I propose tearing Hillary Clinton down until DLCers drop their drop Dean campaign

[BurtWorm]

If they want to play rough, they ought to get that wish.

PS: You can't tear Carville, Greenberg, Wittman, etc. down, as they're already down. You have to go after whom they're trying to prop up by going after Dean. I think it's Hillary.

[bigtree]

1. I don't think Hillary is directing the DLC'ers to the extent you suggest

Nor do I think she would put herself as squarely in their camp as some folks would place her.

[BurtWorm]

3. Who else benefits from this apparently coordinated attack?

Besides Republicans, of course.

[LoZoccolo]

5. So will taking phrases from Lenin, by the way. n/t

[bigtree]

9. I agree that they WANT her to benefit

but, so do liberals who support her. Her appeal isn't as one-dimensional as some would argue.

[BurtWorm]

12. The point is to smack the DLCers down.

To stop taking their shit. It's an outrage what they're doing.

[bigtree]

27. Go after the 'shit' they do then

I all for it. It's the generalizations that bother me. The labeling doesn't seem honest to me. It actually detracts from the issues that are of concern and drives away some would-be supporters of causes we need support on by forcing them to choose between groups the candidates don't even identify themselves with. It's a useful measure between parties, but, it's mostly counterproductive to play into efforts to divide our own party.

[BurtWorm]

32. I would agree if the DLCers would behave themselves.

But they're the ones who acted up.

[sui generis]

74. it is useful to identify ideological schism

but you are correct - we can't complain about disunity in the party and then be divisive ourselves.

In my estimation we all agree on most of the social issues: healthcare, living wage, budget, education, national security and foreign relations.

But to the hardcore "moderates" (isn't that a funny thought), who incidentally despise "liberals" and "progressives" as being too unpopular and risky to support, issues like regulating second hand smoke have the same weight as issues like gays being able to care for their families and women having complete autonomy over their own bodies and reproduction.

It is not the same thing, and the inability to distinguish on a subject that important makes those so-called "moderates" or centrists or whatever they're calling themselves this hour not worthy of setting the direction for all of us in the party.

When gay civil rights and reproductive rights issues are tabled or dropped because they fear losing democrats in the next election cycle, they're going to have to keep them tabled and dropped to remain elected.

That's not leadership. So that means that we have to step up and be responsible and participate in our own future, in the direction of the party, and not sit back and wait to be told that they always know what's best for us.

We really can bring unity simply by not letting ourselves get run over and browbeaten by these strident characters. Ironically they are the most strident about the crap that concerns them the least. We'll just have to relieve them of that burden.

[BurtWorm]

77. You've got a couple of award worthy posts in this thread.

:toast:

I apologize for my own stridency. I agree with everything you've said in your posts in this thread.

[sui generis]

85. hola chico

Thanks for the props -

I never think of your posts as strident - sometimes we all conduct "thought experiments" to figure out what it is we think about something. That's what we're supposed to be able to do here - learn and grow and figure things out.

Yeah, I was on a thread yesterday where some surprising people were circling and saying they hated liberals, and the namecalling "suicide doves" came up and was even defended; so that kind of put me in this frame of mind. The person in question had a brain hemorrhage through the rectum meltdown and got the thread pruned, I imagine to preserve what was left of his credibility.

It's surprising to see it here, but I guess also reality. Nature abhors a vacuum, and in a real open democracy somebody is always willing to step in and put on the mantle of dictator, to fill what they perceive is an absence of leadership.

Whichever flavor of dictator, evil despot or benign dictator, it all still smells like ass. :P

:hi:

[mom cat]

45. We need to stop them from sabotaging the victory of the people,

and that will be a fight indeed. Where there is power there will be power struggles and I am not about to go into my cocoon and pretend that everything is ok!

[LoZoccolo]

2. Go ahead.

People throwing a spaz on DU about Hillary will boost Hillary's appeal to the general public.

20000 Sister Souljah moments all archived on the web.

[Deep13]

4. I'm not attacking anyone who may end up being our nominee.

She's not my first choice, but if nominated I want her to win.

[LoZoccolo]

7. No kidding.

John Kerry was hamstrung with Dean's "flip-flop" charge.

[Deep13]

21. Well, the corporate media did their part too.

[LoZoccolo]

26. Sure, and I also acknowledge other candidates did the same to Dean.

The disingenous race-baiting charges brought by the Republican-funded Al Sharpton were of the same nature.

