Swing State Project

The DLC has always been at the forefront of intra-party mud-slinging. They're just finally being called on it, and suddenly it's time for peace? If she wanted to give a speech to a centrist organization truly interested in bringing the various factions of the party together, she could've worked with NDN.

Instead, she plans on working with the DLC to come up with some common party message yadda yadda yadda. Well, that effort is dead on arrival. The DLC is not a credible vehicle for such an effort. Period. [...]

It's truly disappointing that this is the crap Hillary has signed on to. More of the failed corporatist bullshit that has cost our party so dearly the last decade and a half.

Kos lays out the choice for 2008 Democratic candidates:

Democrats have a choice to make -- stand with the DLC, or stand with the grassroots and netroots of the party. It's interesting that Democrats with a strong sense of self -- those who truly know what they stand for and are unafraid to say so -- are those least interested in the DLC's snake oil. Obama twice had to demand the DLC take him off their list. California's Phil Angelides -- the next governor of the Golden State given Ahnold's spectacular collapse -- also demanded to be taken off their list. Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, who's anti-war floor speech made the internet rounds last year, also demanded to be taken off their list. Western Democrats in Montana -- blood red territory -- have shown no interest in cozying up with the DLC.

It's those Democrats who are afraid of who or what they stand for that seem most drawn to the DLC. It's a shame that Hillary has thrown in with that lot, but it's clear that she's looking for the perfect positioning. She's not confident she can win on who she is and what she stands for, so she's what, looking for cover to the charges that she's "too liberal"? Is she looking to the DLC to help define that "vital center"?

Steve Gilliard on the Democratic Leadership Council:

Mark my words. She will never make it out of the primaries if she runs.

Hillary Clinton's instincts suck. They are horrible.

Her enemies will ALWAYS paint her as a liberal, regardless of her real stands. Her name is a byword for liberalism and corruption among the right. They will fight her to their last breath. The DLC wants to use the same failed playbook it has always used, run down the middle of the road and lose to the GOP.

At the same time, all this does is alienate liberal supporters who are perplexed by her insane and pointless manuvering. Video games, abortion, all these issues do not help her. They just make her look weak and vaciliating.

John Kerry ran to the left and lost by 110K votes. He didn't hide from being a liberal and he came close enough to winning that Bush was sweating out election day. So what lesson does Clinton take from that: run to the middle. Despite every poll, every focus group that wants a strong, active Democratic party, the Democratic Loser Council wants to stay in the middle. [...]

If Hillary Clinton wants to lose with the DLC, that's her business. But lose she will.
(emphasis mine)

David Sirota on the Democratic Leadership Council:

More food for thought about the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and the future of the Democratic Party...Can you imagine if an organization existed that purported to speak for Republicans, yet whose entire premise undermining the conservative base of the Republican Party? Do you think GOP presidential candidates would be flocking to address that organization's meetings? The answer, of course, is no, they wouldn't - and you can bet the GOP leadership would crush that organization before it ever got off the ground. But on the Democratic side, the story is far different.

Democratic presidential contenders go suck up to the DLC, an organization whose for the last two decades has done everything it can to undermine the Democratic Party - even going to great lengths to attack Democratic presidential candidates it doesn't like. Then, hilariously, these same Democratic politicians who genuflect to the DLC claim to be shocked - shocked! - that the public has no idea what the Democratic Party stands for anymore.

Digby on the Democratic Leadership Council:

Being lectured all the time by effete DC Democrats on "patriotism" because I don't back their reflexively hawkish foreign policy is not only insulting it's dumb. It plays into stereotypes that only serve the Republicans by turning this into a dick measuring contest when we should be turning the conversation into who can get the job done.

Ezra Klein on the Democratic Leadership Council:

...it's that their rhetorical devices for getting there tend to include 1) a lot of sniffing and despairing at all those hopelessly irresponsible liberals followed by a 2) high-minded promise to stroll into whatever trap the Republicans have set for them or 3) set one themselves if the right's been remiss.

DavidNYC on the Democratic Leadership Council:

I'm keeping an open mind about 2008 - I definitely do not have a favorite candidate, or even a group of favorites. I recognize that different candidates will try to position themselves differently, and I am not demanding fealty to the netroots. (I know as well as anyone that the blogosphere is not the be all, end all of politics.) But if and when Hillary Clinton tries to reach out to us, it's going to be hard for me to forget that she's aligned herself with Al From and the DLC.

News Blog on the Democratic Leadership Council:

Why the DLC sucks monkey balls.

Larry Johnson, professional spook, lifelong Republican, was just smeared in the Weekly Standard.

Paul Hackett, lawyer, Marine Reservist, Iraq War vet, was just smeared today, accused of lying about his military record.

So what are we supposed to do, imitate that little coward Peter Beinart and be PNAC's bitch?

I think not.

Sirota on the Democratic Leadership Council:

But that doesn't fit the DLC's goals, which are to undermine the Democratic Party. Instead of working to debunk these right-wing stereotypes, these insulated Beltway snobs seem to only feel relevant if they reinforce the right-wing stereotypes parroted by Fox News and the Republican Party. It just shows that for Democrats who want to win - and not just preserve their status on the Washington cocktail party circuit - the DLC is really part of the problem, not the solution.

Let's be clear - the DLC has done masterfully in selling its snake oil by always claiming that Democrats need a coherent "positive" agenda. No one argues with that. The problem is that the DLC offers neither a coherent agenda, or anything positive.

Indeed. Candidates have a choice, people or corporations -- grassroots or DLC. It is an either/or question.

If a candidate is still on the DLC List of Shame -- they will NOT get my support. Primary. General. None. Even HRC.

UPDATE: (Bob) Sirota has more on the DLC at the Huffington Post.

Two words:

Open

Season