Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

2012 Politics

edited February 2012
So I'm posting my 2012 endorsement on the front page.

And Urban Honking as an organization is working to raise money for Obama.



  • edited February 2012
    I'm putting my energy into congressional and gubernatorial campaigns this year.

    I think Barry is going to easily crush any of these Republicans.

    The best thing we could do for him, electorally, is to try to help his party take back the US House, and/or extend their majority in the Senate.

    That said, I'm also skeptical of blanket endorsements of the Democratic party. I prefer the candidate list put together by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, ie

    (I'm also into trying to keep whatever Occupy becomes from being too stupid. BTW, did you see OccupyTheSEC's 325-page public comment on the Volker Rule! . That's some big not-stupid!!)

    In Washington (The State) we need Jay Inslee for Governor, he would be a champ. The Republican, McKenna would be a howling, evil disaster.

    There may be a chance to win a currently Republican seat from the district east of Seattle (where MSFT comes from). That would be amazing.

    How about The Beaver State? Any Congressional seats there that may be up for grabs?

    (BTW, if UrbanHonking should ever run for office, you have my vote!)

  • Wasn't it George Clooney who said that thing about not getting upset at Obama because of your particular issue being neglected or mistreated? I suppose that's true, but I just don't feel like I can vote for him, so I will probably not vote.
  • As it says on the UrHo Obama page:

    A few of those things that seem meaningful: ending Don't Ask Don't Tell, creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, providing better access to health care for all, investing in high-speed rail, mass transit, and walking/biking programs, and ending the war in Iraq.

    That's more than I did in the last four years.
  • Obama significantly accelerated many green and smart energy programs that resulted in new American businesses that are about to IPO and others that were bought. He made a good run at the medical industrial complex.

    I always say friends don't let friends not vote.

    The Rove strategy is to triangulate issues down to microscopic special/single interest voter groups, narrowcast their issue to enough of them to get 51% of the vote in enough states to win the electoral college, and make the campaign so nasty and disgusting that everyone else who could vote sits out. (Or is prevented from voting because they don't have the "proper papers")

    Check out Jefferson Smith for mayor in PDX.
  • I endorse Jefferson Smith, for sure.

    There are many very important things and people to vote for besides the President.
  • I will bite, MZ: what is your issue that would cause you not to vote for Obama?
  • Also, I am really sad not to be a Washington State voter anymore, because I love Jay Inslee so much. He was my hometown congressman, and he used to stand on the intersection of 40th and summitview and wave at all the cars holding a campaign sign. I would see him standing out there when I was 11, and this was a big part of my political awakening.
  • Biggest Obama bummers for me are his expansion of the weird unmanned drone army and him allowing the Justice Department to raid/ruin fully legit medical marijuana facilities that have been working together with the state and local governments to help patients.
  • edited February 2012
    I can understand getting upset about the cannabis stuff. The drone stuff is unsurprising to me because it allows military action to happen with fewer US casualties which is nearly impossible for any president to pass up. It sucks but it's a structural problem that it's hard to blame Obama for personally, unless you are in Glenn Greenwald alternate universe territory.

    Working among progressives in Washington, I see people have a laundry list of legit grievances with this administration, and yet cannot fathom not voting at a time when voter suppression is so rampant. Like, republicans are working their asses off to make it impossible for people of color, and poor people, and students to vote, and then we're not going to show up for the sake of our own sense of moral purity? This seems weird and selfish. I mean, us on this board with our smart brains and our tech savvy, we're not the ones with the most to lose.

