Very interesting is this blog

Democrats need to realize that for every swing voter that is repelled by the fascist right, there are two more that are repelled by the communist left.

The difference is simply that everyone knows what communism is, but nobody knows what fascism is. If the Dems expose Bush's cronyism, strong handed tactics, coersion of the media, and illegal justification for war as fascism, they will win in 2008. If they simply say, we voted for it, but now its time to bring the troups home, they will lose in typical Dem fashion.

The problems facing the country and the world right now are not well-defined by the well-crafted and largely artificial dichotomies that both parties pitch in their marketing efforts. The real problems in the world are complex and systemic. They resist resolution because of the interference of deeply vested interests - within govenment , within business, within religions. Most ills of the age are due to a global economy geared arount the most efficient consumption and exploitation of mineral resources (oil, gas, coal). The overriding question of our time (in my humble opinion, (or not, as the case may be) is - can the human race bootstrap its way out of its recent dependence on these non-renewable resources? Anyone think they have the answer to that one? Can you think of a single politician with the intellectual heft to wrap themselves around that one? There are too many vested interests for even an honest inquiry into these issues. The real problem is that the scientists are not in charge. (I'm neither scientist nor politician, and I don't even pretend to have the answers. I just doubt we're asking the right questions right now.) Oh - and sam - what you said.

let's not forget that the right wing machine has tipped balance so much so that a centrist democrat is an extreme leftist when you look at things relatively.

I didn't understand it either... beyond it being trademark Rendell to present himself as open to dialogue, and then he works the dialogue so as to forclose all options oppositing his own preferred prescription. But I don't think it was smart to seem appeasing on this one; some things -- like Social Security for Democrats -- ought to remain sacrosanct, off-limits, and out-of-bounds. Democrats ought to simply refuse to allow the "Disater President" anywhere near Social Security.

To this day I believe the Clintons and their ties to the MSM were behind the ad hominen attacks on Howard Dean and the promotion of the "scream" as evidence of Dean's instability. A single speech of support for Dean from Bill Clinton would have put Dean in the Oval Office, and we would have been spared the nightmare of the last 3 years. The Clintons DID want Kerry to run- and lose- in '04. So much for putting the good of the country before their own political interests.

I liked Rendell until he was ready to sell out social security. What was that about?

A somwhat off-topic launching point:

Any statement which begins with "Kerry lost because..." obviously accepts the idea that Kerry did in fact lose.

I do not and never will accept this, for there was far too much smoke billowing up from obvious partisan software manipulation in Ohio and elsewhere for there not to have been any fire there. If the election was digitally rigged for Bush, then all arguments about what went wrong for Democrats begin from faulty assumptions, and will necessarily arrive at prescriptions built upon shaky foundations... as I see it.

That said.... We can say that Hillary is a bad choice as a Democrat standard-bearer because she's DLC. Some call the DLC approach "Republican Lite," others reject the DLC because they have not produced much election-wise for the Democratic Party, and have not delivered much to Democrats when they did hold office. Both are strong points.

To these arguments I would add that there's another great reason NOT to support Hillary Clinton: current sitting senators make terrible presidential candidates in general. Only two have ever won (Warren G. Harding and John F. Kennedy), and only once has a sitting senator beaten a governor of any kind (Harding in 1920). All other things being equal, running a legislator against a state's chief executive is like putting a pair of deuces up against a full house. If Democrats want to win, they must instead look to the ranks of its state governors.

My personal pick would be Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania. Rendell is a "real Democrat" on the issues that most Democrats -- moderate and left-of-center -- care most about. His track record as Mayor of Philadelphia is more impressive even than Rudy Giuliani's. He's a "pothole-fixer" first, and darn good at it. He's also dang smart, and people like him.

http://rendellforgovernor.com/accom/accomplishments.html

That's my 2 cents worth, anyhow.

