Hillary, DLC/Third Way, Neocons, PNAC, Etc.
PreambleNot long ago, a DUer chastised me for having "labeled" Hillary as "Third Way." Other DUers have criticized other DUers and me for referring to the Democratic Leadership Council ("DLC"
or DLCers, on the ground that the DLC corporation dissolved (giving its papers to the Clinton Presidential Library).
One of the purposes of this post is to show that the legal technicality of corporate dissolution of the DLC far from ended the spirit, philosophy and influence of the DLC, which is amply represented within the Democratic Party by New Democrats, some of whom call themselves progressives, and also represented in Democratic think tanks like the Progressive Policy Institute, Third Way, No Labels, etc. And, the legal technicality of corporate dissolution of the DLC erase the history of who was and was not a DLCer and who did or did not embrace the DLC philosophy and goals.
Another purpose of this post is to show that referring to Hillary as Third Wayer and/or a DLCer is both factual and consequential.
I hope that this post also at least implies why references to "progressive" Democrats and "progressive" policies may not always mean what seems to be frequently assumed: "Progressive" is not necessarily a synonym for either "liberal" or "left." This is relevant to Hillary because she has sometimes referred to the policies that she supports as "progressive" policies.
Now, a disclosure: I decided in 2007 that I would support Obama in the Democratic Presidential primary. Among other things, I thought Obama was the one likeliest of the 2008 primary field to win a general. Obviously, I thought an African American would have to overcome biases (and so does a woman). Nonetheless, I thought all others in the field, including Biden and Hillary, were more vulnerable than Obama. (I thought Hillary vulnerable because of Iraq, the Clinton baggage and other reasons.)
Since then, it seems to me that a lot of money and power has been put behind insulating Hillary from primary challenge. However, nothing can insulate her from challenge in a general. I believe her to be even more vulnerable now in a general than I believed her to be in 2008, including because of her "racially tinged" 2008 campaign against Obama. So, although I do not yet know whom I will support in the next Democratic Presidential primary, I do know that I will not support Hillary in that primary.
Facts and Observations
(All bolding is mine.)
The DLC's affiliated think tank is the Progressive Policy Institute. Democrats who adhere to the DLC's philosophy often call themselves New Democrats. This term is also used by other groups who have similar views on where the party should go in the future, like NDN[2] and Third Way.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council
The model for the DLC was Coalition for a Democratic Majority ("CDM"
, a group formed in 1972 in which cold war warriors/war hawk neocons predominated.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=coalition_for_a_democratic_majority_1; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Jackson
(Google for images of Hillary with Kissinger through the years, if you are interested.)
Ironically, the history commons article linked above states that the CDM paved the way for the "disastrous" McGovern candidacy, while DLC historians claim that the "disastrous" McGovern candidacy paved the way for formation of the DLC. (IMO, New Democrats rejected a hell of a lot more of the Democratic Party than only McCarthy and the 1960s.)
The wiki of the Democratic Leadership Council once named both Bill and Hillary among the founding members of the DLC, along with Lieberman, Gore, Robb, Warner and others. (Predominating among the DLC's founding members were Southern white males, many of whom had, or have since, been named in connection with possible Presidential runs.) However, a search today of the DLC's wiki, using Mozilla's "Find," could not pick up that fact about Hillary and Bill. Either I missed it, or someone has edited relatively recently.
I did, however, find in Al From's wiki a description of Hillary's unique role in the DLC--as of this morning, anyway. (Perhaps it, too, will soon be edited?) Much of the material in Al From's wiki used to appear on the DLC website, almost verbatim, so I assume From had, at a minimum, some role in writing it:
In 1998, with First Lady Hillary Clinton, From began a dialogue with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other world leaders, and the DLC brand – known as The Third Way – became a model for resurgent liberal governments around the globe.
In April 1999, he hosted an historic Third Way forum in Washington with President Clinton, Prime Minister Blair, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Prime Ministers Wim Kok of the Netherlands and Massimo D'Alema of Italy.[16]
......
From is a controversial figure in the Democratic Party, drawing criticism in liberal circles and from blogs like DailyKos.com and MyDD.com among others. In 1991, the Reverend Jesse Jackson called the DLC “Democrats for the Leisure Class,” and in 2003, former Democratic National Committee Chair and Vermont Governor Howard Dean* sharply criticized From and the DLC as the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.[18][19]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council
(Lately, it is not only Birchers or Marshall echoing the lie that criticism of a President is anti-American.)