    This weekend I met the guy who led the successful recall effort against Russell Pierce in Arizona, and he said that Obama will be a great president when we as activists decide to be great. I think this is about right.
  • He's expanding the drones to domestic usage, though.
    And I love complaining.
  • edited February 2012
    Why vote for someone you don't want to vote for? I just have never seen the logic behind the "If you don't vote you are a bad citizen" mindset. Not that I'm saying this is what you are implying. I'm just saying if a person isn't educated enough about a candidate or they are completely educated but don't agree enough with any of the candidates to justify a vote...then they shouldn't vote. "Lesser of two evils" is such a lame excuse. Fuck evil.
  • Only a pawn in their game.
  • edited February 2012
    Yeah, that stuff about domestic drones is some paranoid ron paul/glenn greenwald black helicopters chemtrails silliness.

    I realize that being that blunt about it goes against everything they just told me in my "values based communication" workshop at the big progressive conference i went to this weekend, but I can't believe how much play some of this stuff gets.
  • I mean, I agree that there is a need for additional privacy controls, but I haven't seen any evidence that Obama is opposed to additional privacy controls and I sure wouldn't expect any additional privacy controls from a republican. Most of the writing about this has been pretty clearly pushed by sensationalism and alarmism for the sake of driving a wedge between the president and progressives. I mean, Glenn Greenwald has been taking money from the Koch brothers for how many years now?
  • We don't vote for the lesser evil, but for the greater good. Voting for a candidate that you're not totally jazzed on but who will prevent a totally ridiculous idiot from running the country is a huge step for the greater good.

    Also, all humans are kind of evil. It's our nature. Lesser evil is the best you can do with any choice you can make, from the brand of granola you buy, to the energy source you use to heat your home, to the people who represent us in government.
  • edited February 2012
    I mean yeah
    Everyone is evil to a certain degree. I'm not saying you need to be 100% behind a candidate, but I think a lot of people are like barely 30% behind candidates nowadays and why? Because candidates keep lowering the bar til they will eventually be able to get away with anything. Let me know when it's actually possible to have a majority of actual public servants again, and not these war/power mongering money soaked jerks.
  • Kdawg's concept of lesser evil/for the greater good posted just above articulates with better nuances my point of view. I am very thankful for the right to vote. In Oregon we (white/passing for white) ladies got the vote a full hundred years ago but I think a lot about the fact that when my American grandma was born she didn't have that right, BY LAW.

    It wasn't that long ago.

    Even if it doesn't matter, even if it's a token gesture, it's super important to me. Some skin in the game, as it were. So I can complain. Which I do like to do. A lot. And being able to complain out loud, in public, about politics, without being taken away by secret police is (to me) the biggest thing that sorta redeems the putrescence of America. I have heard many tales of relatives being carried off for questioning or days of detention for the most mundane-seeming comments uttered in public.
  • YMMV (and that's cool by me)
  • edited February 2012
    I think that the evidence shows that eroding public trust in government is not accidental, but a deliberate function of a vast and decades-long enterprise funded by conservative billionaires. Cynicism is manufactured. When we consent to cynicism about democracy, we are behaving exactly as the Koch bros would prefer.

    I think that the evidence also shows that progressives get elected when activists get organized and rally behind progressive candidates. This is true especially of congressional races, which is where RJ's suggestion about seems super appropriate.

    And yet, I think part of our frustration comes from thinking that electing a candidate we agree with is enough to get good policy enacted. It also takes organized campaigns to pressure congress and influence public opinion. I like the idea of demanding more from politicians. That's good citizenship. But getting frustrated and checking out is bad citizenship.

    I think we also would benefit from some historical perspective about the nature of the presidency. This article is a little harsh, but offers some tough love.
  • edited February 2012
    OK, I'll bite, Dawg.

    I admit I haven't kept up with Glenn Greenwald in the last several months. I suppose there is some chance that he has recently gone off into what you call an alternate universe. But during my reading of his daily columns from 2006 or so to maybe the middle of last year, any apparent lack of reality in his arguments followed from his positions that being governed by the rule of law, and that no one stands above the law, should be of paramount concern to citizens participating in any political system that claims the pretensions of democracy.