I agree with Lynda M. (above), and I also agree with those further up who said that it's not about left and center. That seems to be the real problem with the DLC and all the Washington establishment Dems--they are locked into an outdated perception of what's going on. What "center" does the DLC think it represents? It looks like the corporate center to me. The Democratic party will revive when it starts fighting for the concerns of the regular working people of America again.
I've voted Democratic in every election since 1972, I've convinced friends not to vote independent (Anderson '80 and Nader '00), but I will NOT vote for a Democratic wimp again in '08. The candidate better be opposed to the Iraq war and better be calling out the Republicans for their extremism on behalf of corporate interests. I'm not going to overlook those issues again.

"People like Kerry and Clinton cannot unite the party. They're all talk but no action. Any Dem reading this please take this seriously, especially when convincing younger voters, who are slowly creeping toward the right."

Actually, 18-to-29-year-olds voted 54%-45% for Kerry over Bush. Get your facts straight.

I am a senior citizen and a lifelong Democrat, and I am appalled by the DLC. They are completely out of touch with the base. I will never vote for Hillary because: a) She has supported the Republicans repeatedly (including the war), and thinks she can win by having the same agenda they do; and b) She can't win.

The DLC needs to get out of Washington and to listen to the base. We are disgusted with the lack of back bone that many of the Democratic leaders have exhibited for the last four years. Howard Dean is more in touch with the majority of Democrats than Hillary is, and Wes Clark understands the military situation far better than she does. I long for some new ideas and some authentic leadership from those who would be President, but I can't name any Democrat currently in power who deserves that honor.

I made an error in the fifth paragaph. I meant united behind Kerry.
WHOOPS!

When will Democrats get over the Clinton years? I don't know about anyone else, but I am tired of being reminded how wonderful of a president he was.

It's just like every conservative not getting over the Reagan years, which were some of the worst in U.S. history.

The last two presidential elections, they've chosen candidates afraid to tell it like it is. The only thing they had were connections to some pretty wealthy Democrats.

Had the DLC and the Democratic National Committee not have sabotaged Howard Dean, they could have shown Democrats being proud of being Democrats, which is a lot more than I can say about John Kerry or even Hilary Clinton, if she runs in 2008.

When Kerry was nominated, people need to note that they were united against Bush, not united against Kerry.

People like Kerry and Clinton cannot unite the party. They're all talk but no action. Any Dem reading this please take this seriously, especially when convincing younger voters, who are slowly creeping toward the right.

Find us a new leader who isn't afraid to speak their convictions.

I'm a liberal democrat and I do not believe we can need two republican parties in this country. Kerry lost in 2004 because he would not oppose the Iraq war even after it became clear that the war was built on lies.
His mantra about "going to war with no plan to win the peace" did not make sense.
As for the DLC, they should be advising the Republicans.

Civillia is a hack.

*yawn*

I'm in the DLC and I'm appalled every time the far left attacks us moderates.

The CENTER is where America lives.

Hillary is the "new George McGovern". Its obvious. I'm a life long Dem and I will NEVER, NEVER, EVER vote for Hillary or any other lawyerly/radical/ethically challenged/leadership bereft ideologue - just like I didn't vote for radical right wing Cheney/Bush.

Bill Clinton vastly improved the lives of Americans with centrist "whole economics".. as opposed to the "selective capitalism" practiced today where we pander to the entrenched elite, as opposed to supoporting the job creating engine of America called "small business" and true, egalitarian capitalism.

Notice that neither PETA nor Gay rights have any bearing on the above?

If my fellow Dem's run Hillary for pres Phyllis Schafly and Richard Mellon Scaife will jump for joy...and we can all expect 12 more years of neo-con selective capitalism, cronyism, institutionalized corruption, zero privacy in the bedroom and a destroyed economy.

REMEMBER MCGOVERN? Yeah, he got pounded. Why repeat history with Hillary?

I'm a life long Dem and I will NEVER, NEVER, EVER vote for Hillary or any other lawyerly/radical/ethically challenged lefty - just like I didn't vote for radical right wing Cheney/Bush.

Bill Clinton vastly improved the lives of Americans with centrist "whole economics".. as opposed to the "selective capitalism" practiced today where we pander to the entrenched elite, as opposed to supoporting the job creating engine of America called "small business".

Notice that niether PETA nor Gay rights have any bearing on the above?

