=== It's no secret that in some parts of the progressive blogosphere, the DLC has attained bogey-man status based on what I can only describe as a distorted view of the organization's history, and its alleged present status as a pillar of the Washington political establishment. ===

It is not usually a good idea to start out by (1) mischaracterizing and thereby (2) insulting your audience. Your job here is to sell the DLC and its positions, not deliver a top-down lecture. There is no question it is going to be a hard sell, but you have started out in the worst manner imaginable.

As to your list of 1-6, I note the absence of "restoring Constituational government". This leads me to think that the DLC might actually be in favor of the "unitary executive" concept and the expansion of executive power. Please discuss.

sPh

Can we all please try and keep this conversation civil?

There's obviously a lot of contention between us and the DLC. But comments like this are going to just serve us no purpose.

While in many ways I agree with your sentiment, it's just going to get us nowhere.

Let's try and stick to something that resembles a debate here.

Please? 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

I am with you cscs, but after that 2nd paragraph it is going to be a bit tough to remain civil...

sPh

I addressed it, hopefully with some civility, in my comment below.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Mr. Ford, I have some very deep seated and long term grievances with the DLC and some of its members like Lieberman and Zell Miller. But we need each other so let's have a serious conversation. Could you please let us know what your opinion (or the DLC's) is concerning permanent bases in Iraq; secondly Bush has repeatedly stated that our troops would leave Iraq if the people of Iraq did not want them. Overwhelmingly, the people of Iraq have expressed their desire for the Americans forthwith. Shouldn't a free nation like ours respect the wishes of the people in the nation we are occupying? You talk of bipartisanship. Bush does as well. Many progressives here understand this talk to signify a la Lieberman a Democratic surrender of principles to Bush. If Bush says he will accept only funding on his terms |(for the Iraq occupation) what is your strategy in the face of such partisan intransigence? Lastly, you apparently do not think the invasion of Iraq was wrong (morally) or if you do I missed it. Can you clarify the moral basis for this policy in your view.

The skepticism and frustration that many on the left feel about the DLC is akin to how "normal" righties feel about the Neoconservative movement.

That each party has a questionable sub-division within it is a pretty good starting point for a conversation.

Ford is correct that weeding out the politics from the ideas is necessary. A major problem is that too many don't want to do this because it's more enjoyable to play politics.

I read the whole speech very carefully and I think this paragraph expresses the gist of it:

Today, I think our country needs, and I think we would all agree needs a healthy, honest conversation and debate about what we stand for, about the direction we're headed, and what a better president can do. This should be a proud and, frankly, awesome time for a debate.

I did not give up. I went back and read again paragraphs I had read earlier whenever my eyes glazed over or I caught myself drifting off thinking about something else.

I did not just skim it. I honestly really, really tried to get the gist of it and that, as far as I can make out, is all he had to say.

My speech last week identified six specific challenges we need to solve as Democrats, as progressives, and as Americans: (1) Keeping America Safe; (2) Giving Americans the Tools to Compete; (3) Holding Government Accountable for Results; (3) Creating the Hybrid Energy Economy; (5) Making America the Most Pro-Family Country on Earth; and (6) Ending Poverty For All Who Work.

Others have pointed out a few key lacunae in these goals, including that pasky torture/constitutionality thing. Maybe I'm wandering too much into framing, but a couple additional items struck me about this list of goals.

First, they're all written in a gerund form! Which is a weak construction , with all appropriate respect to the speechwriters. As gerunds -- "keeping" or "creating" -- they do not allow any endpoint. Which, in turn, suggests that there is no accountability. I realize that some of these tasks are perpetual challenges, but even so, I don't like them on both stylistic and sensible grounds.

Perhaps related to that, these goals have a fair number of ambiguities built in. For example, note that the safety of U.S. citizens and of the United States itself is not at issue. Instead, it's all about "keeping America safe." Well, what is "America"? Does that refer to the two American continents? Probably not. How about the idea of "America"? That seems more likely to me, and it's a much more amorphous set up. Similarly, "giving Americans the tools to compete" suggests that all we Americans lack is the proper tools, rather than a desire for a particular standard of living. Government will only be accountable "for results." What about conduct? A "hybrid energy economy" does not give us a timeframe or explain the balance between the various elements. What does "pro-family" mean? And why aren't we trying to end poverty, not just "poverty for all who work"?  Where does that leave children?

This agenda does not inspire much confidence in me. (And that's before I noticed the misnumbering!) The goals are incredibly general and open to interpretation. They therefore only create the illusion of common ground, rather than identifying shared priorities.

Hi Rep. Ford, and welcome to TPM Cafe.

You may have noticed that the DLC is not terribly popular among the liberal blogosphere.

I don't want to get into a long, detailed discussion of exactly what the problems with the DLC are. I'm sure others will take care of that. I will tell you what my core issues are, and I hope that you can see the wisdom of working with progressives on these issues.

