I'm thinking they have both won their respective parties.....

[PatGund]

The more I'm thinking about it, the more I'm starting to realize something.

Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton have both won their respective parties nominations.

Sen. Obama is clearly winning the nomination as the choice for the Democratic National Committee, showing how well the Gov. Howard Dean 50 state strategy programme has worked for the DNC and their policies.

Sen. Clinton is clearly winning the nomination as the choice for the Democratic Leadership Council, continuing the policies of the DLC, Terry McAuliffe, and other "New Democrats". (Indeed, Sen. Clinton's campaign is operating as a virtual "Shadow DNC", with as few ties to the Dean-led DNC as they possibly can. And she has already said the DNC's rules are not her campaign rules.)

If Sen. Obama wins the nomination and the General Election, it will be a significant defeat against the DLC, damaging their best chance for a resurgence of their power and hinder their efforts to control the DNC. More "New Democrats" would follow Sen. Kerry and Gov. Richardson out of the New Democrat camp as well. The best chance they would have to regain power would be lost.

If Sen. Clinton won the nomination and lost the General Election, it would also significantly damage or ruin the DLC.

However, the DLC could regain power under the following two circumstances.

If Sen. Clinton wins the nomination and the General Election, it would be a stunning coup for the DLC. The Dean-led DNC would be damaged or destroyed. The 50-state strategy would be cast aside in favour of the DLC's limited "safe state" policies. (I suspect a quid-pro-pro arrangement would be given the Democratic parties in Florida and Michigan giving them additional influence in the DLC-controlled DNC.)

If Sen. Obama wins the nomination and loses the General Election, then the DLC is positioned for a take-over of the DNC as well, sadly "tsk-tsking" and using the defeat to exercise DLC control yet again. Expect states to be marginalized or ignored again in favour of the "third way" policies of the New Democrats.

So basically we have two parties calling themselves Democrats. The primaries and elections will show which party wins control of the DNC - the "Democrats from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" like Gov, Dean, or the "GOP-Lite" New Democrats like Carville or McAuliffe. It's not in the DLC's interest to see an Obama win or a Clinton loss - which means if Sen. Obama gets the nomination, you will see the DLC talking heads acting like a de-facto third party to undercut the DNC and Sen. Obama, the better to position a DLC choice for 2012. And if Sen. Clinton gets the nomination, there will be pressure to bring all Democrats in line under DLC control.

So in retrospect, it may be more accurate to say that we're not looking at a choice between people in the same party, but two parties both trying to get the rights to call themselves the "Democratic Party"

[boppers]

1. Worth a kick.

Decently balanced, without a whole lot of coloring, too.

[FlyingSquirrel]

3. Ya, except that it was posted twice within 15 mins with slightly different OP line

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5228386

[PatGund]

self delete

[gateley]

6. Since you were so chagrined you felt the need to

explain twice, I went ahead and recommended. :7

[PatGund]

7. Laugh!

Thanks!

[FlyingSquirrel]

9. Now you're down to 1 thread left for GDP, what will you ever do?

:)

[PatGund]

14. Wait a day?

It's not like I post new topics much anyway :-)

[PatGund]

4. AcK!!!

I was having problems posting earlier, I didn't think it went though!

[NoBushSpokenHere]

2. OMG you nailed it mostly...

It is like we have two separate parties... maybe there should be a DLC forum and "They" could go there and let us stay in the REAL DEMOCRATIC FORUM!

[PatGund]

16. They're acting like two parties already....

....just basically become a fight between them as to who gets the title "Democratic"

[4themind]

5. My thoughts as well

it's not just a battle between two differing platforms on issues like health care/immigration etc. but on philosophy on the best way to gain and maintain power for the democratic party.

[mac2]

11. They are more alike than different.

The are from the Congressional frat club who gave Bush everything he wanted. They refuse to impeach or hold the thugs accountable.

[Exilednight]

8. The DLC is a failed policy, and here is why............

Bill Clinton put the 17 strategy in place in his second year in office, and we lost the House and Senate to the Repugs. He managed to win reelection, but we didn't take back the Congress until Dean took over the DNC with his 50 state strategy.

The DLC is permanently damaged. If Obama wins the nomination, but loses the GE, the people will blame Hillary for bashing him in the primary and splitting the party. Whether there is truth in that statement, or not, is irrelevant. The general public does not follow politics to the same degree as we on this board do. Perception is reality, and if he loses in the GE you know that the MSM will lay blame to Hillary and cast her as the villain.

The only way the DLC could secure their power is if Hillary wins the nomination and then wins the GE.

The mass majority of Democrats have no idea who the DLC is and what their philosophy is, but the truth is, progressives who do know typically hate them.

[mac2]

10. Are there little "d" Democrats running in our party

who support the people and their mandate? They ignore us and act like 2006 election mandate never happened.

[LisaL]

12. Maybe they should split.

Then we all could vote for the nominee of choice in GE.

[Tatiana]

13. K&R for a very interesting and well-articulated theory. n/t

[PatGund]

15. Thank you! n/t

[LWolf]

17. Except that

your whole scenario is based on a mass misconception.

Obama is not "dlc." His positions, however, fit the dlc much better than they do the rest of the party.

The dlc wins with either of these candidates; with HRC, they get one of their own. With Obama, they get someone who stands for all the same things, without the dlc label.

If Obama represents the rest of the party, then the whole party, with the exception of the marginalized left wing, is now effectively dlc.