Chet -- You are the classic person of what psychologists would use the terms "cognitive dissonance" and "confirmation bias". You're not alone...most all people brain's to some degree are afflicted by it including that of Donald Trump. However, many of those on the far left and far right are the worst.
On that point, nothing I write in this website seems to sway you one iota, but for others that might want to become members of this website I don't want them to think that your views continuously slamming the Democratic Party, the DNC, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are a consensus view of the members on this website. For the benefit of others I'll address your prior posts in this thread.
First, I checked out Premilla Nadasen's article on "How a Democrat Killed Welfare" published in the Jacobin magazine website that you cited as vindication of your attacks on Democrats. The by-line of the article reads, "Bill Clinton gutted welfare and criminalized the poor, all while funneling more money into the carceral state." Yes that's a headline that certainly would attract you Chet.
So I can certainly understand why you would choose an article in the Jacobin, which is described by Caroline O'Donovan in NiemanLab as a "Marxist rag run on a lot of petty-bourgeois hustle." You can read about the Nieman Foundation for Journalism if you like in Wikipedia. I don't doubt the sincerity of Premilla Anderson. She sounds very bitter and is lashing out. But if she would have done her homework, she should have realized how the title of her article and it's contents can be so ridiculous and easily debunked. But it was okay for publication in the Jacobin...that "Marxist rag".
You also cited a March 2014 article by Kevin Drum in Mother Jones by entitled, Democrats Have Done Virtually Nothing for the Middle Class in 30 Years. I like many of the articles I read in Mother Jones, and appreciate David Corn's appearances on MSNBC. Most of the current journalism is directed against Donald Trump and his administration. Kevin Drum I was less familiar with, but I looked him up and read some of his current articles. He's an okay guy, but a self acknowledged avid Bernie supporter. He mostly likes to write about photography. That's okay. And he makes a lot of sweeping generalizations without regard to facts.
His 2014 article is not one of his better literary pieces (the title is absurd) and exhibits much of the lashing out frustration that Democrats had at the time in 2014, including me, in Democrats' inability to make more inroads into the middle class electorate. And the reason for that is quite simple...Republicans are better at controlling the messaging, although Democrat's accomplishments and proposed programs to help the poor and middle class are far superior to those of the Republicans.
You also cited an article by Robert Reich with the title, Democrats once represented the working class. Not any more. It was published on November 10, 2016 immediately after Clinton's loss. Now I like Robert Reich and I like the Guardian. So this article caught my attention more than the one in the "Marxist rag".
Robert Reich served admirably as Secretary of Labor during Bill Clinton's first term in office (1992-1996) and according to Wikipedia, "during his tenure, he implemented the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), successfully lobbied to increase the minimum wage, lobbied to pass the School-to-Work Jobs Act, and to integrate all job-training and job-displacement programs so workers who lost their jobs could get access to all the help they needed to get new ones that paid at least as much as the old." I could not find anything that suggested an acrimonious relationship with Bill Clinton.
After leaving the Clinton administration, Reich published his memoirs in a book, ''Locked in the Cabinet,'' in which he was criticized by the media for "embellishing events with invented dialogue." Most notably as reported by the New York Times, Reich in his book "described dramatic episodes and dialogue that did not match the record of C-Span tapes and transcripts of Washington meetings". In his later paperback version of the book Reich made revisions, explaining in a foreword that ''memory is fallible.'' Nevertheless, it tarnished his reputation, and I for one do not accept verbatim everything that Reich says because he is also a founding member of the union funded Economic Policy Institute and has to tow the union line.
Anyway shifting back to the topic of Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. It is easy cherry pick in 20:20 hindsight that some of the provisions in the law did not work out as expected in 1994. Yes the law has been a factor in the incarceration of African Americans and some at the time pointed it out. But to be clear the act was much more than a "prison act".
It also included the Assault Weapons Ban, which "barred the manufacture of 19 specific semi-automatic firearms classified as "assault weapons", as well as any semi-automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine that has two or more features considered characteristic of such weapons. The list of such features included telescoping or folding stocks, pistol grips, flash suppressors, grenade launchers, and Bayonet lugs as well as the possession of newly manufactured magazines holding more than ten rounds of ammunition." Unfortunately, it had a 10 year sunset provision.
The 356 page act also included such things as a Violence Against Women Act, a Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, and Community Oriented Policing Services and much more that was to the liking of the populace at the time. But the prison and incarceration part of the act has received the most negative publicity of late, and even Bill Clinton regrets how that part of the law turned out different than intended.
Nevertheless in 1994 the Act had a populist appeal for that time. The act originated with Joe Biden in the Senate and after several rewrites ultimately passed 235-195 in the House with Bernie Sanders one of the "aye" votes. In the Senate it passed 61-38, with Democrats largely supportive and Republicans against because of the assault weapons ban. Notable 'aye' votes included Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy and Paul Wellstone.
It's fair to say that the votes on both sides reflected less about the prison incarceration part of the legislation and more about the assault weapons ban. That was the popular mood of the nation in 1994. Bill Clinton signed it into law.
Bill Clinton and Hillary by association have now been attacked repeatedly by the left for Bill Clinton signing the act into law. However, if he would have vetoed it, what would the left be crying now? "Bill Clinton vetoed the assault weapons ban!!" Or perhaps something like "the Clintons don't care about violence against women and children" the part of the act that would have been cut with a Clinton veto. That's how ugly politics can get, but that's why we need clear thinking centrists who do their homework and are not just grabbing headlines to make their case.
I lived the 2014 election up close knocking on doors, selling the Democratic Party proposed programs, and otherwise trying to educate the electorate on what we stand for...and on paper our view of the issues and practical solutions were far better than anything the Republicans offered at the time. But it was just so hard to change peoples' brains. So I absolutely disagree that Democrats don't care about the middle class or poor as you so often state, but I will agree that we don't know how to message like Republicans. This is what George Lakoff keeps harping about in his articles and I accept his criticism.
San Francisco Magazine: Rewiring the Democratic Brain With George Lakoff
We have much to learn, but attacking Democrats is not constructive to winning the 2018 midterm election.
This is a long winded response to your "dump" of several articles that "proved" your case. I submit that whenever you or the far left writers that you cite state that Democrats do not care about the working class or the middle class or the poor, you have not done your homework. Hating the Clintons is an obsession with you Chet that is not unlike Trump's hatred of Barack Obama. Hate doesn't do anything for the party. It just helps elect people like Donald Trump.
Schmidt , I don't need swaying. I came on the sight saying Hillary wasn't in touch with the hurting people and that she would lose the election because she and the DNC weren't in touch with the working class. Eventually by the time of the convention she made movement toward the hurting class but it was too little to late and lacked sincerity. You defended her original position and I haven't seen you move away from it. You were happy with the original platform and appeared to be anti Sanders platform. I haven't seen you sway one iota toward recognizing the problems. You challenged my opposition to the CFMA. A lot of things need changing but the mood of the country appears to be toward status quo and Incrementalism. The Parkwood massacre seems to have energized an awareness of the problem of change but unfortunately the solutions are from the anti gun group and there doesn't seem to be an anti killing of kids in school faction. Movement is incremental and status quo. Since the no more Parkwood statement there has been another school shooting. Status quo rules.