With DINOs like these, who needs Republicans?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/070 7/5171.html

Courtesy of The Politico

"Presidential candidates were nowhere to be seen at the annual gathering of the Democratic Leadership Council, a moderate group that was closely linked to Bill Clinton but has long been viewed suspiciously by liberal activists."

Here's why progressives view them suspiciously:

"Democrats are capable of grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory. We've done that a few times," said Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.. "If we become the anti-war party, that's not beneficial to Democrats in 2008," Davis said. "Bill Clinton ordered our troops and worked with NATO in Bosnia," he continued. "That's the kind of pro-war Democrat that we ought to be: the war that we fight wisely, the ones that we engage in wisely."

You read it right. That "grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory" jab refers to Democratic positions on the Vietnam and Iraq Wars, not on our close-calls for the White House.  So, we were wrong to try to end the massacre in Vietnam, and we are wrong to end the War of Lies in Iraq.  We should be "pro-war" Democrats?  Is being "pro-war" a desireable thing now?  When nearly 70% of the public thinks the Iraq War was a mistake?  Can we get a primary challenger to this ignorant Brutus immediately, please?

"Understand: We are not leaving Iraq," Schweitzer [D, MT-Governor] said, adding that there will be a need for tens of thousands of troops in Iraq to ensure stability for some years. "We're not leaving as long as we are dependent on that oil," he repeated.

Tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for years?  With the country fleeing from Republicans in droves over this war, that is supposed to be the recipe for electoral success?  Is he just "straight-talking" us, because that strategy worked out so well for McCain.  And what about renewable energy, Governor Schweitzer?  No, you'd rather strip-mine Montana further for dirty coal.  But hey!  Who cares, you're a "Democrat."  That's all that matters, right?  I'm so glad we have Tester in the Senate instead of Schweitzer.

"I think our party has been running away from security and national security for a couple of decades," O'Malley [D, MD Governor] added. "We need to become again the party of security."

How about the party of health care, or education, or fair taxation?  No, we should focus on national security because Republicans have been so competent in that arena of late.  This guy is from Maryland, a deeply blue state.  Primary please.

"After Vietnam, we were not seen as the muscular party," Bredesen [D, Governor-Tennessee] said.

No, we're the party of brains and correct verb conjugation.  Remember when having a brain was a good thing?  I think the country sees the value of the party of brains right now.

"Good governance means you have to make some tough decisions," Schweitzer said.

Yeah, it's so hard to win while trying to sound as much like a Republican as you can to get votes in a Red State.  We should sacrifice the progressive principles that put meaning behind the label "Democrat" rather than trying to change the minds of voters?  Opportunism.  That's the ideology of the DLC.

Andrew Sullivan nicely sums up the generational differences between the older and younger Democrats and why Hillary carries the Zeitgeist of the past:

"One difference between Obama and Clinton does not seem to me to have been stressed enough. They are of different Democratic generations. Clinton is from the traumatized generation; Obama isn't. Clinton has internalized to her bones the 1990s sense that conservatism is ascendant, that what she really believes is unpopular, that the Republicans have structural, latent power of having a majority of Americans on their side. Hence the fact that she reeks of fear, of calculation, of focus groups, of triangulation. She might once have had ideals keenly felt; she might once have actually relished fighting for them and arguing in thier defense. But she has not been like that for a very long time. She has political post-traumatic stress disorder. She saw her view of feminism gutted in the 1992 campaign; she saw her healthcare plan destroyed by what she saw as a VRWC; she remains among the most risk-averse of Democrats on foreign policy and in the culture wars. Here's a simple current example: her position on needle exchanges to reduce HIV transmission among IV drug users. Ben Smith recounts the tale here. The last Clinton administration refused to prevent HIV transmission this way, regardless of the science and epidemiology, because they were terrified of being labeled "liberal" by the GOP machine. Clinton still hasn't out-grown that (which is why I confidently predict that if she becomes president, progress toward gay equality will slow, because a leading Democrat will impede it in a long slog of triangulation and risk-aversion). Her classic formulation today is what it was before:

"We'll have as much spine as we possibly can, under the circumstances."
Obama is different. He wasn't mugged by the 1980s and 1990s as Clinton was. He doesn't carry within him the liberal self-hatred and self-doubt that Clinton does. The traumatized Democrats fear the majority of Americans are bigoted, know-nothing, racist rubes from whom they need to conceal their true feelings and views. The non-traumatized Democrats are able to say what they think, make their case to potential supporters and act, well, like Republicans acted in the 1980s and 1990s. The choice between Clinton and Obama is the choice between a defensive crouch and a confident engagement. It is the choice between someone who lost their beliefs in a welter of fear; and someone who has faith that his worldview can persuade a majority.

