How long should the DLC sit quietly?
In the course of the first Ford/DLC thread, I was asked:
=== At what point do you let this transgression of being wrong for 5 years go? ===
Since the reply will probably get lost due to the size of the thread, I am posting it here.
Unfortunately, this isn't a friendly dispute over whether the top marginal tax rate should be 23.7% or 26.9% - it is over failing to understand, and in many cases actually supporting, the Bush/Cheney anti-Constitutional agenda (e.g. Lieberman). So in my personal opinion the timeout should last at least two Presidential cycles, or 8-10 years.
You may very well disagree. But the clock doesn't even _start_ until the core DLC movers-and-shakers acknowledge that they made a series of unbelievably serious mistakes in misunderestimating (and in many cases actually supporting) the Radical Right. I have seen zero sign of any such acknowledgement and in fact just the opposite: "Time to move on. Here's your next lecture from your superiors".
It must be fun to be the teenager of a DLC member: "Well yeah Dad, there was the whole thing with the car and the alcohol and the police action. But that was last week and the important thing is to focus on how we can work together to move forward as a family; that sort of backward-looking vituperation and talk of 'responsibility for one's actions' is divisive to the family.".
sPh
This blog entry asks the most important question democrats can ask - how long must the wrong, wrongheaded, bad and complicit leadership of the DLC be tolerated by democrats? To this day the DLC refuses to admit their compliance and complicity in the invasion of Iraq - they insist that the "problem" with Iraq is the incompetence of the Bush administration, that our "honor" as a nation prohibits our withdrawal from Iraq, that criticism of Bush's war policy is tantamount to treason at worst and "bad politics" at best and the build up and expansion of the military our best option for security as a nation.
If any group can be said to be suffering from a syndrome, it is the DLC. They're like the battered spouse - tired of the beatings, but they can't bring themselves to leave the battering spouse. I've never seen a group of people so sure that if they become what the republicans want, then surely the beatings will stop.
April 4, 2007 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bev, You might want to check this out.
Best,
Ticia
April 4, 2007 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ticia, I didn't reply to the analogy to domestic violence because I've been ignoring your blog. I figure it's not worth arguing about, as you're welcome to spread good cheer and to rant against Bush. If someone dislikes him a bit more on that account, great, and he's not going to be impeached, so who cares? But since you've brought it here, I have to say that the analogy is both dead wrong and very demeaning. I get angry every time I think about it.
It's wrong to speak of the public in denial. Poll after poll shows that the public thinks Bush is dishonest, that the war is bad, etc., etc. Victims of abuse can deny anything happened, be too scared to challenge it because of retaliation, or believe on an emotional level that its their own fault. Not one of those elements is present here. They just don't agree with you that it's a crime (just as Nixon wasn't impeached for prolonging the Vietnam War), or they don't believe they have a serious opportunity to mass a two-thirds majority in the Senate to impeach not just one but two or more, or they don't believe there's time for it (including the months of investigation that it would take first and should begin now, plus the perhaps years to build the public opinion that in fact is lacking), or they believe it's as important as universal health care and action against the war, etc. You can argue over the rightness of these, and I am open to that, but it seems to me that by ignoring them you're the one in denial.
And I'm personally very, very insulted. Are you telling me that I'm sick? For that matter, are you telling me I don't know what Bush has done and don't object to it? Hey, why don't you go out there and try to work with some battered women? Were you out there when it was in fact a political issue to make abuse a crime, in a legal system in which it in fact was not? Were you beaten as a child? I'm not going to start true confessions in this area, but get a life.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
April 5, 2007 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
John, I rated your post a one because I thought the five needed to be balanced. Properly, I should have rated this a zero for balance, but I was unwilling to take the step of calling someone a troll based on one obnoxious post.
Frankly, I'll acknowledge that I can often be a pretty big jerk and quite obnoxious, particularly when I'm dealing with someone offensive. Sometimes I'm a jerk ab initio. But even when I'm responding, its really not an excuse, since I have no reason to descend to their level. I try, and I often fail, to be a better person.
Having said all that, I have to say John, that your post came across as really quite hateful and full of bile. There's a line between attacking someone's posts and writing, between attacking someone's thoughts and ideas... and simply going after the person themselves, and it seems to me that you didn't even pause to look, you just cruised over into very personal and very offensive attacks.