1) Abuse of power by the Executive Branch. President Bush's administration has been in a state of violating the FISA law for probably about five years now. Do you support the idea that the President must be constrained by the law as it is written, or do Presidents have the latitude to ignore the law when they feel like it? I fear that this problem will not go away in 2008, especially if Mayor Giuliani's campaign is successful.

2) Equal rights for all Americans. In particular I have a gay colleague who is raising two children with his partner, and I am sick and tired of seeing his family villified by the religious right for choices they make that do not hurt anybody.

3) The moral leadership of America in the 21st century. You may have noticed this - the United States is widely villified these days on the world stage. I don't think morals are a matter of convenience for states as they interact with each other any more than they are a matter of convenience for people as they interact with each other. In particular, I would like to see the US end its policies of kidnapping suspected terrorists on foreign soil and detaining them indefinitely without legal review. And the policy of torture has to stop.

To the last point: it is really quite sad to listen to so many pundits decry the actions of the Iranians when they seized the 15 British marines and sailors. I say this not because I think the Iranians are in the right (indeed, I live in the UK these days and would hope that the British government can resolve this situation peacefully, and the 15 people could be returned safety to the UK). My problem is that the US has lost the moral high ground. It is impossible to argue that we know that the British ship was not in Iranian waters, given the actions of recent years, and it is hard to dismiss the stories claiming that the seizure was simply a retalitation for recent actions by US troops who seized several Iranians who were in Iraq.

The United States had a lot of good fortune in the 20th century. While it's true that the structure and ideals of the United States let us take the lead in making the world a better place, the fact that, among major industrial nations, the US was unique in not having a major war on its soil was certainly a factor in achieving a position of economic dominance. I fear that the US is frittering away the position of strength because (a) it is taken for granted, and (b0 because self-interest has become such a controlling philosophy at the highest levels of power that our leaders are actively working against the interests of the common people.

Hmm - I was intending to be brief, but I hope you think about all of what I've said.

How did supporting the bankruptcy bill, with all of its onerous provisions that made it a crushing blow to so many of the working poor who are a paycheck or a dental bill away from ruin, make this country more "pro-family"?

How does rubber-stamping George W Bush's war agenda and talking points hold government accountable?

You somewhat self-servingly ask us to set aside "old divisions"--ie to ignore what you and the DLC have done to promote GW Bush and his agenda--while at the same time speaking condescendingly of "boogeymen" and "stereotypes". You don't appear to have learned that, Beltway conventions notwithstanding, we in the 'netroots' deal in facts, we look at the record, our views and goals for this country are not some horowitzian fantasy about a newborn SDS or Marxist utopianism. And we do not like being talked down to by someone whose record in office, and whose organization's post-Clinton history, would recommend humility rather than superciliousness.

"It is not usually a good idea to start out by (1) mischaracterizing and thereby (2) insulting your audience."

It's not a mischaracterization, the progressive blogosphere has consistently misrepresented the DLC's positions as being farther to the right than they really are and, related to this, has egregiously demonized them. It's comprehensible because it's so human—people attack others within their own ranks more viciously than they attack the enemy because there's a sense of betrayal. And it can be appropriate if there really is betrayal. But it is inappropriate when it's just earnest and well-intentioned dissent. Frankly, I think that both are true of the DLC. It's an organization made up of many people, each of whom have different reasons for affiliating themselves with a dissenting Democratic organization. Some of those people, some of whom are very powerful, really are undermining core Democratic values.

In my opinion, the biggest divide between the left-of-center in the US is between those who see leftism as being primarily cultural and those who see leftism as being primarily economic. That's the long-term dynamic—we also now have a return of the Vietnam-era view that associates an anti-war stance as fundamental and primary. In all three cases, then, there are grounds for someone to accuse others of apostasy.

To be fair, reasoned, and generously-minded, it seems to me that it's best to attempt to analyze a dissenting case using all three of these dominant factors. Thus, someone who is progressive culturally and economically, and is anti-war, is someone the furthest leftward within the party. Someone who is conservative culturally and economically, and is pro-war, is so far to the right that their beliefs can't be reconciled with anything left-of-center, which surely is a requirement for ideological membership in the Democratic Party.

I think that the DLC, when it has formally announced its principles and goals, has always satisfied enough of the above criteria to remain part of the left. I also think that numerous individuals within the DLC have taken positions that disqualify them.

Mr. Ford, I have three questions for you:

1. Is universal health care for all on your agenda, so that the US can join other industrialized countries in the 21st Century?

2. Are you willing to repudiate your vote on Iraq and denounce the entire "war on terror" vocabulary as inadequate to describe our present situation?

3. Would you agree that the military-industrial-petroleum complex is calling the shots in the Bush administration?

I look forward to you replying precisely the way Chalmers Johnson did.

Thanks in advance,

Tom

Mr Ford

Do us all a favor, and resign. Ho9w the hell did you get a leadership position in the party?

.> Ho9w the hell did you get a leadership
> position in the party?