[BurtWorm]

10. I don't care who is nominated at this point. I just want the Dean-trashing to stop.

And I think it should be done by any means necessary. If they want an intra-Democratic war, I think they will get one.

[LoZoccolo]

11. Then give people a reason to like Dean's strategies.

Duh.

[Deep13]

23. He won.

Duh.

[EFerrari]

24. You mean there are people out there who don't know we just swept

the elections?

Man, that's hard to believe.

[LoZoccolo]

33. I'm not taking a side on that.

I'm just saying that anyone who really wants to make a point people will really believe will do so without intimidation tactics. I don't see that in trashing Hillary to get to Carville. It's so far removed from the real controversy that it doesn't mean anything to anyone outside of Carville-bashers.

Plus it'll never happen anyways.

[BurtWorm]

34. I'm saying that if Carville though he could intimidate grassroots Dems

he ought to be taught the error of his ways.

[LoZoccolo]

38. Go ahead.

You'll get the X number of people on DU who have already agreed with you for the past three days to reply to your whinefest and possibly raise enough distraction to pull the people who are taking responsibility to do what's necessary to get the kind of things you want into a time sink for a while. Bravo, bravo.

[BurtWorm]

44. Could you repeat that, please?

:wtf:

[LoZoccolo]

47. I think I just prefer letting you try and fail.

Some people have to learn the hard way.

[BurtWorm]

48. I can parse your position, just not the last post.

[LoZoccolo]

49. What are you asking then?

Please give me a specific question if you'd like an answer.

[BurtWorm]

55. Just what this means:

You'll get the X number of people on DU who have already agreed with you for the past three days to reply to your whinefest and possibly raise enough distraction to pull the people who are taking responsibility to do what's necessary to get the kind of things you want into a time sink for a while.

I got lost in the syntax, that's all.

[LoZoccolo]

57. OK.

- I forecast that your trashing of Hillary will amount to posting hit pieces of her on Democratic Underground.

- It is unlikely that you will convince anyone of anything that they don't already agree with.

- In the process of your trashing, you are likely to waste the time of people who are willing to actually do something useful for the Democratic Party.

[BurtWorm]

61. Thank you.

Now I understand your post.

[LSK]

90. ummm, thats what primaries are about?

:shrug:

[blm]

6. It's not just a Hillary thing, it's ALL Dems from the coverup wing of the party who

have targetted the anti-corruption, open government Democrats.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2741678&mesg_id=2741678

[Stephanie]

22. There you go. It's the coporatists Democrats vs. the populists

It's the Wellstonians vs. the Clintonites. Are you in the pockets of the lobbyists, or the people?

[blm]

28. I've heard for over ten years now DC is dividing into the Kennedy vs Clinton camps.

Policywise.

I thought it was an exaggeration until I read Clinton's book and witnessed his consistent and vocal support of Bush1 and Bush2 over the last 6 years.

[sui generis]

41. it is funny to be called "suicide doves" by them

as if they're some kind of noble "hawk"???

More like buzzards. Yeah - there is going to be a struggle for power within our party. Now that the inflatable gorilla of the republican party is losing air, they're going to turn their attention inward.

It's funny, there are two kinds of people. There are people who trust their party to do what's right for them, and don't give it much more thought. And there are people who browbeat the rest into submission or define them as "not real" democrats. Didn't you know you're not supposed to question benign authority any more than republican authority?

I didn't get that memo either. No, party politics is not about accepting what the messianic buzzards claim is best for us. They're like those impatient glaring drivers who shove themselves out into the intersection because the "doves" realize you can't cross the intersection in time without getting stuck out under a red light. They're not angry you held up traffic. They're angry you held them up.

Meanwhile they sit there in the intersection and end up holding up traffic going both directions. We don't need that kind of buzzardish judgement, and we shouldn't trust those kinds of drivers to know what's best for anyone but themselves.

[redqueen]

66. Love this post. Now the real work begins...

making sure the newly eleected Dems don't start playing kissyface with lobbyists now that they're in power... and holding all Dem feet to the fire.

[blm]

73. Well they're going to have to get used to being called COVERUP Dems by me.

And see how they deal with THAT in the primary debates.

Great post, sui. It's really pretty clear now, isn't it?

[bowens43]

8. yeah, now that the election is over

let's start attacking Democrats!! That's a winning strategy!!

:sarcasm:

[BurtWorm]

15. I didn't start it. Carville and his pals started it.

And they ought to get the shit kicked out of them.

