From David Sirota comes this link to a Newsweek interview with DLC Chair, Harold Ford (most recently one of the few Democratic losers in 2006). If I weren’t so concerned about 2008 becoming the second straight election cycle where the Democratic nominee for president has been pre-selected by some bizarre confluence of K-Street and the media, parts of this interview were total SNL material.
The interview, conducted by Jeffrey Bartholet began with the premise that the DLC might be slipping into irrelevance within the party.
"Bartholet: When the DLC held its annual convention in August, none of the candidates showed up. Yet most of the Democratic candidates attended the Daily Kos convention of netroots activists a few days later. Why?
Ford: You'd have to ask the candidates. I can only surmise that if you look at how Democratic and Republican primaries happen, they are really efforts to appeal to the far-right and the far-left wings of the party. But I take vindication as much as comfort in the fact that if you look at recent polling, the majority are rejecting the extremes of both parties. I'll make you one promise: next year the Democratic nominee will be at our convention."
I’m not quite sure which polling Ford is referring to but the most recent stuff I’ve seen would tend to suggest that the American people seem to be pretty much fed up with the race to the right that is going on in this country. On one of the major differences between the DLC and the rest of the Democratic Party, Iraq, Ford continues to beat the LIEberman/Clinton drum.
"Bartholet: The war is an important issue, and the DLC was pro-war.
Ford:I wouldn't call it pro-war.
Bartholet:It was [pro-war] in 2003.
Ford:Well, pro-war doesn't mean that we support the way this president has gone about fighting. We were supportive of removing Saddam Hussein, instilling stability in the country, reducing the threat that America faced from Al Qaeda and, equally important, the threat we thought was posed by Saddam Hussein. If we knew then what we know now … I was in the Congress; I would not have voted for the resolution. But at the same time, we're in a different place now. I caution anybody who continues to talk about the past on this issue."
Ok, sounds pretty pro-war to me. Same argument we have been hearing from this group since the advocated FOR the vote to authorize the use of force. ‘We aren’t against the invasion – only the way Bush is doing it.” As far as the “caution” about remembering the past; Harold and the DLC are still not willing to end the occupation, they just want a chance to “do it better.” Which brings us to Hillary Clinton and the DLC:
"Bartholet:Does Hillary Clinton still have a formal role at the DLC?
Ford:No.
Bartholet:She's still listed on your Web site as part of the DLC leadership team.
Ford:Right. But you can't have a formal role and still run for president with the DLC. You can be on various committees, but you can't have a formal role, no.
Bartholet:What does it mean that she's part of the DLC leadership team?
Ford:Meaning she's a former DLC chair. Meaning two years ago she chaired another effort in the DLC … on how to expand home ownership, how to expand college opportunity, how to expand job creation. John Edwards is on the leadership team as well. So is Joe Biden.
Bartholet:But her picture is right there with yours and others as a prominent leader … She's the one who is listed there. It's not John Edwards.
Ford:You ought to go back and look. I think you may see others listed as well. As you know, it is illegal for the organization to endorse anybody.
Bartholet:Right. That's why I was wondering, because it looks like an endorsement in a way … I'm just going to read to you here [from the DLC Web site]. It says, "DLC Leadership Team." Leaders: Harold Ford Jr., Tom Carper, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Jennifer Mann, Michael Coleman. That's the list.
Ford:Because they are vice chairs of the organization.
Bartholet:So Hillary Clinton is a vice chair of the organization?
Ford:No. Tom Carper is."
This is so twisted and spun around it makes my head hurt. She doesn’t have a “formal role” at the DLC because you can’t have a “formal role” and still run for president. You can be on the “Leadership Team” and featured on the website with other “leaders” but, because you can’t have a “formal role” and still run for president, you don’t have a “formal role.” And the people in the photo?
”Ford:Because they are vice chairs of the organization.” “They?” ‘Yeah, they be Tom Carper.’
So there you have it. The DLC is not pro-war unless it means overthrowing Saddam Hussein and they can be in charge. Hillary is in every way a leader in the DLC except where it may cost her votes with the rest of the party during the primary.
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
8 comments:
Perhaps you'd be interested in the example of your guy Bill Richardson and join him in calling for an end to the personal attacks on Hillary Clinton.
Maybe you could shoot David Sirota an e-mail, get his take on it, then let us know what he thinks about joining Richardson's call to back off of Hillary. I mean, I wouldn't want you to just act without David's permission or anything. :~)
BTW, is it your contention that Harold Ford is a Republican or conservative in some way? The man was the victim of a nasty racial attack from the GOP. Pretty arrogant to suggest he sympathizes with racists, I think.
