Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:08 PM
WhaTHellsgoingonhere (5,252 posts)
How can a brilliant political scientist like Rachel seem oblivious to the DLC?
Someone explain to her that the pre-DLC Democratic Party was very close to labor. Then a movement, led by monied interests and elites, the DLC, came along and ended welfare as we know it (whistle), got tough on crime (whistle), entered "Free" trade agreements (broke with labor), and put the final nail in the Glass-Stegall coffin. And yet, she's befuddled that Bernie wants to move the Party in a new direction. Or more accurately, he wants to return the Party to its pre-DLC roots. This shit escapes her.
|
73 replies, 9880 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Apr 2016 | OP |
Lucinda | Apr 2016 | #1 | |
WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Apr 2016 | #8 | |
Lucinda | Apr 2016 | #11 | |
WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Apr 2016 | #19 | |
msongs | Apr 2016 | #35 | |
WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Apr 2016 | #37 | |
Lucinda | Apr 2016 | #56 | |
daleanime | Apr 2016 | #53 | |
pangaia | Apr 2016 | #10 | |
Lucinda | Apr 2016 | #16 | |
WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Apr 2016 | #20 | |
Lucinda | Apr 2016 | #34 | |
pangaia | Apr 2016 | #62 | |
Trajan | Apr 2016 | #21 | |
1StrongBlackMan | Apr 2016 | #44 | |
Punkingal | Apr 2016 | #28 | |
Ed Suspicious | Apr 2016 | #57 | |
Ed Suspicious | Apr 2016 | #58 | |
redstateblues | Apr 2016 | #66 | |
snowy owl | Apr 2016 | #70 | |
Buzz Clik | Apr 2016 | #2 | |
dchill | Apr 2016 | #3 | |
KelleyD | Apr 2016 | #31 | |
dchill | Apr 2016 | #47 | |
Art_from_Ark | Apr 2016 | #4 | |
Vincardog | Apr 2016 | #33 | |
CharlotteVale | Apr 2016 | #5 | |
Broward | Apr 2016 | #6 | |
CorporatistNation | Apr 2016 | #12 | |
kcjohn1 | Apr 2016 | #7 | |
pangaia | Apr 2016 | #13 | |
pangaia | Apr 2016 | #9 | |
cantbeserious | Apr 2016 | #29 | |
840high | Apr 2016 | #60 | |
SoLeftIAmRight | Apr 2016 | #69 | |
leveymg | Apr 2016 | #14 | |
JackRiddler | Apr 2016 | #15 | |
Electric Monk | Apr 2016 | #23 | |
silvershadow | Apr 2016 | #24 | |
JackRiddler | Apr 2016 | #42 | |
silvershadow | Apr 2016 | #73 | |
litlbilly | Apr 2016 | #17 | |
nadinbrzezinski | Apr 2016 | #18 | |
JackRiddler | Apr 2016 | #30 | |
WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Apr 2016 | #43 | |
JackRiddler | Apr 2016 | #45 | |
WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Apr 2016 | #48 | |
tokenlib | Apr 2016 | #22 | |
WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Apr 2016 | #25 | |
Kalidurga | Apr 2016 | #32 | |
silvershadow | Apr 2016 | #51 | |
Califonz | Apr 2016 | #26 | |
Doctor_J | Apr 2016 | #39 | |
revbones | Apr 2016 | #27 | |
BernieforPres2016 | Apr 2016 | #36 | |
KelleyD | Apr 2016 | #38 | |
tokenlib | Apr 2016 | #46 | |
KelleyD | Apr 2016 | #52 | |
840high | Apr 2016 | #64 | |
WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Apr 2016 | #67 | |
WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Apr 2016 | #40 | |
snowy owl | Apr 2016 | #41 | |
Skwmom | Apr 2016 | #49 | |
yourpaljoey | Apr 2016 | #50 | |
WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Apr 2016 | #54 | |
yourpaljoey | Apr 2016 | #55 | |
840high | Apr 2016 | #59 | |
Skwmom | Apr 2016 | #61 | |
840high | Apr 2016 | #65 | |
snowy owl | Apr 2016 | #68 | |
Little_Wing | Apr 2016 | #63 | |
mythology | Apr 2016 | #71 | |
Skwmom | Apr 2016 | #72 |
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:10 PM
Lucinda (30,976 posts)
1. Bernie has no interest in the party. It's just a vehicle for him. n/t
Response to Lucinda (Reply #1)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:15 PM
WhaTHellsgoingonhere (5,252 posts)
8. Bernie plans to lead the Democratic Party. Whether he gets that opportunity is a different question
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Reply #8)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:17 PM
Lucinda (30,976 posts)
11. No he doesn't. If he did he, would be keeping his word and be working towards
electing other progressives. He was very clear recently. He ran as a Dem for the resources and media attention. His words, not mine.
