Al From Is Wrong... Again

Recently, Al From, founder of the Democratic Leadership Council, used a front page New York Times story to warn Senator Obama and other Democratic leaders that, "the antiwar people cannot define the Democratic Party."

Al From is wrong, again.

For years, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) has been warning the Democratic Party about the dangers of being associated with progressive values, ideas and policies. Time and again, their advice has proven disastrous.

After Al Gore's defeat in 2000, From and pollster Mark Penn argued Gore lost the election in part because he abandoned the DLC message. But it was Gore's progressive message - making prosperity work for all - that helped him erase the seventeen-point deficit he held heading into the Democratic convention. In 2004, the DLC attacked Howard Dean as an elitist liberal and warned our party to "seize the vital center." Yet John Kerry's attempt to do just that failed to deliver the governing majority From and the DLC promised it would.

Now they are at it again - this time attacking "the antiwar people" while promoting the vice presidential credentials of their former Chairman Senator Bayh.

And who are these "antiwar people"? According to recent polling, it's probably you. Nine out of ten Democrats want the next president to end the war in Iraq, and an astonishing 66% of the American public opposes the war. Al From and his colleagues at the DLC may not like it, but the party that sides with the "antiwar people" sides with the majority of Americans. Not a bad place to be on election day.

The truth that From hopes we'll forget is that, after years of failure using the DLC's Republican-lite strategy, Democrats took back Congress in 2006 with a progressive, antiwar message. As the New York Times reported that fall, "the vast majority of House candidates in competitive races ran as Iraq war critics," as did all six new Democratic Senators.

It is no wonder, then, that Senator Obama is the Democratic nominee. Much like the progressive champions of the 2006 freshmen Democratic class, his early and vocal opposition to the war defined a message of change that America was waiting for. And as Matthew Yglesias has pointed out, it was that courageous opposition that made his successful challenge to Hillary Clinton's candidacy possible.

The time has come for Al From and the DLC to realize that if our nominee and our party want to win in November, they too will be "antiwar people."

 

Comments

[WhiteHat]

Excellent article. Another couple of points.

First, Obama's early campaign message - emphasizing good government over partisan ideology - effectively disarms the left/right positioning game the Republicans always use. If Obama sticks to that message, he doesn't even need to defend himself from attacks, just mock them as dirty old-style politics. But if he plays in the largely Republican-defined "left vs. right" arena, he plays their game, invalidates his "new politics" message, and leaves the door open for more creepy nonsense from McCain. And Republicans are GOOD at mudslinging. Obama could lose.

Secondly, in even considering Republican "voter appeal," the DLC seems to be missing what's happening in the electorate. After 8 years of increasingly bad government, the majority of us are ready to vote for Obama's hopeful message. Trying to move now to some political "middle ground" could make him seem willing to compromise on Bush's screwups and civil rights violations. That doesn't seem smart for the antidote to Bushism.

I admit I'm not impartial. As an early Obama supporter I hate hearing him trying to appeal to bigots, fatheads and the American Taliban.

And I don't think it's necessary. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it's still about the issues, stupid.

[in10se]

The DLC was key to electing the only Democrat as President in the past 28 years, I suggest instead of foaming at the mouth about the organization you go to www.DLC.org and read the positions.

[sposton]

DLC is just another agency for distributing dirty cash for buying influence. It is truly amazing for how little our politicians get bought. Nothing will change until the American people 'buy' their representatives. A couple of weeks of expenditures in the war in Iraq would probably pay for the whole thing. Why not just buy them with money from our treasury? We could give each a few million upon their "retirement" to prevent them from becoming lobbyists. The costs would be peanuts in comparison to what they actually end up costing us. DLC and other peddlers of influence would simply wither away and Al From would become AL Who?!

[Susan60]

Al From equals failure. What is it about Democrats that make them keep the same losers on the pay roll election after election and think they are going to get a different result than last time? If you want to understand just how much Democrats do this, read Markos Moulitsas' book, Crashing The Gate. In it, he talks about this phenomenon. Why it's continuing is anyone's guess. We should banish From to some deserted island where he can't hurt the party any longer.

[messy]

Frum is actually right about the pseudoprogressive wing of the Democratic party. They're part of the reason we had Bush, Bush, Reagan and Nixon in the first place.

[TheRebel82]

The DLC is a HUGE joke. Thank God the internet and liberal blogs have rendered them completely clueless. The Internet killed the DLC and for that all us progressives should be joyful!

[WorkingClass]

The DLC represents their corporate masters. They are in it for the money. If you support the DLC and/or the blue dogs, you might as well be a Republican.

[PJay1]

I completely agree with you, Tom.

We need to stay true to our principles. That's the way to win, the ONLY way to win.
If we try to second guess and adjust accordingly, we lose. Period.

Case in point: The vote to authorize the Iraq invasion was held (by Karl Rove's design) right before the midterm election at a time when President Bush enjoyed high poopularity and the Dems were afraid to be labeled unpatriotic and weak, so it was for many a purely politically calculated vote.

That didn't work out too well, did it?

We lost seats in both houses and we lost the majority, not to mention morality.

[PJay1]

DLC is to the Democratic Party as Neocon is to the Republican Party.

They both might as well just be new parties.

[MrTessier]

I think you may have interpreted the comment as something more then it is. I took the quote, which is quoted in the linked article again, to mean that war opposition is not the cornerstone of the democratic party. AKA defining it. Furthermore the article doesn't say that the party should abandon progressive ideals, it just says that Bayh is a centrist.

I think Obama's campaign is proving that seizing the middle has proven to be a winning proposition. It's such a good strategy that the republicans are battling for the same group of people. Are you proposing that a run to the left would result in a win? If so, then Obama's the wrong nominee for that strategy. I know "he has the most liberal voting record in the Senate" but all I've heard from him and from his books show that deep down he is a centrist who is willing to negotiate to get the greatest common good.

[research]

The opposite of the DLC, is the Kucinich coalition. Contributes to Kucinich, the only person consistency representing the people.

[NightAdder]

If there is any reasoning as to why Obama has softened his more liberal positions, just look at the DLC. They want to run the democratic party on toned down republican principles. Today's democrats feel that they can only win elections through threating countries, merging church and state, and giving out tax breaks on democratic terms not republican ones. The democratic party needs to focus on its own issues, not just on a softer brand of conservativism.

[MrTessier]

I don't know, I'm new to the democratic party (only because McCain turned me off and I read Obama's book), so I'm not even sure what the democratic party issues are.

If they are what they used to be, then I like the new party much better. Fiscal responsibility, a stronger dollar, improved education, respect abroad. I was never a fan of the democratic platform when they were trying to ban video games, get rid of Christmas trees, ban smoking everywhere, and generally force their version of political correctness down my throat. I'm probably stereotyping the positions, they've probably changed a lot. I remember when the republicans were for small government, staying out of other countries business, fiscal responsibility, etc. They seem to have completely abandoned any of those ideas.

[colleen2]

I would say that Al From and the dlc cannot and should not be allowed to define the Democratic party.
At some point folks in DC are going to wake up and realise that the 'l' stands for loser

[GoodGuysandBadGuys]

that's the dang truth, tom.

the dlc is responsible for the dems having grown consistently weaker over the past 15 years. the workers in this country have NO representation in government and the reason is that the dlc took the dems to the right and abandoned the worker in favor of management and investors.

they should just go to their true home - the rnc.

praise the forces we don't have a dlc-groomed dem nominee . they tried, but they LOST and america won. whew close call.

[research]

The DLC will go down in history as the coalition that killed the democrats.