If my fellow Dem's run Hillary for pres Phyllis Schafly and Richard Mellon Scaife will jump for joy...and we can all expect 12 more years of neo-con slective capitalism, cronyism, institutionalized corruption, and a destroyed economy.

REMEMBER MCGOVERN? Yeah, he got pounded. Why repeat history with Hillary?

The DLC report's criticism of George Lakeoff's analysis is one more example that they either "just don't get it" or are more interested in keeping their own position of power than helping the party win. IMO, Kerry's moment of truth came during the Swiftboat uproar. How could the voter looking for an alternative to Bush expect to be defended by someone who wouldn't defend himself? Like Lincoln in the early part of the Civil War, we had the troops but our generals wouldn't fight. Clinton managed to get himself re-elected during an economic boom but showed no true leadership. I have always felt that if he had taken a true stand during the gays-in-the-military flap, gone before the American people and actually taken a stand for civil rights, he might have lost the battle but actually made an inroad for gay rights down the road. I voted for him twice and those are the only times I ever voted Republican.

The DLC proved it's lack of interest in what 'the base' wants when it sabotaged Howard Dean. The 'middle' is too far right for most of us. The majority of the liberal base ARE SOCIALLY LIBERAL. We are the ones who get out the vote, and vote ourselves. The DLC can continue their perfect record of failure by continuing to discount how liberal we are. We do NOT want republican lite and will not vote for it. The DLC must NOT sabotage the 2008 primaries. If they do it again they will lose AGAIN.

I write this as a Kos Kultist, who wants to clarify a misunderstanding. (Of course, I am only speaking for myself.)

The disagreements between Kossacks like me and the DLC are not mapped onto right and left. Howard Dean--a centrist Democrat by almost any criterion--is a favorite of the Kossacks. Brian Schweitzer--a fairly conservative Democrat--is another fave. Or take Harry Reid--who is pro-life but very popular among the Kossacks.

Joe Lieberman is certainly to the left of Reid, probably to the left of Schweitzer and maybe even leftward of Dean, but the Kossacks hate him.

Kossacks like me have gotten tired of a wimpy accommodationist party (read "Joe Lieberman"), and suspect that many voters feel the same. Say what you want for the Rs--they are neither wimpy nor accommodationist. And I think voters respect them for that. As Reid, Schweitzer and Dean have shown, you don't have to move to the left to be a tough guy. You just have to be a Democrat.

In the reactive mode, it is fairly easy. When the Rs make like a bunch of wing-nuts, call them on it, rather than accommodate yourself to whatever thin strands of reason you might be able to discern in their position. It worked pretty well with the defense of Social Security.

Pro-actively, it is a bit harder, as shown by the genuine difficulty the Ds have in an Iraq policy. But I don't think it is impossible. There are issues where 95% of D's are roughly on the same page, like health care. Hammer out an in-your-face party position, and go loud and proud.

I really hope you think about why the headline "Report Warns of Party's Leftward Turn" is misleading. It makes it sound like there was a report warning against socialist infiltration of the Democratic Party. The report in question dealt with whether the Democrats would have success in appealing to the base versus appealing to the center. There was no warning of a "leftward turn."

So far your blogging has been most unimpressive. Strange from a paper with the best political commentary - left and right - of any media source.

The Republicans won by appealing to their base AND to the center. They did this by having a clear (though wrongheaded)message and united front. The DLC is an example of the kind of marketer that gets lucky (thanks to Perot) and misascribes that success, in this case to supposedly centrist policies (actually rolling over to any opposition). Clinton's success was due to one thing only-the personality of a man who could sell ice cubes to eskimos.

Criticism from the DLC about what cannot win elections is rich. After all, there's no greater authority when it comes to losing elections than the DLC. They are right in the regard that Democrats must appeal to moderates, no question. However, the DLC strategy has led to two things: apathy from the Democratic base, leading to low Democratic turnout, and apathy from moderates who reason that if they want a conservative candidate, they'll vote for the Republican.

The problem for the Democrats is just this. So called "experts" like the DLC keep losing and losing, yet the prominent Democrats keep going back to a well that has been dry for a decade.

No one with a serious committment to progressive causes or issues wants Hillary Clinton (or the DLC) in the White House. Been there, done that... they kept the T-shirt.