You say that you were very, very personally insulted. Maybe you were. But are you honestly going to make the argument that Ticia's post was specifically designed and aimed at insulting you personally?
Or did you just make the choice to be insulted by a general post for public viewing. You chose to take something personal that was not personally directed. Which would strike me as a bit of game playing common to a lot of bullies.
Because if its the latter, my reading of it is that you went out of your way to offer very, very personal and insulting. Intimately insulting in a really vile way. Insulting that says less about Ticia and more about a rather unsavoury streak of gratuitous sadism in your writing, that I certainly hope is not reflective of your personal character.
I'm not sure where this came from, because Ticia wasn't addressing you directly, but BevD, when you chose to reply to her. And your reply didn't seem to have a lot to do with the thread. It felt a lot like it was needlessly gratuitous.
I dunno. Perhaps I should go back and zero rate this.
I find that on these boards, we are often less reasonable and less judicious than we ought to be. As I've said, I'm an offender myself. But I do think we ought to make the effort to be better.
I hope you won't take too much offence at this. Certainly, if you feel entitled to speak to Ticia in this way, then I can only assume you're happy to be spoken to in this way. Or you recognize that if you dish it out, you have it coming. Or perhaps this sort of thing doesn't bother you at all, either way. In which case, fair is fair.
But if you do take offence, well, accept my apologies now. And if that's not good enough... I'm not as nice a person as Ticia.
April 6, 2007 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Revised and moved.
April 22, 2007 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
False.
Apparently, my analogy wasn't "dead" wrong for everyone -- or even most who read it. Whatever your opinion, you are out of line to attack me personally in this forum and I am calling you on it.
Ticia
April 22, 2007 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I guess I'm in tangential agreement with Valdron which is truly an amazing thing.
John, the above registers heavy on the wrong-song list. You've done somebody a wrong song and should apologize. Maybe you have and I didn't scroll down enough. In any case, we all do this kind of thing at some point, and lost of times when we're tired. In the context of human history, and beyond that, into natural history, and beyond that, into eternity, it's like most of us haven't really come more than a moment away from our childhoods.
April 26, 2007 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
this isn't a friendly dispute over whether the top marginal tax rate should be 23.7% or 26.9% - it is over failing to understand, and in many cases actually supporting, the Bush/Cheney anti-Constitutional agenda (e.g. Lieberman).
I've been trying to come up with that phrase for years.
April 4, 2007 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is exactly correct. the DLC has been wrong on so many issues that the notion of their officials pitching this "let bygones be bygones" line is laughable on its face.
The teenager example is perfect.
Allowing the DLC to get away with this would be just as bad, if not worse, than the line they're pitching. It would demonstrate that there are no consequences for one's actions, that failure is OK, that we should accomodate our opponents even when they won't accomodate us. Screw that.
I can't wait for Ford's next little fireside chat. To be hoinest, I only registered here so I can yell at him.
April 4, 2007 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is exactly correct. the DLC has been wrong on so many issues that the notion of their officials pitching this "let bygones be bygones" line is laughable on its face.
I don't mind the "let bygones be bygones" line half as much as the "you are delusional -- but lets work together" attitude taken by Ford. Ford has bought into Bushco's constant rewriting of history to the point where he expects US to buy into his own fictional account of the DLC and its history.
April 4, 2007 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
"that they made a series of unbelievably serious mistakes in misunderestimating"
Where is your list?
It is easy to throw accusations but if you want to be taken serious you need to back up with facts of some sort.
Jack
April 4, 2007 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
for starters?
Supporting the war in iraq. Voting for the Military Commissions Act of 2006. failing to filibuster Alito or Roberts. The bankruptcy Bill.
Want more? I can go on.
April 4, 2007 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't just that the DLC will not admit they were wrong, wrong, wrong. They aren't just asking for a seat at the table. They want to sit in the head chair.
For people who have been so wrong for so long, it takes real gall to continue to demand the right to lead. For people who have called for purging the anti-war element from the Democratic party, it takes real gall to write a "can't we all get along speech." For people who have heaped more scorn on fellow Democrats than on the opposition; it takes real gall to ask for a truce and still expect to play a leadership role.
