Really, has the DLC ever actually supported Democrats... or, at least, since Clinton?

These corporatist whores should be tarred and feathered.  Can we have some populism, please?

Outrageous. Let's call From out on this one. I say this as the only Democrat I know who actually voted for Ferrer last November -- and Ferrer was a godawful race-mongerer who couldn't articulate a reason for his candidacy other than he believed he could make history as the city's first Latino mayor. Mine was an anti-Bloomberg vote.  

The Bloomberg Democrats in New York (and I'm married to one) all need to confront the fact that Michael Bloomberg isn't a Democrat. They're all in denial. I'm convinced his popularity derives from the fact that he's the anti-Giuliani: the quiet, competent, amiable former businessman determined to get along with everyone except Roger Toussaint.

Can the Clintons yank From's chain on this one? Chuck Schumer?

Preach brother Singer. Perhaps we should contact every Democrat listed on the DLC sight and ask them if they intend to support the Democratic nominee in 2008, 'cause clearly the DLC does not.

Two similar "moderate" Republicans running for the same office hurts us how? Hah. Imagine McCain and Bloomberg competing for the same Republican base that isn't exactly enamored with either of them. I say, those dumb shits at the DLC don't know they're making it easier for us.

I respectfully disagree. It seems to me they are trying to engineer a 2008 Presidential race akin to 1994, where Perot cost Bush the election and we were handed eight years Democratic control of the executive branch. What is a likely scenario for '08 without a right-of-center Independent candidate (and let's face it, that is exactly what Bloomberg is)? McCain vs. Warner at 53% - 47%, or if we're lucky 47% to 53%? Add Bloomberg to the mix and what happens to those numbers? We need to think outside the box on this one. The momentum is in our favor as disgruntled moderate Republicans would gravitate to a candidate like  Bloomberg like an apple falling to earth. That momentum is a powerful force and we would be fools not to try and harness it.

Look the DLC and NYC are Hillary and Bill's back yard. You all just had lunch with Bill. What's his take on this kind of nonsense? It should be pretty easy for Hill and Bill to reign this group in.

But by attending a strategy session for Michael Bloomberg's independent presidential campaign, Al From has crossed the line. (Well, he probably crossed the line before, but now he has really crossed the line.)

I agree it's more than curious why Al From met with Bloomberg to discuss this issue.  However, although he's not entitled to it, if I give Al From the benefit of the doubt, there are a couple possibilities:

1. Al From thinks Bloomberg would make a great Perot-style spoiler and help the Democratic nominee.

2. Al From tried to encourage Bloomberg to swich to the Democratic Party, but the rest of the group (including Bloomberg) decided to go independent if he should run.

Do either of these explanations seem plausible? And has anyone asked Al From what the heck he was doing there?

As a lifelong resident of sunbelt states, both in the south and the west, I can tell you that the mayor of New York City will never be elected president. 911 has not changed this and political  party does not matter. It won't happen.

this post is fucking exhibit A.

Their website doesn't even function!

No wonder why Loserman's page turned into such a fiasco! They're so behind the times, they can't even run a website, let alone a blog.

And these same folks think they can run a Presidential campaign in 2008?

Gimme a break! ROTL : )

Who would vote for this guy? Who is his base?

Is there some segment of America desperate to vote for billionaires?

than trying to get Michael Bloomberg elected president.  There is No.  Way.  this guy could get elected in a national race.  I still can't believe he even got elected here in NY.  There is NO WAY America is going to make this man president.

This is what you all have to realize, the DLC has no constituency - inside or outside the Democratic Party. The idea that they ELECTED Bill Clinton is laughable, not to be taken seriously.

The DLC is a collection of "inside the beltway" Democrats, lobbyists and special interest groups whose sole purpose to acquire access to power and thus make more money. They are basically a fundraising operation.

They've never won an election - anywhere. The DLC are not the leaders of the "moderate" wing of the party (which does exist). There are plenty of moderates within the party who do not espouse DLC "principles" (whatever they might be).

They use the word "centrism" the way the Bush Administration uses the word "terrorism." They use it to scare up enough people to keep them around so they can continue their racket.  

That'a all they are. They engage in "the politics of insincerity" which has hurt Democratic chances of winning elections beginning with 1994. Then they blame the losses on the left-wing of the party. It's a tired game, and the DLC are losing. They know it. You know it. Everyone knows it.

Let them switch parties. We'll be done with them for good.

I'm in shock. I've assumed all along that Hillary will be the DLC candidate in 2008. This is a big time betrayal of her and may lead to a fracturing of the corporatist wing of the Democratic party -- which should make it more realistic to get a populist as the prez nominee.

As this story shakes out it should send shock waves through the Democratic party and cause many revisions of strategy in various camps.

This is a surprise how???

These are the very same people supporting "Whiny Joe" Lieberman with HIS independent bid.

I'm beginning to think that From's master plan is to start a third party...His Own!

It seems to me that Al From and the DLC have a very useful purpose to serve...in the Republican party, by helping its more moderate and centrist Rockefeller pro-business wing reclaim control over the party from its radical neocon, fundie and nativist wings. I think that someone like Bloomberg (or Giuliani, Romney, even Hagel) would be perfect in helping to lead this effort--which I think needs to happen if we're to ever again have meaningful bipartisanship again.

They are not Democrats. There isn't a tent big enough to include the likes of Al From within our party. There might have been a time when the DLC served a useful purpose within the party, as a link to the important business community. But now that they've made it clear that they view the rest of us as useful to THEIR goals, and not them as useful to our OVERALL goals, they have effectively excommunicated themselves from the party. Why don't we make it official, then?