|
Response to Lucinda (Reply #11)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:25 PM
WhaTHellsgoingonhere (5,252 posts)
19. The POTUS is the leader of the Democratic Party. Starting to sound like Clinton supporters don't
want anything to do with a Sanders led Democratic Party. Did I get that right?
|
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Reply #19)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:44 PM
msongs (66,194 posts)
35. bernie plans to be president. the democratic party is just his temporary vehicle nt
Response to msongs (Reply #35)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:50 PM
WhaTHellsgoingonhere (5,252 posts)
37. Nope, he said he's taking it with him. Sounds like you guys would drop out if he got the nomination
I said it a while ago, the way you guys go so aggressively at Sanders supporters for not supporting Hillary in the GE appears to be projection. You guys are proving me to be correct, here.
|
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Reply #19)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:23 PM
Lucinda (30,976 posts)
56. LOL
Twist away.
I've been perfectly clear that Bernie has no interest in the Dem party. And fortunately, he wont be our nominee so I don't have to worry about his lack of leadership skills in that regard. ![]() |
Response to Lucinda (Reply #11)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:16 PM
daleanime (17,796 posts)
53. No, sound like the DLC and Clinton supporters are willing to shove old school democrats...
out of the tent, and then wonder why she's not receiving any enthusiastic support. This primary will show me if that's any place left for me in the party.
|
Response to Lucinda (Reply #1)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:17 PM
pangaia (24,324 posts)
10. Oh, gobbledeegook.
Response to pangaia (Reply #10)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:21 PM
Lucinda (30,976 posts)
16. Bernie Sanders on Monday told NBC’s Chuck Todd that he ran as a Democrat to get more media coverage.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/bernie-sanders-independent-media-coverage-220747
Bernie Sanders on Monday told NBC’s Chuck Todd that he ran as a Democrat to get more media coverage. During a town hall-style event in Columbus, Ohio, the independent Vermont senator said, “In terms of media coverage, you have to run within the Democratic Party.” He then took a dig at MNSBC, telling Todd, the network “would not have me on his program” if he ran as an independent. Money also played a role in his decision to run as a Democrat, Sanders added. “To run as an independent, you need — you could be a billionaire," he said. "If you're a billionaire, you can do that. I'm not a billionaire. So the structure of American politics today is such that I thought the right ethic was to run within the Democratic Party.” POLITICO has previously reported that Sanders initially resisted running as a Democrat, but was convinced by his advisers that it was necessary. |
Response to Lucinda (Reply #16)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:26 PM
WhaTHellsgoingonhere (5,252 posts)
20. That's a different thread. POTUS = leader of Democratic Party
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Reply #20)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:44 PM
Lucinda (30,976 posts)
34. Bernie has no interest in the Dem party and has exhibited no leadership skills
in congress. It is what it is.
|
Response to Lucinda (Reply #1)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:27 PM
Trajan (19,089 posts)
21. What a bunch of hooey
Your time has come ...
|
Response to Trajan (Reply #21)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:59 PM
1StrongBlackMan (31,849 posts)
44. I've noticed you posting some pretty ominous reponses ...
"Your time has come" ... "Your gone".
You're starting to concern me. |
Response to Lucinda (Reply #1)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:40 PM
Punkingal (9,522 posts)
28. nah, he has no interest in the party, he only caucused with it his whole career.