    For this reason, he has been singularly dogged and outspoken about broad, intrusive claims of executive privilege and state secrecy that blossomed under the Cheney/Bush administration and have been generally retained, codified, and established permanently as legal precedents under the Obama administration.

    The universe you seem to be defending as a reality that does not include Greenwald's argumentation is one of political expediency, a lawless, autocratic erosion of the foundational principles of this Republic. How is it that prisoners remain brutally confined in an extralegal US Gulag in Guantanamo for 10 years without charges? (3 of those years under the present administration). How is it that it is there have been NO prosecutions in the wake of MILLIONS of systematic, widely observed and documented fraudulent mortgage industry transactions? Why, under the Obama Department of Justice, have we created a new military-based tribunal system with limited venues of juridicial review and expanded prosecutorial privileges? Why were there no prosecutions for the systematic institution of war crimes during the previous administration?

    Basically, my experience has been that Greenwald speaks from a set of legal principles and restraints on police and executive authority that were accepted as commonplace US law from the Vietnam era though to arguments prepared by George Bush's Office of Executive Counsel under John Yoo.

    I have found Greenwald to be quite transparent in his method of argumentation, grounding his positions in public documents and established law. I think he does a great patriotic service and I find myself dismayed by your glib, slanderous equivalence of his work with a racist enemy of the public welfare like Ron Paul.

    What do you have to offer in support of your characterization of him as a "black helicopter" nutjob operating in an alternate universe?

    And may I infer then, that you are all cozy with the new reality of Cheney/Addington/Yoo/Rumsfeld/Eric Prince/Gonzales/Obama/Holder-style police privileges, executive authority and jurisprudence?
  • edited February 2012
    it is too late for me to go too deep with this, but for me I started to suspect dude was full of shit when he was lying so extensively and maliciously about the justice dept's brief on DOMA in 2009. But briefly,

    1) he takes money from Koch bros!
    3) (other examples from journo friends around town of him behaving like an unreasonable tool)
    4) It's hard not to compare him to Paul when he offers a near-endorsement of Paul.

    Obvs I am not okay with Guantanamo, but believing that Obama can be blamed for that is to ignore the unprecedented obstructionism within congress. Greenwald's bizarre lack of understanding of what Obama can and cannot actually do is what puts him alongside anti-fluoridation activists in my mind. Beyond that, I think Chait gets at the heart of it.
  • edited February 2012
    Also, like Greenwald, you're vastly overstating the policy continuity between the Bush and Obama admins. Congress barred Obama from closing Gitmo, but that doesn't mean that Gitmo under Obama looks anything like Gitmo under Bush.
  • edited February 2012
    I'll read the Chait.

    Re: 1) The web tells me that Greenwald has had some dealings with the libertarian Cato Institute (as have I: they bought me lunch when I attended one of their seminars during WTO, and I still get their catalogs) over the years and that the Koch's are contributors to the Cato Institute. Some of these arguments are made here.

    From my reading as a fan and follower, his career arc was mainly a consequence of the popularity of his blog against the criminality of the Iraq War, etc. That led to his being one of the first contemporary antiwar bloggers to jump from relative obscurity to the tippy-top of the New York TImes (and AMZN) best sellers lists. I believe he did that without the Koch's or anybody else's subsidy. From there, he was recruited by and became their most popular contributor. Again, without apparently any consequential support from Cato, or in your shorthand, "The Kochs".

    2) & 3) I'll read your particular, and investigate your remark about DOMA, though I know from following him that he can be fairly ad hominem and, well, dickish and snotty.

    Still, without further evidence of substantial support, it seems very unfair that you would characterize him as some kind of puppet of the Koch brothers, let alone some kind of super-crafty bank shot tool by which vigorous sustained argumentation for civil liberties is actually an instrument for fomenting cynicism and apathy in the voting public.

