Did the DLC let Gore sink to make room for one of their own?

[Q]

- My theory:

- The DLC has been working in the shadows... wrestling for control of the Democratic party since Clinton and his third way. My question is this: did they intentionally allow an election to be blatantly stolen in 2000 and then discourage Gore from running again to make room for 'pure' DLC candidates in 2004? Lieberman was a little TOO anxious to have Gore concede the election to Bush* and many 'new' Democrats turned their back on him when he needed their help in fighting against the Bush* Smear and Election Fraud Machine.

- The DLC had backed Gore until he finally rejected their 'lay low and don't swim against the corporate stream' strategy. The DLCers dumped Gore like a hot potato immediately after he put together a populist campaign that appealed directly to the people instead of corporate lobbyists. Gore's sacrilege was his call to make corporations accountable and later his speeches against Bush* malfeasance and his Democratic enablers. Gore turned out to be a loose cannon that neither the NeoRepublicans or NeoDemocrats could tolerate to gain a foothold as a popular Democratic leader.

- The DLC leadership did the same thing to the Democratic candidates against the war that they did to Gore: claiming they were 'out of touch' with mainstream voters and 'too liberal' to win in a country (they were helping move) to the right.

- I submit that Gore's presidency was 'sacrificed' and he was pushed into exile to prevent progressives from gaining power in government and thus blocking the more conservative 'new Democrat' agenda.