The DLC is self-appointed and ad hoc. That isn't to say it is without influence, but it is not part of the DNC, the state parties, or even the DSCC/DCCC.

sPh

I'm not as hostile to the DLC as some here, but I think there are two questions you need to answer:

(1) How is the DLC not simply Republican lite?
(2) Why have so many DLCers been so shy about revisiting their support the war? It's clear that the war was a terrible idea -- don't you owe us an explanation?

"“I love Jesus, I love girls and I absolutely love football.”

I have to say that was about one of the most sickening statements any candidate made last year. What was it like to sell your soul and then discover that the voters wouldn't buy it.
Please, do not run for office again.
Also, who do you love more, girls or Jesus.
Jeeeeeeeezus!

In fairness, those who are part of the traditional Democratic Party do not understand blogs or blogging. The expectation that a controversial essay will be criticized, and that the critics will expect a response, is just not understood. In previous "how to upgrade the Cafe" threads we discussed this and asked that the expectation be made clear to "name" posters, but even if that has been done I doubt they would accept it; it just isn't part of that generation's DNA (note that I am about the same age as Ford).

sPh

Dear Mr. Ford,

As a former constituent, and as someone who supported your Senate run in the face of near universal opposition from my progressive brothers and sisters at The Flypaper Theory, let me first say how disappointed I was to learn that you had taken this position at the DLC.

Honestly, I thought that somewhere deep down in your heart you really cared about Tennessee and especially Memphis, and that your loss in the Senate race would give you the opportunity to reflect and return to your roots.

Memphis is dying for real Democratic leadership. Our city government is corrupt to its hollow bones and the city is rotting from within. You could have come here and used your influence and connections to set up community foundations to help real people, the people who supported you with their votes for 10 years, to better their lives in appreciable ways. You could have come home and vowed to clean up this city. Don't you realize that the mayor's office was yours for the asking?

As mayor of Memphis, you could have opened the way to a future run as governor, and beyond that, who knows? President?

But it all started in Memphis. And you have abandoned Memphis. When you took the job with the DLC, I knew then that you no longer cared about Memphis, that you had decided to glom on to the festering hind tit of the Democratic party to suck from it whatever power and money you could get before it dies and falls off.

I am glad to see that the DLC has finally come to terms with the fact that the progressive netroots represents the American majority, but please don't blame us for attacking the DLC, because for the last 7+ years the DLC has treated us like a bunch of dirty hippies. If anyone has a need to apologize, it is the DLC. I hope that conservative Democrats and liberal Democrats can work together to find common ground.

We can start, perhaps, with you and the DLC admitting your past errors of judgment and political support. Leiberman is a fine starting point, I think. Had the DLC supported the Democratic candidate for Connecticut, we'd have a solid majority in the Senate today, not one teetering Joe's whims and personal payback agendas.

I find it so interesting that many "progressive" Democrats would rather settle old scores and maintain division than be magnanimous in victory and build coalitions to ensure success in the future.

Why do I say "victory?" Because on most of the big issues that were points of contention between the DLC centrists and the progressive left over the last few years, the progressives have won:

• No one outside of a few dead-enders like Joe Lieberman continues to defend the Iraq War. The actual differences between the DLC and the position of most leftwingers isn't that large.
• Universal healthcare is now a default position for most Democrats.
• Climate change is also a top priority.

Are there still differences? Sure. In particular the relative levels of friendliness to business are still different. But even there the differences are narrowing. The DLC, unlike a lot of centrists, is institutionally friendly to unions for example.

Why can't progressives declare victory and move on to figuring out how to get as many people inside the big progressive tent rather than slaying the big bad DLC, whose power and influence is waning as people figure out that they've been wrong too often over the last few years?

Most people agree that the country is farther to the right today than it was 30 years ago. Would you say that the GOP became more powerful by catering to the "vital center" of this shift, or that the shift was caused by the GOP persistently pulling the electorate to the right while obeying its most conservative factions? In other words, to what extent should the electorate pull the party, versus the party pulling the electorate?

a distorted view of the organization's history, and its alleged present status as a pillar of the Washington political establishment.

Many voters agree with so-called "lefty" positions: that Iraq is hopeless and we should cut our losses; that federally-owned wilderness should be protected and preserved; that we should have some form of universal health care. But you have to actually give voters a choice on these issues, and the DLC persistently avoids them in favor of compromises on GOP-chosen issues.

I'd love to know Mr. Ford's response to just about any of the thoughts raised so far.

mr. ford,

i find it disingenuous for you to ask us to put aside old divisions, when those divisions are at the heart of what alienates the DLC from the grassroots of what the late Senator Wellstone said was the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. These divisions - labor vs. capital, human rights vs. pseudo-religious moralism, and peace vs. war to name the most prominent - are fundamental to the worldviews many of us hold and the expectations that we have of our political representatives.

so before you ask us to put aside those divisions, please forthrightly address how the you expect your organization to address them and bridge the fundamental gulf that separates us.

without this necessary first step on your part all we can expect from this blog thread are platitudes from you and emnity from us.

aml

The DLC's Real Political Base

"In fact, the DLC's real political base is among state and local elected officials from around the country"

Actually, Harold, the DLC has no base in local government. Al From swings through a city like Houston looking for ambitious, young, preferably minority, office-seekers and starts handing out patronage in exchange for their support of the DLC's policy-peddling. That would be Wall Street, K-Street, the Army of Northern Virginia, & other bond-lawyer and paper-hanger trade goods.