I am all for welcoming conservative Democrats back into the fold, for working with them on our common issues. THe DLC is another matter. It's been a pernicious influence on the party since its inception and should be broken and discarded.
Since the beginning, the DLC has operated with a special sort of arrogance and assumption of unearned privilege that one associates with Republicans. It has focused on enforcing a Democratic orthodoxy and fed the media stereotype of disorganized Democrats when unable to enforce discipline. It has tried to purge the party of the progressives who support economic and social justice. It has fed the perception that the two parties are more alike than different -- both handmaidens to Wall Street. The DLC has trashed and belittle fellow Democrats and fed into bad stereotypes of the party in order to advance its efforts to purge the party of non-DLC Democrats.
The DLC is a cancer on the Democratic Party and deserves to be cut out. The members of the DLC are welcome to create a new organization for conservative Democrats, but one that does not replicate the arrogance and abusive pattern of behavior that typified the DLC.
April 4, 2007 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
How so?
April 4, 2007 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
To best provide you with examples, I'm just going to recommend you head over to their web site, www.ndol.org, and read some of Al From's columns there. He's pretty explicit in his desire to see every other faction within the party sit down and shut up, especially the anti-war activists. I would suggest his column from last Novemeber about how any strategy the Democratic leadership takes other than straight centrism is political suicide and represents a cowardly cave to the radical left.
It's quite a read.
April 5, 2007 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
sPh-
I would disagree with a blanket of election cycles- I'm all about forgiveness, but there needs to be atonement first.
Reading from Mr. Ford and Mr. Kilgore today have only reinforced my feeling that they still just don't get it. If there is no repudiation of the wrong-headedness of their positions, a "time-out" won't be instructive.
I could advance a prototype for them:
If I heard something like that, with an open-ended look at the policy objectives, I would certainly welcome it. I hope Mr. Ford and Mr. Kilgore read through the comments on this thread and the others, and then check their look in the mirror........
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran
April 4, 2007 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The number one thing the DLC could do to move toward progresssives being willing to work with them?
Fire Al From.
April 4, 2007 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear, hear!
I can't think of any time an organization so proudly touted their lead bomb-thrower, then tried to make amends with the people he's been throwing at for so long, while the bombs are still being tossed.
If Ford thought posting a link to a speech where he begins by praising that jackass From was a good start towards unity with progressives, he's an idiot.
April 5, 2007 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Kilgore's post today (and the one comment he has thus far decided to post in the thread) is even more puzzling to me than Mr. Ford's post from yesterday. It seems Mr. Kilgore is honestly shocked (shocked!) that those of us who have posted on either thread refuse to simply smile and nod and pat Mr. Ford on the back for the talking point pablum he tried to pass off as the start of a progressive agenda for 2008.
Even putting aside the DLC's numerous mistakes over the past five years, what is there about the suggestion that Democrats ought to adopt pro-"family" (whatever that means, wink wink) pro-business, hawkish policies that we should be running to embrace? And rather than deal with the substantive criticisms to Mr. Ford's post, Mr. Kilgore complains that we've been mean to Mr. Ford, while in the same breath excusing our incivility since it was the "cathartic" release of pent-up anger. Well, thankyouverymuch, because I know I was waiting to get the Kilgore Seal of Approval before I could live with the fact that I challenged Harold Ford's views on Iraq, Social Security, gay rights, choice, and civil liberties.
If the DLC wants to engage the netroots, then fine, engage. If I want a lecture, I'll audit a college class.
April 4, 2007 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, where is Harold?
Tom
April 4, 2007 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was wondering that too. I assumed he would post his policy proposals this morning. Maybe he decided to do a rewrite after taking a glance at the monster thread from yesterday.
April 4, 2007 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think in one of the comments he posted, Ed Kilgore said the plan was for Harold Ford to respond in "a day or two." I imagine he had a pre-set draft ready to go but think you could be right and he may now be editing (or having someone edit it) in light of the response to his original post.
April 4, 2007 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The title is appropriate. I am sitting quietly waiting for the arrival. Popcorn, Tommy?
