Sounds like republican-lite to me.

Oh, Christ yes.  Bill Clinton escaped the fate of the rest of the more recent "triangulators" who tried to duplicate his success only through a combination of fortuitous circumstances: a healthy infusion of cash and support from the DLC (which, as Chris has pointed out, is the only group to have done significant infrastructure-building at the top level), an economy that had been bad only recently but was already on the upswing (which would continue for an unprecedented eight years), appealing to that ever-elusive and rightward-shifting "centrist voter," and, not least, his own considerable personal charisma and political instincts.

And as those circumstances have not been repeated, neither has Clinton's success.  That's not an accident.  Clinton co-opted many originally Republican ideas, which appealed to increasingly conservative "Reagan Democrats," and his own personal magnetism propelled him to victory (let's also not forget Ross Perot's contribution that year, as well).  But the problem is - and the DLC is the main exponent of this phenomenon - the center keeps shifting rightward as the GOP stands their ideological ground or actually becomes even MORE emboldened by the inability of their opposition to articulate a compelling alternate vision from theirs.  And new voters (as well as more than a few older ones) start making the connection that if the Democrats continue becoming less and less distinguishable from the Republicans, why not just go for the real thing?  This is the legacy of the DLC.  Like it?  Increased electoral and public irrelevance.  Jon Stewart's "America, the Book" has a two-page graphic of "the graveyard of political parties" (not sure if that is the exact title, but you get the idea).  It has headstones with everyone from the Whigs to the Bull Meese.  And off in the corner is a headstone atop a freshly dug grave with the inscription "Democratic Party" with only the last date not yet filled in.  It's actually a conventional-wisdom joke, it's so well known.

I get physically nauseated when I hear people like Begala or just people on the street or in coffee shops say that we have to nominate a Clinton-style moderate in order to be successful.  Absolutely cringe at it.  Why?  Because though there's a lot of discontent with Bu$hCo, people have to be provided an actual compelling alternative vision, something they can both understand and get behind, before they'll leave the evil they know.  John Kerry demonstrated that "I'm not George Bush" isn't enough to get one elected (Diebold conspiracies aside, LOL).  We're missing a GOLDEN opportunity to advance an agenda that's progressive enough to scare the heck out of most Dem pollsters who are used to seeing the usual attrition every election for quite some time now.  Paradoxially, the triangulator's instinctive desire to try to be all things to all people - or at least the greatest number of things to the greatest number of people - is actually LESS likely to be successful at the national level than a seriously progressive agenda.  There are enough things permanently broken or in serious need of repair in this country that a focused, well-articulated and above all, PASSIONATE progressive vision is something that could really cause the electoral magma to shift in a way that hasn't been seen since Reagan.  Walking halfway to the Republicans' position (again) will only serve to cement the idea in people's mind that there's not much difference between the parties.  People need an alternative to the Republicans, not a pale shadow of them, before they'll start to believe enough to risk their votes.  Make no mistake, da 'publicans are vulnerable, in a way that not too many people in this country realize.  The question is, do WE have the courage to capitalize on it?

Yet some still think that the DLC is a positive force in the Democratic Party.

I'll leave the DLC alone -- when it's assumed its just place in the rubbish bin of history.

But in order to turn the tide and ensure that we never again see a Democratic Senators and Represenatives supporting a poorly planned war with no intel we have to start supporting candidates who are running on progressive platforms--folks who are willing to speak truth to power and take risks.

The bastards hijacked the filibuster debate, planning on hijacking the CAFTA vote and Roberts confirmation.

I do not call that "overrated" and we need to kill this meme that they are some how irrelevant and are on their deathsbed.

The DLC is alive and well and hijacking the Democratic party with their single issues of corporatism and militarism.

I have to admit, between the two of them they've got just about everything an administration needs. I still cringe at the thought, though.

If anyone thinks some one other than Hilliary is getting the nomination they are delusional.

Which begs the question, if a vote for Nader is a vote for the GOP, then a vote for anyone other than the democrat nominee is also a vote for the GOP, no?

Personally, I think you should vote your values and if that's Nader, then so be it. But you'll be empowering the republicans.

No, really.

http://www.freedomdemocrats.org/node/75

This guy calls himself a "Freedom Democrat", but what he really means is a "Libertarian Democrat" (see Hackett, who's running for the open OH-2 House seat for another example).  He took ten fiscal and trade votes, and ten social and defense votes, and stated the "Libertarian Democrat" position on each.

