With the DLC conversation in the post below raging forward, I think this is one misconception widespread enough it that its correction should be bumped up to the front page: The DLC has nothing to do with triangulation. They don't. Not at all. Triangulation was entirely Dick Morris's word, idea, and concept. Morris, a mostly-Republican operative, thought Clinton could take the good from both sides, drop the bad, and thus transcend partisan differences. So the triangle, with bottom point "a" being one party, bottom point "b" being the other, and the top point being the President rising above both.
That's not what the DLC wants. They believe they've created a new ideological structure, similar to how neoconservatism has brought new foreign policy ideas to the Republicans party, they want to bring new domestic ideas (and occasionally foreign) to the Democratic party. They want a party that's more market-based, more concentrated on growth, more deficit-centered, more concerned with correctly responding to globalization, more intent on fostering "the Information Age", etc.
You may think they're right or wrong on these tenets, or that their policies do/do not achieve these ends, but their motivation isn't moderation for moderation's sake. Don't get me wrong: there's plenty to criticize the DLC for, but too often they get criticized for what they're not. And they are not triangulators, nor the inventors of triangulation, nor advocates of its continued use. And we should get that right.
