Talk:Democratic Leadership Council

{{editprotected}}

Untitled

As you can see, QuirkyandSuch has sided with me, and you can also see that 8bitJake with whom I was arguing has been banned from the site. Therefore, I request to change the page back to the last revision I did.Tallicfan20 (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done But to say that 8bitJake is banned from the site is not true. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Correcting factual errors

After reading the POV check on this page that stated "this page looks to be mainly written by opponents of the dlc, seems especially unbalanced, as it lists many unsourced criticisms, while ignoring the praises," I've decided to clean it up a little. I'm by no means an expert, but I have researched Democratic party history for a decade or so. I've read both sides of the DLC argument from a number of sources and feel I can add a few facts to this discussion.

---

Absolutely amazing! After hearing for so long how slanted wikipedia is to the left, and after reading how the article "DLC" has been flagged for not being neutral, I set out to correct some factual inaccuracies and flesh out the organization's history - all with information sources provide. Then it all gets reverted back to it's original factually inaccurate and biased state. Wikipedia - could you be anymore obvious??

Blog links

I added a link to my blog, Democrats Against the DLC. I'd be fine if somebody wanted to get rid of all those blog links, but as long as everyone else is doing it...

~~Hi, I got rid of it because it was essentially nothing more than an advertisement.Bobbyd100 02:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Archived Discussion

I tried to distill the discussion down to topics that seemed to be ongoing. I hope that's ok. Ryan Utt

Jimmy Carter???

Concerning the top of the article: ...a goal which had eluded the Democrats since the 1976 election of Jimmy Carter.

am i missing something or is this saying the dems haven't taken (or retaken) the white house since carter? if so, that's pretty incorrect. Sorry if this has already been discussed. gbinal

In 1984 when the DLC was founded, the Democrats has lost the election to Ronald Reagan. Obviosly Clinton was elected President later on. That particular claim of the sentance is correct, but the sentance could be improved: losing to an incumbent president while dominating the House and the Senate doesn't indicate to a crisis within the Democratic Party. --Ryan Utt 07:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Characterization of DLC as "Centrist"

Behind The DLC Takeover

I think it is a misnomer to refer to their policies as "centrist" or "moderate." The policies of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party (ala Teddy Kennedy) are centrist by any global measure. The DLC is better described as center-right.

Within the framework of American politics, their policies are center-left, centrist, or moderate. I'm sure even Ted Kennedy would not refer to himself as a "centrist". -- Mattworld 20:50, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the characterization of the DLC as "centrist" is POV. Certainly the DLC describes itself as "centrist" but people across the spectrum will disagree, and, in fact, a glance at the history shows that many different adjectives have been employed in this articles first paragraph to describe the DLC's position. This issue is complicated by the fact that "centrist" doesn't have any solid definition, and varies across time and across the globe. I think we can objectively agree that the DLC advocates a right-ward shift of the Democratic Party. Can we agree to this? Ryan Utt

I think "shift from the left" keeps the DLC squarely where they feel most comfortable. I wouldn't use "right" to describe them so I changed "right-ward shift" to "shift from the left". I also changed "modeerate" to "more modeerate" ,again because "moderate has an absolute connotation that doesn't really describe anything. Tbeatty 00:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC) tbeatty

Mattworld, Ted Kennedy may be centrist by "any global measure," but this is a discussion of American politics.

Compared with the Marxist Socialists who run the "anti-war" faction of the Democratic Party, the DLC is centrist. The DLC is a liberal organization on many issues, but Centrists are characterized by their refusal to walk any sort of ideological litmus tests. To call the positions taken by Moveon.org or International ANSWER centrist is absurd. --146.145.70.200 18:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Shut up, you inbred, ignorant right-wing shill.--75.25.28.65 01:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I see some people have been sampling the Cool-Aid again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.181.47.130 (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The DLC is supported by members who are mostly considered moderate in the party. Bill Clinton, the most highly talked about New Democrat has always been towards the center as he has adopted left leaning social policies such as the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy while still compromising (by allowing gays to serve but not openly) because he knew this is what it would take. But he has also supported right leaning policies such as free trade and welfare reform. And he's used as a DLC/New Democrat icon, which says a lot about the DLC. They are centrist. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Anti-DLC Bias

As with the vast majority of things on the wiki, this has a very noticeable leftist ideological viewpoint. There is no discussion of the successes of the DLC, the broad-based support of its positions amongst the voting public, and through the use of buzzwords, it tries to tar the DLC as a bunch of turncoat apostates who might as well be conservatives. For instance, why is noteworthy to note that they criticize Michael Moore? It is only noteworthy if you start from the assumption that he isn't a crazed crackpot. Bascially, this entire article is written in the tone that there is something a good liberal democrat is supposed to be and these guys aren't it.

