The DLC Brand

Mike Crowley notes that in a stark contrast to the 2003 version of the event, none of the Democratic contenders will be attending the DLC's 2007 national conversation. I find this effort to play down the significance wildly unconvincing.

What captures the significance of this perfectly is that in 2006 Hillary Clinton addressed the DLC National Conversation. In 2005 she addressed the DLC National Conversation. In 2004 and 2003 the focus was on the Democratic presidential candidates, but in 2002 she addressed the DLC National Conversation. Back in 2001, she addressed the DLC National Conversation. She's the sort of person, in short, inclined to attend the DLC National Conversation event. Which is no surprise since her husband co-founded the group and she's a member of the leadership team. These days, though, she's running for president in an environment where lavishing the sort of praise on Al From that she lavished in 2001, then again in 2002, then again in 2005 and again in 2006 wouldn't suit her 2007 purposes very well. That's a change from 2003, when almost all of the contenders thought it would help them politically to be seen as DLC-friendly.

The flipside is that the significance is entirely limited to this sort of atmospherics. The DLC brand has become tarnished. On a policy level, though, I don't see a ton of change. Clinton hasn't radically revised her approach to things, she's the clear front-runner, and I don't know any centrist policy people who feel especially threatened by the possibility that one of her rivals might get the nomination. I hear, though, that some of the DLC leadership people are a little bummed that high-profile politicians don't want to hang out with them.

Comments

If you're gonna cut and paste, at least proofread the original. That way you won't get "DLC National Conversation" four times in a row.

Posted by sglover | July 24, 2007 10:14 AM

Um, isn't that what they call it, sglover?

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | July 24, 2007 10:15 AM

I don't know any centrist policy people who feel especially threatened by the possibility that one of her rivals might get the nomination.

I'm not sure how this is to be read. These centrist policy people don't worry because they believe her nomination is assured, or they don't worry because they believe that support for centrist policies is deep-rooted and any candidate is likely to have centrist commitments?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 24, 2007 10:20 AM

It's the war, stupid.

Posted by dj moonbat | July 24, 2007 10:32 AM

Mike Crowley notes that in a stark contrast to the 2003 version of the event

Not quite, Crowley's link notes that the DLC says no 2004 candidates came in 2003.

Posted by John | July 24, 2007 10:34 AM

1) Here's Hillary at Princeton in January 2006:
"I'm here this evening because I am fortunate to know as friends two extraordinary men whom the Princeton community will soon know as well. And it is a great honor that I was asked by Danny Abraham to be part of the formal announcement of the S. Dan Abraham Chair in Middle East Policy Studies."

Note: S Daniel Abraham is the Pro-Israel US Billionaire who spent $200,000 to destroy Howard Dean's Presidential campaign with a barrage of TV attack ads in the Iowa primary -- ads showing Bin Laden and suggesting Dean would be soft on terrorism. See "Political Mugging in America" at
http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=194&sid=200

Previously, Mr Abraham had contributed about $5000 to Dean's campaign. But then Dean made the mistake of arguing with Joe Lieberman that the
US should be even-handed in the Israel-Palestinian dispute.

2) At Princeton, Hillary then went on to say:
"The security and freedom of Israel must be decisive and remain at the core of any American approach to the Middle East. This has been a hallmark of American foreign policy for more than 50 years and we must not - dare not - waver from this commitment."

REF: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/01/18/news/14289.shtml

--------------

Actually, it seems to me that the safety and security of AMERICA should be at the core of America's approach to the Middle East. But then, I don't have to suck up to Haim Saban, S Daniel Abraham and other wealthy members of the Israel Lobby. Especially when the going price of $1 Million in campaign donations appears to be the lives of 1000 American soldiers.

Posted by Don Williams | July 24, 2007 11:03 AM

Here's Hillary speaking to AIPAC in February of this year:

""NEW YORK: Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said "no option can be taken off the table" when
dealing with that nation.