:D Tish
April 4, 2007 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Evidently Harold Ford and Ed Kilgore do not understand the distinction between a discussion and a lecture on how you can work to meet our (DLC) needs. In order to start a constructive dialog, it would be helpful if Mr. Ford and Mr. Kilgore did not begin with discounting the ideas and concerns of the Progressive movement. There is a real difference between talking down to people and talking to people. Don't see much hope of a constructive dialog until the DLC understands this distinction.
April 4, 2007 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow sphealey, wasn't expecting my question to generate an entire blog...Okaaay.
I am wondering though when does the discourse shift from ax grinding to discussing the issues to bring about change?
We can bash folks for being wrong but that does not bring about change. We need to find common ground or at least find a way to shift from blaming the DLC to proactively getting folks in the DLC to engage the agenda you prefer. Bashing and blaming and ax grinding doesn't do that. Identifying the problem is only half the solution ...we have to work towards resolutions.
I have no issue with what the problem is. I want to know how are we going to move forward?
Using this analogy the point is how do you still move forward.
Are you simply going to revoke driving privileges, take the car, if so how does that help the family. The kid still has to get to school and isn't leaving the family. It seems you are focused on penalizing the kid, after he acknowledges his errant ways..what more do you see you can do to the kid, that hasn't already been done legally? So far all that is coming across is a need to yammer on and on, about how they should not have been drinking and how much this is going to increase the insurance and how much the attorney and court fees cost the family. How in the world does this in ANY way alter what has transpired? It doesn't. And unless you can throw the kid out the family you are not accomplishing anything. In other words it is not good enough for you that he has a criminal record and suspended license for his actions. Only if you can continually remind him of that criminal record, insurance costs is it meaningful to you?
April 4, 2007 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need to find common ground or at least find a way to shift from blaming the DLC to proactively getting folks in the DLC to engage the agenda you prefer.
This assumes the DLC still has relevance and is needed to win elections. Is that still true?
I don't know if it is or not, but it seems to me, the first thing that needs to be considered is whether people who showed such a lack of judgement about Iraq are people you want to work with in the first place.
The "throw the kid out of the family" metaphor doesn't really hold, because, in this case, throwing the kid out is certainly an option. Maybe it's good idea, maybe not, but it's an option.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
April 4, 2007 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. It's always good to look for common ground. But in any negotiation, the party that holds fewer cards is the one that has to move the most, away from its own initial ground and toward the ground of the party with more cards.
It's not 1992 anymore. The US public, it appears to me, is in a much more populist, more economically activist, less free-trading, less foreign interventionist and less corporation-loving mood. Groups like the DLC are the ones that will have to adapt to that mood to remain viable.
In any case, it is not neccessary to hash out a full Democratic agenda far in advance, in the conference rooms of think tanks or the meeting rooms of lobbying groups. That's what we have primaries for. We've got a whole bunch of Democratic candidates out there, each of whom will be offering lots of interesting ideas in the upcoming months as part of their efforts to differentiate themselves from the pack. If Dennis Kucinich offers some populist proposal, and it turns out that in defiance of conventional pundit wisdom his idea is embraced by 60% of the public, then all of the other candidates will glom onto it. And if HRC offers some DLC-style proposal, and 60% of the public likes that proposal, then most of the other candidates will just as likely embrace it.
April 4, 2007 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ford's let's-find-common-ground bleat is, in practice, an attempt to shut the netroots down on the issues they care most intensely about. It works like this. First, we define the common ground, which excludes the Iraq occupation, privatizing Social Security, unconstitutional government, habeas corpus and torture, universal health care, and the Bush tax cuts. Then we construct a Democratic agenda based on what's left -- vaporings about "families," etc. As a result, the Democrats will sit around with their thumbs up their asses while the Republicans carry on without resistance to their ruinous neo-imperialist class-warfare authoritarian obsessions -- which they share with the DLC.
April 4, 2007 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually it does not presume that it is relevant. It presumes that they are not going away. That the interests, issues and positions they represent have to be resolve or re-pkged. It is like the Log Cabin Republicans. They are not going anywhere. So how is the larger party going to manage that faction effectively. Just shouting them down and hammering them on how wrong they are will not work.