Feingold scored 90% overall, 80% on the fiscal/trade section (the two he missed were a trade vote (Feingold is a protectionist), and an overall budget increase sponsored by Byrd), and a perfect 100% in the social/defense section.  A 100/100 score would mean a perfect Libertarian.  A 0/100 score would mean a big government liberal Democrat (in theory-note that the social/defense section contained a gun control vote, in which liberals act opposite of how liberals should if they were following the theory).  A 100/0 score would mean a small goverment conservative Republican.

Second place was Bingaman of New Mexico, with only 65%!!!!  Feingold scored 25% higher than any other senator.  Sununu (a Republican-then again, this is basically a real-life version of the whole Libertarian political chart, so you would expect some Republicans here) managed third at 62.5%.

Hillary got 55%, although her rep here is dropping real quickly with her doing the anti-video game pandering a la Lieberman.

But like all good things, the DLC supported some dumb policy ideas and has annoyed the progressives to no end. The war just makes it worse. It just highlights on a massive scale the immoral and in some cases criminal indifference America's best and brightest have towards our major social maladies.

But Gary, it won't be a Republican chickenhawk versus a Democratic one. See, if the US military can cause the violence in Iraq to subside by the general election in 2008 (the country will still look like hell but at least it will be safer.) then all the Republicans run on a "victory" platform. Look back at Bush Sr. in 1988 and the rhetoric about fighting Communism and how far we came.

If the violence in Iraq does not subside however, the Republican peace movement actually has a better chance to win the nomination than the Democrats. Think about it, if Congress is still controlled by Republicans...the domestic platform for both candidates will look fairly close. John McCain and Chuck Hagel and the other "internationalist" Republicans then get to reprise the gay marriage tactic of 2004: Peel off blacks and Latinos in "swing states" with divisive but symbolic issues. If Hillary sticks with a victory at any price platform, she will get gored by the Walter Jones's of the world wondering when Hillary is going to sign up. But if she calls for retreat, the internationalist faction gets to bludgeon her to death about being a triangulator, equivocator, etc.

Your DLC boogeyman argument in regards to corporate influence is unsubstantiated. You'll have to try a different tack on your next witchhunt.

Since the DLC doesn't have a death grip on the DNC the DLCers had to stay at home this year.

Has he staked out a position on Bush's Iraq war? I suspect most of them will duck the issue as long as they can. At least until after the 2006 election. The first one out of the gate with immediate withdrawal and a full frontal attack on Bush's failed strategy in Iraq and around the world will get a big jump on the field.

However I tire of the incessent democrat/liberal bashing of Al From, Bruce Reed, Sen. Lieberman, and Sen. Biden. I'd have a lot more respect for them if they would train their guns on the GOP more often. However they seem to revel in their roles of being harsher critics of fellow democrats than most Republicans.

I do think the DLC has a valid role to play and even comes up with some good ideas from time to time. But until they get those four to STFU with their circular firing squad crap they will get very little respect from me.

But why should they? Biden posts on a couple blogs about his views on some policy positions and he gets raked over the coals for it. With that kind of treatment, who needs republicans?

Kick a dog enough times...

As a Deaniac in 2004 and a reluctant supporter of Kerry, Gore is the only potential canidate who I have respect for who I also think has a shot of winning both the nominatation and the election.

Ideally it will be some no-charisma foaming at the mouth type.

Still the best bet is for the Democrats to nominate the best canidate they can. Thus far Clinton or Gore look like the best bets especially if McCain ends up being the nominee. Clark, Edwards, or Sen. Reid are interesting possiblities as well (though Reid hasn't expressed any interest in running).

Of that list I like Gore the best and have some real misgivings about Clinton. (though I will acknowledge that she seems to have very strong appeal among women, especially suburban women and non-voters)

I don't think any of this is so simple.
There were cracks already showing.  Gingrich slowly built the Republicans up, and Democrats were also slowly being plagued by the check scandal, the resignation of Jim Wright, and corruption (see Dan Rostenkowski)

Hackett doesn't speak favorably of the U.S. military taking-out Israel's regional rival, Iraq.

Hackett can agree with the DLC on every point on the DLC agenda, but if he deviates from AIPAC's Mid East agenda, he's not gonna get DLC support.