    I can only think of a handful of contemporary journalists that even come close to Greenwald's sustained defense of, what have been, the legal rights and privileges of US citizens under the constitution. It seems like it would be a terrible mistake to discredit this body of work because you know gangs of people in the capitol of this deeply decayed and dysfunctional nation that think he's a creep.
  • edited February 2012
    Also, like Greenwald, you're vastly overstating the policy continuity between the Bush and Obama admins.
    In the areas that I have mentioned in defense of Greenwald's work, namely: national security (State Secrets, Executive Privilege, PATRIOT ACT, Guantanamo), jurisprudence (military tribunals), financial criminality (fraudulent assets, systematic securitization fraud), can you identify any dramatic discontinuities between the Bush administration's policies in 2008 and the Obama adminstration's present policies?
  • edited February 2012
    I don't think he's a puppet of the Koch bros, I think his willingness to take money from them (Kochs are founders of Cato, not just contributors) speaks to either a cynicism or a lack of conviction. In any case, the Kochs aren't dumb.

    Because his "vigorous sustained argumentation for civil liberties" is not grounded in any discussion of political realities, does not admit the context of unprecedented [racist] opposition, consistently ascribes sinister motivations to Obama's team instead of considering the basic pragmatism that clearly animates their decision-making, his writing functions as an instrument of cynicism. He coarsens the political dialogue, like Ann Coulter for smart lefties. If that's not his intent, well, then he's just a shitty writer, a shitty activist, or both.
  • I should say that the other pet peeve of Greenwald's that I greatly admire is his antagonism toward journalistic practices that narrow the spectrum of "responsible" policy debates. He, along with people like Jay Rosen, Professor of Journalism at NYU, are very outspoken about the epidemic of anonymous attributions granted by the current generation of mainstream journalists. He makes a point of calling these people out by name and routinely citing the dangers of "stenographic" journalism.

    It is not surprising that he is not popular among journalists in DC.
  • I'm not talking about mainstream journos. As much as i wish I went to cocktail parties with David Gregory and Gwen Ifill, I don't know those people! I'm talking about solid lefties writing for activist publications. Nobody can stand the guy.

    Rosen, on the other hand is awesome--precise and unsparing with his criticism, unfailingly respectful in his dialogue, and always reality-based.
  • edited February 2012
    Bottom-line, I think there are several areas where Obama's pragmatism has been disastrous, yielding sinister effects that have caused real, unnecessary suffering for tens of millions of people while extending corrupt luxurious privilege to several thousand others. I find that I occupy (sorry) a constituency, along with Greenwald*, that has correctly and proactively identified these disasters.

    When your car is spinning off the road, the pragmatism of incremental correction results in total disaster. Candidate Obama seemed to speak to that reality. President Obama has not.

    The business of elections being the unprecedented domain of maximum contributors is widely documented. We are also living in an unprecedented state of income inequality since the 1800s. This is a far more significant source of the current cynicism than any particular rude pundit.

    Still, as I posted up top, I'm a voter. I'll work with the broken pieces as best I can. For me, that will not mean matching the $200 or so and the hours I gave to the Obama campaign last time. Instead I'll put that energy somewhere else.

    Dude's going to win anyway.

    *Paul Krugman, Jane Hamsher, Duncan Black, Yves Smith, Sam Seder, Digby ......
  • See, this is all just a black hole to me. Been watching too many Robert Anton Wilson videos. I think they're all playing us. Spending time trying to figure out if Glenn Greenwald is worth listening to? Nah, I can't do it any more. More power to those who are still in it, I wouldn't try and convince anyone else to not vote.
  • I can definitely see how my privilege makes it easier for me to have that position. When I think about someone like kdawg, who *has* to find a candidate to put in government to get something like the right to marry because he's being oppressed by our social system, it makes total sense to me why he is still very engaged. Just wanted to clarify that I don't think any of the politically passionate UHXers are "wasting their time," or anything like that.
  • edited February 2012
    This particular argument about 'pragmatism' has been a hot topic within the Democratic party, probably since FDR, but certainly since the neoliberal reforms (NAFTA, reversal of Glass-Stegall) pressed by Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin (and others) in the Clinton administration. So-called 'pragmatism' (and uncritical, jingoistic journalism) are what many folks believe led the Democratic leadership into its revolting collaboration with the Cheney/Bush administration's many crimes, including the massive, cruel, continuing disaster in Iraq.