[SOS]

40. The attacker is Carville

and your'e absolutely right.
Carville's attack is indeed damaging to the Party.
But then again Carville hasn't had a winning strategy in 14 years, so at least he's staying true to form.

Gore/Miller!

[Cocoa]

13. I offer an alternate proposal

I say FIGHT all attempts to divide the party.

an example:

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/11/carvilles_still.html

As James Carville continues his crusade to oust Howard Dean as DNC chair, DCCC chair Rahm Emanuel wants to concilliate.

According to sources in the DNC and DCCC, Emuanel called Dean this morning to distance himself from the tone and general tenor of Carville's remarks. In a short conversation, Emanuel acknowledged that he shared some of Carville's opinions about the DNC's priorities but said he did not share Carville's wish that Dean ought to be ousted as DNC chair.

Dean called Emanuel on election night, and the two had a friendly conversation, according to sources affiliated with both men.

When their schedules permit, Dean and Emanuel will meet privately to discuss their plans for the 2008 cycle. Both sides hope to reach, in advance, an understanding about how the Democratic party committees will fund state parties and candidate committees.

After the private meeting, the two will likely take their rapprochement public.

[jobycom]

14. I propose ignoring anyone (from Carville to DUers) who tear ANY Dem down

instead of getting on with the job of rebuilding. Carville's sour grapes whine needs to be ignored. We've got better things to do than worry about kicking the losing side while they are down.

I'm no big Dean fan, and I think he's a bit ineffective, and I wonder if Carville even has a point, but I'd like to kick him the frickin' teeth for worrying about that right now. Whether Dean got lucky with the changing mood of the nation or whether he single-handedly snatched Congress from the crushing jaws of the Republican grendel, I don't care. We won. You don't change the formula when you are winning. Yea, Dean! Shut up, James. Now, let's worry about investigating the bad guys.

[ellacott]

19. I agree, ignore him

Shut him out of all decision making.

Please stop talking about fighting, we are so much smarter than that.

We have to learn how to strategize instead of shooting ourselves in the foot and giving the media and right ammunition to attack us.

[BurtWorm]

25. He ought to get publicly smacked by someone like Emanuel or Hillary herself.

Even if they're insincere and secretly love the damage he's doing, the right thing to do is stick the shiv right back into Carville's gut, if he still has one.

[LoZoccolo]

16. Funny how netroots don't do much but whine, disapprove, and ignore.

I don't mind, though; it keeps the self-indulgent people who'll tear down the Democrats if it feels good but don't get off their ass and take responsibility for getting what they want sequestered and occupied in an infinite loop of banging their head against the wall and insecure hero-worship.

[SOS]

37. So the "whiners"

who "don't get off their ass and take responsibility" didn't vote on 11/7?
Interesting analysis.

[LoZoccolo]

39. Ah, you got me!

Yeah, that's the only other thing they do though.

That's why they're content, instead of actually participating in democracy and being compelling and getting more people to support what they want, threaten to vote Green when (surprise!) people don't just hand them a candidate they want, or try to push a primary candidate through who'll sink the general election and fuck the rest of us over due to their laziness and unwillingness to take responsibility for being politically effective.

[More Than A Feeling]

83. Don't mess with people's primary choices.

"or try to push a primary candidate through who'll sink the general election and fuck the rest of us over due to their laziness and unwillingness to take responsibility for being politically effective."

If you don't like it when other people promote candidates you think are "unelectable", then don't vote for the candidate. But the primary is where we hash things like this out, and denying that people have the right and even the duty to promote whoever best represents them is over the line.

[LoZoccolo]

92. It's ridiculous to "express yourself" with a primary candidate.

No, it's not where we "hash things out", it's where we make a decision, one that will work or not work. These are not my rules; this is what happens regardless of whether or not you or I believe it will happen or not.

If at primary time, there is no winnable candidate that matches your point of view, it is because people do not share your point of view, and you have failed to take responsibility for making a compelling case so that they do share your point of view, or you have failed to disseminate that point of view. Your responsibility.

Punishing other Democrats for not sharing every one of your points of view by making sure that none of those points of view get carried into real elective office is unfair and irresponsible.

I don't deny people the right to vote for whoever they want, but I also have the right to point out where it will not do them any good to exercise the right without taking responsibility to truly get what they want (or at least more of what they want).

[More Than A Feeling]

93. Well, let me tell you a few things...

"If at primary time, there is no winnable candidate that matches your point of view, it is because people do not share your point of view, and you have failed to take responsibility for making a compelling case so that they do share your point of view, or you have failed to disseminate that point of view. Your responsibility."

