Reply #25: I think people overestimate the influence of the DLC today.

[AP]

I know they were a big part of making the Dems appear to be more interested in creating social wealth and less interested in just transferring wealth from the top to the bottom in the early '90s -- which may or may not have gotten a lot of moderate capitalists comfortable with voting for Clinton.

However, I think in 2004 they had almost no influence on policy or the choice of candidates, and one piece of evidence I point to is this: Edwards was on the ticket.

Edwards was a member of the DLC, sure (but that's obviously not a big deal because Obama was also a member -- or, more accurately, they had him listed on their website, until Obama pointed out to them that he wasn't a member).

Edwards only voted for two of the trade deals out of about 6 or 7 that were before him as Senator. Free trade is basically the DLC raison d'etre. Edwards voted for the China deal because I think everyone agreed that there was no way arround that one: either China was going to be an economic powerhouse playing outside of the terms of an agreement, or they were going to be a powerhouse within the rules -- and subsequently, they've been violating the rules they agreed to. The other trade deal Edwards voted for was the one with Jordan which he supported only because Jordan law protects the environment and labor rights so it wouldn't create unfair competition with American workers.

Because of those votes the DLC really didn't like Edwards. From what I could tell from reading their schedule and noting where Edwards was and wasn't, Edwards was neither invited to attend nor present at the 2003 or 2004 DLC summer meetings, at which even Dean presented (as did all the other major candidates).

I know I often look at things through the lens of Edwards, but the fact here is that if Edwards ended up on the ticket, you know the DLC doesn't have that much pull anymore.