The DLC was able to marginalize the interests of the greater majority due to monetary influence over our candidates. I think that Obama has shown that need not be the case. If we want to change how that faction impacts the party we need to have folks at the DCC distributing funds to support candidates that address the platform the majority of the base wants.
April 4, 2007 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
sPh
April 4, 2007 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but the point is they are not going anywhere. The DLC isn't either, and as you acknowledge they have considerable influence. How are we going to change or manage that?
Au contraire. I agree with you in principle and substance. My issue is how are we going to go about changing the influence of the DLC and/or co-opt them so that they are either neutered or their issues are addressed such that they work with us instead of opposing the majority. The Log Cabin republicans do not come out against the GOP. That is why it was a good example they are effectively without a voice yet they are part of the GOP.
April 4, 2007 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
They seem pretty neutered now, don't they? I mean, with the exception of getting Lieberman reelected over an actual Democrat, what was their resounding success of 2006?
April 5, 2007 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, for starters, I'd prohibit the kid from driving a car, not buy him a new one. Anywhere he needs to go, he can take the bus, walk, bicycle or get by on his own resources, or he can be appropriately dependent upon and subservient to the driving habits of more responsible members of the family.
He can also acknowledge his mistakes and thereafter avoid drinking, avoid rowdy partying, or undertake these activities with safety and moderation. If he cannot do this, he can enjoy grounding and curfew.
I would expect the boy to make a real contribution to the family, by getting a job and helping to cover the costs he has so recklessly incurred and imposed on everyone else. I would expect an improved attitude, helping out around the house and making himself useful.
If, on the other hand, he just feels that he should be allowed to drive the family car since his is wrecked, and everyone has to accommodate their schedule to his new needs, well...
Maybe its time for him to go out on his own.
Perhaps the DLC needs to explore the option of being a third party all by itself.
April 4, 2007 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps the DLC needs to explore the option of being a third party all by itself.
What a Joementous development that would be!
April 4, 2007 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Liebercrats!
April 4, 2007 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK...now how long would this last? He pays off the financial costs and goes to some type of alcohol treatment center and completes that. Now what?
I do not think the DLC is going anywhere, they are like Log Cabin republicans.
How are we the 'big tent' party going to manage their interests effectively?
April 4, 2007 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
He pays off the financial costs and goes to some type of alcohol treatment center and completes that. Now what?
He shows by his behavior that he can be trusted to drive the car again.
April 4, 2007 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do their "interests" need to be managed at all?
I'm curious.
April 4, 2007 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect it was their 'interests' which created their being able to have such a powerful influence over the democratic party?
April 4, 2007 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am wondering though when does the discourse shift from ax grinding to discussing the issues to bring about change?
After some Truth and Reconciliation takes place. After some people who are not just bad, but so bad one is often left to wonder whether or not they are moles and saboteurs, are "let go" as payment for their incompetence.
Why should we be inclined to trust in the honest desire of the DLC to engage in serious debate to find common ground, when all we have ever heard from the DLC in the past is to Shut The F*** Up!
I'll reverse the question. How long do we continue to engage in this codependency?
April 4, 2007 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
i think you are taking the "teenaged driver" analogy out of context. It is not that sphealey is suggesting punishemnt, he is arguing that Ford's whole schpiel the other day was nothing but a defensive "get over it". If the DLC honestly wants to work with progressives, and "move forward" as you say, then certain assurances need to be made. I would like to see Ford say "the DLC is going to work to restore constitutional rule, starting with the reinstatement of habeas corpus. And then we're going to ban torture", accompanied by a repudiation of the votes they cast in favor of torture and against habeas. Unfortunately, I cannot see how the DLC resumes leadership on issues regarding the war and the economy, considering how drastically wrong they were on both topics.
In addition, this comment: In other words it is not good enough for you that he has a criminal record and suspended license for his actions. Only if you can continually remind him of that criminal record, insurance costs is it meaningful to you?" assumes that the DLC has been punished for its folly. It has not: DLC members are still frequent guests on the TV news shows, still on the cocktail weenie circuit, and hey their chairman was just invited to talk to us lowly bloggers. So this stuff about "not good enough.." just ignores that there have been no consequences for this abysmal record of failure.