Hey Chantel,
Good to see you.
How's the tales going over on your blog?
Harlod Ford is another front man for the DLC who are pushing Hillary Clinton mandated by those lobbyists that so many of our Democratic politicians are beholding to.
Oh on a side note Chantel I want you to know that if the current Democratic leadership gets Hillary Clinton elected as the Democratic nominee for president I will have no choice but to vote for her in the general. I think it's very sad that it's always about who has the most money.
If you would like to talk to Sirota why don't you email him yourself. I have and I have also worked on a couple of projects with Dave and the CFAP.
Hillary Clinton abdicated her Constitutional responsibility as Senator and gave away her vote not to attack another Country.
She should not even be in the race for president.
By the way I wish you would quit attacking other democrats in the base who you don't agree with. You seem obsessed with who you describe as the far left fringe. It seems to me the ones you are attacking are in the streets trying to stop wars, get Healthcare for all, and are standing up for your constitutional rights!
I don't see these DLC people doing that. Do you?
Keep trying Chantel you will get it right someday.
TTFN
Hey Ozy! Happy Halloween to you!
Glad to hear you'd vote for Hillary in the general election if she won! That actually raises my respect level for you. If you'd also promise to actively campaign for her as the nominee, then I might call you "Democrat" - the highest honor I can bestow. :~)
I take it from your remarks about Mrs. Clinton that you do not agree with Bill Richardson's comments that we need to focus attacks on the GOP. I don't hate the fringe, BTW, I just realize their votes for Nader are the reason we have Bush to begin with and that there is little difference between the far right and the far left when it comes to blind devotion to ideological extremes. That's reality, not hatred.
But don't worry, Ozy. I will keep trying to convince you and will, in fact, someday get the right combination of words that help turn the light on for ya! :)
And hey, you're still welcome over at Tales. Not many commenters there, but Tales is averaging 30+ hits a day. I've only asked one person not to comment and you are welcome to do so. I won't even accuse you of trolling for disagreeing with me! :~)
Chantel(?)
Please indicate the specific "personal attack" on Hillary Clinton that you perceive in this post.
Actually it IS my contention that Harold Ford is "conservative in some way." I contend that the DLC is the conservative wing of the Democratic Party.
Finally, I take strong offense to your assertion that, because I post on his statements as Chair of the DLC, I have in any way suggested that he sympathizes with racists. Your leaps in imagination are absolutely mind boggling at times. Nothing in what I have posted indicates anything about race or Republicans or a DLC tie-in to either. So....unless you believe that there is a relationship between the DLC and racism....you have, yet again, leveled a Rovian-type mis-direction attack as a debate tactic.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
Chad(?),
By claiming that the DLC sympathizes with conservatives, i.e. Republicans, you are in fact claiming that Harold Ford is on the same side of the ideological fence as those who put up the infamous "call me" ads. Surely you can comment on your logic without invoking Karl Rove...
BTW, have you checked into the individual presidential endorsements by members of the congressional progressive caucus? :~)
Chantel(?)
Stop! You're making my head hurt! Are you suggesting that the DLC is NOT the conservative wing of the Democratic Party? Are you saying that there are no conservative Democrats? Why do the leaders of the DLC continue to attack the "left" of the party by labeling us as (from the same interview with Harold Ford) "...liberal Democrats who want to take us back to the '60s."?
Are you suggesting that ALL conservatives are racist? Or...are you simply complaining because I am simply pointing out that there is a conservative wing in the Democratic Party and that it is represented by the DLC?
As to Karl Rove...you still haven't convinced me that you didn't study at his knee.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
Chad(?) -
I guess it depends on how you define 'conservative'. To me 'conservative' is an overall philosophy that is anti-choice, homophobic, favors selling off our public lands, wants to privatize Social Security, believes government should be small enough to fit inside your bedroom, believes we'd be a better nation if we'd only put the 10 commandments in school, wants to eliminate the separation of church and state, mocks the ideas of diversity and tolerance, campaigns for office on the premise that government is incompetent...and so forth.
If you have evidence that the DLC embodies those ideals, then you'll have a point. If your entire premise of DLC conservatism, however, is based on who voted for what in Iraq or bankruptcy or any other single issue, and that their vision of government doesn't go as far as Kucinich's, then I would question your definition of 'conservative'.
And for the record, Rove's strategy is to play to the extreme of his party. That would make me the anti-Rove I guess. :~)
Post a Comment