwards represented a five-year-old child born with cerebral palsy whose doctor did not choose to perform an immediate Caesarian delivery when a fetal monitor showed she was in distress. Edwards won a $6.5 million verdict for his client, but five weeks later, the presiding judge sustained the verdict but overturned the award on grounds that it was "excessive" and that it appeared "to have been given under the influence of passion and prejudice," adding that in his opinion "the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict." He offered the plaintiffs half of the jury's award, but the child's family appealed the case and settled for $4.25 million. Winning this case established the North Carolina precedent of physician and hospital liability for failing to determine if the patient understood risks of a particular procedure.

On edit: On careful read, the author of the OP is referring to specific committee that is associated with the DLC, not to the DLC itself. So the author of the OP was not wrong as I had originally asserted in this reply. I was wrong.

[Radical Activist]

31. Read the link, My post is accurate.

It is a group closely affiliated with the DLC, thus making it "a DLC group." That's what I wrote.
It wasn't just about one policy either. It was the DLC caucus in the Senate and it still exists today.

[IndyOp]

37. You are right. I read your post more carefully and you did refer in your

OP to a specific committee that is associated with the DLC, not to the DLC itself.

I dislike your post because it reads, to me, as a slam against Edwards. I disagree with you that Edwards is a corporate candidate and that Obama is less so.

Barack Obama Inc.: The birth of a Washington machine

<snip>

A man more suited to the tastes of reform-minded Americans could hardly be imagined: he is passionate, charming, and well-intentioned, and his desire to change the culture of Washington seems deeply held and real.

<snip>

Since coming to Washington, Obama has advocated for the poor, most notably in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and has emerged as a champion of clean government. He has fought for restrictions on lobbying, even as most of his fellow Democrats postured on the issue while quietly seeking to gut real reform initiatives. In mid-September, Congress approved a bill he co-authored with Oklahoma’s arch-conservative senator, Tom Coburn, requiring all federal contracts and earmarks to be published in an Internet database, a step that will better allow citizens to track the way the government spends their money.

Yet it is also startling to see how quickly Obama’s senatorship has been woven into the web of institutionalized influence-trading that afflicts official Washington. He quickly established a political machine funded and run by a standard Beltway group of lobbyists, P.R. consultants, and hangers-on. For the staff post of policy director he hired Karen Kornbluh, a senior aide to Robert Rubin when the latter, as head of the Treasury Department under Bill Clinton, was a chief advocate for NAFTA and other free-trade policies that decimated the nation’s manufacturing sector (and the organized labor wing of the Democratic Party). Obama’s top contributors are corporate law and lobbying firms (Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden, Arps, where four attorneys are fund-raisers for Obama as well as donors), Wall Street financial houses (Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase), and big Chicago interests (Henry Crown and Company, an investment firm that has stakes in industries ranging from telecommunications to defense). Obama immediately established a “leadership PAC,” a vehicle through which a member of Congress can contribute to other politicians’ campaigns—and one that political reform groups generally view as a slush fund through which congressional leaders can evade campaign-finance rules while raising their own political profiles.

Already considered a potential vice-presidential nominee in 2008, Obama clearly has abundant political ambitions. Hence he is playing not only to voters in Illinois—a reliably Democratic and generally liberal state—but to the broader national audience, as well as to the Democratic Party establishment, the Washington media, and large political donors. Perhaps for this reason, Obama has taken an approach to his policymaking that is notably cautious and nonconfrontational. “Since the founding, the American political tradition has been reformist, not revolutionary,” he told me during an interview at his office on Capitol Hill this summer. “What that means is that for a political leader to get things done, he or she ideally should be ahead of the curve, but not too far ahead. I want to push the envelope but make sure I have enough folks with me that I’m not rendered politically impotent.”

The question, though, is just how effective—let alone reformist—Obama’s approach can be in a Washington grown hostile to reform and those who advocate it. After a quarter century when the Democratic Party to which he belongs has moved steadily to the right, and the political system in general has become thoroughly dominated by the corporate perspective, the first requirement of electoral success is now the ability to raise staggering sums of money. For Barack Obama, this means that mounting a successful career, especially one that may include a run for the presidency, cannot even be attempted without the kind of compromising and horse trading that may, in fact, render him impotent.