Those were originally mirrors and beads, of course, but today they are mostly public-works offsets -- stadiums, convention hotels, cranes -- whatever DoD has agreed to buy in exchange for some foreign arms sale. Also, now, obsolete, coal-fired boilers and all manner of fancy schemes to raid middle-class pensions and savings in order to indemnify improvident or larcenous fee-men with connections in both corrupt parties.

Ah, bi-partisanship, ain't it sweet!

So, where in this "common ground" you speak of, Harold, is some concession-racket, offset, set-aside, or agro-military pork, "public/private partnership", GOCO plantation, predatory financial institution, or nationally recognized firm of bond counsel, tax counsel, tax farm, or whatever that the DLC will not "Hold Harmless".

Name one Harold.

We know the number of combat boots that are now emptied, day by day, thanks, in part, to Hillary, Joe, and the Vichy Democrats.

Show me one single pair of tassled white bucks emptied by the DLC or exchanged for those booties they wear at Club Fed thanks to the DLC and its network of collaborators, informers, and fund-raisers or ... pimps.

::JRBehrman

I'm all in favor of a Democratic party that doesn't define large portions of its potential membership as beyond the pale. I'm against demonizing the DLC; I'm also against the DLC demonizing (e.g.) MoveOn, Howard Dean, those of us who have always opposed the Iraq war, and so on. So while it may not be productive to say 'let's all be friends...you first', I do think any genuine effort towards reconciliation has to come with an acknowledgment of what the DLC has done wrong.

Or, to put it another way: you don't get to complain about unfair characterizations of the DLC without admitting the DLC's unfair characterizations of others.

To the commenters: better to have a conversation than huddle in separate camps and snipe from a distance.

To Mr Ford: your mission is to redefine the term 'Fox News Democrat' so that it's not a pejorative, or a synonym for enabling GOP propaganda. And I'll judge you on your actions.

But I do have one question: can the DLC be trusted to back Democratic policies with which it may take issue, rather than provide the GOP with ammunition? That is, can it accept being a minority voice contributing on the inside, or will it take its ball and run to Fox News, seeking the power that organisation offers to Democrats who spend all their time criticising other Democrats?

"(1) Keeping America Safe; (2) Giving Americans the Tools to Compete; (3) Holding Government Accountable for Results; (3) Creating the Hybrid Energy Economy; (5) Making America the Most Pro-Family Country on Earth; and (6) Ending Poverty For All Who Work."

As a sometimes-dissenting Democrat myself, and someone who, in the past, found myself in agreement with the DLC on a number of issues, I'll try to engage you in each of these points.

"(1) Keeping America Safe"

That is a talking point and not a policy prescription. But I'll assume its implications are anti-terrorism and pro-military.

On the anti-terrorism front, I think the leftist complaint is that the creation of a police-state as a response to fear is inherently rightist. At the very least, a centrist position requires a continued respect for the rule of law and the disdain for the star chamber, torture, and the like. Anything left of center emphasizes these things strongly. It's clearly possible to be reasonably effective in preventing terrorism while avoiding the creation of a police-state. If, for political purposes, the DLC wants to take seriously the possibly histrionic American fears of terrorism, then it ought to concentrate on doing so with effective policy proposals that strongly contrast to the GOP's facile security measures that do little except increase the government's powers and lay the groundwork for a police state.

With regard to being "pro-military" which, again, is a position popular with most Americans, including the center, and which presumably the DLC wants to reach...well, it seems pretty clear to me that neither the current foreign policy of the Bush administration nor the Iraq war are pro-military and truly strengthening American power worldwide. Rather, they are undermining both. The DLC could appeal to the center—which not incidentally also now opposes this war—by emphasizing how the Bush administration's policies and the war in Iraq are weakening America and breaking the back of the military. You can still assert interventionism without endorsing this ill-advised and botched war.

"(2) Giving Americans the Tools to Compete"

This is obviously a roundabout way of defending free trade by emphasizing various policy prescriptions to answer displacements and other short-term ills associated with trade.

First off, start talking honestly about this. As someone who agrees very strongly with the DLC on trade, I think being mealy-mouthed about this is insulting and too reminiscent of the GOP. Trade creates long-term benefits but short-term ills. Admit that, be honest about it. Always discuss both together. A centrist and leftist set of policies that include free trade must include a number of specific responses to the short-term ills associated with trade. Not merely a vague commitment to "competitiveness", real liberalism requires governmental programs in unemployment insurance, retraining, health care, antipoverty, and also foreign policy strategies to address exploitative labor and environmental damage problems in our trading partners.

