I thought we were way past all this goofy Dean vs. DLC bullshit.
You would think everybody would just put all the pointless rhetoric behind them and concentrate on deposing Bush in November.

Daily Kos is a great site, but the very ideological Deaniac fringe over there frequently acts like it's still the day before the Iowa caucuses.
This is the time for all to work together to find a common consensus for the Democratic Party.
Petty and bitchy bickering do nothing to advance our cause.

Kos is right.

The DLC grew from Dukkakis's defeat. They thought that the lesson was that he was too liberal.

Dukkakis was a moderate who was working on no-fault car insurance at the height of the Viet Nam war, and the real lesson learned was that Republicans are lying sacks of excrement who care about nothing but winning. (Willie Horton anyone?)

The DLC is a demoralizing influence. It regularly tells people that the secret of political success is to have no values.

Bill Clinton did not start gaining in Bush I in 1992 until he dumped DLC rhetoric, and the collapse in 1994 was an artifact of DLC candidates running, and DLC issues (NAFTA, etc.) driving the campaign.

Their basic thesis is that you can win by not giving people a reason to believe in you, and that's just whack.

You're history is a bit off ... The DLC grew from Walter Mondale's defeat and from the late Gillis Long's desire to refocus the party more on the national interest rather than special interests. After the Dukakis defeat, the DLC spawned off the Progressive Policy Institute to provide that very "reason to believe in" that you speak so eloquently of. They succeeded in that Bill Clinton took the playbook and ran with it from start to finish. His only adaptation was to counter Paul Tsongas' rise by adding a more populist tone here and there (not enough to back off of support for NAFTA, it should be noted). I defy you to locate any point in the 1992 general election campaign where Clinton diverged from the DLC message, though.

Getting to 1994 ... dumping the middle class tax cut, raising gas taxes, putting health care reform ahead of welfare reform, Travelgate, don't ask don't tell ... I'm going to offer to you that these had more with the defeat suffered by Dems than any adherence to DLC-ism (but wait ... you claim he'd ditched this during the campaign. When did he pick it up again?)

"I am a Democrat, without prefix, without suffix and without apology." - Sam Rayburn

I don't mean to minimize the importance of this internal debate, but do you think perhaps the bulk of it could be deferred until after elections? We have a presidential candidate who is playing well in the polls. We have an opponent who is doing a pretty good job of self-destructing. The only question in my mind is this: can we Democrats handle success? can we take this favorable situation and see it through to a positive conclusion in November? Then we can play liberal-vs.-centrist games for a year or two, struggle for the "soul" of the party, etc. But between now and November, we need to focus our energies. Eyes on the prize, everyone.

So, how do we get rid of the DLC, I'd really like to know.

Ralph Nader has the right idea...out the bastards, first of all! Stop saying "at least they are not" this or that Repo Thug/Nazi! Such "thinking" gave us Clinton, who in many ways provided us both a disastrous domestic and foreign agenda that reeked to highest Republicanism...moving the country ever more directly to the "right," and setting the stage for the current "rightward ho!" horrors, to include a criminal war.

We are very close to having only one effective poltical party, so why pretend otherwise? To confront power in this country another party not only is needed, it is REQUIRED! Several more would be better.

Neither the Democrats OR the in their poltical performances those often quite similar Republicans have ever represented my interests all that well, though I want to thank both of them for not, so far, having blown up our human world entirely.