    To some of us, Obama signaled a principled break from this destructive pragmatism. He stood against the war in Iraq when Hillary Clinton did not. His 2008 campaign used the novel technologies of the web to pursue and empower millions of small donors, while Hillary followed the traditional strategy of appealing to maximum contributors (ie individuals that could make $2,400 donations).

    Since taking office, Obama has proceeded to fill his administration with Clintonian 'pragmatists' like Rahm Emanuel, Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, while actively blocking out and belittling the participation of folks who have been critical (and correct!) about the consequences of positioning the party to be 'Republican-lite', rather than standing on principal, avoiding disaster after disaster, and building a new direction and style for the party's future and the millions of new folks the party reached with Obama's insurgent 2008 candidacy.

    So that is the context in which some commentators see something sinister behind the present administration's - and the party leadership's - pragmatism.

    Given this context, it bums me out to see intelligent people seem to equate criticism of Obama and Dem leaders' pragmatism with 'black helicopters', etc.

    To blame critics for being a source of voter apathy and cynicism, rather than blaming the pragmatic strategists of Clintonian 'triangulation', ie blaming the folks who have been calling from the sidelines since the early days of the Bush administration (or before), rather than the folks that have held power for a generation, seems like a lack of critical thinking and good judgment.

    But people, and opinions, and societies, can (and do) change. That's the interesting part.

  • edited February 2012
    If one honestly compares Clinton's approach to triangulation with Obama's pragmatism, one is struck by sharp differences. Clinton triangulated and got us Don't Ask Don't Tell and welfare reform (actually, welfare repeal). Clinton triangulated and got us no health care reform at all. Obama, on the other hand got us the most radical reform of the health care industry in modern history, despite unprecedented opposition, and got rid of DADT on the exact timetable that he campaigned on. That is the difference between pragmatism and triangulation.

    I am no fan of Rahm, nor Summers. Geithner seems competent--though I agree with criticisms from last summer around the deficit.

    Those who think Obama was running against pragmatism in 2008 may have been watching a different election. His campaign was against incompetence, not against bipartisan consensus.

    Obama's legislative victories have been extraordinary, far beyond anything Clinton accomplished. This accomplishment is all the more remarkable considering the unprecedented filibuster abuse that we saw in the Senate--something that Clinton simply never had to deal with on the same scale.

    I do not mind critics on the left who find Obama too eager to compromise with Republicans, too eager to grab a small victory rather than hold out for a big one. I would find these critics more convincing if they made any attempt at sketching out some sort of feasible alternative path to legislative victory. When they venture into the vicious character assassination of Greenwald/Hamsher, etc--I think they become part of the problem. I am particularly disturbed when they venture into "secret corporate shill"/ "secret neocon" / "secret fascist" / "secret homophobe" territory which dovetails the "secret muslim" / "secret socialist" rhetoric of the right--sometimes with similar racial overtones.
  • In all this discussion don't forget to give to Obama.
  • What would an election even look like, where LITERALLY only well-informed voters voted? I can't even imagine. People who had read actual newspapers and actually listened to all the speeches/debates, and then read/listened to actual analyses of those speeches/debates....what would that even be like. Since I now know from Berezin that a vast chunk of the electorate simply votes for the last person they saw on television before filling out their ballot.

  • I like to imagine no parties. That would be a cool election. JUST STRAIGHT UP POPULARITY CONTEST!
  • I tend to be a conspiracy theorist... so I was trying to figure out JFK, like why was he allowed to be Prez if he wasn't a family member of the Illuminous. Was it just because he was a hottie? Did his hotness trump the power of the unnamed ones?
  • If Barack just keeps singing in public every few weeks this election is going to be easy.
  • did he sing in public???