He served on the board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an organization chaired by Joe Lieberman (I) and John McCain (R) designed to build support for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall also signed, at the outset of the war, a letter issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) expressing support for the invasion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Marshall
Given the above, it is not necessarily surprising, though it may be shocking, that Hillary gave a speech urging support for Bush's invasion of Iraq, and without reading the 90-page NIE. (In fairness, she was far from alone in not reading it, which I find physically nauseating, given all the blood and treasure and unintended consequences that hung in the balance.)
*Howard Dean, not only once dubbed the DLCers the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, but also identified himself as belonging to the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. However, there is money to be earned, politicians evolve and Dean is now a professional spokesperson, pundit and lobbyist, and has already endorsed Hillary for 2016. (He recently explained this on TV as people being worried and therefore likely to want someone familiar. The flip side of that, of course, is Clinton fatigue and also that, yes, we are all too familiar with Hillary.)
Dean has also spent time as a Senior Strategic Advisor and Independent Consultant for the Government Affairs practice at McKenna, Long & Aldridge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKenna_Long_%26_Aldridge
However, Democracy for America, which Howard Dean founded and turned over to his brother Jim once Howard was named chair of the DNC, has been urging Senator Warren to run.
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/blog/865-final-results-draft-elizabeth-warren-87-6-vote-yes
**Note: "New Democrat Movement," not "New Democratic Movement." A DUer once called me out for using "New Democrat Caucus," rather than "New Democratic Caucus." However, New Democrat Caucus is indeed the correct name of the New Democrat Caucus and I am not the one who named it. So, for example, when I emailed MSNBC to chastise Chuck Toad for referring to the "Democrat Party," I knew, but did not spell out, that my position is not as strong as it might have been, sans the New Democrat Movement. But, I guess, if you are going to lead what Howard Dean once called the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, why not use "Democrat" the way Republicans do when they are trying to insult Democrats?
= new reply since forum marked as read
, a group formed in 1972 in which cold war warriors/war hawk neocons predominated. Incorrect. The "predecessor" referred to above was The CPE - Committee on Party Effectiveness. See complete excerpt below:
The DLC started as a group of forty-three elected officials and two staffers, Al From and Will Marshall, and shared their predecessor's goal
As to when the CDM was formed, I cannot help what the commons article to which I linked said.
But here was your attempted deception:
There is no irony there. The History Commons link is incorrect as any Google search will tell you. Further, the wiki link was not written by 'DLC historians.' That was an attempt by you to cast doubt on the actual historic occurrence. McGovern lost in epic fashion, then the CDM was formed to stir the party in another direction. It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest a small and inconsequential centrist group like the CDM could cause a liberal candidate to lose. But you attempted to do just that.
Utter cluelessness.
No it's not!
Maybe you feel that way, because the 1% "we" has BOUGHT our government from *WE* the people, and tried to redefine bribery as not being a crime any more the way our founders would see it.
Yes, when the head of the mafia dies off, then one of his sons will say it is "their turn" to lead it. But Americans don't want a dictatorship to tell them who will run their lives, we want a voice in determining who will do so. That "we" is FAR from wanting Clinton to be a leader because it is "her turn".
Too many people now have glasses to see the truth that has been held back from us for so long...
Did you really say "It's her turn".
Why yes you did!
Gman says:
Don't forget to stomp your foot & hold your breath
And they accuse the left of being like the right. 
that's it? you got no other legs to stand on besides innuendo and being nasty?
If you do....go right ahead and let 'er loose....we are all waiting with bated breath
Yes, you are right. Both Clintons were right in the middle of the rightward movement.
I am looking through some old files now seeing if anything interesting.
Last one out, turn off the lights.
..that sat on the DLC Executive Council.
Koch Industries gave funding to the DLC and served on its Executive Council
http://americablog.com/2010/08/koch-industries-gave-funding-to-the-dlc-and-served-on-its-executive-council.html
[font size=5]
The DLC New Team
[/font]
(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)
, a group formed in 1972 in which cold war warriors/war hawk neocons predominated. Incorrect. The "predecessor" referred to above was The CPE - Committee on Party Effectiveness. See complete excerpt below:
The DLC started as a group of forty-three elected officials and two staffers, Al From and Will Marshall, and shared their predecessor's goal
As to when the CDM was formed, I cannot help what the commons article to which I linked said.