April 4, 2007 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't want to stretch this analogy too far, but the other question is this: how does a financial services person get his license to provide services back after he is convicted of felony theft? Generally speaking, the answer is: he doesn't. There is a process, but it is long, involved, and arduous, and it involves bringing before the respective regulatory body tremendous amounts of evidence concerning number of hours of community service voluntarily undertaken, charitable works, references from multiple communities, unimpeachable financial integrity for a period of years, etc. And generally the petition is rejected. Short of a presidential pardon, you just don't get the trust back once lost.
I haven't seen any evidence of the DLC working to regain the Democratic Party's liberal members' trust.
sPh
April 4, 2007 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
speaking of "how long" and "sitting quietly", how long are we expected to sit quietly and wait for Mr. ford to resume his discussion? he promised today, but it's 4:07 EST, and no Harold.
what's up with that?
April 4, 2007 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think DLC is the least bit interested in our opinions or in finding common ground with us. I think what they're interested in is our ability to raise funds from the grassroots/netroots. The big ticket donors are fine, but their numbers are limited, while pennies can add to big dollars too. Hence the hand stretched in apparent reconciliation but, in fact, for a donation.
Their problem is that they seem to have bought into their own spin -- that we're a bunch of not too bright, fringe-left rabble-rousers. So we were expected to swallow, whole, Mr Ford's dish of platitudes laced with a little admonition (about being delusional in treating DLC like a bogeyman). Like some other commenters, I suspect that Mr Ford is now re-writing his planned sermon of today.
Whiterosebuddy,
When our son wrecked the car he shared with me -- and not through drugs or alcohol but through simple lack of judgement -- we didn't need to remind him of it constantly. With 3 of us dependent on a single car (my husband's), in a rural setting, it threw all our lives out of kilter for 3 weeks. He did get the keys to it back, once the car was fixed. But not until he analysed the causes of the accident so he could avoid making the same mistake twice. Anything less would have meant that we were irresponsible parents, raising an irresponsible citizen.
April 4, 2007 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am wondering if Obama's numbers are making the DLCers think a bit. Not just the dollars, but the 100,000 donors: more than Hillary and Edwards combined, and more net-based donors than Hillary has total donors. What would happen if a Presidental candidate emerged who really /wasn't/ controlled by the big-money donors? That would be a real threat to the insider power structure; what would they do?
sPh
April 4, 2007 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
What would they do?
They'd attempt to engage the netroots. But first, they'd start off by claiming brotherhood and asking if the netroots can't find common ground with them.
April 4, 2007 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
That candidate has emerged, it's Obama. He did not take money from PACC's or lobbyists. And unequivocably, he is a threat to the power structure. What they will do is attack him so ferociously and furiously like we have never seen before. He is going to be pilloried.
April 4, 2007 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, today's news about Obama's ability to raise $25 million in the first quarter, even though he didn't enter the race until February 10, is fantastic.
April 4, 2007 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it only adds to my previous point about questioning the DLC's relevancy.
While obviously the Obama movement can burn out, it seems to me his large number of donors, the increasing significance of the blogosphere, the kind of journalism TPM is doing -- all this points to a new kind of politics that have opened up in this country.
One where the little folks like us have more of a say, and power-broking organizations like the DLC have less.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
April 4, 2007 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm $25M / 100k donors = average $250 per. There had to be some big ones to offset the 10s and 20s. I'd like to know the mean. Has he released the list or must we wait for the FEC posting which usually takes weeks. Got any links to the source of your statement? Inquiring minds want to know.
April 4, 2007 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama and Edwards both publically pledged to not take any PAC or lobbyist contributions when they started fundraising. He'll have some big donors in his report, but they're not going to be lobbyists, and none of his cash will come from PACs, unlike Hillary's.
April 5, 2007 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm surprised Edwards raised $14 million, he may be a dark horse.
April 5, 2007 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
"There had to be some big ones to offset the 10s and 20s. I'd like to know the mean"
I have not seen a mean, however, the campaign did say that 90% of the money was in increments of $100.00 or less, and 25% was in increments of $25.00 or less.
April 5, 2007 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have a link, but I have read that Obama has Chicago behind him (which, after all, should have big donors in numbers not too much below NYC or L.A.), and it is also said he does very well in Silicon Valley.
