DLC Vs. Old School Liberals

**Brother Zag** · 01-30-2008, 02:07 PM

I liked your quick bit on the Kennedy's endorsement of Obama. As an early Obama supporter, it has been driving me nuts listening to Former Prez Clinton subtly slander Obama. The whole Reagan/Ideas thing was completely mischaracterized by the Clinton Camp (did you hear the radio ads taking the quote out of context?). The fact that Bill Clinton was a leader of the DLC and their attempts to Republicanize the Democratic Party has been conveniently overlooked by the short term memory possessed media.

The DLC's tactics served the Dems well at the time Clinton ran, post-Reagan and Bush #1. In effect, they are still running this sort of campaign, this time for Hillary: "What are people voting for? Okay, let's be like THAT!"

The Kennedy endorsement is a major sign that the DLC's grip on the Democratic Party has faltered. The first sign was Howard Dean's ascension to DNC Chair. Certainly Teddy's endorsement serves notice that the DLC is in eclipse.

Caroline's endorsement serves a different purpose and audience, I believe. Her comment that, in Obama, she feels the kind of hope that people tell her that her father gave them, is huge with young 40 somethings and younger voters who don't actually remember the JFK, or even the RFK years. Like me. We've heard the legends our whole lives (well, maybe I did even more so because I grew up in Massachusetts). In Caroline, here's someone with the cred to say what she said and make it mean something... and somehow make Obama's candidacy more historically resonant.

**Lord Destiny** · 01-30-2008, 06:05 PM

Bill and Hillary are social liberals, but economic moderate-Republicans (Hillary moreso than Bill). Bill wasn't exactly a champion of the working person, and Hillary was a Wal-Mart lawyer.

I always laughed when I heard the wailing that Clinton was a far-left liberal...until I saw people believing it.

America knows nothing about liberal politics, except what the GOP misleadingly tells them. The Dems sure aren't defending themselves or the label. They run from it. Buncha cowards.

My problem with this race is that I don't know WHAT Obama stands for. I don't want a politician to bring me hope. Hope I already have. I want a politician to bring me RESULTS. And I don't know that Obama can or will do that.

**Lord Destiny** · 01-30-2008, 06:20 PM

Let me add that I don't mean Bill didn't do anything for the working class or middle class. He did some good things, such as tax breaks for people going back to school and raising the minimum wage. But he didn't go far enough.

I like the guy (foibles notwithstanding), and will greatly enjoy him as First Husband. But it won't be much of a blow against the corporatocracy.

**Brother Zag** · 01-30-2008, 07:58 PM

I read Obama's book The Audacity of Hope before he was a candidate. Made me wish someone like that would run for president... so I'm not just basing my support on some vague promise of hope, but on some firm propositions well reasoned and explained that I was able to read over a year ago.

**NatGertler** · 01-30-2008, 10:02 PM

Me, I like the fact that long before he was a presidential candidate, the dude wrote a book. Sure, lots of candidates had books with their names on it put out when they were campaigning. Barack put out a book, and one that wasn't utterly calculated to sell himself as a candidate. That says something to me.

But that may just be the bias of one writer for another.

**Spike-X** · 02-06-2008, 06:57 PM

It would be good to have a President who's written a book before running for office.

As opposed to your current President, who I doubt had even read one* before running for office.

* one that either didn't have pictures, or start with 'The' and end with 'Bible', at least.

**Steven Grant** · 02-06-2008, 11:35 PM

Originally Posted by Spike-X

As opposed to your current President, who I doubt had even read one* before running for office.

Let's not get snippy. Even if the Ghost never actually read a book, I have it on reasonably good authority he has one read to him almost every night.

- Grant

**Brother Zag** · 02-07-2008, 06:32 AM

Originally Posted by Steven Grant

Let's not get snippy. Even if the Ghost never actually read a book, I have it on reasonably good authority he has one read to him almost every night.

- Grant

It's the one about the Pet Goat, isn't it? I've heard he can't pull himself away from that one...

**bartl** · 02-07-2008, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by Spike-X

It would be good to have a President who's written a book before running for office.

As opposed to your current President, who I doubt had even read one* before running for office.

He managed to get through Yale, and got an MBA from Harvard. Even a Kennedy can't do that without cracking a book.

**Spike-X** · 02-07-2008, 11:13 AM

Well, I guess you told me!

**Brother Zag** · 02-10-2008, 08:15 AM

The Clinton Machine keeps utilizing Republican tactics. The latest iteration? The use of the "Manufactured Outrage" campaign, employed successfully time and again by Republicans and Republican administrations to generate sympathy and publicity since Reagan took office. Hillary Clinton is generating fake indignancy over MSNBC Reporter David Schuster's asking if the Clinton campaign "pimped out" daughter Chelsea. Oh, the horror!