Response to Lucinda (Reply #1)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:24 PM
Ed Suspicious (8,879 posts)
57. The party is there to be used. Bernie wants a better America. Bernie's vision
of his Democratic Party makes America better.
|
Response to Lucinda (Reply #1)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:25 PM
Ed Suspicious (8,879 posts)
58. The party, seemingly, has no interest in Bernie.
Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #58)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:50 PM
redstateblues (10,564 posts)
66. Bernie only added "Democratic" to Socialist when he was thinking about running for POTUS
he hasn't lifted a finger to help any down ballot Dems-Bernie is in it for Bernie
|
Response to redstateblues (Reply #66)
Tue Apr 5, 2016, 12:13 AM
snowy owl (2,145 posts)
70. It is a label and running as third party could split votes. That what you want?
Because he would take a lot of votes from the "party" - besides, it is just a label. Look at issues.
|
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:12 PM
Buzz Clik (38,437 posts)
2. Maybe you should step back and think about your question.
Why would she nor see your point of view? Because she has no progressive credibility?
|
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:13 PM
dchill (36,972 posts)
3. She's not oblivious, she's been purchased.
Response to dchill (Reply #3)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:42 PM
KelleyD (277 posts)
31. Really?! Is that all ya got...just CT's. I trust Maddow more than you!
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:13 PM
Art_from_Ark (27,247 posts)
4. She's getting $7 million a year
from a corporate "news" network that has fired several of its more progressive commentators.
|
Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #4)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:43 PM
Vincardog (20,234 posts)
33. It is very hard to recognize the thruth when your paycheck depends on not seeing it.
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:14 PM
CharlotteVale (2,717 posts)
5. She's well paid to be oblivious to it.
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:14 PM
Broward (1,976 posts)
6. It sounds like she's playing dumb. It's what she's getting paid for after all.
Response to Broward (Reply #6)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:18 PM
CorporatistNation (2,546 posts)
12. Well, My Thunder Has Been STOLEN By At Least Four Ahead of Me...Hillary Is BOUGHT and PAID FOR Shill
Well scjhooled on what she is supposed to say to persuade US what WE should think...
|
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:14 PM
kcjohn1 (751 posts)
7. Bernie was original member of the progressive caucus
That is what I consider the democratic party. All the rest are corporate sellouts and part of the new wave democrats who are really just the old GOP who have changed sides.
Sanders is leading revolution to take back the Democratic party from the Clinton invasion and infection of the party. |
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:16 PM
pangaia (24,324 posts)
9. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $
Response to pangaia (Reply #9)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:41 PM
cantbeserious (13,039 posts)
29. ^^^ This ^^^
eom
|
Response to pangaia (Reply #9)
Tue Apr 5, 2016, 12:10 AM
SoLeftIAmRight (4,883 posts)
69. yep - lots of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
...
|
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:19 PM
leveymg (36,418 posts)
14. Money often buys learned incompetence among media types.
A lot of them start out as brilliant but discover that they can't do without a steady, fat paycheck. She'll go the way of Geraldo.
|
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:20 PM
JackRiddler (24,979 posts)
15. Upton Sinclair explained this long ago.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
|
Response to JackRiddler (Reply #15)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:34 PM
silvershadow (10,336 posts)
24. Yep. She took the money. nt
Response to silvershadow (Reply #24)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:54 PM
JackRiddler (24,979 posts)
42. Jeez, I wrote this 5 years ago!
Apparently Rachel Maddow now works the Pentagon channel.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8427312 |
Response to JackRiddler (Reply #42)
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 09:19 PM
silvershadow (10,336 posts)
73. Thank you for the comment and link. I'm just catching up to my posts
after my MIRT time-out.
![]() |
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:21 PM
litlbilly (2,227 posts)
17. 7 million a year can make you forget that stuff.