The DLC flavor of Democrat purports to appeal -- pander, some might allege -- to some mythical unaligned center of swing voters, but to do so it must abandon the traditional core constituency of the Democratic Party: working people, the poor, the elderly, and all the rest who do not fit the description of "upper-middle-class, suburban, educated white professionals," who had/have largely abandoned the political process altogether.

This is why I say "mythical" when describing them as "voter," for the vast majority of them do not vote. They are not involved. They are not paying attention. They are too busy working, raising families, and doing all the rest which that life entails to be bothered about politics. They are not energized by churches or religious concerns, for many do not regularly attend any church. Those that do are not buying into the right-wing fanaticism being peddled by Bible Belt preachers; as I said, these are educated folk.

So the DLC figures that it can attract the votes of these disaffected suburban whites by being more friendly to Big Business (where many of these folk work), less supportive of blue-collar employees, minorities, the poor, and the elderly... and that the end result will be that they will keep the traditional Democrat's votes anyway (for where else are they to go?), but grab the crucial razor-thin slice from the center which gets them over the top when the counting is done. But the price paid by following the DLC formula and strategy is a Democratic Party whose economic policy is so nearly indistinguishable from the Republican Party's that traditional Democrats can fairly be said to have no compelling reason to steadfastly support it any longer.

Howard Dean indicated such in his comment "I'm from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party." The Democratic Party may have had the White House, but Democrats had no one in there who did very much to represent their interests or issues. NAFTA was a left-over Bush The First idea which ought to have been left to die along with his bid for re-election; it ought never to have been signed by a Democratic president. It is not too harsh to say that Clinto got snookered -- and workers got screwed -- on that one. There are other examples, but the most telling aspects of DLC-style executive branch management come from examining the thing not done, not addressed, not advocated for or won. Labor Secretary Robert Reich left in frustration over the do-nothing-for-workers labor policy. Securing Social Security ought to have been addressed immediately and repeatedly... not as an "oh by the way" as Clinton was leaving office, and had a flat-empty political capital account.

Just an off-the-cuff rant; I'll let the professional progressive pundits take over from here, should they care to.

Forget the DLC, they are so out of touch with the rank and file democrats across this country. J. Crozier is right they have not helped the Dem's win any elections recently. You can't beat the republicans by acting like them. They don't need to run LEFT, but they do need to distiquish themselves from the republicans and reach out to new voters.

Forget the DLC, they are so out of touch with the rank and file democrats across this country. J. Crozier is right they have not helped the Dem's win any elections recently. You can't beat the republicans by acting like them. They don't need to run LEFT, but they do need to distiquish themselves from the republicans and reach out to new voters.

Absolutely we should listen to the DLC and its positions, because it has such a fantastic track record of losing us congressional majorities and the presidency in the first place. Obviously it MUST know how to get them back.

The DLC conveniently ignores the fact that, aside from Bill Clinton in 1992 when Ross Perot was stealing 18% of the Republican vote and then had the incumbent advantage in 1996, they HAVE NEVER WON A DAMNED THING.

They lost us Congress in the 90's. Then a Centrist strategy lost us the White House in 2000. Next it lost us the White House again in 2004, because they refused to actually talk about what they believed in and everyone in the country assumed that since they weren't brave enough to defend THEMSELVES on the issues then obviously they wouldn't be brave enough to defend the country against terrorists.

Oh yeah, and inbetween we've lost yet more seats in both houses of Congress.

The DLC has been singing the same sorry tune for decades now with the same pathetic results.

When are the parties going to realize that one cannot govern from either the left or the right, but only from the center - ostensibly to do the greatest good (and the least harm) for the greatest number of people?

One of the greatest appeals of the Democrats is that they are too disorganized to do much harm. The greatest hypocrisy of the Republicans is that they want as little interference in their private affairs from the government, yet won't hesitate to impose their own 'cultural' values on everyone else. Yuk. What a choice...

We Want Froom. Kin. Vee Vant Frooom Keen.

Wow, very early start this a.m., do you work from the VA. office or DC?
-Your biggest fans...