Oh, so you agree with me then about people having a duty to make the case for who represents them the best. That's excellent. I'm assuming that there will be at lease one candidate who represents everyone's vision, whether you are to the right (Bayh, Vilsack, Hillary) or the left(Clark, Edwards) or even in the middle (Dodd, Biden). "Winnable" doesn't enter into it. Let everyone vote for their most representative candidate, even if its someone you have decided is "unwinnable". Let the chips fall where they may. Everyone takes a risk, and then when its all over, everyone falls in line for the general.

"Punishing other Democrats for not sharing every one of your points of view by making sure that none of those points of view get carried into real elective office is unfair and irresponsible."

When someone disagrees with you, and expresses that disagreement through their primary vote, that's punishment? I thought it was democracy. Under your view, you might as well cast their vote for them, since you've apparently decided they can't handle it. Make your case on the merits of your candidate (not on hammering other candidates as "unwinnable"), and fall in line if you lose. It's the same advice I'd give to any candidate's supporter.

"I don't deny people the right to vote for whoever they want, but I also have the right to point out where it will not do them any good to exercise the right without taking responsibility to truly get what they want (or at least more of what they want)."

Sure you have that right, but I think each of us can determine how best to get what we want, without someone else like you to instruct us. It shows a profound disrespect to presume to lecture others on how they are holding back the team because they vote for whom they choose, when it isn't a choice approved by conventional wisdom. Again, it makes it sound like you think that you are more qualified than someone else to cast their vote.

[LoZoccolo]

94. "'Winnable' doesn't enter into it."

It does in the general election, whether you deny it, or I deny it, or not.

Let the chips fall where they may.

I think I've made it clear; there are people who take responsibility and people who haven't.

When someone disagrees with you, and expresses that disagreement through their primary vote, that's punishment?

Yes. You just don't seem to grok that a vote is a decision with consequences, and none of this will make sense until you do. If it is not a decision with consequences, then why do it?

This is not my lesson to teach you; it's your lesson to learn. Tragically, other people probably have to suffer the consequences of your learning the hard way more than you do.

Sure you have that right, but I think each of us can determine how best to get what we want, without someone else like you to instruct us.

That makes no sense. If people disagree on how to best get something, only one of them can be right and then it's not true that each of us can determine how best to get what we want.

It shows a profound disrespect to presume to lecture others on how they are holding back the team because they vote for whom they choose, when it isn't a choice approved by conventional wisdom.

I hope so. Fielding candidates for sport and vanity in a country where the Republicans kill hundreds of thousands of people is something worthy of disrespect.

[smoogatz]

51. Oh for Christ's sake.

What a stupid fucking assertion that is. No surprise, considering the source.

[LoZoccolo]

58. It's not just an assertion; I have proof!

It's at this link!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss

[xultar]

17. Huffington also ripped Dean. Shouldn't you tear her down too?

This has got to be the dumbest post I've ever seen on DU.

[BurtWorm]

18. Huffington is not a "Dem strategist"

[ananda]

20. If Hillary C is the nominee..

.. duly elected in the primaries and all that,
then I wlll hold my nose and support her.

However, I think that the Democratic party
can do much better than that.

Also, I support Dean 150,000 percent.
We need Dean!

Emanuel and Dean may disagree, but I
don't think the party can do without Dean
and Emanuel realizes that... thus the
rapprochement.

Sue

[BurtWorm]

30. Carville needs to pay for his bizarre behavior this week.

If Emanuel put him up to it--and even if he didn't--he should deliver a public scolding to Carville.

[xultar]

46. Then buy a fucking ticket and take it to him. Don't litter DU with this crap.

[BurtWorm]

52. Democrats seem to be learning they don't have to take shit from Republicans

They don't have to take shit from Carville, Greenberg and the DLCers either. There have to be consequences for their actions. They should either shut up or get their asses punished.

I don't know if Hillary and Bill are behind Carville's mouthing off. Robert Reich implies that they might be. But if Carville thought he was benefiting Hillary, he might have to be taught that he wasn't.

[Caution]

29. Honestly? Who gives a crap? The ONLY people paying attention to this

are hard core wonks anyway. Dean will not and should not step down from head of the DNC, Hillary Clinton certainly isn't benefiting from Carville's stupidity, hell no one is. He is making himself look like a complete fool. "Hey you won. But you didn't win by 100 congress people so you suck" It's stupid and the only people who actually care about it are Republicans because the infighting makes them feel better about getting trounced.