In my view, the call is not a close one."

We are no longer the movement that dare not speak its name.  By a recent poll posted on the main site, "progressive" is now the most liked term by the American public.  The siege mentality that forged the New Democratic/DLC coalition, from which Bill Clinton sprang, is over - of the past.  Old devices for electoral success like hawkishness in foreign policy, split-the-baby moderation on social issues, and fiscal conservatism are not the future of the Democratic Party.  Whether Obama is the face of a new and self-confident Left is a question that will be answered by posterity.  But, history has already spoken on Hillary.  She is a relic of fear in what should be an era of Democratic optimism and boldness.  I hope the 60% of the Democratic Party that has yet to support her will realize the opportunity we have and leave fear in the past.

New Republic columnist Noam Scheiber has an interesting piece in the New York Times about the demise of that most odious bastion of opportunism, the Democratic Leadership Council.  According to Mr. Scheiber, it seems that the progressive communiy owes a debt of gratitude to the DLC, George Bush, and Bill Clinton for showing us how bad things can get when a major political party abandons its soul for triangulation.

Scheiber writes:

"Today, the council has almost no constituency within the Democratic Party. About every five years, the Pew Research Center conducts a public opinion survey to sort out the country's major ideological groupings. In 1999, Pew found that liberals and New Democrats each accounted for nearly one-quarter of the Democratic base. By the next survey in 2005, New Democrats had completely disappeared as a group and the liberals had doubled their share of the party. Many moderates, radicalized by President Bush, now define themselves as liberals.

On a variety of issues the council, and not the party's liberal base, is out of touch with the popular mood. A recent Washington Post poll found that 60 percent of independents, along with 70 percent of Democrats, favor withdrawing from Iraq by next spring.

Two decades of work by the Democratic Leadership Council -- and a not inconsiderable assist from President Bush -- have made the Democratic Party the healthiest it has been in the 22 years of the council's existence. Democrats should thank the group and then tell it that it's no longer needed."

If Mr. Scheiber's assertion is correct, I find it very puzzling that the Democratic Party seems on the verge of nominating this man's wife for president:

"In 1991, Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas, then the council's chairman, elucidated the 'New Democrat' ethos and previewed the themes of his presidential candidacy ("opportunity, responsibility, community") with a speech at the centrist group's annual conference. 'It became the blueprint for my campaign message,' Mr. Clinton later wrote in his autobiography. He added, 'By embracing ideas and values that were both liberal and conservative, it made voters who had not supported Democratic presidential candidates in years listen to our message.'"

Now, in fairness, I must acknowledge that Hillary will be a "no-show" at the DLC conference this summer.  But, does anyone have any thoughts as to whether Hillary will lead in the mold of her husband, resuscitating the dying DLC heresy and marginalizing the progressive movement for another eight years?

For the full link to Scheiber's story, visit:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/opinio n/28scheiber.html  

Guiliani still beats Hillary in this pro-Democratic environment:

50% to 44%.

http://www.tarrance.com/11363Qper.pdf

So, has anyone else noticed that MYDD is no longer showing as a link from politicalwire.com?

According to a new Q-poll of Florida, in a two way race, Hillary loses to Guiliani in the general, 46% to 44%.  If Bloomberg were to run as a third party candidate, Hillary would win 41% to 39%.

Also, here are some interesting favorable, unfavorables:

Florida voters give Giuliani a 56 - 27 percent favorability.

Scores for other candidates are:  
49 - 44 percent for Clinton;
52 - 39 percent for Gore;
40 - 34 percent for McCain;
45 - 25 percent for Obama;
40 - 32 percent for Edwards;
33 - 15 percent for Thompson, with 49 percent who haven't heard enough to form an opinion;
56 percent haven't heard enough about Romney.