But here was your attempted deception:
There is no irony there. The History Commons link is incorrect as any Google search will tell you. Further, the wiki link was not written by 'DLC historians.' That was an attempt by you to cast doubt on the actual historic occurrence. McGovern lost in epic fashion, then the CDM was formed to stir the party in another direction. It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest a small and inconsequential centrist group like the CDM could cause a liberal candidate to lose. But you attempted to do just that.
, a group formed in 1972 in which cold war warriors/war hawk neocons predominated. Incorrect. The "predecessor" referred to above was The CPE - Committee on Party Effectiveness. See complete excerpt below:
The DLC started as a group of forty-three elected officials and two staffers, Al From and Will Marshall, and shared their predecessor's goal
As to when the CDM was formed, I cannot help what the commons article to which I linked said.
But here was your attempted deception:
There is no irony there. The History Commons link is incorrect as any Google search will tell you. Further, the wiki link was not written by 'DLC historians.' That was an attempt by you to cast doubt on the actual historic occurrence. McGovern lost in epic fashion, then the CDM was formed to stir the party in another direction. It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest a small and inconsequential centrist group like the CDM could cause a liberal candidate to lose. But you attempted to do just that.
and some brought bags of money. It's nice to have wealthy friends.
Are we really expected to just dumbly follow the herd before any announcements are made? I guess we need to get some big damn brooms to sweep everything under the carpet.
Thanks, Enthusiast. That describes it perfectly.
And don't lets forget that the DLC and their heirs weren't too keen on social issues either until very recently. After all, those are librul ideas.
These are the folks who pinned their candidates' losses on liberals being too far left for the it precious swing voters.
(Using "Jeb" as a proxy for whatever Republican establishment candidate wins the Republican nomination. The whackjobs won't win the primary)
Yes, she's doing well in early polling. But early polling said 2008 would be Clinton vs Giuliani.
DLC-style politics is predicated on the distribution of voters on a left-right graph looking like an upside-down V. That there's a big lump in the middle, tapering off as you get more extreme.
It isn't. Republican insanity has dragged the "right" side off into it's own peak. Voter distribution now looks like an upside-down W. A left peak and a right peak.
Republicans are aiming at the right peak. DLC-style democrats are aiming for the middle....which is now a pit between the peaks. At the same time, these positions turn off the "left" end of the party, so they don't show up. That's why turnout is abysmal in GenX and Millennials - they trend far more liberal, but don't feel like they have a candidate if the election is DLC-style versus Republican. Such as the 2010 and 2014 elections.
If Clinton runs a DLC-style campaign, we get a base-versus-base election. With the Republicans catering to their base, and Clinton catering to the pit in the middle. That makes it a lot closer of an election. Close enough for the Republican candidate to win (or "win" .
If Clinton runs a "hope and change" campaign, she has a much better chance of getting out those GenX and Millennials. But I have severe doubts that Clinton can pull that off. First, it goes against her entire political history. Second, those "marginally attached voters" feel they've been burned by Obama, and a candidate who ran to the right of Obama in 2008 isn't going to be able to credibly claim to be to the left of Obama.
We need to be concerned about 2016. Not acting like Clinton has already won. We can easily lose this - just ask not-Senator/not-governor Coakley.
, a group formed in 1972 in which cold war warriors/war hawk neocons predominated. No, the predecessor was Al Gore's and Richard Richard Gephardt's Committee on Party Effectiveness in the early 80s. Your links plainly state that.
Not surprisingly, you haven't done your research. The CDM was formed one month after McGovern's campaign. And it was a disastrous campaign.
Your post is a great example or 'progressive' historical revisionism. These facts are easily found. But like most of your post, you're trying to inject some doubt.
Did you also fail to mention Howard Dean has endorsed Hillary?
I know there aren't many on DU who are interested in the history of the Democratic party - preferring to continue with the 'progressive' fairy tales you 'grew up with' on the internet. But for those who really want to read the New Democratic history, I suggest:
Reinventing Democrats by Kenneth S. Baer
http://www.amazon.com/Reinventing-Democrats-Kenneth-S-Baer/dp/070061009X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1423680690&sr=8-1&keywords=Reinventing+Democrats
I would also suggest Matt Stoller's excellent review of Al From's book The New Democrats and the Return to Power.
http://bit.ly/1zybePv
, a group formed in 1972 in which cold war warriors/war hawk neocons predominated. Incorrect. The "predecessor" referred to above was The CPE - Committee on Party Effectiveness. See complete excerpt below:
The DLC started as a group of forty-three elected officials and two staffers, Al From and Will Marshall, and shared their predecessor's goal
As to when the CDM was formed, I cannot help what the commons article to which I linked said.