    Nixon played the piano and was surprisingly charming. I feel like we only really know his glowering, jowly, angst-ridden impeachment-face but during the campaign he had a crazy amount of panache and was pretty cute.
  • edited February 2012
    The pragmatic line you are offering Kdawg is precisely the line that Clinton devotees offered in the 2008 primary against the insurgent Obama campaign. That was the campaign comparison I was making.

    What happened is that even though Clinton's campaign lost the primary they won the general election. They ended up being the people who staffed Obama's administration. Bill Clinton's triangulators were Hillary's triangulators and became Obama's triangulators.

    (insert smiangle here.)

    There is nothing dishonest about this argument.

    Pragmatism in the present political moment means serving the elite 1% made famous by the occupiers last fall.

    This system needs a healthy contemplation of radical reform. The voices and leaders are out there but they are being ignored and denigrated by careerists in the capitol. It's not like this hasn't happened before in world history.

    In terms of secret police, etc. These flourished, unchecked, during the Vietnam era. They were put in check largely as a result of the work of Sen. Frank Church in the wake of Richard Nixon's imperial presidency (Google: The Church Commission, to see what kind of discussion we could be having about constitutional rights). That is when the surveillance laws, etc. were established that were finally reversed, to the detriment of our civil liberties, under the Cheney restoration.

    Meanwhile, folks of color know all too well the police terror that has been raging under the War on Drugs banner since the early days of the Reagan administration. Look at the recent work by Michelle Alexander for a detailed, exhaustively referenced analysis of the electoral effects of incarcerating people of color as felons (permanently stripped of voting rights and other key civil liberties) for low level drug crimes at three times the rate of caucasians.

    Local police agencies have been radically militarized in the post-9/11 era. We have seen their costly gear and violent crowd control tactics deployed in hundreds of communities in response to the occupy assemblies. (Why the hell does every little burgh have all those riot helmets and stockpiles of tear gas? Because the department of Homeland Security has been extraordinarily well funded during this period of widespread reduction of other government services. Because there's a heck of a lot of money to be made selling junk to police agencies. And, because local police are a natural domestic market for the military contractors and manufacturers that ramped up their business during the Bush Wars. As those wars scale back these contractors are under pressure for new markets.)

    So far the response to these non-violent protests has been kind of absurd and light-hearted compared to what we have seen in more repressive societies.

    As long as careerists in the capitol continue to narrow the boundaries of so-called pragmatic political discussion, the disconnect between widely felt demands for major structural reform and the capacity of the people's legal representatives to deliver that reform will continue to grow, lending legitimacy toward extra-legal expressions of those political demands and an increase in legally sanctioned state violence against the politically engaged population.

    (Insert another smiangle here.)

    There are lots of ways to get politically engaged right now besides contributing to Obama's campaign. I think it is a very important, pivotal time. For that reason I am motivated to push back on some of my good friend Kdawg's arguments. I also hope to see the talent and imagination of folks like M_Zuckerburg somehow find their social engagement in the public square(s) this year.

  • more importantly, mike DID YOU MAKE YOUR OWN TELEPROMPTER?
  • @KmikeyM is a public square.
  • I did. With help (Some Guy, Jamie, and Zoe).
  • edited February 2012
    DrJ, I think you are conflating "radical v. reformist" and "insider v. outsider". The media ran with the "Obama as outsider" narrative and O didn't exactly contest it--as a black dude with a funny name, he'd never be able to--but in terms of substantive policy positions, that is not what he ran on, and he CERTAINLY never pretended to be anything other than a reformist liberal.

