Please explain how this is anti-semitic.

Lieberman undeniably has shown much interest in Middle Eastern affairs. He has a history of interest.

Hillary on the other hand, well, she's been all over the map, no consistent perspective, no consistent interest.

I think the poster you make the vile accusation about said nothing at all about "why" Joe Lieberman has such an interest. Those words you put in his mouth.

Baseless and vile accusations such as the one you make here merit troll-rating.

Motherf**, and I don't use that word in a casual way. I mean it in all sincerety - you motherf***. The way you casually throw that word antisemite makes my blood boil because you are obviously not an isolated case and I have seen more of your type at other sites where criticism of Lieberman or a neocon is met by hysterics. I could go into how I admire Feingold, but then why the hell should I be on the defensive and have to say something asinine "some of my best frends are jewish".

As far as Lieberman, I challenge you to disprove what I said. He has had an enormous amount of interest in the middle east to the extent that he cozies up to the Bushies based on that single issue at the expense of the many other democratic issues he seems to nominally support. And when I say personal reasons, do you deny it? I doubt it was for a voting bank like Hillary is doing(which I find worse in Hillary's case). I would say the same thing for a zionist christian right winger.  

OFF TOPIC: Salon.com, huffingtonpost.com have some frank discussions going on right now about Israel related topics such as Rachel Corrie and the Israel Lobby paper written by two professors.
I am sick of people tagging anyone who has criticized any one to do with Israel as anti semite. I make a disinction between Israel and Jewish. Thaat's why when someone put a diary about Jewish Lobby, I commented that Israel Lobby was more appropriate tag.  I was going to start a diary here , but having seen a prior diary deleted without reason, I decided to write a diary only after I have the time to write a well thought out diary on such a sensitive issue. MyDD has lagged behind some other liberal sites when it comes to frank discussion on Israel  out of fear or disinterest - I do not know(I find it curious we managed to bash the Iraq, Iran policies for more than a year without discussing the israel lobby influence while discussing in detail almost every other interest group such as neocons and oil).

I think you need to explain why you're consistently a know-nothing GOP-bootlicker.

Now you are talking. Until I hear some FDR memes from democratic candidates, anybody remember Howard Dean, I am going to be very selective about supporting anybody.

Remember Kerry?

Don't you wish you didn't?

Explain Wofford and Wellstone.

Yup, that's right, two big progressive victories during HW's term.

What did the Demo party do in response? Move to the center, give us "third way" Bill and a bunch of opportunist congressional candidates.

Poster's absolutely right. Though in fairness,  some progressives stay at home, while others vote third party.

How did that moving to the center thing work for Kerry and Gore?

Don't underestimate the twin effect of the Brady Bill and NAFTA.

People seem to forget that NAFTA REALLY REALLY pissed off a lot of white workers who would vote Democratic but instead just stayed home.

Also the republican redistricting in 1990 started a lot of the "pack and crack" district creation.

So it's definately not an either or "when Dems go liberal, they lose." That's a pretty silly one-sided arguement that ignores a lot of history.

Basically you're saying that anytime Democrats have won, it's because they didn't put up a liberal candidate. I think you'd hard pressed to argue that FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson were not liberals.

>In 94, we tried the activist thing and by golly we got our heads handed to us on a platter.

I think the GOP's media machine (a.k.a. the Echo Chamber) really took off and that had a major impact on the landslide victories in the House & Senate. If I'm not mistaken, that was when Rush Limbaugh also REALLY took off.

They put out all kinds of smear campaigns on Bill & Hillary, drove these points home again and again through all it's media outlets, radio stations, talking heads, book publishers, direct mailings, etc. and they got through to the minds of many.

To get a better understanding how this played a major influence in '94, check out the works by investigative journalist Robert Parry. You can find them at his website http://www.consortiumnews.com/ or even better, check out his book "Secrecy & Privilege" at http://www.secrecyandprivilege.com/. He lays it all out on how the GOP came to power and how we came to the situation we're facing today.

Truth is Bush is not all that impressive we have just been worse.

Ivy leaguers:  George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Gerald R. Ford, John Kennedy, FDR. (winners)  The whole Ivy leaguer deal dates back to the whinings and envy of (mostly) Nixon and the crowing of LBJ.  Nixon also gave us the "liberal media", "election fraud" all Democratic and none proved in recounts, and the persecuted silent majority.

BTW, the problem, IMO is not heavy leaguers but the effect of the consultants Harry Truman called "the de-juicers."  No passion, calculated to offend no one, no principles, just poll-driven policies.  More heart would have won for Kerry and extended the win of Gore beyond the Republican ability to steal it.

Ahh I see. And I must say my expectations were mostly met. Thanks again.

"it ignores the critiques that have been laid at the feet of the intellectual cadre and the band of consultants that make up the Dem party -- many of which do in fact come from the DLC"

Do you have a source verifying that many political consultants are affiliated or "come from" the DLC?