"(3) Holding Government Accountable for Results"

This just seems like empty rhetoric to me. Please translate this into something more meaningful.

"4) Creating the Hybrid Energy Economy"

We need higher taxation on gasoline and major subsidies for good, practical alternative energy. Alternative energy will never be viable unless there's an economic disincentive for hydrocarbon use.

"(5) Making America the Most Pro-Family Country on Earth"

Why? Here we see your culturally conservative bias. By itself, this is right-of-center. It's also empty rhetoric. Most Americans will probably identify themselves as "pro-family". But on the details, they will disagree. It is no longer centrist to be oppose gay rights. Aside from being anti-gay, I can't figure out what specific policies are implied in this statement. Making divorce more difficult? That's very much right-of-center and opposed to the sentiment of most Americans, center included.

"(6) Ending Poverty For All Who Work"

Why the qualification? It is not liberal to ignore the unemployed poor. This is an example of rhetoric about policy that has gone through stages of distortion to the point at which the statement itself is corrosive. The DLC's centrist embrace of welfare reform in the late 80s and later under the Clinton administration was not a conservative and punitive "we'll only help those who work" initiative. Rather, it was a response to the critique that the welfare status quo encouraged a permanent poverty by not helping the underclass find ways to enter the workforce. Whether this was a valid critique or not is beside the point—it was still motivated by a truly liberal impulse. But the same policy initiative embraced from the right saw things in terms of those who "deserve" help and those who do not. This is not liberal. To frame an antipoverty initiative wholly in terms of "those who work" is to embrace this moralistic right-wing viewpoint. That wasn't Clinton's view on the matter. Is it yours?

Most of the impressions (really criticisms) I have of the DLC have been expressed very well from various points of view.

I do not know the inside history of the DLC, but I don't think my time is best spent on protecting or enhancing the DLC's image when it seems the ship of renewed populism has sailed way past the DLC and the "Beltway insiders". In other words, while I appreciate your efforts to reach out to the "netroots", I agree with the perception that it feels as though you (and by extension the DLC) STILL look down at the netroots and want to lecture/talk down to us and show us the way to succeed. I think the opposite is true, and if the DLC wants to succeed into the future it is going to take more than vague platitudes with no specifics, and no follow-up from you, Mr. Ford, in a forum that you chose to engage TPM Cafe readers in (at least so far).

If I had to provide a short summary of the DLC to someone who was not politically engaged, I would describe the organization as very business friendly and inside-Washington, and has one claim to success of Bill Clinton's eight successful years as President which more likely occurred despite of not because of the DLC. When personalities were elevated above policy, the unsustainable Democratic majorities became evident. The DLC should have been communicating basic (and specific) items that all Democrats can be proud of and that the US voters can understand and know what we stand for. We are still playing catch-up.

I write respectfully and rarely use name-calling or insults. I feel your reaching out is important to whatever extent the DLC is important -- however, your initial statement is lacking in specifics and still using code words like "pro-family". Those are definitely signs of Beltway-insider thinking.

Welcome Mr. Ford. I see from your introductory comment that you have noticed that this pot on the stove is full of boiling water. I’m glad you didn’t just walk up and try to grab it bare handed. So let’s both put our oven mitts on and shake hands. I guarantee I will be civil. I will leave it to your judgment whether or not I am coherent.

I take your lead and offer a question that precedes specific policy topics. “In search of Common Ground” is an interesting title for a discussion among members of the same political party. One might think that joining a party infers some common ground. Is there a principle that the DLC (or if you wish a “New Democrat”) athinks would be universally acknowledged by any group gathered under the banner “Democrat?” What, in the view of the DLC, is the ground we all stand on?

Here's an example of the kinds of things you should be saying:

The President today asked the American people to trust him as he continues to follow the same failed strategy that has drawn our troops further into an intractable civil war. The President's policies have failed and his escalation endangers our troops and hurts our national security. Neither our troops nor the American people can afford this strategy any longer.

Democrats will send President Bush a bill that gives our troops the resources they need and a strategy in Iraq worthy of their sacrifices. If the President vetoes this bill he will have delayed funding for troops and kept in place his strategy for failure. i>The President today asked the American people to trust him as he continues to follow the same failed strategy that has drawn our troops further into an intractable civil war. The President's policies have failed and his escalation endangers our troops and hurts our national security. Neither our troops nor the American people can afford this strategy any longer.

Democrats will send President Bush a bill that gives our troops the resources they need and a strategy in Iraq worthy of their sacrifices. If the President vetoes this bill he will have delayed funding for troops and kept in place his strategy for failure.

--Harry Reid

IN SEARCH OF A DISCUSSION

Hey, I thought this was going to be a two way "chat" with DLC head Harold Ford. Instead it looks like Mr. Ford stopped by to tell us that we're wrong to think of the DLC as a bogeyman, and the DLC is really down to earth, and look at all the fabulous things the DLC supports! and blah blah blah. Two hours have gone by, and no feedback from Mr. Ford about the issues raised in comments. (sigh) Tell me again why I should love the DLC?