If Senator Clinton succeeds in getting the nomination for 2008 I will vote for her and I hope you will too.

The idea of another 4 years of a Republican President is enough to make me ill.

[Straight Shooter]

31. Robert Reich makes the Dean-Carville-Clinton connection.

"Why are they gunning for Howard Dean?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2973729

[BuyingThyme]

35. Yes. This election was not a mandate for Hillary.

She's no more than a bandwagoneer.

[onehandle]

36. Rove would love that.

Angry Democrats attacking one of their most popular elected members creates more Republican voters.

Merry Christmas, Karl!

[BurtWorm]

43. Gift-wrapped by Mr. Matlin né Carville.

[William769]

42. Not happy not being in the spotlight?

[smoogatz]

50. Bad idea.

Even if she's not our preferred Presidential candidate for '08, she's still a fine Senator for the state of New York, and a real power-center/lightning-rod in the Dmeocratic Party. Attacking Hillary because of something Carville said is a bit like, well, invading Iraq because of 9/11.

[BurtWorm]

56. Unless Robert Reich is right and she's behind the attacks.

Or unless there's a clique of old-schoolers like Carville who think they can queen-make by taking back control of the party mechanisms.

But your analogy is well-put and well-taken. ;)

[smoogatz]

88. It's just the usual right/left power struggle within the party--

the corporate wing vs the Democratic wing, which is what Dean has been talking about since '03. Corporate Dems are really just socially liberal Republicans, and they're even willing to throw the socially liberal part under the bus if it means the difference in a national election. Dollars to donuts Carville was behind the swift-boating of Howard Dean (it seems pretty obvious now), and had a hand in maneuvering Kerry into position to win the nom (although once Dean was gone, Kerry was the only real remaining choice, IMO). To the extent that Carville is a creature of the Clintons, Reich may have a point. But I don't think that we as progressives have much to gain by going after Hillary at this point.

[BurtWorm]

91. Between you and me

neither do I. But I do still want Carville and his cronies to pay.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

53. why her? why not the men who are perpetrating the war against dean?

[xultar]

60. It's like attacking Reid for something Lieberman said. It's stoopid.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

62. yes but of all our politicians why do we always pick on her?

she is not my favorite senator but i think a lot of why we pick on her has to do with the fact that shes a clever female politician.

[BurtWorm]

67. I'm picking on her now because I think Carville means to do dirty work for her.

Whether she asked him to or not. But I pick on her from time to time when I'm annoyed by her continuing refusal to stand straight up for the people who elected her, who have never approved of this war in Iraq and never will.

[redqueen]

68. I dunno... I think it's more because the media

keeps trying to make her into the anointed candidate.

I do see your point, but the show of love for Pelosi reassures me.

[BurtWorm]

71. I'd show love for Hillary (as I have in the past) when she does the right thing

If she has anything to do with these attacks on Dean, as Reich seems to think, she's not doing the right thing. (I wouldn't even mind her being the presumed anointed if she showed some backbone on Iraq.)

[xultar]

78. Exactly. And this time she hasn't said shit and they are still making like

she's the one to blame.

This I don't get.

Huffington also blasted Dean and almost no one here said a word.

[BurtWorm]

80. She's not inside the party.

There's a difference.

[Celebration]

54. Start attacking Matalin

I think this has more to do with his wife and possible wrongdoing, and his own income than it does the DLC. He is out for himself.

[xultar]

59. Nope. DUers would rather attack their own. This is the dumbest thread

in DU history.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

65. the dumbest one was the thread where some bright person decided to say that the nj ruling

would cost us the elections.

two weeks later: landslide victory.

those fucking women and gays..always causing trouble.

[LoZoccolo]

70. We should start a thread where we fight about which is the dumbest thread!

It would explode when someone would accuse that thread itself of being the dumbest.

[xultar]

82. In true DU fashion.

[xultar]

81. Yup, women, gays and blacks always start the trouble. Buhwawa!

[BurtWorm]

69. Nonsense.

I remember a thread some DUer wrote while drunk at an airport between flights. ;)

(It was very funny, but a lot dumber than this one.)

[xultar]

84. True. It was dumb. But it was in the lounge where dumb shit belongs.

I thought attacking Democrats was against DU rules?