The DLC has never used the words "loony left" to describe Moore and Dean. This article is full of criticism with nothing good to say about the DLC from someone who knows a little more about what they stand for. I intend to change this once I gather my thoughts.

Hmmmm... the DLC never used the words "loony left" to describe Michael Moore? I'm going to have to disagree, because when I go to dlc.org and search for "loony left" I get an article by Marshall Wittman entitled (in Wittman's typical Garanimal posturing) "Moose on the Loose". Inside, Wittman makes the statement:

"Contrary to the conspiracy theories of Michael Moore and the loony left, Bush did not invent our enemies."

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252914&kaid=127&subid=173

So go ahead and share your expertise on the DLC and give a positive perspective. I'm certainly not in a position to do that. But make sure your facts are right.

Wittman using the phrase is not the same thing as the DLC as an organization doing so. But all the same, thanks for pointing it out. BTW, you may have noticed the article has changed and now contains a more positive depiction of the DLC as well as criticism of it.

Wittman didn't just use the phrase "loony left" while speaking on his own, he said so in an article written in BluePrint, the DLC's primary organ. So what Wittman writes in BluePrint is representative of the DLCs stance.

All these edits aren't so much giving a positive perspective of the DLC as white-washing the negative perspective. This claim that the DLC "opposed" Bush's tax-cuts is particularly galling considering the explicitly cautioned politicians from opposing those tax-cuts lest they appear far-left.

Okay, I was wrong about Marshall Wittman. Kudos to the one who pointed that out. But as for the tax cuts, the DLC has consistently opposed Bush's tax cuts FOR THE WEALTHY, but at the same time has warned Democrats against opposing MIDDLE CLASS tax cuts. Agree or disagree with the DLC's view as you see fit, but anyone who doubts this should read these:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=3023

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=3060

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=3107

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=3191

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251787&kaid=125&subid=162

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251924&kaid=127&subid=900056

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252295&kaid=127&subid=900056

-I'm here with little knowledge and more interested in querying a single sentence. I do want to add this, to this conversation. Please, let us all do keep our editing talk civil and patient, otherwise what wikipedia can be will not be. All of us would agree that wikipedia has great potential. In the best pursuit of that, long-term, I hope that no one will "shout" as above. Would the following not be NPOV and true: 'Some see the DLC's as advocating traditionally conservative points.' or such. As far as the inclusion of certain points such as conservative criticism of Moore or Dean, even if they were added with an agenda, a true NPOV statement should be welcome at wikipedia and only sought to work into the article more flowingly and clearly. Facts should never be excluded for any political reasons, even if they were added for political reasons. Let's continue talking and contributing. - gbinal

The phrase "Some see the DLC's as advocating traditionally conservative points" seems to already be made in the third paragraph of "Criticism". However, if you have specific policies in mind, please feel free to contribute them.

The sentence about the DLC advocating "abandoning progressive principles" is not accurate...The DLC website references progressive ideas multiple times, and uses the word "progressive"....A more accurate characterization might be that the DLC calls for a more centrist party or advocates progressive centrism...

Yes, and look at how well Kerry did. Personally I attribute the utter mess of a campaign that was 2004 to the DLC and their movement towards a more centrist democratic party. 69.231.202.228 00:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

During the 2004 Primary campaign the DLC attacked Presidential candidate Howard Dean as an out-of-touch liberal, because of Dean's position of capturing and killing Osama Bin Laden instead of illegally invading Iraq, The DLC dismissed other critics of the Ignore Bin Laden, Invade Iraq policy such as filmmaker Michael Moore as "Anti-American" and members of the "loony left" [7]. This seems to be pretty blatant in it's bias. I'm going to edit it to be more NPOV.Jaguar84 21:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

---

This entry on the DLC has to be changed. It sounds more like an editorial page anti-DLC essay not an objective statement defining for readers what is the DLC and where did it come from. Clearly this violates the Wikipedia NPOV (neutral point of view). The bias is too obvious to allow this page to remain unchanged. I've never read anything so slanted as this on wikipedia.