Finally, Bush's approval rating in Florida is at 33% - meaning that Florida is ripe for the picking for Democrats.  Ripe that is unless Hillary is the nominee.  Then she has to rely on a third party candidate to squeek by a win at 41%.  

Marx famously observed in reference to the political opportunist of his day, Napoleon III:

"History repeats itself: first as tragedy, second as farce."

The most recent example of Hillary's reincarnation as farce comes with her recent denuciation of Bill O'Reilly for his criticisms of Yearly Kos:

http://mydd.com/story/2007/7/18/12479/15 36

Why is this farcical you ask?

During the first term of her husband's thin and corporatist presidency, Hillary whined on every morning talkshow about "the vast right-wing conspiracy," which sought to destroy her husband and her.  Setting aside all the labor-destroying, anti-democratic free-trade deals (NAFTA, WTO, GATT), all I can remember of Clinton I's reign was this "vast right-wing conspiracy" meme as a rhetorical crutch for his political support.  Having destroyed labor, turned spineless then Brutus on gays with DOMA, cozied up to China, bombed the hell out of Iraq and Serbia, gutted welfare, allowed huge telecommunications mergers, why else would any sincere Democrat support Clinton but for Hillary marching out the spectre of this "vast right-wing conspiracy."

Now, don't get me wrong, the "vast right wing conspiracy" does exist, and it must be crushed, but it won't be crushed on Hillary's watch.  Why?  Because the farce is upon us:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/0 9/politics/main1600694.shtml

No, the same "vast right-wing conspiracy" that signs O'Reilly's paychecks is inking checks for Hillary now.  So, the question is:  Is it merely farce, or is it something far more insidious than farce?  Is Rupert Murdoch deliberately ramping up the smear-machine of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" to give Hillary something to campaign on, to give Hillary the device she needs to whip her supporters into a frenzy?  Is Rupert Murdoch giving Hillary her Goldberg for the "two-minutes hate?"  It was the only thing that kept her husband in office.  And it's the only thing she has to offer Democrats in the primary (other than unapologetic slaughter of American troops and Iraqi civilians - but I guess only "Haters" bring that up).  

If I had to choose one major periodical out there that speaks for the interests of the Progressive community - for labor, for peace, for social justice - it is The Nation.  And one of the best political columnists around, Barbara Ehrenreich, has written a scathing critique of Hillary's illiberal and opportunistic record.

On Hillary-care:

"Hillary's attempt to create a national health insurance system--which she will have to undertake a second time as a presidential candidate--was a disaster in every way. Procedurally, she screwed up by conducting the planning under conditions of extreme secrecy, not even bothering to reach out to potentially supportive members of Congress, never mind the usual populist trimming of few televised town meetings. What Bernstein omits is her out-of-hand dismissal of the kind of single-payer system the Canadians have, which led to a tortured 1300-page piece of legislation that almost no one could comprehend. The bottom line, unnoted by Bernstein, is that, despite the right's charges of "socialized medicine," her plan would have maintained the nation's largest private insurance companies' death grip on American health care."

On her pro-corporate, anti-union record:

"The real scandal is that she had worked for Rose (Little Rock law firm) at all, which represented the notorious anti-labor firms Tyson Poultry and Wal-Mart, but Bernstein makes nothing of that."

On her record of support for Bush's War on Iraq:

"Hillary has repeatedly and confusingly claimed that she did not vote to authorize the war in Iraq, only to give Bush the authority to pursue a war if he should decide to. What she doesn't mention is that she voted against an amendment to the war resolution, proposed by Senator Carl Levin, that would have required the President to return to Congress for a war authorization if diplomatic efforts failed."  

Ehrenreich's verdict:

"In the end, the question of who Hillary is seems almost a bit anthropomorphic. Surely she has loved, laughed and suffered in the usual human ways, but what we are left with is a sleek, well-funded, power-seeking machine encased in a gleaming carapace of self-righteousness. She's already enjoyed considerable power, both as a Senator and a "co-president," and in the ways that counted, she blew it. What Americans need most, after fifteen years of presidential crimes high and low, is to wash their hands of all the sleaze, blood, and other bodily fluids, and find themselves a President who is neither a Clinton nor a Bush."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070709/eh renreich