Since when is it okay to put an extremely Homophobic failed Congressional candidate in the position to make policy decisions for our party and its candidates?

The DLC is really not in the position to make policy decisions for the party and its candidates. The DLC is an independent organization, that has claimed in the past to be bipartisan in an attempt to keep its tax-exempt status.

Depending on who you ask, the DLC is largely irrelevant.

Exactly, depending on whom you ask, the DLC is largely irrelevant. I AM willing to wager most Americans would like a DLC candidate before a DailyKos candidate.

And then there are those of us within the party (ie the mighty middle) who see the DLC as a valuable instution.

"That will lead us into the wilderness for a long time to come..."

This is Hillary's Obama innoculation. Look for the DLC to retool for Clinton 2.0.

Just like the blue dogs or the progressive caucus, etc. there are things we can take for each of these organizations and learn from. The local playbook that the DLC came up with about 3 years ago had some very good ideas.

sndeak, I never pegged you for a "Third Wayer". ;)

A little triangulation, huh? Interesting.

I'm not. I think triangulation is bad. I told you guys I was a moderate!

I started to lose respect for the DLC about 2 years ago when they started hijacking every good idea and win as theirs.

I do like some of their points in "With all Our Might".

It is kinda funny when they use the word progressive though.

BEZERKO - Good one!

I just think we need to look everywhere for good ideas.

IRE says: "I AM willing to wager most Americans would like a DLC candidate before a DailyKos candidate."

I am curious as to why you would take this bet. In the November election, the DLC candidates provged to be not all together popular, while DailyKos candidates did quite well.

There seems to be a notion that only the most liberal of Democrats visit DailyKOS. This is not the case at all.

Last summer I went to YearlyKOS representing the DraftMarkWarner movement. I too expected to see a bunch of hemp wearing rebels. Boy was I surprised.

There were grandparents, parents,students, white collar & blue collar workers from blue dogs to uber-liberal.

I learned alot that weekend and left with a greater appreciation for what the internet an blogs have done.

Many on the left perceive the DLC as nothing more than "Republican Lite", fostering a brand of centrism that cost us elections in the past and perhaps contributed to an impression by some that Dems have been spineless. 2006 changed that. Even Obama, I understand, has specifically distanced himself from the DLC.

compare dean to clinton.

You know, most people think the Dean is some screaming liberal but he isn't. I felt he could be a very effective DNC Chair, even before his name surfaced as a candidate for the DNC race. And he has been.

He is actually more in line with Jim Webb than Dennis Kucinich. I guess I would call him a pragmatic progressive/populist.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_32/b3845084.htm

IRE. I think Dean is certainly closer to Clinton-esque than John Kerry. Like Clinton, Dean was a Governor from a relatively small and ignored state, he was charismatic and unapologetic; he was passionate about his commitment to populist American ideals.

If all you saw of Dean was what the mainstream media showed you, then I can see why you thought him to be a whacked out liberal. As one who followed him closely and supported him generously, I urge caution in pigeonholing him as such.

I remember when they first started painting Dean as a liberal. After I stopped howling with laughter I thought to myself that as soon as someone talks to the environmental groups and big business in Vermont this will go away.

Shows what I know.

I should say I don't label Dean as a liberal. I do think the "progressive movement" in America is seen as unpalatable. You can see this because almost every single "great hope" of the progressives has crashed and burned--if they have made it out of the primary.

Now I know people are going to say this year more progressives won than DLCers or whatever. I just have one complaint with that argument.

This year was handed to us. I don't think we should take any strategic lessons from this election.

Looking at the overall trackrecord, the DLC fares much better.

And neither Dean nor Kerry can be compared to Clinton as both of them were idiots during their presidential campaign.

"Now I know people are going to say this year more progressives won than DLCers or whatever. I just have one complaint with that argument. This year was handed to us."

I don't really understand this line of reasoning. If the year was handed to us, shouldn't the DLCers have done as well, if not better than, the DailyKos-endorsed candidates?

For me, it's apples and oranges. The DLC is not about ideology, they are about Perception, PR, and positioning. Wherever the "center" might be at any given moment, at any given coordinates, the DLC will try to craft a message to appeal to the existing conditions. These are campaign tactics. "Progressive", at least to me, indicates a little more of an ideology that exists outside of the current fad and outside of, inside of, between, and parallel to campaigns. I believe that progressives try to sell their ideology and therefore move the center as a result.