And to BradtheDad, who expresses "concern" that the Netroots aren't declaring victory and looking to work together with the DLC, I say this: the DLC has no interest in working with the Netroots, and the DLC hasn't admitted error, and thus hasn't "surrendered" to the Netroots. Specifically, you said:

1. No one outside of a few dead-enders like Joe Lieberman continues to defend the Iraq War. The actual differences between the DLC and the position of most leftwingers isn't that large. 2. Universal healthcare is now a default position for most Democrats. 3. Climate change is also a top priority.

On the first point, you're dead wrong. Many longstanding members of the DLC (Wittman?) continue to undercut Democratic efforts to end the Iraq War. I could be wrong, but I think "dead-ender" Lieberman is still a member of the DLC. You should also note that in his opening note today, Mr. Ford made no mention of the Iraq War. Get this into your head: the DLC has not taken an unequivocal stand for a withdrawal timeline, and many DLCers continue to advocate against such a thing. There is no "victory" to declare here for Netroots, because the DLC has not joined us on this extremely important issue.

I'm willing to discuss Universal Health Care and Clean Energy with the DLC, after the DLC has come to our side on the Iraq War. That must happen first. Until it does, I will continue to view the DLC with suspicion and hostility.

I'm all for welcoming in apostate Dems. However, the DLC as an organization will never renounce its ongoing attempts to destroy the Democratic party. The best way for an apostate to demonstrate that he's really a Democrat is to resign from the DLC. When one does, I'll kill a fatted calf for him.

You know this feels just like having a Conversation with Hillary Clinton......

No kidding re: Tennessee Dems... back in 2004 when I walked over to HQ in search of Kerry/Edwards signs, not only did almost no one even stop to acknowledge me, but the one fellow who did also treated me to a nearly ten-minute diatribe on immigrants having access to healthcare (he was against it). I certainly understood his frustration with citizens' access, but I didn't really expect that kind of scapegoating among Dems. Even in the south, and especially not in a capital city.

Of course, that's why I'm much more interested in national politics-- in this part of the country state & local politics are pretty depressing.

Dude, you have no sense of humor.

Yes. Very few "big name" posters here descend to our level in the comments.

"I'm willing to discuss Universal Health Care and Clean Energy with the DLC, after the DLC has come to our side on the Iraq War. That must happen first."

Why? While I agree with you about this war, I can't understand this view of it as an ideological test for membership in the Left or in the Democratic Party.

I'm hard-pressed to find a way in which an antiwar stance or isolationism is historically more strongly associated with the left than the right other than the left's greater enthusiasm for diplomacy and international law. That alone is perhaps a reasonable basis to assert a vague antiwar position as inherently ideologically leftist. But leftism has often been willing to fight wars. To vote someone off the island on an ideological basis for failing to conform to a temporary political alignment on a war is ahistorical and narrow-minded.

It seems far, far more reasonable to me to argue that someone isn't progressive if they oppose gay rights or universal health care than it is if they support the Iraq war. It may be foolish, or ignorant, or stubborn to support this war, but it's not inherently an ideological betrayal and it shouldn't be seen as such.

Heh. After reading the preceding comments, I thought I was being nice! I think it is good that he is here.

(Go Rutgers!)

"If one is able, isn't it morally superior to work than not?"

Arguably. But my sense is that value is much more strongly related to cultural conservatism in the US than it is to progressivism. Furthermore, I think the liberal and progressive view is that almost all people prefer to work in some capacity and that there's no need to be moralistic about it. The tiny minority that are able but will not work are outliers that, in a pluralistic society, we have to accommodate, especially with regard to fundamental progressive values like access to health care, housing, and sustenance. Even if we, as progressives, were to agree that there's something "wrong" with refusing to work, that would not allow us to ignore, as progressives, the right those folks have to certain essentials. Therefore any social welfare program must include those who won't work, otherwise it's punitive. And if it's punitive, it's not progressive.

Your agenda looks like it was copied from a campaign pamphlet. Why don't we just discuss what concerns most Americans? The topics would be Iraq, health care, and jobs. Global warming is actually becoming an important topic too.

Al From on the 2006 election results:

The big political test will come almost immediately, in the ability of Democrats to offer a compelling progressive agenda for the country, and in a 2008 presidential contest that will be about the future more than the past. If Democrats act as problem solvers, not polarizers, that future will be very bright.

That last point was underscored by Joe Lieberman's re-election victory in Connecticut, which helps solidify the Democratic Party's credentials as a broad, inclusive coalition able to compete for the vital center of American politics.

(my emphasis)

There can be no common ground with people who see Lieberman part of a broad inclusive coalition of Democrats, who does not even respect the results of a Democratic primary and deprived us of a strong anti-occupation voice.

What's more, he left out honoring Mom and promoting apple pie.

Polls do show that the public hates this war, but I don't think polls show that the public "hates" this president.

