G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
Hillary Rolls On: Are Netroots a Paper Tiger?
By Jeff Cohen
Created Sep 4 2007 - 1:05pm
As a longtime progressive tired of ineffective protesting, I've watched in
glee as MoveOn has amassed political power by Webbing a few million of us
and our dollars together. I'm a proud MoveOn member, even though I disagree
sometimes with its leaders (mostly over too-cozy relations with top
Democrats).
And as a longtime proponent of independent media, I'm gleeful that
liberal/progressive bloggers have seized a new medium to mobilize millions
of activists and confront a Democratic elite that seemed unwilling to
confront and beat Team Bush.
Given my glee, it's difficult for me to have to pose this question: Are the
Netroots a paper tiger - more roar than bite?
Despite being overwhelmingly opposed to the nomination of Hillary Clinton,
the Netroots have so far done little to slow down her coronation. Boosted by
celebrity-worshipping corporate media (and a maximum donation from Rupert
Murdoch himself), Hillary Clinton keeps rolling on - allied with the
corporate lobbyists and Democratic insiders [1] loathed even by moderately
liberal bloggers.
Meanwhile, Clinton has never been popular among the Netroots. She's never
moved out of single digits in the (unscientific) monthly straw poll of
DailyKos readers, while John Edwards has averaged 38 percent in the last six
months among Kossacks, with Barack Obama averaging 26 percent.
In an April straw poll of MoveOn members following a virtual town hall on
Iraq, the results were Obama (28%), Edwards (25%), Dennis Kunicich (17%) and
Bill Richardson (12%) - followed by Clinton in fifth place with 11 percent.
Clinton did better following a July town hall on climate change, but
finished in third place, 17 points behind Edwards.
The reality is stark: While it's hard to find a MoveOn leader or respected
progressive blogger who supports Clinton, they can't (or won't) stop her.
Several factors may explain why most Netroots leaders are not taking
stronger action:
1) They "misunderestimate" the potential hazards of another Clinton White
House.
While progressives desperately want a Democratic president, the last Clinton
in the White House subverted the progressive agenda. Eight years of
Clintonite triangulation caused the Democratic Party to decline at every
level of government [2]. Hillary today is surrounded by the same staff and
would likely appoint the same corporate types [3] to top jobs as Clinton I,
where big decisions were often corrupt and calculated toward moneyed
interests.
The toughest brawl Bill Clinton was willing to wage (besides saving his own
hide from impeachment) was against the Democratic base: for the
corporate-backed NAFTA. Through the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Bill
brought us far more media conglomeration than George W. He pardoned
well-connected fugitive financier Marc Rich, while leaving Native American
activist Leonard Peltier to rot in prison despite pleas from Amnesty
International [4] and others.
Hillary's contribution to Clinton I was her botched healthcare proposal, a
corporate-originated "reform" [5] that would have enshrined a half-dozen of
the largest insurance companies at the center of the system, and was so
convoluted it never came up for a vote.
What we've seen of Hillary Clinton in the Senate and on the campaign trail
suggests that Clinton II would indeed be a sorry sequel. Today she's winning
the endorsement of Republican CEOs, after having had Murdoch host a benefit
for her at the Fox News building in 2006. Just as Bill Clinton's spine
achieved a rare firmness while battling for NAFTA, we recently observed in
Hillary a rare passion and firmness on a single issue: her YearlyKos defense
of lobbyists, including those who "represent corporations that employ a lot
of people." [6]
Like Bill campaigning as a populist and governing as a corporatist,
Hillary's stump speech proclaims she'll end the Iraq war in January 2009,
while she assures the New York Times of a long-term U.S. military presence
inside Iraq. She's tried to explain away her vote to authorize the war, but
avoids mention of her even more dubious vote hours earlier against requiring
United Nations approval (or, if U.N. approval failed, a second Congressional
authorization) before war could begin. Her overall bellicosity on Iran and
the Middle East wins praise from conservative pundits; her
"Israel-right-or-wrong" stance could make Christian Zionists blush.
In too much of the liberal blogosphere, history begins with the Florida
election theft of 2000, and events before that time seem ancient and
irrelevant. There is insufficient grasp of how the Clintons' rise to power
was intertwined with the corporate-sponsored Democratic Leadership
Conference - set up 22 years ago to weaken the power of the grassroots
(labor, feminist, civil rights) inside the party. Still on the attack in
2004, the DLC targeted new villains, like MoveOn and the Dean upsurge.
2) They want to be Democratic "team players."
Matt Bai's new book on the Democratic Party, "The Argument," has a passing
reference to Hillary Clinton's courtship of MoveOn leaders in private
meetings: "Her charm appeared to have paid off: while MoveOn's members
remained furious at Clinton for voting with Bush on the war resolution, its
leaders refused to criticize her publicly."