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:23 PM
nadinbrzezinski (154,021 posts)
18. Because she makes 7 figures
and she is paid to miss those details. She is not dumb by any stretch. I betcha she would never invite Thomas Frank to the show to talk about those issues, for example.
|
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #18)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:42 PM
JackRiddler (24,979 posts)
30. She's paid to know autonomously which details to miss, of course.
It takes a specialist who doesn't require constant monitoring. No one has to send Dr. Maddow a memo. (She's got a Ph.D., doesn't she?)
PS - Yes she does. From Oxford and the abstract seems impressive:
|
Response to JackRiddler (Reply #30)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:58 PM
WhaTHellsgoingonhere (5,252 posts)
43. Her dissertation doesn't help in this thread. I'll start a thread about her ignorance of HIV in
prisons then you can repost it there.
|
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Reply #43)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:01 PM
JackRiddler (24,979 posts)
45. Interesting.
No, I find what she does unjustifiable. Out of curiousity I looked up whether her diss was online, and that's the abstract. "Sounds impressive" because it does. But I'll look for your thread when you start it, sounds interesting.
|
Response to JackRiddler (Reply #45)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:08 PM
WhaTHellsgoingonhere (5,252 posts)
48. Maybe I misunderstood your post. My bad.
I'm using my phone which doesn't display images. It makes sarcasm all the more difficult.
|
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:29 PM
tokenlib (4,186 posts)
22. Rachel, Chris Hayes, Carville,..it's bought and paid for amnesia..
They aren't that stupid. They know the history as well as we do. They know this rift has been under the surface ever since the Clinton's brought the New Dem/Third Way/DLC into the party.
This is Hillary's moment. Unfortunately for Hillary, the New Deal progressives have been told before that they have to get in line because of the Supreme Court, or the GOP demon of the year. and after two decades...there is really a question as to whether they will do that. The revolt is for real..even if the media conglomerates find it in their interests to minimize it, discount it, ignore it and to outright boost Hillary. Bernie is for real, the revolt is for real. And the best part for the country? It is happening in both parties at the same time. Both parties are shrinking because the masses are fed up with the status quo and want change. All bets are off. It's dangerous and it's an opportunity. As long as we don't choose the establishment candidate in an insurgent year. |
Response to tokenlib (Reply #22)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:35 PM
WhaTHellsgoingonhere (5,252 posts)
25. I got used to Rachel's lost objectivity, but Hayes is starting to make me sad. Didn't anticipate it.
I'm taking a break from him.
|
Response to tokenlib (Reply #22)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:42 PM
Kalidurga (14,177 posts)
32. They know the history as well as we do.
No kidding, many have explained that history to us and now they are dumbfounded that we understood the lessons.
|
Response to tokenlib (Reply #22)
silvershadow This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:36 PM
Califonz (465 posts)
26. To paraphrase Upton Sinclair...
It is difficult to get a person to understand something, when his or her salary depends on not understanding it.
|
Response to Califonz (Reply #26)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:51 PM
Doctor_J (36,392 posts)
39. Yep. Beat me to it
That's it exactly
|
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:37 PM
revbones (3,660 posts)
27. Answer: Millions of dollars and a new social circle.
She's in the bubble.
|
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:44 PM
BernieforPres2016 (3,017 posts)
36. Whose bread I eat, his song I sing nt
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:51 PM
KelleyD (277 posts)
38. Wow...you all are just something else.
I can't stand the change in Democratic Underground becoming a Alex Jones CT site. Step back and listen to yourselves. I know some of you are passionately following Bernie, but get a grip. You are sounding as if a Women who has dedicated her life for liberal causes is the Devil reincarnate. And don't retort with you "but she did this" stuff. You all are getting into the crowd mentality of hate.
|
Response to KelleyD (Reply #38)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:04 PM
tokenlib (4,186 posts)
46. Simply pointing out the New Dem/Third Way/DLC Clinton linkage is not hate...
Believe me, the New Dem/Third Way/ formerly Democrats for the Leisure Class may tolerate liberal social views, but on economic issues they are far from liberal and they are Hillary's friends and backers. They advocate entitlement reform, free trade and all the positions Hillary will return to after the primaries IF she wins the nomination.