Regardless of political party, it's too bad that the political whores in Washington don't read some of these comments. Not that I have any hopes that it would make a difference enough to them to let them know/understand that every one of them are out of touch with average American citizens.

Including Mr. Harold Ford.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

They don't offer solutions, and people like Lieberman are quick to label those who disagree with them as harming the country in some way. "Those who disagree do so at our country's peril", remember that?

Leon Panetta, Mark ("top-secret withdrawal deadlines!")Pryor, Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman aren't doing much for the country, but they are great ennablers to this Administration. I want more from the Democratic party than that.

Well, Ford is pro-war, pro-NAFTA and anti-gay. Sounds like a Publican to me. And he's leading the DLC. Sooooooo.....

With the possible exception of HRC (and perhaps by extension the DLC), I can't imagine any of the current Democratic Presidential candidates would ever go along with, yet alone promote the concept of "preemptive war". What a disaster that will affect us for decades if not in perpetuity. Why wouldn't Iran use it as justification to strike at US forces because we have 2 carrier groups definitely providing an imminent threat -- far more conclusively than cartoon drawings and forged documents?

I still cannot wrap my mind around how so many in the US think they have this "right" to install democracy from the barrel of a gun whenever and wherever they see fit, and if the rest of the world had not yet realized the hypocrisy and resultant deaths of 100,000's of innocent civilians by the bully USA, they certainly do now and will be taught so well into the future. Osama bin Laden could not have dreamed up a better result. For another example, the Presidents of Iran and the USA use threats and taunts, using war games and the media to drum up their local support because by nature most people will defend their family and country from outside threats.

So, Mr. Ford -- as you came here representing the DLC ... would you emphatically state that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a mistake, requiring the USA to now take decisive action removing the military and military contractors and instead providing LARGE sums of money to Iraqi's for reconstruction (and not overseen by the USA)? What specifically will the DLC do to repair the damage to the USA's reputation and work to repair the checks and balances that are supposed to prevent such actions by a unitary Executive?

Not literally, and that's why I "stole the line" from Atrios. It's shorthand for Bush's unpopularity.

Bush has 30-40% approval ratings -- he's an incredibly unpopular and disliked President. But you'd hardly know that from the news coverage of the last few years. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

I have a question for Harold Ford:

Since you had to retract the recent Washington Times article on you, as you claim they misrepresented your positions, will you continue to grant them interviews?

And a statement for Harold Ford:

You do realize, I hope, that what you experienced with the Washington Times is *exactly* the reason rank-and-file Democrats don't want to see Dem debates hosted by Fox News, and don't want to see Democrats like you as paid commentators on Fox?

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Hope, were you sleeping in class when they covered the incarceration of Japanese nationals and the McCarthy hearings. We've been through a lot worse than Bush, believe it or not.

Who is John?

What JRBerman said.

may i suggest the Green Party for you, mj?

Why?

Dissent Protects Democracy.

"Reading Ford, I now know that I was right to hope he'd lose last November. I'd rather have a rightwing Bible thumper caucusing with the GOP than the Dems."

Now, thats a winning strategy, I'm sure such attitudes please the Republicans to no end.

{insert chuckle}

These are the debates that make me wonder if the Democrats even understand national leadership.

Jack

Therefore any social welfare program must include those who won't work, otherwise it's punitive. And if it's punitive, it's not progressive.

I'm not sure I agree with your points (please correct me if I misinterpreted what you're saying). I figure that progressive policies are those that are designed to encourage improvements in the quality of life for everybody, and that recognize we aren't little independent "islands." (contrasted with, say libertarianism, which assumes just that). But good things in society don't come free - people need to pull their own weight or things break down; as such, there need to be incentives to everyone to do so. There's a place for both the carrot and the stick in progressive policy making. While I'm not in favor of letting people starve, or die from lack of medical care, or anything like that, I don't think there's anything wrong with people who contribute to society in meaningful ways being treated better than those who can, but choose not to. I do think it's a moral issue, not just arguably, but actually - if you can work, you need to work - because the whole system runs on it.

I said:
"I'm willing to discuss Universal Health Care and Clean Energy with the DLC, after the DLC has come to our side on the Iraq War. That must happen first."

kmellis said:
Why? While I agree with you about this war, I can't understand this view of it as an ideological test for membership in the Left or in the Democratic Party.

I guess I didn't make myself clear. I'm not saying I'm open to finding compromise with DLCers on health care or clean energy, I'm saying I'm only willing to talk to DLCers about those things after they atone for the Iraq War catastrophe.

For me, the DLC changing its stance on the Iraq War is less a litmus test for progressive values, and more of a litmus test for behavioral change at the DLC. Those guys were selling the Iraq War as far back as 2002, and they've been nonstop criticizing the antiwar crowd as "extreme left" ever since. When the DLC shows that they're willing to admit error and apologize for their past behavior, they'll have shown at least a willingness to work for the Netroots, not against them.