April 5, 2007 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
What would happen if a Presidential candidate announced that 5 minutes after being sworn in, he'd;
'Start a phased withdrawal of the troops from Iraq.'
April 5, 2007 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
... I'd be concerned for that person's safety.
Tom
April 5, 2007 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, is it not interesting that one of the perspectives for the JFK assasination was that he had just ordered troops/advisors to be drawn down?
That LBJ as soon as he was sworn in squashed that and escalated the troop presence in Vietnam.
April 9, 2007 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ain't nobody wanna think 'bout that.
April 9, 2007 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some and the CIA and the Pentagon were ticked at JFK ever since he cancelled the air cover at the Bay of Pigs in April 1961.
Tom
April 10, 2007 5:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the major stumbling block between the factions is that the liberal/progressives see the DLC as 'too' business friendly, and the libs feel being too business friendly means the majority of the public suffers. The DLC appears to see the support of the business community as the major tool needed to gain and stay in power.
That's the elephant in the room, and until you resolve that issue there will be little "common ground" to move on.
April 4, 2007 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I honestly disagree. I think the much bigger issue is that Al From and the DLC spent the last five years publically attacking anyone who dared to express an anti-war opinion as "not serious on national security," and they were completely, undeniably wrong about the war. Progressives are willing to embrace Edwards again largely because he openly admitted his error in supporting the war. The DLC, within the last six months, has charged that the anti-war crowd is killing the Democratic Party and will hurt us at the polls.
I don't think the "pro-business/pro-consumer" paradigm is anywhere near as relevant as the "right all along on Iraq/unapologetically wrong all along on Iraq" divide.
April 5, 2007 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
You get it SP.
You can't forgive someone who won't apologize.
-Dave Adams-
April 5, 2007 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It felt a lot like it was needlessly gratuitous." I wasn't going to reply at all. I hadn't commented on her original post, but I was hurt at the time, and so many days later of rankling I find that she's so proud of it she insists on still pushing what I believe is demeaning to me, demeaning to abused women, demeaning to the American public, and demeaning to everyone who doesn't agree with her.
What could be more inappropriate a way to approach politics than by insisting that everyone who doesn't agree with you is mentally ill? Worse, as I wrote and tried to argue for constructively, it's simply way off as an analogy anyway, so I did try to approach it on its merits as well. I have nothing further to say, certainly not to her.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
April 6, 2007 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Insisting that a specific person who doesn't agree with you is mentally ill?
I thank you for the courtesy of your response, sir.
Language is often ambiguous, and we must struggle sometimes, to determine what a person really means and what it says about them.
You, on the other hand, have left no doubts as to your meaning and your character. This transparency is to be admired and appreciated, no matter the view of the content.
So, once again, I thank you.
Have a nice day.
April 6, 2007 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
sp is on the verge of being guilty of the same kind of illogic that questions American patriotism, if you're against the Iraq war. Exactly how large is the "Republican Wing" of the Democratic party, sp? Would you lump all the fiscal conservative Blue Dogs in that group? Should their constituents get a less-vocal voice in Congress and the party, because they voted for the Iraq war? Would you be happier if the entire "Republican wing" just defected and left you with an ideological pure but impotent political party?
April 8, 2007 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most all of it while the Republicans have retreated into the fantasies of reaction.
The configurations of the parties are not stable. Joe Lieberman was elected over a liberal Republican. Many of us who donated to a fund that claimed to aid liberals regardless of party stopped giving. NCEC acknowledged its error long ago.
Ron Paul was an antiwar Libertarian, who had run for president as a Libertarian and held to his creed like a barnacle to a rock though he was elected as a Republican.
The irascible Wayne Morse started life as a Republican and eventually became a Democrat after a stint as an independent. He lost his seat because he voted against the Vietnam War.
Everyone knows of the trajectory of Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond in the opposite direction when the Republicans became the party of white supremacy instead of the Democrats.
Democrats today are much like the Rockefeller Republicans were a couple of generations ago. The Republicans are the modern Whigs or worse.
Best, Terry
April 8, 2007 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sen. Morse and Sen. Gruening - the only two in Congress to vote against LBJ's Gulf of Tonkin Resolution - two Profiles in Courage (and wisdom).
Tom
April 8, 2007 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink