Where you see the DLC as sort of a "center-left" organization whose claim to fame is that they are "not as bad as the Republicans"™, I see it this way:

The Democratic Party was tired of seeing its Liberal presidential candidates get beaten. So after Mondale got landslided, some Southern Democrats decided to build up this organization called the (S)DLC to swing the Democratic Party far to the Right because they believed "Liberals are costing us Democratic Presidential victories." Up to that point, we had only a one-term Conservative Democrat win in 1976 and then fail to get re-elected. The (S)DLC decided the Democratic Party had to move even further Right. How to do this? A brilliant idea was hatched: Super Tuesday would give the Extreme Right Wing of the Democratic Party *a lot of say* in who would be the Democratic Party's nominee and thwart those evil Northern and Coastal Liberal Bastards in their efforts to nominate one of their own. And it has worked exceedingly well. That's how we end up with these, to be charitable, "Eisenhower Republicans" as Democratic Party nominees. The DLC decided that the Democratic Party should be the party of the shareholder class instead of the party of the working class and they made it so. That is a betrayal of everything the Democratic Party stood for up until about 1985. That's how we went from getting candidates like FDR and LBJ (whom, I'm sure you and Rand would say, "sold us the unicorns and rainbows" of Medicare) to candidates like the Clintons and Obama who've given us repeal of Glass-Stegall, the "end of Welfare as we know it", an IRS fine if you don't pay a private corporation a profit, and so on.

It sickens me. I heard someone the other day say something about Bernie not belonging to today's democratic party, but he did belong to the Democratic Party of around 1965. I think that's pretty much it. I don't like Eisenhower Republicans anymore than I like Reagan Republicans and I'll be damned if I ever vote for another one, regardless of party affiliation.

I can't honestly say that I don't largely agree with the posted comment. I've never been ashamed of my Marxist roots. But the accusation that Sanders is indifferent "to wonky policy issues" is baseless. If he "isn't into details" how did he become "The King of Amendments"? The author of that comment you posted has clearly accepted as true the establishment media's spinning of the Sanders Daily News interview.

While I'd agree Bernie's interview was a disaster for the Daily News whose questions were filled with fallacies designed exclusively to try to trip Sanders up, I thought Bernie's performance was not great but nowhere near what the establishment media is pitching in their efforts to hoist Hillary to the top of the ticket. The Daily News is and always has been a worthless rag. Even some of Sanders' detractors have started calling out the Daily News (even Hillary's New York Times). But, monied interests (read: Clinton campaign contributors) own the major media and CNN's owner is Hillary's eighth largest campaign contributor (behind all those Wall Street banks, of course), so it is to be expected.

Here's a little "balance" to add to the story.

A notion is rapidly crystallizing among the national media that Bernie Sanders majorly bungled an interview with the editorial board of the New York Daily News. His rival, Hillary Clinton, has even sent a transcript of the interview to supporters as part of a fundraising push. A close look at that transcript, though, suggests the media may be getting worked up over nothing.

In fact, in several instances, it’s the Daily News editors who are bungling the facts in an interview designed to show that Sanders doesn’t understand the fine points of policy. In questions about breaking up big banks, the powers of the Treasury Department and drone strikes, the editors were simply wrong on details.

Take the exchange getting the most attention: Sanders’ supposed inability to describe exactly how he would break up the biggest banks. Sanders said that if the Treasury Department deemed it necessary to do so, the bank would go about unwinding itself as it best saw fit to get to a size that the administration considered no longer a systemic risk to the economy. Sanders said this could be done with new legislation, or through administrative authority under Dodd-Frank.

This is true, as economist Dean Baker, Peter Eavis at The New York Times, and HuffPost’s Zach Carter in a Twitter rant have all pointed out. It’s also the position of Clinton herself. “We now have power under the Dodd-Frank legislation to break up banks. And I’ve said I will use that power if they pose a systemic risk,” Clinton said at a February debate. No media outcry followed her assertion, because it was true.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-daily-news_us_5704779ce4b0a506064d8df5

The mainstream media has been gleefully tearing into Bernie Sanders after taking quotes out of context from an interview with tabloid magazine New York Daily News. Mother Jones ran an article with the headline of “The New York Daily News Just Hit Sanders Where It Hurts” and The Washington Post ran one called “This New York Daily News Interview was pretty close to a disaster for Bernie Sanders.”

The so-called “bad interview” is being talked about so much that it’s now even trending on Facebook.

Nomiki Konst, among others, struck back fiercely against this false narrative today.

Konst, a communications strategist and founder of investigative news organization The Accountability Project, unloaded on a hapless CNN anchor who tried to use the same 4-5 sentence exchange from the tabloid which, when taken out of context, make Sanders seem confused about how to break up the big banks. (The full transcript of the interview can be found here.)

The anchor showed the graphic with the exchange, then said blithely, “Shouldn’t Sanders know that?”

Konst fired back.

“Well actually, you know, there’s great fact checking done on this in the New York Times, which I hold as a higher standard of a paper… I think most New Yorkers hold the Times a little bit higher than the Daily News and New York Post. But they fact checked this and they basically said that he was right on this. You know the point if you read the entire transcript, which is very long, took about 45 minutes to read. He went into detail about how the determination of how to break up the big banks lies within Congress or the president, and the president gives authority to the Fed.

The problem is that we take, as we do in the media, take little bits out of context and don’t show the full picture. And to be clear, to be even more fair, Bernie Sanders is the only Senator who brought this up in Congress… And you know what? The Daily News didn’t talk about that, but the New York Times did.”

http://usuncut.com/politics/ny-daily-news-argument-destroyed-cnn/