---

Balancing the Anti-DLC bias

Without specifically editing the DLC criticisms section, I did add a section on DLC electoral success and general support among the Democratic electorate. I provided numerous sources. We can argue all day the merits of policies A, B, and C, but the electoral record of the DLC can't be denied. When Democrats have won over the last 20 years, more often than not those Democrats were New Democrats.

DLC Anti Populist?

The claim is made that the DLC says that Democrats "should shift away from traditionally populist positions".

No evidence whatsoever is presented to support this declarative statement. That is because there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, the opposite is true. In an article entitled "[ http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=114&subid=236&contentid=254075 How to Grow the Middle Class]", the first pillar of the DLLC's "opportunity agenda" is:

Every American should have the opportunity and responsibility to go to college and earn a degree, or to get the lifelong training they need.

Pretty musch puts the lie to the idea that the DLC argues against populist policies.

--Gatordem 22:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

True, that sounds like a pretty populist position, but I've heard many a DLC acolyte complain about the "populist" leanings of various Democratic candidates. The DLC leadership even criticized Al Gore--one of their own--on the grounds that his 2000 platform was "too populist" and not "New Democrat" enough. The DLC may claim to support equal opportunity to attend college, but they oppose most plans to publicly finance such college educations for needy students, such as the one John Edwards started in eastern North Carolina and is proposing on the national level. Typically, the DLC uses the word "populist" to describe a leftist or "old fashioned liberal" position on any economic issue. I think it's pretty safe to say what the DLC is all about is making the Democratic Party more palatable for more affluent people, which is in stark contrast to a truly populist agenda. --24.107.35.146 05:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

With the definition of "middle class" changing along with the majority of formerly middle class jobs evaporating with each Labor Department report, it is not a lie that the DLC has moved the Democratic Party away from its progressive roots. Look up the entry on Progressivism in the United States and read it carefully. The New Democrats of the DLC don't seem to put as much into supporting labor union movements, eliminating poverty through social change, taxing the wealthy in order to create more wealth equity, creating universal health care and giving assistance to those stuck in the gears of grinding poverty even after "graduating" from welfare through Welfare to Work.

Progressive politics is anti-war, pro-labor, pro-education and supportive of all those being oppressed by big business. The DLC was behind the atrocious Medicare Part D plan that gave more money to private health insurance and pharmaceutical conglomerates. Meanwhile, those who are elderly and not quite destitute enough to qualify for "extra help" have to pay hundreds of dollars per month on medications--many of them deemed "lifesaving" by their doctors--that they cannot afford once they hit the Part D coverage gap. How is making Part D this way thought of as "progressive"? Regarding their stand on education from their own site[1], there is not one word about abolishing the horrific tragedy known as No Child Left Behind.

Also, look into the Center for American Progress website [2] if you want to honestly compare what the DLC has actually done and what Progressivism means today. An honest look into what the DLC stands for has very little to do with what it means to be a Progressive. Also, the Democratic Party has been really good about keeping real progressive Democrats such as Dennis Kucinich out of the televised debate right before the most recent Iowa Caucus. These are valid observations, and as such show that the DLC is anything but progressive.Kulturvultur (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

---

I believe the bone of contention here is the progressive movement's belief that the Democratic party has traditionally been a progressive one. They have not. They've been more progressive than the GOP since President Woodrow Wilson's day, but they've never been a leftist party. And they're not now.

Critics and "Weasels"

I think that the section that Tallicfan20 and 8bitJake are disputing could be improved by replacing the "weasel" phrase "critics point out" with direct quotes from specific critics. Some critics of the DLC have highlighted the loss of "Congressional and gubernatorial seats during the '90s" and others have contrasted Dukakis' vote share with Clinton's. The authority of unnamed "critics" is not worth fighting for. -- Shunpiker (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I would love to add some sources such as the Center for American progress and others. --8bitJake (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

