What is good, or bad, about the DLC?

[Lil Missy]

Sorry if this seems like a foolish question, but I am serious.

My point is that I have not settled on any particular candidate for the Primary, so I don't participate in threads promoting or countering specific candidates. Honestly, at this point, I would be happy with any one of the 3 front runners. (Clinton, Obama, Edwards).

But I do see arguments for and against certain candidate(s) because of a perceived affiliation with the DLC. I gather that many here feel it is very bad to be associated with an organized arm of the Democratic Party.

I don't have a position either way, but admittedly it is because of my ignorance on the matter. Here is the extend of my research yesterday at this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

But I would like to hear some of your views as well. And please, serious responses only. Thank you.

[Joe Chi Minh]

1. ".... an organized arm of the Democratic Party."

You've got some nerve. Sounds to me you have a very clear position on the evidently "disorganised" rabble who are not DLC. And that, despite apparently being so politically unsophisticated as to find a negligible difference between Clinton and Edwards.

"But I would like to hear some of your views as well. And please, serious responses only. Thank you."

Pardon me if you also come across to me as a very self-possessed and intellectually confident lil missy, Madam Patti. Thank YOU.

[Flarney]

3. Jesus Christ Mr. Pissy Pants, which post did you read?

It was a fair question.

[Joe Chi Minh]

4. If it's not too taxing, take a guess. And you know what...? Vaunting

Hillary's war-chest, it seems to me, is likely to be very counter-productive. The degree of truth in the old saw, "The best democracy money can buy", wouldn't tickle the voters to bits.

On the other hand, the perception of Edwards as the underdog in terms of powerful backers means that vaunting his success in drumming up financial clout, would have had the opposite, i.e. a positive, effect. With the blogosphere, it's a new ball-game. People are more savvy about your country's politics.

Of course, it would be detrimental for Hillary to keep entirely mum about her business. Self-abasement isn't an option for a politician, is it? But imo, toning down the triumphalism would be much more helpful to her cause.

It may be everyone loves a winner, but not everyone by any means considers opulence makes a person a winner - despite the best efforts of Republicans historically to appeal to the most venal and self-serving instincts of the people with that twaddle about The American Dream - now further out of reach than ever to Americans.

[Warpy]

7. The problem is that only Hillary Clinton is being noticed

as building a large war chest. She's doing it from the top down with large contributions. That's the DLC strategy. It doesn't work unless you think she can buy an election.

However, Edwards and Obama, especially Obama, have gone to the grassroots for their campaign funding. Obama has nearly as much as Sen. Clinton and he is not beholden to any corporation. In addition, that strategy is giving him a big grassroots organization that will be ready to roll next year with door to door canvassing, booths at every shopping mall and county fair, and all the other people to people projects that work well for Democrats.

The problem with the DLC is that they're following the GOP model in campaign fund raising, campaign organization, and candidate packaging. None of those work well in a party whose tradition is the bottom up model of organization.

Anyone who is able to inspire the Democratic working class base will be unbeatable. Anyone who is not will find that base staying home---again--and runs the risk of having another close election stolen by the Republics.

[Joe Chi Minh]

9. Precisely.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

10. I would have thought "organized arm" ...

From the DU research forum, in the glossary:
DLC - Democratic Leadership Council, an organization of centrist Democrats.

You call the OP "politically unsophisticated". Many of us are. Sometimes we come here with questions.

Admittedly, it's not good to ask for "serious responses only". That just invites flames and jokes.

Just from the letters, I would have guessed the DLC is some kind of council of leading democrats. Apparently I would be wrong.

[Lil Missy]

14. I didn't know that phrase would invite flames. My intention was exactly the opposite.

I know the topic of "DLC" is a hot button issue for some, and I just wanted to know why, for my own edification.

As far as "political sophistication" goes, my feeling is that the river is ever running, and not everyone jumps in at the same time. The important thing is to jump in at some point, and begin the journey.

[bryant69]

2. First of all the DLC is not directly connected to the Democratic Party

Rather it is a think tank, like the Heritage foundation; albeit it is very well connected. The DLC exists to chart a new course for the Democratic Party to the right. I think that early on they might have had some good points, however as time has gone on, they've sold out more and more to the point that they are now just an organization that encourages Democrats to become more like Republicans.

I'll note parenthetically that I am a moderate Liberal; there are plenty around here who have hated the organization from the beginning i'm sure.

The DLC is connected to Clinton and his administration tightly, and may have played a role in his success. That's the positive I guess.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Lil Missy]

6. Thank you for your fair response.

The point that stands out in your post is that it has become "an organization that encourages Democrats to become more like Republicans". Therefore I can see why it causes vitriol among liberals.

I used to consider myself "moderate" as well, but as time goes on I see myself further left than most on the left. Now I'm not sure anymore. But I definitely don NOT want to see the Party go further to the right, so that is a point in my mind to oppose a DLC candidate.

[Lars39]

8. Right wing think tanks.

[w4rma]

5. Research Harold Ford, Jr., Sen. Thomas Carper, Al From and Bruce Reed.

From the wikipedia article cited in the OP:
The DLC's current chairman is former Representative Harold Ford, Jr. of Tennessee, and its vice chair is Senator Thomas R. Carper of Delaware. Its CEO is Al From and its president is Bruce Reed.

Research their past quotes on important issues and events and policy positions and you'll see why the DLC is distrusted and disliked by most informed Democrats. Note especially their statements and positions on the netroots, Dean's 50 state strategy, Dean as chairman of the DNC, the Iraq War, health care, corporate regulations and accountability, and free trade.

Also read about what/who funds the DLC, itself. And note what else they fund and what agenda that these funders probably support.

[TomClash]

11. Read the thread you cited

Strong support for the Iraq War. Joe Frickin' Lieberman. Israel uber alles. They fight the class war - on behalf of the "better classes." If it is populist they hate it. They did Dean in. We lost anyway.

That's a start.

[madfloridian]

12. It is NOT an arm of the Democratic Party. It is a think tank.

It would prefer to think it controls all policy....oh, wait it pretty much does.

It is not a wing or arm or leg of the party.

[Lil Missy]

13. Thank you for the correction. Perhaps I worded the post poorly.

Actually, I thought it was a part of the Party. I confess my ignorance on the matter.