|
Response to tokenlib (Reply #46)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:14 PM
KelleyD (277 posts)
52. And you know this for sure!?!
Have you followed the history of why Bill Clinton went for the "Triangulation" route. Because we could not win the White House...Duh! We had been beaten for 12 years by the Repubs and maybe were too ideological "too pure". We won back the White house (with a Repub Congress) but proved to the US that our polices could bring us out of Debt. Which BTW has been a pattern in the last few years that the Repubs put us in debt and the Dems come to the rescue and bring us back. No party can have it their way on all things. That is what Democracy is all about...Compromise. Do we want to be the Party of Obstruction that the Repubs have been the last 8 years or can we be the better party of leading our country out of the deadlock and work for the people.
|
Response to KelleyD (Reply #38)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:46 PM
840high (17,196 posts)
64. Seems you drank a lot
of Kool-Aid.
|
Response to KelleyD (Reply #38)
Tue Apr 5, 2016, 12:01 AM
WhaTHellsgoingonhere (5,252 posts)
67. lol Where's the CT? You guys are so blinded by your loyalty to Hillary, you can't see the demise of
the Party. You refute all evidence. You take no responsibility for it. Your strategy, blame and shame others. You have a candidate who is being forced by an unknown outsider to move to the left. You guys are blind, supporting the most divisive figure in the history of the Party, and your only solution: ridicule, blame, and shame. Alienating others is a loser but obviously, your only resolve. As I said elsewhere tonight, the disconnect between "We've been in charge of the Party since 1992" and "Half of the Party is in complete revolt" is incredible.
Keep it up! You're really helping our cause. |
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:51 PM
WhaTHellsgoingonhere (5,252 posts)
40. I asked her directly. Let's see if I get blocked.
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:52 PM
snowy owl (2,145 posts)
41. Too easy on Rachel. She sold out.
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:10 PM
Skwmom (12,685 posts)
49. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:11 PM
yourpaljoey (2,166 posts)
50. I never could stand her
She avoids important issues and obsesses over nonsense.
Her 'talk me down' makes me want to vomit. |
Response to yourpaljoey (Reply #50)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:17 PM
WhaTHellsgoingonhere (5,252 posts)
54. I thought everyone enjoyed her 20 minute "Purple Drank" set ups to her lead story
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Reply #54)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:20 PM
yourpaljoey (2,166 posts)
55. I was not a fan of the purple drank :)
"Purple drank" is funny expression... me likey.
|
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:34 PM
840high (17,196 posts)
59. Maybe she's not so
brilliant.
|
Response to 840high (Reply #59)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:36 PM
Skwmom (12,685 posts)
61. She doesn't seem to be the sharpest tool in the shed. n/t
Response to Skwmom (Reply #61)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:47 PM
840high (17,196 posts)
65. The way she presents a story
with her constant repetition used to put me to sleep. I happily dropped cable.
|
Response to 840high (Reply #65)
Tue Apr 5, 2016, 12:10 AM
snowy owl (2,145 posts)
68. x10 Thanks for saying it. I thought it just me!
I'm thinking about going back to basic. The only reason I did the level I have was for MSNBC. But I'm long past watching them regularly.
|
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:38 PM
Little_Wing (417 posts)
63. Cha-ching!
The cash register.... such a seductress.
Principles? Bah! |
Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)
Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:14 AM
mythology (9,527 posts)
71. Perhaps the simplest explanation is the best as it usually is
She is very smart and realizes that those connections that you think are so obvious and so concrete, really aren't.
For example, a number of economists don't find that the so-called repeal of Glass-Steagall had an appreciable impact on the 2007 banking crisis as the repeal was only for a small part of the act and the firms that failed weren't granted new less-regulated power by the partial repeal of Glass-Steagall. Likewise the case against free trade isn't nearly as cut and dried as some wish to pretend it is. Plant closing related job losses didn't increase after NAFTA. The decline in manufacturing jobs coincides with increases in automation and worker productivity that have nothing to do with NAFTA. To pretend that the issue is black and white is simplistic. |
Response to mythology (Reply #71)
Tue Apr 5, 2016, 09:50 AM
Skwmom (12,685 posts)