But to imply that Dukakis did better than Clinton is misleading, as it takes everything completely out of context. Only the far right and left wings actually use the talking about about Dukakis getting a higher percent. But that ignores that in 1992, there were THREE candidates, and in 1988, there were only two. Bill Clinton also got a higher number of total votes than Dukakis. Also, having 3 candidates in a race increases turnout, and the denominator of total votes, thus each vote will be less of a percentage. The criticism is not a common one, only a fringe one. I'll also point out that exit polls showed the pro-choice pro-gay anti-NAFTA Perot taking equally from Clinton and Bush. Clinton clearly would have gotten higher than Dukakis in percentage if 1992 was a two way race. So the misleading needs to stop.Tallicfan20 (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Instead of edit warring in the article, let's talk things over here. If 8-bit Jake can produce sources for his criticism, we can compare them to the sources that Tallicfan20 brings and come up with a compromise. This shouldn't be decided on the strength of personal arguments, but on the basis of what notable sources have published on the matter. In the mean time, I'm tagging the section for weasel words, since the appeal to unnamed critics is at the heart of the problem. -- Shunpiker (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not making personal arguments. HE is the one doing so. Just look at his talk page as I lay out my argument to him, he doesn't respond until later, when he calls me a "Freeper" citing my former talk page, which has NOTHING to do with the article. Then he starts trashing the DLC, not responding even to my criticism of what he is putting in the article. HE is the one with the POV. I am just trying to make the article better, by not allowing a misleading statistic in the argument, as it ignores that 1992 had 3 candidates, 1988 had two. Tallicfan20 (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

By "personal arguments" I mean ideas that come from any of us as editors, rather than from a reliable source. Why don't we compile a list of the sources for each of the points of view here: A list of sources that make Tallicfan20's point, and a list of sources that makes 8bitJake's point. The sources will be much more valuable if they directly make the point in contention, in order to avoid an improper synthesis. Once we have a list of the sources, along with the exact text of what they assert, we can work on a summary that expresses what specific critics have said. -- Shunpiker (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well to start, while he DOES point out that Dukakis got a higher percentage than Clinton, he leaves out that the 1992 race had 3 candidates, the 1988 race had two. Second, exit polls showed that Ross Perot drew equally from both candidates. When you have 3 candidates in a race, people are going to vote for the 3rd candidate, and turnout was higher on 1992 than 1988. That is why I think it is fundamentally misleading and dishonest to cite that Dukakis got a higher percentage of the vote than Clinton. Clinton also got more total popular votes than Dukakis and more electoral votes. I just don't believe such a misleading statement should be in the article.Tallicfan20 (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the bias and weasel words have been largely cleaned up, with the vague references only in the 2nd and 3rd paragraph of the Criticism section. I think we might consider removing or editing the warning at the top of the page, as most of the concerns seem to have been addressed. Sallijane (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Tallicfan20's POV, Needs 3RR and RFC ASAP

We need to start a RFC for Tallicfan20 blind POV edit waring. Feel free to report him to 3RR and the many personall attacks that he will engage in today. --8bitJake (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'M not the one with personal attacks. You are the one citing a meaningless stat in the article. You imply that Dukakis did better than Clinton in an election, when that is clearly false, and more of a personal attack than anything. When did I ever personally attack you? You are the one injecting your anti-DLC opinion into the article. Bill Clinton won more votes overall than Dukakis, but got more votes than his opponentS, Dukakis didn't. It is misleading to cite a percentage as doing better when 1988 was a 2 way race, and 1992 a 3 way race.Tallicfan20 (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are some of Tallicfan20 personall attacks against me. I am sure that it is not going to be the only ones. "I get you now, you're a radical Clinton hater" "you obviously hate Clinton, and can't face that a moderate won. you are misleading people. Clinton did better than Dukakis. if you were such a progressive, as you claim, you'd respect the Clintons.)" "You're clearly injecting your anti-DLC rhetoric into the article and your anti-Clinton bias" --8bitJake (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You called me a Freeper on my talk page. That is a personal attack. You started the fire by doing that. I also only said those things because YOU were the one putting the POV into the article my citing a highly misleading statement in the article. You are the one badmouthing the DLC on your talk page.Tallicfan20 (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In 1988 there were six parties that had ballot access and in 1992 there were nine. If you want to continue to rant about Perot make sure to include mentions of all the other statistically insignifigant parties, LaRouche and the Commies. --8bitJake (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