They've nailed their 95 Theses on the church door and made it clear where they stand. Now there's only one thing for us to do. If Al From wants his own party, then I suggest he either start his own or try to take over the GOP. But he's never going to take over the Democratic party, and he's outlived his usefulness to us. So why keep him around any longer?

I say goodbye, Al. Go do something useful for a change, like help revive the GOP. But we don't need you anyone, and it's time you realized that.

They've been way over the line for quite some time in their attacks on 'their' party.  As if Dems more liberal than they are (which isn't saying much) or more willing to stand up to Bush than they are (which is saying even less) are somehow more of a threat to America than George W. Bush and the GOP are.

This is just the icing on the cake.

Pretty crazy too. I mean, Bloomberg as president? They must just be humoring a rich guy with dilusions of grandeur in order to get at his wallet.

To be fair, I don't think they're actually traitorous. I think they're dumbfucks.

In other words, I think they're trying to get Bloomberg to run because they think it will be easier for a Democrat to win a three-way race. The same way Republicans are always trying to get Greens and independents onto ballots. I think they figure Bloomberg will suck off more votes from Republicans than from Democrats, especially if the Republicans nominate a hard conservative or someone too closely associated with Bush, and will spend a ton of money attacking the Republican from an angle that swing voters may listen to more.

I think they're wrong and it's a stupid idea. I don't think a lot of Republicans are going to go to Bloomberg unless the Republicans nominate somebody who's hugely unpalatable to a lot of moderate Repub voters, like maybe George Allen with his public displays of racism, and even then it's a gamble.

But I don't think the DLC is evil, I think they're incompetent. They seem to base every single thing they do on "Well, we won with CLINTON, didn't we!" In this case, they're obviously thinking "We won with Clinton, and that was a three-way race! Let's get a three-way race!"

at first i thought you were saying "execute the DLC" which is a little harsh, but only a little. i guess i'll settle for excommunication.

What I truly find bizzare is not that the DLC is doing this, but that there are peo along this thread making shit up to justify it in their mind. To those people I say it's one thing to be cynical about your abilities to manipulate the public, but its another to be delusional. Consider carefully which you are being with all your made-up-in-your-own-heads machinations for 2008.

There is a fun aspect to this, in that Bloomberg has the personality of a turnip.  He was able to get elected Mayor twice by spending something like $80 million, not counting all the "charitable contributions" made in between elections to various politically connected groups, on an electorate of maybe 2 or 3 million.  He outspent his opponents four to one and five to one each time (and yes, you can buy an election, if the dollars per voter total ks high enough).

For perspecctive, $80 million is more than Perot spent on his 1992 presidential run.  And Perot has some personality and a platform with appeal to the average voter; Bloomberg will basically be running on the platform of the Billionaires' Party.  Bloomberg can't outspend either major party candidate, nor can he run up the same ridiculous  dollars-per-voter total he did in New York.

In other words, this is a catastrophically bad idea, even from the corporatists' standpoint.  Why are they considering this?  Its not like either major party candidate will be some rabble rousing populist.

My personal thoughts are somewhat tempered compared to the more vigilant bloggers here, but I believe that only From should Ex-communicated.  So let me offer my two cents:

1) Bruce Reed needs to ask for From's post on the DLC (I've heard rumors that even DLCers feel that From is getting a little long in the tooth).  

2. The DLC needs to make it publicly known that Al From has crossed the line was removed from command.
   
3. The DLC itself should stay within the Democratic Party.

Let's try to hold back our bloodlust and zealotry and not give Republicans a chance to change the tune of the election to "Democrats purge centrists."  Keeping the DLC within the tent is not "taking the high road," but simply smart politics.

I agree with Singer.  The DLC is doing real harm to the left and that may now be its intention (it wasn't at the start).  But I think what really fuels Al From and others is simply unwillingness to give up power/status/the institution. The beliefs of the DLC should be welcome.  But not if they become -- as they have -- an aggressive institution within the party which has pushed the left out.  As someone who dropped out of the Democratic Party because (largely) of the DLC, I'll be interested to see over the long term just how much damage they have done.  Quite a lot, I'd imagine.  With any luck, the party will self-correct before they really do a number.

As for Bloomberg....!!

Cut the shit.  For those of you who don't know Kevin, he's essentially Bloomberg's political brain - he's a young egomaniac (hanging around with an old egomaniac will rub off on anybody) and he fancies himself a new Karl Rove.  

He's got a billionaire who loves "running things" and Kevin is trying to convince Bloomberg to go for the Whitehouse. It's not out of any deep heartfelt belief, it's just to get an office in the west wing.  

Bloomberg isn't sold.  He's getting lobbied hard by Sheekey.

Go see the new Lamont ad - the toughest one yet and it ouch bites! Great ad. Teach other Dem campaigns that this is how you fight.

http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/

In 2004, From and other DLCers were spreading the word that Howard Dean would bolt the party and run an Independent bid if he didn't get the nomination, thus endangering Democratic chances of winning back the White House.

Dean has since become head of the DNC while Al From is helping out efforts to mount an independent bid for the Presidency in 2008.

What. A. Wanker.

H. Clinton vs. Giuliani vs. Bloomberg?  That would be...odd.

If the democratic party welcome to the ideological party and work both for the country so this is better for the country. Michael Bloomberg as a presendent work with other opposed parties with equal rights so i think there will be no problem any more. Check out this http://www.ktalks.com/ to make to make a strategies about democratic parties.