But here was your attempted deception:
There is no irony there. The History Commons link is incorrect as any Google search will tell you. Further, the wiki link was not written by 'DLC historians.' That was an attempt by you to cast doubt on the actual historic occurrence. McGovern lost in epic fashion, then the CDM was formed to stir the party in another direction. It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest a small and inconsequential centrist group like the CDM could cause a liberal candidate to lose. But you attempted to do just that.
, a group formed in 1972 in which cold war warriors/war hawk neocons predominated. Incorrect. The "predecessor" referred to above was The CPE - Committee on Party Effectiveness. See complete excerpt below:
The DLC started as a group of forty-three elected officials and two staffers, Al From and Will Marshall, and shared their predecessor's goal
As to when the CDM was formed, I cannot help what the commons article to which I linked said.
But here was your attempted deception:
There is no irony there. The History Commons link is incorrect as any Google search will tell you. Further, the wiki link was not written by 'DLC historians.' That was an attempt by you to cast doubt on the actual historic occurrence. McGovern lost in epic fashion, then the CDM was formed to stir the party in another direction. It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest a small and inconsequential centrist group like the CDM could cause a liberal candidate to lose. But you attempted to do just that.
, a group formed in 1972 in which cold war warriors/war hawk neocons predominated. Incorrect. The "predecessor" referred to above was The CPE - Committee on Party Effectiveness. See complete excerpt below:
The DLC started as a group of forty-three elected officials and two staffers, Al From and Will Marshall, and shared their predecessor's goal
As to when the CDM was formed, I cannot help what the commons article to which I linked said.
But here was your attempted deception:
There is no irony there. The History Commons link is incorrect as any Google search will tell you. Further, the wiki link was not written by 'DLC historians.' That was an attempt by you to cast doubt on the actual historic occurrence. McGovern lost in epic fashion, then the CDM was formed to stir the party in another direction. It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest a small and inconsequential centrist group like the CDM could cause a liberal candidate to lose. But you attempted to do just that.
, a group formed in 1972 in which cold war warriors/war hawk neocons predominated. Incorrect. The "predecessor" referred to above was The CPE - Committee on Party Effectiveness. See complete excerpt below:
The DLC started as a group of forty-three elected officials and two staffers, Al From and Will Marshall, and shared their predecessor's goal
As to when the CDM was formed, I cannot help what the commons article to which I linked said.
But here was your attempted deception:
There is no irony there. The History Commons link is incorrect as any Google search will tell you. Further, the wiki link was not written by 'DLC historians.' That was an attempt by you to cast doubt on the actual historic occurrence. McGovern lost in epic fashion, then the CDM was formed to stir the party in another direction. It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest a small and inconsequential centrist group like the CDM could cause a liberal candidate to lose. But you attempted to do just that.
, a group formed in 1972 in which cold war warriors/war hawk neocons predominated. Incorrect. The "predecessor" referred to above was The CPE - Committee on Party Effectiveness. See complete excerpt below:
The DLC started as a group of forty-three elected officials and two staffers, Al From and Will Marshall, and shared their predecessor's goal
As to when the CDM was formed, I cannot help what the commons article to which I linked said.
But here was your attempted deception:
There is no irony there. The History Commons link is incorrect as any Google search will tell you. Further, the wiki link was not written by 'DLC historians.' That was an attempt by you to cast doubt on the actual historic occurrence. McGovern lost in epic fashion, then the CDM was formed to stir the party in another direction. It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest a small and inconsequential centrist group like the CDM could cause a liberal candidate to lose. But you attempted to do just that.
, a group formed in 1972 in which cold war warriors/war hawk neocons predominated. Incorrect. The "predecessor" referred to above was The CPE - Committee on Party Effectiveness. See complete excerpt below:
The DLC started as a group of forty-three elected officials and two staffers, Al From and Will Marshall, and shared their predecessor's goal
As to when the CDM was formed, I cannot help what the commons article to which I linked said.
But here was your attempted deception:
There is no irony there. The History Commons link is incorrect as any Google search will tell you. Further, the wiki link was not written by 'DLC historians.' That was an attempt by you to cast doubt on the actual historic occurrence. McGovern lost in epic fashion, then the CDM was formed to stir the party in another direction. It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest a small and inconsequential centrist group like the CDM could cause a liberal candidate to lose. But you attempted to do just that.
Anyone who doesn't want me to reply can just stop making my My Post tab go yellow. Pretending people are not addressing me is just not something I was brought up to do.