The two functions are compatible and can coexist. The problem for me is that the DLC insists on trying to lead, whereas I see them as inherently a follower type organization.

If the year was handed to us, shouldn't the DLCers have done as well, if not better than, the DailyKos-endorsed candidates?

No not necessarily, you have to consider what the DLC candidates were up against. And I don't think one side can claim a victory or a guaranteed strategy for victory.

The biggest blow to progressivism if thats what you want to call it was LaMont's defeat IMO.

No kidding. Especially if (former DLC chairman) Lieberman supports a Republican in '08 as he is suggesting he might.

"No not necessarily, you have to consider what the DLC candidates were up against." So the DLC candidates were up against terrible odds, but the other folks had their victories handed to them? Come on now. I have no idea whether this election cycle provided a guaranteed blueprint, but your line of reasoning is pretty weak to my ears, and sounds like so much spin in the wash cycle.

"The biggest blow to progressivism if thats what you want to call it was LaMont's defeat IMO." But you have to consider what Lamont was up against!

So the DLC candidates were up against terrible odds, but the other folks had their victories handed to them? Come on now. I have no idea whether this election cycle provided a guaranteed blueprint, but your line of reasoning is pretty weak to my ears, and sounds like so much spin in the wash cycle.

No, both DLCers and progressives did well. What I am saying is, that your claim DLC candidates should have done better is not true. If DLC candidates were not in a single open race, for example, their numbers are going to be much lower than if progressives were only in open races.

I am not chris, so i cant give a detailed numerical analysis of dlc candidates against progressives, but my feeling is that both had a success rate probably within 5% of each other.

Okay, I see where you are coming from, but 1) I seem to recall that you disputed a similar interpretation of results here in Georgia when it was the progressive candidates who did not win, and 2) I believe you are the one who commented, in a discussion of Jim Martin's admirable (but losing) campaign, "You get no prizes for losing in politics." So forgive me if it appears to me that your political analysis shifts in the wind depending on whether your candidates won or not.

whoa whoa whoa, I think your conflating a bunch of different issues there.

I'll try to make this brief, but, here in georgia, non incumbent democrats did NOT do well, progressive, conservative, liberal, moderate whatever. if you were not an incumbent you did poorly, Taylor and Martin included.

What I mean above is that both DLC and progressive candidates won a majority of the time *nationwide* I would bet, as evidenced by our new majorities.

With that thread you are referencing, i dont remember specifics, but with the no points for losing line, people were heaping all kinds of praise on Martin for a (crappy) campaign result. Just because it was "admirable" Cagle is not going to be Lt Gov the way Martin would have, nor will he neccessarily consider his proposals. Why, because Martin lost. (Adding to that, I don't know why anyone would take any comfort in a loss).

In the thread about Martin, my comments on progressivism here in georgia is that it is going to be very hard for it to catch on look at the post on foreign education in elementary schools. Will it catch on? Maybe, i cant predict the future. Do i think it will be VERY hard, yes. Georgia has made a dramatic rightward turn in the past 10 years and i dont think its going to change anytime soon.

So really, I dont know why or how you would come to the conclusion that my analysis has at all changed. Nationwide, everyone won. Statewide, we all lost. Thats what my feelings have always been.

"Nationwide, everyone won." Whoa, indeed. Perhaps I am mistaken on this, but DLCers did not do well at all this past election, and I thought that's what this conversation was about? See, e.g., http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/6/01319/4712

You also say: "I'll try to make this brief, but, here in georgia, non incumbent democrats did NOT do well, progressive, conservative, liberal, moderate whatever. if you were not an incumbent you did poorly, Taylor and Martin included." Double whoa! I can't decide if we just fundamentally misunderstand each other, if you (or I) have a selective memory, or if I've fallen into Bizarro world. If you will recall (here's the thread: http://www.blogfordemocracy.org/archives/2006/11/so_after_last_n.html#comments), that's not what your point was at all in that post-election exchange. In fact, you were arguing that it was progressivism, and not incumbency, that doomed many candidates, and I begged to differ about that point.

Anyway, since I am afraid we can't quite manage to understand each other over this medium (for at least one of the reasons above), I don't know that further non-f2f is fruitful.

Thanks for signing in. Now you can comment. (sign out)