    It's just false that Obama's 2008 campaign more or less came down to "Hillary will govern from the center, while I will govern from the left." On the contrary, Obama campaigned as a superior consensus builder, someone with superior skills at working across the aisle, while making the argument that Clinton would be unable to work as effectively with Republicans. He also campaigned as a guy that had the good judgment to oppose the Iraq war from the beginning, while Clinton did not. This is a competence/good judgment issue, not a left/center issue.

    Obama did also campaign as someone who rejected conventional wisdom about what was politically possible. But pragmatism and rejecting conventional wisdom are not opposites. He ran as someone who had worked both inside (as a state senator) and outside (as a community organizer) and understood how the two fit together.

    It's true that a number of irritating Clinton holdovers are still around in this administration. I do not see how this discounts the smart and innovative work done by all the fresh faces brought in by the Obama administration at all levels of government. Dismiss these people as "careerists" if you want, but they are hardly ignoring the work done by Occupy and others.

    (I suppose it's only natural, because we get fixated on the legislative process, because that process is built around constant conflict, and so media--even our activist media-- ignores all the brilliant stuff going down on a day-to-day basis inside the executive branch.)

    In other countries where widespread street protest is more common, everyone understands that radical action and reformist policy change is not an either/or question. They go out and demonstrate in public to create demand for policy shifts, then they all come inside and lobby their representatives. This inside/outside game is how good public policy is made.
  • But yes, people like Glenn Greenwald are the reason why folks are freaking out needlessly about "fusion centers" (they don't know it just means interagency cooperation to avoid wasteful duplication of efforts--but it sounds creepy! Ack! Militarization! FEMA Camps!) while hardly anyone is aware of Obama's efforts to confront racism and brutality in law enforcement. The DoJ investigations and legal actions against local police depts including Seattle PD are unprecedented and awesome.
  • edited February 2012
    I know Wikipedia is a relatively weak way to support an argument, but this reference is concise and offers plenty of links to other sources.
    2008 Presidential primary

    The 2008 Democratic Primary pitted New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, a prominent DLC member, against Illinois Senator Barack Obama, who had previously stated that his positions on NAFTA, the Iraq War and universal health care made him "an unlikely candidate for membership in the DLC."[28] However, President Obama has since surrounded himself with DLC members, appointing Clinton herself as Secretary of State and another, (Tim Kaine), as chairman of the Democratic National Committee. In May 2009, President Obama reportedly declared to the House New Democrat Coalition, the congressional arm of the DLC, "I am a New Democrat."[21] President Obama has also called himself a progressive, in addition to being endorsed by Howard Dean's progressive political action committee Democracy for America.[29]

    Joe Lieberman, another notable member of the DLC, endorsed Republican Senator John McCain for the presidency in 2008, citing his agreement with McCain's stance on the War on Terrorism as the primary reason for his support.[30] Later in the campaign, Lieberman was mentioned as a possible Vice Presidential nominee for John McCain's ticket.[31] However, Lieberman denied any interest in this role[32] and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was ultimately selected to be McCain's running mate.
    The whole article regarding the Democratic Leadership Council is a good first step in brushing up on the history and dynamics of this key "centerist" faction in the Democratic Party and their impact on policy.
    The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was a non-profit 501(c)(4) corporation[1] 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 hails President Bill Clinton as proof of the viability of 'third way' politicians and as a DLC success story.

    The DLC's affiliated think tank is the Progressive Policy Institute. Democrats who adhere to the DLC's philosophy often call themselves New Democrats. Note that 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]

    The DLC's current chairman is former Representative Harold Ford of Tennessee, and its vice chair is Senator Thomas R. Carper of Delaware. Its CEO is Bruce Reed.

    On February 7, 2011, Politico reported that the DLC would dissolve, and would so as early as the following week.[4] On July 5 of that year, DLC founder Al From announced in a statement on the organization's website that the historical records of the DLC have been purchased by the Clinton Foundation.[5]
  • I wish Joe Lieberman would get a horrible wasting disease
Sign In or Register to comment.