BTW, it was far more than once with you, Josh. I remember telling you on a few occasions that the exchanges had become too tedious for me to continue and you were on your own. And each time, you'd reply to me again anyway.
No worries, though Josh. I get that being direct is not for everyone .
And here I was thinking the yellow tab represented a coherent, substantive, relevant reply!
Instead it was a complete waste of time!
And people wonder why I don't feel like bothering to reply.
Days and days of irrelevant commentary. It's pointless.
I loved every bit of it. Thank You.
Who can truly say?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]
Neither will it matter to people like myself who like, respect her and hope that she does run.
I assume that in the primaries those who don't support her will vote for someone else. My only objection is to those who have announced that they refuse to vote for her in the GE if she's the nominee. That's beyond foolish and selfish. I would vote for any Democratic nominee. I cringe to think what would happen to the country if the Republicans get to control Congress AND the WH too.
The bull in this place is endless. Most Hillary supporters voted for Obama, he wouldn't have won otherwise. Ever thought of that?
I barely show up on this site anymore since it has become as anti-Clinton as any RW site.
I may be a registered Independent, but I vote Democratic.
Who do you intend to vote for in the general election in 2016, the Republican nominee?
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
Maybe she should run on the Glamour Ticket.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026215315
If she doesn't, I will respect her decision.
I'm not the one tearing at my hair and rending my vestments over Hillary. That seems to be the job of the Left. Although the constant attempts to tear down one of the party's most popular politicians is quite befuddling.
have posted to point it out. So far, the bull crap I've seen on this thread has not come from my OP
If you are not careful, it could make you dizzy.
We are just tired of all the bellyaching of that faction of the party when it comes to the Clintons. Hillary has as much right to run for president as anyone else in the party.
I see that the usual attempts at censorship are alive and well. How democratic of them.........
In all the years I was actively involved in this site I never alerted or placed anyone on ignore. Freedom of speech is something to treasure. I have lived in countries where emitting an opinion against the ruling government could get you arrested, tortured and even killed. Therefore, I may disagree 100% with someone, but I'll defend that individual's right to express himself/herself.
It's depressing to see how "cliquish" this place has become and how everyone has to march to the same drumbeat or be censured. They only want people who agree with them absolutely, they attempt to discourage any dissent. There's nothing democratic about a site where various Democratic views are not accepted.
is what requires a suspension of disbelief. Remember when Nader said that a Gore presidency wouldn't differ that much from a Bush one? Well, how did that turn out?
I can understand people preferring another Democratic candidate during the primaries. What I can't understand is the proclamation of some so called progressive Democrats to refuse to vote for Hillary in the GE if she's the nominee. Are they so damn ignorant of the issues that they think that a Hillary presidency would be the same as a Bush, Romney, Paul, Cruz, Walker or any other Republican?????
That thought boggles the mind.
There's no doubt that she has accomplished more than any other first lady in history, at least up to this point in time. Although some of it may have to do with the era in which she lives. An Abigail Adams or even an Eleanor Roosevelt would have been stymied by the times they lived in. Eleanor was despised enough in some sectors without even running for the Senate, let alone the presidency if that had been her wont. The first ladies that I admire are the ones who stood up for something and made their time in the WH count, going beyond what are considered traditional first lady pursuits. That's what attracted me to Hillary Clinton in the first place back in the 90s. Good, bad or indifferent, she took up causes that made many male politicians cringe.
Hillary may not be as progressive as some here wish her to be, but she has brains, experience, compassion and a self deprecating sense of humor. All qualities that are needed to tackle a job that, despite its power and privileges, is not for the faint of heart. She's also a very hard worker. Once she accepts a job she commits 100% to it. At meetings she likes people to contribute their opinion and does take them into consideration. She's no nonsense when it comes to work matters, but she's also the one to remember her staffers' family members and milestones. She's a tough boss because she demands excellence, but she's fair and praises easily for a job well done. That's why the people who were part of what is known as "Hillaryland" remained so many years by her side. On the other hand, as extroverted as Bill is, his staff changed on a regular basis.
I think that if Hillary does become president she would be a good one.
But thanks for the clarification.
The Hillary campaign was a meanie and the Obama campaign was pure as the driven snow. How long have you been observing politics?
and even before any announcement is made they are already demanding unwavering support. Then they get angry when it gets called a coronation. It sure does seem like they want to dispense with all of that silly democracy nonsense. It makes me wonder if deep in their gut they know she isn't that great a candidate, so to make up for that everybody should just shut up and comply.