can you stop playing games? its OBVIOUS I or anybody else does not include minor parties. Its so obvious you are clearly trying to mislead people. perot was NOT statistically insignificant. He got 18.9 percent of the vote, the highest since Teddy Roosevelt for a 3rd party. You are the one who keeps trying to make Dukakis look better than Clinton. Tallicfan20 (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Your the one opening up the can of worms. How can you argue that Perot was a factor but the other six other presidential campaigns in 1992 had no impact. Plus there were six parties with presidential ballot access in 1988, including Ron Paul and LaRouche! Ha! --8bitJake (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Because Perot got over 1 percent of the popular vote, and none of the other 3rd parties did. I'm trying to make a decent article and you're just trying to mislead people. Clinton did better than Dukakis. PERIOD. And nobody out there EVER calls 1992 a nine way race. It is always referred to as a three way race, and 1988 as a two way race. You are clearly playing games here. Tallicfan20 (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Also Perot got a whopping zero electoral votes. If 2000 has taught us anything is that is the only thing that matters in electing a president.--8bitJake (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Then why do you insist on writing how Dukakis got a higher percentage of vote, despite the fact not only did he come in second in votes and get less than Clinton, but he got far fewer electoral votes than he did? Clinton got over 270, Dukakis didn't. Sounds like hypocrisy to meTallicfan20 (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Dukakis got a higher percentage of the vote. That is an undenyable fact. I don’t think we should have an unfair level of inclusion on all the candidates of the 1988 and 1992 elections that had ballot access. I think either they all get mentioned or they don’t get mentioned at all. You can’t say that Perot simultaneously did and didn’t matter and that it really changed anything in the election. It all pointless really and I think the mention should be removed.

I never called it false, but called it misleading, I did that because saying Dukakis got a higher percentage, while is true, may make many think he somehow did "better" when he didn't, because many people mistakenly think that elections are about getting to 50%, when in fact they are not. Its about getting the highest number of votes, not solely over 50% cast, and being done in enough states to garner 270 electoral votes or more, which Dukakis didn't do. The reason I mentioned him was because usually, a winner gets higher than 43 percent. It would make some heads spin, so I figured why not explain that his presence distorted the percentage candidates got in that election. Other 3rd party candidates usually don't have such an effect. I think its best that the edit war end, and hopefully it has.Tallicfan20 (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

1992 also had a much higher turnout than 1988. I live in Washington State and we have had some super close elections where the margin of victory is well within the vote total for other campaigns besides the Democratic Party and the Republicans. Other parties matter when it comes to a general election, just ask Dino Rossi, and Al Gore

Well 1992 did have big turnout, but one should not automatically think because a 3rd party margin is bigger than a margin of victory it means spoiler. When the margin is as large a one as in 1992, and the exit polls indicate Perot voters were split evenly between Bush and Clinton, than its meaningless. But the point is that it is fundamentally dishonest and misleading to compare Dukakis' vote percent with Clinton's because 1992 had 3 viable candidates in terms of vote getting, and 1988 had 2. I think I laid out my arguments pretty well above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallicfan20 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to break this tie and side with User:Tallicfan20. The statistical variation between these numbers should be explained fully, because without the explanation the data is being used in a biased fashion. Unless you can find sources that explain these numbers, and the differences between these two candidates, this should be removed. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox?

Does this article need an infobox? RJFJR (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Paul Wellstone and "the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party"

Paul Wellstone was first elected in 1990 when he used "I am from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party." However, U.S. Sen. Paul Simon from Illinois used the same message in his 1988 Presidential Campaign and almost won Iowa with it. I really don't know the origin of the phrase, but Wellstone wasn't the first to use it in a political campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis Howe (talk • contribs) 15:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Democratic Leadership Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041120035251/http://www.ppionline.org:80/ndol/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=85&contentid=893 to http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=85&contentid=893

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Democratic Leadership Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051126181117/http://www.dlc.org:80/ to http://www.dlc.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Democratic Leadership Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090604043109/http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/4484181.html to http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/4484181.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Photo has Obama instead of a notable DLC member - confusing

Obama ran against Hillary Clinton who is an early and vocal member of the DLC. Obama was anti-Iraq War when the DLC was pro Iraq War. Obama may have become more moderate during his eight years as president, but Obama was not known as a DLC member, and the DLC then folded three years into his presidency. So why is Obama in the one photo? That is confusing. The DLC obviously supported his main primary opponent. Use Lieberman, Clinton, or another DLC chair for accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.203.197 (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)