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

Clinton spoke at a Manhattan dinner held by the largest pro-Israel lobbying group in the U.S., the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Some 1,700 supporters applauded as she cited her
efforts on behalf of the Jewish state and spoke scathingly of Iran's decision to hold a conference last month that questioned whether the Holocaust took place. "

REF: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/02/america/NA-GEN-US-Clinton-Iran.php

Posted by Don Williams | July 24, 2007 11:06 AM

As Matt notes, Hillary Clinton is still on the DLC "leadership team", so her ditching the convention shouldn't fool anyone.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 24, 2007 11:49 AM

or they don't worry because they believe that support for centrist policies is deep-rooted and any candidate is likely to have centrist commitments?

They don't worry because they believe all the candidates have similar centrist (domestic) policy commitments.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | July 24, 2007 12:14 PM

This is quite interesting in a funny kind of way. Does anyone remember the fight the Kos group has been having with the DLC and Kos had promised to make this organization "radioactive" in dem circle? I remember dismissing Kos at the time. But could there be any relationship between that and what is going on here?

Posted by Newdome | July 24, 2007 12:51 PM

Um, isn't that what they call it, sglover?

Errr...... OK, I hit my daily stupidity quota at about 10 AM today.....

Posted by sglover | July 24, 2007 1:23 PM

That "insider" that the NR quoted is hilarious. He sounds like Spinal Tap's manager aruging that the band's sharp drop in ticket sales and demotion from stadiums to auditoriums was a good thing, as it represented their audience becoming more selective.

Posted by FMguru | July 24, 2007 4:41 PM

"Does anyone remember the fight the Kos group has been having with the DLC and Kos had promised to make this organization "radioactive" in dem circle? I remember dismissing Kos at the time. But could there be any relationship between that and what is going on here?"

I would think that Sen. Clinton (the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination) would have to surrender her post on the leadership team of the DLC before Kos (or anyone) could pat themselves on the back for somehow rendering the DLC "radioactive" in Dem circles. Kos talks tough about taking down the DLC, and if a DLC functionary (such as Sen. Clinton) wins the nomination, Kos (and his minions) punish that DLC functionary by... voting for that DLC functionary and giving him/her lots of money and time and energy and support, in addition to villifying and smearing any liberal candidate who subsequently dares challenge that functionary's rightful claim to any and all votes from the American Left. For some reason, this is called "crashing the gate."

Patrick Meighan
UCLA Class of '95

Posted by Patrick Meighan | July 25, 2007 12:59 AM

Kos (and his minions) punish that DLC functionary by... voting for that DLC functionary and giving him/her lots of money and time and energy and support, in addition to villifying and smearing any liberal candidate who subsequently dares challenge that functionary's rightful claim to any and all votes from the American Left. For some reason, this is called "crashing the gate.

The punishment will continue after Clinton wisely invades Iran and all disenters are purged for the sake of the Glorious Five Year Plan to subsidize the health insurance industry and supplement pre-schools through charter schools.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 25, 2007 1:15 AM

Apropros of Daily Kos, it is rather remarkable though that at the same time all of the candidates are snubbing the DLC they have also committed to attend the Yearly Kos convention. The more I think about that one, the more remarkable it seems.

Posted by blah | July 25, 2007 1:22 AM

It is remarkable (sort of) but so what?

Unions get "face time", they got it all the way through the Clinton years and as long as someone showed up to tell them politely to STFU that was worth all the dues shelled out to the DNC. That's exactly what Yearly Kos is going to get and it's all anyone is going to get that pledges undying loyalty to a constuancy that has no where to go and that if you don't actively snub is going is going to send you money and cajole votes for you.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 25, 2007 1:31 AM

Why is the DLC brand tarnished though?

It's pretty annoying that Democrats want to take credit for the Clinton economy but hate Clinton's policies.

The fact is, the DLC is the only successful wing of the party both from a policy perspective and a political perspective. That may not be popular with the base, but it's the truth. The DLC will always be the place to be when Democrats are winning(since only DLC Democrats win) and shunned when Republicans are in power(even though non-DLC candidates are the ones who blew the election).

Posted by Adam Herman | July 25, 2007 2:11 PM

The fact is, the DLC is the only successful wing of the party both from a policy perspective and a political perspective.

How's that shit working out in Iraq, Red? On either criteria.

Posted by SomeCAllMeTim | July 25, 2007 2:18 PM