I couldn't believe it at the time. 
I wondered what the hell were they thinking, so I asked. I got a bunch of yammering not so different than what is said here.
The Democratic Study Group:
"The Democratic Study Group (DSG) is a legislative service organization (LSO) in the United States House of Representatives. It was founded in 1959 "as a liberal counterpoint to the influence of senior conservatives and southern Democrats, it now consists of nearly all Democratic members of the House. Its Republican counterpart is Legislative Digest. The oldest and best known LSO in Congress, DSG has the largest budget and staff. The DSG's principal activity is to disseminate detailed written materials to members of the House about upcoming legislation and policy issues, which it does on a daily basis when the chamber is in session." According to Nelson W. Polsby, the DSG was a centrally important actor in internal reform of Congress that would allow much of the Kennedy-Johnson program to pass in spite of the opposition of the Conservative coalition."
"The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was a non-profit 501(c)(4) corporation[1] founded in 1985 that, upon its formation, argued the United States Democratic Party should shift away from the leftward turn it took in the late 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. The DLC hailed President Bill Clinton as proof of the viability of Third Way politicians and as a DLC success story."
Once, doctors had to put me into a medically induced coma for about four weeks. According to my relatives, I never questioned a thing the whole time.
Amazing how few posts you've made per year (on average) yet consider this kind of post worth making over and over and over on this thread.
I've had enough of this bs. Hope you have as well. If not, I sincerely hope that you enjoy continuing on without me.
This thread, I believe, was the reason I have so many hearts, although that certainly was not expected and not the reason I wrote the OP. I had a few of them for a few days, then I got a whole bunch in the two days after I posted this.
However, patience is not endless, esp. once I start to doubt if a poster is sincere or not. On this thread, I have strong doubts about at least three of the most persistent hectors and they will get either nothing at all or nothing good from me on this thread anymore. Some of them may never get anything good from me again ever.
I and fine with all the authentic disagreement in the world, but not with disingenuousness or gadflying for the sake of disruption and disruption alone.
Not too thrilled with the deliberately dense, either.
Sure nice to see you again, though.
I've always admired your ability to kick ass and take names. You're doing the Lord's work. That of course being my Dark Lord 
Sounds like...
Thank you for your good contributions.. 
(thanks for the info & links merrily!)
Just watch out for all those huge lies I intentionally embedded in the OP just to smear Hillary, k? They are not supposed to fool the leftist RW purist TeaLeft Hillary truthers and your post gave me the secret wink, so I know you're one of us.
What in hell was I thinking, "spinning" such meaningless things to "intentionally" deceive when I could have spun something that actually mattered to my point (which was only to show that reason to describe Hillary as DLC/Third Way exists)? And the gall of me to have a sense of irony, even though the CDM was formed before McGovern lost--or was it after? And all just to smear Hillary in some oh, so subtle way, too!
into my DNA retroactively. Democrats, too.
The DLC took a lot of credit for Clinton. But, in his heart of hearts, Bubba may give just a touch of credit to Ross Perot.
I bet Democrats didn't rail against third party spoilers during those elections.
BTW I found nothing rude about your example.
on the way in and wind up going through the wrong door.
Just askin'
it takes forever for this OP to load so I'm pass this time
I'm in the process of putting up black splash in the kitchen
who have been, IMO, bad faith asshat disrupters with little to nothing to say. So my replies brings up the count. On the other hand, I have not been replying to myself, either.
I don't know what the fuss is, though. I don't think the OP revealed anything about Hillary that any DUer didn't know. While I have not counted, the posters who praised the Op outnumber the insult flinging posters. And I do believe the OP was the reason for a lot of my hearts. (I think I had under 5 before posting this.)
On the other hand, with all deference that is farily due to Wyldwolf's immaterial, inane nitpicking, no one but him even tried to refute any fact I actually posted (as opposed to what they imagined I posted or imagined I omitted). They just flung baseless insults and accusations. IMO, that reflected more on them than on my OP.
As to my opinions, I am as entitled as anyone else to post them; and I even disclosed my goal and my bias in the OP near the beginning--something I've seen only a few posters do.
I guess we're just not supposed to connect the dots?
I do few OPs. I realty don't enjoy doing them. Too much work, esp. since I do feel compelled to reply, even if only to thank someone who posts "rec. " I'd rather feel free to post on other threads and to stay off the board entirely if I feel like it.
But, since so many DUers did view and did post, pro and con, I should probably try to do another OP soon.