But until I see some tangible action from the DLC that indicates a change in philosophy, I see no need to engage them. Why should I? They don't stand for anything, and their candidates don't win. So what would a progressive like me get out of supporting the DLC?

shame on you. let me ask you a question: have you defended Bill Clinton's administration? If so, are you not implicitly recognizing the contribution of the dlc.

There is hatred on this thread and it is wrong.

1) To generate hits and advertising revene for TPMMedia.

I'm sure Josh sees that benefit. I'm also sure it wasn't part of his motivation to invite Mr. Ford to participate here. That would be gratuitous, I don't think that chimes with Josh's history running this operation.

2) To help establish TPMMedia as the "serious" alternative media source.

I think TPMM is already there, via the work they've done on the Cunningham and USA Purge stories. But does this build upon that? Absolutely and three cheers for it.

3) Based on outside observation alone, I have a suspicion that despite his acknowledgement of the Iraq failure, Mr. Marshall has some personal sympathy for the DLC viewpoint.

Only Josh can speak to his sympathies, but I don't buy it. The DLC's position, leadership, and candidates take a beating here. (IMO, deservedly so.) If you're running an honest-to-God news operation, you present both sides and have a fair discussion about it. At the end of the day, our opinions are more informed, and both TPMM as a news agency and we as J. Random Concerned Citizens gain peer credibility.

As someone who's unhappy with the DLC, I'll feel a lot better knowing I dislike them for the right reasons--or disliking them less if some of my concerns prove misplaced. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to bend the ear of the political leadership. That's where this event can take us. The mainstream media is univerally unwilling or unable to facilitate this.

Mr. Ford, you have a opportunity here, and I hope that you appreciate just how serious it is. There are some very good concerns already raised. Please speak to them directly and honestly, and you may gain people willing to work with and support your candidates. Evasive non-answers will only breed mistrust. You say that the progressive blogosphere holds a distorted view of the DLC's history and place in politics. I hope you'll be explain that in specifics, particularly in light of your organization's past actions and your own votes and statements.

To my recollection Josh Marshall DID belong or at least agree to the DLC at some point in the late 90s, and his viewpoint IS sympathetic to their ideas and positions. But he also sees that whatever they are selling it's not what 1) this country needs right now 2) works to win elections.

So I really have no problem with Mr. Ford here, back in the day I supported his candidacy against Pelosi for minority leader though of course both of us were proven wrong. But if Mr. Ford has read more than a handful of these comments I will be surprised. We are talking to ourselves.

I, for one, have long considered Bill Clinton's administration to be the best Republican administration of the late 20th century. But I was never foolish enough to consider Clinton's corporatism to have anything to do with Democratic values.

--

"There's no telling what new harm Bush might do
if he ever gets back up off the mat.
You have to keep your knee on his windpipe
until the danger is past." -- Garry Trudeau

before you all rate this one just think about it for a second. Dems criticize Bush all the time for being closed minded and rightly so. Ford comes here to engage in a conversation and the response admonishes TPM for inviting him in the first place, questions whether he is even a democrat, and basically says that his views are illegitimate for someone in this party. How is this not hypocritical? How is this not wrong? Why are those who say these sort of things not just the left wing version of Bush/ Cheney.

Molly Ivins had it right:

Mah fellow progressives, now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of the party. I don’t know about you, but I have had it with the D.C. Democrats, had it with the DLC Democrats, had it with every calculating, equivocating, triangulating, straddling, hair-splitting son of a bitch up there, and that includes Hillary Rodham Clinton....

I can’t see a damn soul in D.C. except Russ Feingold who is even worth considering for President. The rest of them seem to me so poisonously in hock to this system of legalized bribery they can’t even see straight.

Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran

=== Ford comes here to engage in a conversation ===

The fear was that Ford came here to deliver another top-down lecture. The 2nd paragraph of his post, combined with the content thereof, tended to confirm that fear. Ford could have handled that by participating in the blog comments, or even posting summary responses at a reasonable interval, but he did neither.

Additionally, the DLC (which is accountable to no one) has NEVER taken responsibility for either its stance on the Iraq war or its attitude toward any Democrat it classifies as "lefty" (which is generally not very far "left" by any objective standard).

So respectfully I must disagree with your response.

sPh

By golly, Brad, YOU'VE changed your tune. When did Joe Lieberman, for you, start being a "dead-ender" and stop being the Last Voice Of Sanity In The Dhimmicratic Party??

> > Universal healthcare is now a default position for most Democrats

Yes. BECAUSE THE DLC LOST THE INTRA-DEMOCRATIC DEBATE. Progressivism wins when the DLC is down. And they're down now because the Iraq War, which Mr Ford, H. Clinton and all their other Golden Kids backed, has become one of the bigger Clusterfucks of all time.

.> you mean to the unthinking hatred

I have seen a fair amount of strong disagreement and even dislike on display, but I would be curious to see links to the comments you classify as "unthinking"; I have not seen more than 2 or 3 such (which is a very low percentage for a forum of this nature).

sPh