[BurtWorm]

87. Dumb but funny, as I say.

I enjoyed it. You're not enjoying this? ;)

I let off enough steam. I feel better now. But just to be clear, I don't consider this thread an attack on Hillary. I consider it a counter-attack on the anti-Dean Democrats. And I stand by my main point: if they think they can talk shit about Dean for whatever fucked up reason they may have, the party is in trouble if the rest of us don't show them that they can't do that and get away with it. They're the ones doing Karl "Slacker" Rove's work.

[redqueen]

63. I don't think that's a good strategy.

First of all - it won't hurt them. If anything, they'll turn any netroots activism against her into a feather in her cap. ('Oh how lovely and moderate she must be!' they'll coo)

Second of all - it misses the real target. The real target is the DLC, and the Beltway insiders. It seems pretty obvious that those who saw the wave coming also see why Carville's brand of spew is being hawked by the mainstream whores. I have confidence the same activists who helped America to once again begin electing grown-ups to positions power will see through any corporatist's flimsy campaign marketing ploy... we have to show up with at least twice the energy and determination in '07 and '08 is all.

Which brings me to my third of all - not only will this give succor to those cackling chuckleheads on the other side of the aisle, and all up and down whore media mainstreet, who will just love having a hot steaming dish of dem divisiveness to distort... but also it will serve to drive activists into conflict with each other, as we're already seeing here in this thread. Not that that's new. And not that that won't happen anyway over other issues. But why add fuel to that fire? I mean, especially considering my 'first of all' and 'second of all'?

Just my 2 cents...

[BurtWorm]

72. The truth is

I'm just venting, and Hillary is such an easy target. I read the things Carville and his pals say about Dean and I just see red and want to strike at the first thing that gets in my way.

But you and sui generis and blm and stephanie are right on the money about this.

We don't have to purge the whores from the party, necessarily, though that would be fine with me. But we certainly do have to teach them their place when they pull shit like this.

[Brazenly Liberal]

64. Not interested.

The day I had to cross Hillary Clinton off the list of people I'd support in the primaries was a sad day. I put it off as long as I could, but in the end it had to be done.

I'm not interested in demonizing her or attacking her. If she wins the nom, I'll vote for her in the general. I can no longer support her for the primaries, but it's not something I feel like playing games with or using as a bludgeon.

[Hippo_Tron]

75. Carville's comments don't = DLC coordinated attack

Carville is an asshole who is pissed off because he's outlived his usefulness. I don't see any evidence of a Hillary/DLC conspriacy especially considering the fact that if she is elected President, which is what people like Carville are hoping for, she can appoint whoever the fuck she wants as DNC chair.

[BurtWorm]

79. Can she? I thought Dems got to choose.

Or at least approve.

[Hippo_Tron]

95. When your party does not have control of the white house...

Your party's committee has a legitimate election for the party chairman. When your party controls the White House the President as leader of the party pretty much decides who the chairman will be. The party's national committee technically has to confirm the nomination but under no circumstances do they reject it.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

76. Naw. I think we are missing the point, here folks.

What does the current DLC response remind you of?

How about the "can you squeal like a pig" response from most of the Republican talking heads? The GOP sees the writing on the wall, and all they have left is to attack. The DLC is taking a page out of their book.

[Fleshdancer]

86. We take down the DLC by contributing more to the grassroots efforts

The biggest difference between Dean and Carville right now is that one is a man of action while the other is just a man of empty words and promises. Carville's barking is a pathetic last attempt at remaining relevant in a political culture that acknowledges that he is no longer needed or wanted.

The best way to beat the DLC is by upping our support for the 50 state strategy with our money and our actions. I know I for one haven't done nearly enough lately and I'm disappointed in myself for that but all that changes now. 2008 is right around the corner and I'm ready to fight with everything I have. I promise to be one of the thousands here in the south who will prove the DLC wrong once and for all.

As for Hillary, sure she's not my favorite Democrat but I'm not going to blame her for this current mess. The DLC clings to her like a wet blanket because they have nothing else to hold on to. This isn't her fault and I see no proof that she's behind Carville's rantings. Carville is a big boy and I see no reason to blame anyone else but him for the crap he says.

[BurtWorm]

89. Well said.

As I said elsewhere, I'm really letting off steam. Carville wasn't the only one talking trash about Dean. I'm just feeling that Dems who are thrilled with the job Dean has done really need to show the Carvillians, who have much bigger megaphones than we do, the consequences of being stupid for the cameras. Of course tearing Hillary down is more of a terroristic response. A more rational one that would hit the right target precisely is defintely called for.