"The DLC's aim is to distance the Dem party establishment from the "activist" base/grassroots of the party, in exchange for a cozier relation (i.e., big political donations) with the multinational-corporate free-marketeers in Wall Street"

So it's your position that the DLC's interests & intents were financial rather than political?

"The DLC figured that in order to pursue this new relation with corporate America and with its base that the Dem party would need to repackage its brand, and position this New Dem party somewhere between the republican party and what they perceived as the old social-welfare program focused way of the old Dem party -- hence, a third way.  In practical terms, the articulation of this so-called third way relied on a triangulation, a seeking of policy items that combined policy goals from the so-called conventional right and of the so-called conventional left, to arrive at a new policy consensus."

Is the articulation of the so-called "Third Way" really more practical than theoretical?

Does the concept of the "Third Way" apply to matters of policy as much as it does to politics, if not moreso?

Is there a possibility that the idea of the "Third Way", a broadly defined concept that seems to apply to matters of government as often as campaings & elections, had more to do with marketing than application? In essence, more style than substance?

Have any Conservative or Rightist parties embraced  Third Way policy/politics?

Which "Third Way" architect coined the term Triangulation and where did he define it?

"Unfortunately, the so-called third way, because it constantly seeks to position itself in the middle, even when one of the points in the base of the pyramid moves further and further to an extreme, it inevitably sacrifices the essence of either points,"

Is there any practical evidence of this, rather than theoretical speculation?

"DLC types have resorted to presenting themselves as more and more towards the right, thus abandoning more and more liberal principles"

Which liberal principles has the DLC abandoned? To test you earlier criticism of the "Third Way" (a concept the DLC has been associated with generally) being ineffective because it cedes liberal ground as the Right moves ever rightward, what are some traditionally progressive positions the DLC once supported, but have since moved rightward on to chase the "middle"?

Here's a brief list, er, wish list, of items I'd like to see coming from the Democratic party and their national candidates:

Policies

• National commitment to the Energy Apollo Project, to curtail, if not end, our dependence on fossil fuels -- I'd also like to see more exploration on alternative energy sources
• No US forces in Iraq, no permanent basis the country
• Rebuild and regain the trust of our nation's military after the catastrophic abuse of the past six years
• As an aside, and as someone that served in the military, I'd like to see a mandatory -- yes, mandatory -- military service period for every American after completing high school for a two year period. (Conscientious objectors could serve in non-combat units that are not required to undergo any direct weapons training -- our nation must commit to an ideal wherein war must be a shared sacrifice, across the board, period.)
• Heavy investment in our educational system, particularly k-12
• Rekindle our national governments commitment to Social Security, so that the country knows that the systems is solvent and secure
• National healthcare
• A renewed commitment that Americans' reproductive security and sovereignty will remain a personal matter, even as we acknowledge that abortion should be "rare, safe and legal"
• An increase in the minimum wage
• Strong support for Americans' right to negotiate job security with their employers through our unions
• Strong incentives (patent protection and other methods) to maintain tech jobs and industry in our shores
• Reforming our nation's revenue code to curtail payment evasion, and to shore up solvency
• Provide an avenue for undocumented immigrants to join the American mainstream, while simultaneously working with our partners in the Western Hemisphere to curtail the inflow of undocumented immigrants
• Work with Israel, Palestine and the world community to assure that the parties move rapidly towards a two state solution -- negotiate a sustainable cease fire
• Recommit to the nuclear non-proliferation treaties
• A renewed commitment of America's most sacred creed: Equal Protection for All. Yes, all, including gays -- there would be no more talk of any anti-American amendments

I could list a couple more, but I want to move on to the issue of style/perception; after all, leadership and politics (as anything else, I suppose), are about substance and style, concrete policy and its veneer (by god, republicans have thought us this lesson... we best learn it). Accordingly, I'd like to see the following in my ideal candidate:

Style

• A transformational leader -- someone whose party legacy, for instance, would be said to be: After their administration there were more people calling themselves Liberal than there were before. Take Ronald Reagan, he's clearly used by conservatives to this day as their standard bearer and the conservative movement uses him to shore up their brand
• My ideal political leader will unabashedly reach to the legacy, language and vision of FDR -- the greatest American president of the 20th century --, all the while seeking to build new and lasting coalitions that give shape to an America for the 21st century
• I want someone that does not shy away nor cower before the attacks from the conservative movement; rather, I would like my political leader to respond to any challenges from the right as FDR once did:

We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me -- and I welcome their hatred. I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second administration that in it these forces met their master.

• I want a leader that understands and respects that we ALL belong to the American family, no matter our ethnic group nor religion; moreover, while we belong to one single American family, the way forward is to be good neighbors within the international community -- I want a leader that will seek to build collaborative relations with our partners (no more unileteralism; of course, we retain a monopoly over our national defense)
• I want a leader that will make rebuilding the Democratic and Liberal/Progressive brand a priority