[struggle4progress]

57. No, it's not accurate -- and it's been debunked repeatedly. From the DLC website:

DLC | Overview | December 1, 2001
About the Senate New Democrat Coalition

Senators Evan Bayh (IN), Bob Graham (FL), Mary Landrieu (LA), Joe Lieberman (CT) and Blanche Lincoln (AR) founded the Senate New Democrat Coalition (SNDC) in the spring of 2000 ... http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=250061&kaid=103&subid=111

Notice a name missing?

[Radical Activist]

62. He was no longer a Senator at the time of your link.

That's why he isn't listed. He is named in the link in my post above. You can check. You've debunked nothing.

[struggle4progress]

67. Nope ... you're wrong. Edwards WAS a Senator in December 2001. But DLC changed its story. And

Edwards was first elected (to a 6 year Senate term) in 1998.

Your link shows that in 2000, with its now familiar dishonest huff-n-puffery, the DLC tried to claim him as one of their own. But my link shows that in 2001 the DLC had to back down

[sandyd921]

38. Isn't an important goal of the progressive movement

for Democratic politicians to move away from DLC/centrist positions and toward left/progressive positions? The link you cite is from March 2000. It's been a number of years since John Edwards has been associated with the DLC. In fact there is a strong case to be made that he underwent a meaningful conversion to left/progressive ideology well before the current electoral cycle. By 2003 the National Journal ranked him as 4th most liberal in the Senate. In the years since he served in the Senate most of his positions on issues have been consistent with progressive viewpoints. Would you have preferred that he remained centrist or moved further to the right?

I believe that his current positions may in fact be more consistent with his working class background and years of fighting against corporations as a trial lawyer than his years in the Senate in which he represented a "red" state at a time when the right-wing smear machine was at it's height (and the progressive/left blogosphere and other progressive media were in their infancy). The period he was in the Senate represents a much smaller portion of his career than his many years as a trial lawyer.

I admire him and the legions of others who have come to a realization about what the right-wing regressive forces and corporate/money interests have done to this country. I myself, though a life-long liberal, spouted more "centrist" positions during the 90's and prior to 2004. As I began to read and research my beliefs also evolved and moved me back toward strongly progressive/leftist beliefs. I have every reason to believe that John Edwards has made a similar journey over the last several years.

[ToeBot]

41. Your argument would only make sense if Obama were a progressive - he ain't. nt

[TeamJordan23]

47. Progressive like Obama were against the Iraq War, your candidate was a co-sponsor for it

By co-sponsoring the Iraq War Resolution bill.

[last1standing]

51. But of course you know that Obama continues to fund the war.

Where's the difference other than one person has discontinued his support?

[ShadesOfGrey]

45. Was Obama's endorsement of LIEberman last year progressive? nt

[candymarl]

56. Al Gore is also a former DLCer

I don't think anyone can accuse him now of being a faux populist. People change. I think what changed Edwards was the 2004 election. I think he realized something went terribly wrong. Sometimes it takes an event like that to change a person. Also, good leader can change with the needs and times of his constituents. FDR was hardly a raging liberal when he first took office. Yet the wealthy right-wing ended up despising him because he put the needs of the average American over their needs.

[onehandle]

61. Al Gore should be deported!

DLCer! DLCer! DLCer!

[mtnsnake]

59. You lost me as soon as you said Clinton was a flip-flopper

I think you meant Kerry because no Clinton was ever a flip-flopper.

[eridani]

63. Edwards has moved left; Liebermann has gone way around the bend in the other direction n/t

[killbotfactory]

64. If you look at records, Obama has the best one

But I guess talk is more important than results, to some people.

[OneBlueSky]

66. why does everyone want to castigate "flip-flopping?" . . .

if someone flip-flops from a right wing corporate position to a progressive one, I see no problem with that . . . maybe the added experience of living longer under corporate-fascist rule has awakened and enlightened him . . .