A group of centrist Democrats who helped elect Bill Clinton to the White House warned on Monday that the Democratic Party will lose the 2004 presidential election unless it can win over suburban voters who feel the party has become too liberal.

In language critical of left-leaning positions, the Democratic Leadership Council urged party leaders to avoid policies that voters may associate with big government and special-interest groups, including labor unions.

"The Democratic Party is at risk of being taken over from the far left," U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, the group's chairman, told reporters at a two-day DLC convention here.

"If we want to govern, we have to offer the American people more than just nostalgia and more than just criticism."

The council released the results of a survey by former Clinton pollster Mark Penn that showed President Bush as vulnerable on domestic issues including the economy, health care, the federal deficit and education.

But the poll of 1,225 "likely 2004 voters" conducted June 20 to July 1 also said Democrats faced a huge challenge attracting voters from suburban families -- clear majorities of whom were seen to criticize the party as too liberal, beholden to special interests and out of touch with mainstream America.

"The poll is very clear for those who think that if the Democratic Party just lurched to the left and showed a higher flash of anger, that they would somehow win the next election," Penn said. "This poll puts a laugh to that theory."

The DLC has tried for years to push the party away from the liberal agendas of past nominees such as George McGovern in 1972, Walter Mondale in 1984 and Michael Dukakis in 1988.



In 2000, it criticized former Vice President Al Gore's unsuccessful campaign for being too populist and abandoning some of the pro-business themes that helped elect Clinton.

In May, the group trained its sights on former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, criticizing the White House hopeful for his anti-war rhetoric and other positions it castigated as self-interested liberalism.

"Democrats are only going to win in 2004 if we make very clear to the American people that we're tough on national security, that we're tough on economic growth and that we have a better alternative for the country," said DLC President Bruce Reed, the former Clinton domestic policy advisor.

If Democrats are considered "too liberal", what does that make those who consider Democrats to be right-wing fascist?

just gotta love it when the repubs drag old populists outta thier graves and equate them with the likes of hillary and gore.

look, name me one liberal thing that hillary stands for besides abortion rights. she's pro death penalty, pro corporate globalization, generaly pro-incarceration, pro-war, pro-patriot act, pro-sharon, pro pro pro.

and we let these people tell us democratic leaders are too far liberal... hilary should not be mentioned in the same breath as mcgovern.

gwb would kick hills ass. its still a patriarchy, and given the same candidate in two people, the public would choose the one without tits.

as long as they let us keep arguing what is too far to the left they will kick our asses. are we to believe that if a dean or kerry get the dem nod we couldn't sell bush as the extremist? largest deficits in history? exiting or ignoring more treaties than any prior president? record fundraising while on the job (and you thought sleepovers in the lincoln bedroom were bad... how about using air force one to raise a projected $200 mil at the taxpayers expense), rolling back of civil liberties, hell, they even covered the boob on the statue of lady liberty, like kucinich says, "as if to underscore thier is no threat of liberty exposing herself in this administration."

dont believe this shit. they are the extremists

"and we let these people tell us democratic leaders are too far liberal..."

Exactly! "These people" are the leaders of the Democratic Party. And "these people" are looking at the poll data. And "these people" are concerned that policies that you personally regard as being extremist right-wing policies are regarded by many Americans as being "too liberal".

So, if policies that are regarded as being "too liberal" are the same policies you personally regard as being "extremist right-wing", what does that make you?

Are you going to answer or am I going to have to answer it for you?

"If Democrats are considered "too liberal", what does that make those who consider Democrats to be right-wing fascist?"

Obfuscating Fifth Column Anarcho-socialist treasonous traitors to their fellow man.

It is hard to find any major difference between Bill and Hillary Clinton and most prominent Republicans in 1992 except the obvious ones that the Clintons were more physically attractive and more intelligent than the Republiboobs. (HIllary acutally appeared in one magazine modeling clothes). Nafta? Ending "welfare as we know it"? Lobbing cruise missles at Iraq and the Sudan and killing hundreds of civilians? Claiming that the President has the right to lie in a sexual harassment case? Refusing to even consider a national health service and instead coming up with a ridiculous health plan based on private insurance companies making even more money than they were already - and that was rightly ridiculed by nearly everyone? If anyone claims that the Clintons were on the left that says a lot more about their ultra-reactionay ideology than it says about Bill and Hillary.

What it tells is that you and people like you are the super-far-left. If you don't recognize that Clinton was a liberal, that only means you are way far left. And the Dems are running from even the appearance of being far-left, the same far-left that you in your ultra, super far-left stance continue to regard as far-right.

And yet, it's funny to listen to you and yours talk as if you are the mainstream, the common man, the voice of the people. You don't even recognize that you are not just way out in left field, you're so far out you can't even be seen from the ballpark. Either that, or you know you're super-leftists, and must say that you are not just to make yourselves feel better, and/or to fool yourselves into believing that you're significant, and/or to attempt to appear to be something you're not.

Either way, you and yours are marginalized in our society, and for good reason. You viewpoints are not worth consideration.

Back to the story, the Dems are distancing themselves from Howard Dean since he's been gaining momentum. They know he's a losing ticket, and they've got to silence him. Problem is, he's been letting the cat out of the bag. He's been saying outloud what the Dem elites have been saying behind closed doors for a long, long time, which is a bunch of far-left drivel. Come election time, the Dems typically scurry towards the center or the right because they know that's how most people live their lives. After they get in office is when they work their leftist schemes. Dean's blowing their cover.

Guess you are right, Exactly. Both Clinton and Dean are secret Bolsheviks. In their inner, secret offices portraits of Che, Fidel, Ho Chi Minh and either Stalin or Trotsky hang on the walls. Meanwhile, I'm trying to disguise myself as a man of the people while in reality I am an agent of the Red Chinese intelligence agency. In my safe are my two most precious possessions - the Order of Lenin medal and the Order of Mao medallion. But you really should mention all this to your psychiatrist at your next appontment - your medication may need adjustment.

"In a truly civilized (in other words socialist) society,"

Che, Fidel, Ho Chi Minh, Stalin, Trotsky, Lenin, and Mao would have all gladly embraced the above statement from you.

Good. Of course, you have to remember that millions of other people would also agree with those words. Don't judge the world by Orange County or Bakersfield.

the ba says that clinton was completely poll driven (almost unarguable, i agree) but then says hes a liberal. if the mojority of the country does not agree with liberal values and clinton ran according to polls, well, then he didnt run a liberal whitehouse.

and bush has integrity? his family has dealings with dirty governments and terrorists all over the world. you think rove and rumsfeld have integrity? how about cheney? billions in no bid contracts with no penalties for cost overrun to a company he still gets a paycheck from is ethical? sounds just as shady as an arkansas governor using s&l money earmarked for urban development to get rich. its all a big handjob.

you are paying for those halliburton/kbr contracts just like i am, ba. remember that. and might i add that paying billions to them while not holding them accountable for cost overruns is a more radical idea than giving those billions to something so "left wing" as veterans benefits, va hospitals or mabey, *gasp* education.

you guys are the extremists. the public isnt being told the truth. and if the truth ever did hit the front pages, we'd replace it with pictures of this or that dead iraqi or an orange alert or whatever orwellian bulshit is the flavor of the day.

"you guys are the extremists"

Yeah, right. That's why the Dems are worried about being preceived as too liberal, because Americans consider conservatives to be extremists.

[NOT]

A+++ family and Prescott Bush should know after his assets (not all of them, damnit) were seized for

trading with the enemy during WWII Yup, true values, alright. But what's a few dead american ( or more ) to the kind of morals Bush Admirer admires.