It was a stupid thing to say on the air. Schuster is usually sharper than that. I think he's a little stiff, a little square and was trying to sound "hip" and came off anything but hip to be square... But for the Manufactured Outrage Campaign to work, there has to be some truth to the offense, and on some level what Schuster said could be construed to be offensive. And ripe to be misconstrued to be abhorrent and horrific.

Hillary is demanding Schuster's virtual head, saying a temporary suspension and apology are not enough. Shame on her. She wants to ruin his career over this, and doesn't mind saying so. The Millionaire wants the under paid cable reporter on unemployment, or worse; a demand without mercy - scorched Earth tactics. Pretty brutal.

This false bravado covering petty retribution used to be the hallmark of Republicans, who used and overused it to the point where the American people stopped believing it. Hillary and the Clinton campaign are gambling on the fact that Hillary can preface her remarks with a statement no major Republican candidate has been able to use: "As a mother...". She's playing the "gender" card in a major way, and coloring the false indignancy she's shoveling with the patina of protective motherhood. It could prove a masterstroke of manipulation, or backfire against her. We'll see.

But, yet again, the Clinton campaign's tactics are Republican tactics.

**Bradley** · 02-10-2008, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by Brother Zag

But for the Manufactured Outrage Campaign to work, there has to be some truth to the offense, and on some level what Schuster said could be construed to be offensive. And ripe to be misconstrued to be abhorrent and horrific.

I don't quite understand what this means, but I think you're begging the question by assuming that I believe that the Clinton outrage over Schuster's comments is "manufactured" (that is to say, insincere). You don't think it's possible that Clinton's sincerely pissed that someone would use this type of misogynist language to describe her daughter? And her relationship with her daughter?

Keep in mind, I'm an Obama supporter-- I've got very little love for Hillary Clinton at the moment. But the assumption that she's insincere in this instance is a little much.

**Steven Grant** · 02-10-2008, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by Brother Zag

But, yet again, the Clinton campaign's tactics are Republican tactics.

While I don't put it beyond Hillary to play the outraged mother for political purposes, I think in this instance she's genuinely outraged, and not without reason. Daughters have been out stumping for pretty much all their dad/mom-candidates this political season, and I don't know why Chelsea wouldn't. The phrase "pimping Chelsea out" not only casts aspersions on Chelsea - basically saying she's prostituting herself, which is very unlikely to be the case - but Hillary as well, the implication being by extension that she'd allow any sort of indignities to be heaped on Chelsea so long as she (Hillary) profited by them. Which I strongly suspect is not a case. Do I think it's a firing offense? It's not far removed from the whole Don Imus thing. I wouldn't fire either of them over their statements, and I do think an apology and suspension is enough, especially if the subject is never raised again, so, yeah, to that extent I think Hillary's going a bit overboard. But it's hard to say whether it's for political effect or just due to maternal outrage, and the two probably aren't mutually exclusive.

If you're looking for really Republican tactics used by the Clintons (and "Republican" is an unfair description of a particular style of a particular sector of the party - I know Republicans who are very decent people - but on the other hand I don't recall mass numbers of Republicans decrying the use of those tactics, so what's good for MoveOn.org is good for the gander) you need look no further than footage of Bill Clinton campaigning in Louisiana on Hillary's behalf this past week, and telling an assembly, "Barack Obama has said things in the 1990s were no better than today. >I< think they were better than today!" (The implication being that Obama is a negativist who has no grasp of history.) Even the network news - I think it was ABC - felt obliged to follow this clip with the information that Obama never said any such thing. Having lived in Washington state for most of the '90s and relatively familiar with mindset there, I suspect Obama's sweeping primary victory there on Saturday was at least partly due to Democratic disgust over these tactics, which do seem to be becoming more desperate and obvious. And "Republican." The flat out fabrication of grounds on which to denounce their current prime opponent brings the Clintons' character into question... and does to some extent justify the sentiment behind Schuster's question, if not the language he employed.

(Though, for me, Bill's performance wasn't anywhere as unnerving of the clip I saw of Hillary telling a crowd, as a slam on Obama, "Talking about change is easy. Making change is hard," and punctuating it with a self-satisfied scrunched up expression that looked like nothing so much as a bratty little girl sticking her tongue out... without the tongue, of course.)

(And a note on the "quotes" above. I haven't looked up the exact quotes. I working from memory here, so I may be a word or two off but I know I have the sentiments expressed down pat. I doubt Hillary said "Making change is hard" because the quick response to that would be, "Are you kidding? Any high school dropout working a McDonalds counter can do it.")

- Grant

**DeadXMan** · 02-10-2008, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by Lord Destiny

Let me add that I don't mean Bill didn't do anything for the working class or middle class. He did some good things, such as tax breaks for people going back to school and raising the minimum wage. But he didn't go far enough.

I like the guy (foibles notwithstanding), and will greatly enjoy him as First Husband. But it won't be much of a blow against the corporatocracy.

he also brought in the Free Trade agreement that stated sending our manifacturing jobs out of the US. now data entry, and costumer sevice are leaving as well.