In truth, MoveOn leaders have gone beyond refusing to publicly criticize
Hillary Clinton - actually finding bizarre excuses to praise her on some of
her worst issues, like Iran [7] and Iraq [8]. During the 2006 Democratic
Senate primary in New York, it was not a shock that MoveOn's leadership
would not help Clinton's antiwar challenger, Jonathan Tasini, an
under-funded long shot. But what purpose was served by not criticizing her
when she brazenly refused to even debate Tasini on the war - or by lauding
her for a McCain-like critique of Don Rumsfeld's war "mismanagement"?
With MoveOn avoiding criticism of Clinton in '05, '06 and half of '07, then
when?
Netroots leaders seem almost mute today as Hillary Clinton makes full use of
old media/old money advantages. Bloggers who loudly championed the Dean
insurgency are oddly quiescent as the candidate of the party establishment
gains ground. Have these young insurgents become Democratic Party elder
statespersons - team players first and foremost? Has the courtship by Party
insiders quieted them?
What animated the meteoric growth of MoveOn and progressive blogs was a
crucial insight: that the Democratic establishment was too spineless or
clueless to stand up to the Bush agenda. This insight has never been more
relevant than now - with Bush an unpopular lame duck and Democratic leaders
in Congress offering "little other than one failure after the next since
taking power in January," in Glenn Greenwald's words.
Ancient history, from 1993-1994, teaches us that loyalty to party should
never come before loyalty to principles - and that which Democrats hold
power can be as important as whether Democrats hold power. I was a young(er)
columnist when Bill Clinton entered the White House and Democrats controlled
Congress. We didn't get promised campaign finance reform; we didn't get
promised investment in the cities; we didn't even get a vote on healthcare -
since the Clintons had undermined and triangulated the 100 Democrats in
Congress co-sponsoring a bill for nonprofit National Health Insurance. But
we did get NAFTA.
And soon - inevitably and predictably -we got the Gingrich
counterrevolution.
3) There's no Dean campaign to unite them - just "Edwama."
In the last three months of DailyKos reader polls [9], Edwards and Obama
have combined for more than 60 percent of the vote - as against only 8
percent for Clinton.
Despite being hammered by corporate media [10], Edwards retains deep
Netroots support as he pushes a progressive, populist message [11] that
evokes Bobby Kennedy's 1968 campaign. Fueled by Internet fundraising, Obama
has inspired a huge grassroots following, especially among youth and people
of color. Both are tagging Clinton as the candidate of moneyed lobbyists.
Either - especially Edwards - would likely appoint a cabinet quite different
than the corporate Clintonites one would get from Hillary. At this stage, it
looks like only Edwards or Obama can beat Clinton; polls of Iowa Democrats
show a three-way race among them.
Were Edwards or Obama to drop out of the race today, Netroots support would
likely galvanize behind the other. The current 63-8 percent "Edwama" edge
over Clinton among Kossacks would become at least a 50-15 percent landslide
for Edwards or for Obama. (And it's hard to argue Clinton is more electable
in a general election, since she provokes even more loathing among
conservatives than wariness among progressive activists.)
The reality is that neither Edwards nor Obama is dropping out. There is no
Dean candidate at the moment.
But that should not prevent Netroots leaders and progressive bloggers from
speaking out loudly and clearly about their objections to Clinton's policies
and associations, and the negative consequences of her leading the Democrats
in 2008 - in long-term electability, governance and movement building.
Reporting the results of his July straw poll in which Edwama outpolled
Clinton 7 to 1, DailyKos founder Markos gloated that he was among the 5
percent who voted "No Freakin' Clue": "I'm enjoying the campaigns without
any emotional investment in any of them. It's quite liberating. I wish more
of you would give it a shot."
Here was a key Netroots backer of Dean sitting on the sidelines four years
later, encouraging a laissez-faire attitude over who is the 2008 Democratic
nominee.
If 2004 taught anything, it's that it matters mightily who the nominee is.
Despite all the organizing, fundraising, phone-banking, canvassing and
concertizing, it's hard to beat even a discredited Republican with a
Democratic candidate who comes across as a vacillating and calculating
Washington insider.
I was never prouder to be a MoveOn member as when, after Kerry's defeat, Eli
Pariser of MoveOn PAC blasted corporate Democrats in a mass email: "For
years, the Party has been led by elite Washington insiders who are closer to
corporate lobbyists than they are to the Democratic base. But we can't
afford four more years of leadership by a consulting class of professional
election losers." Eli's email called for a "bold Democratic vision" - not a
phrase typically associated with Hillary Clinton.
In a bit of hyperbole, Eli proclaimed on behalf of grassroots donors who'd
given $300 million to Kerry and the Democrats: "Now it's our Party. We
bought it, we own it, we're going to take it back." But unlike owners,
Netroots leaders today act more like field hands - deferring to other powers
the selection of the candidate.
If Clinton coasts to the Democratic nomination without need of Netroots
support, the "elite Washington insiders" denounced by Eli will be laughing -
ad commissions in hand - all the way to the bank.
And they'll be ridiculing the Netroots as a paper tiger.
_______
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
By Jeff Cohen
Created Sep 4 2007 - 1:05pm
As a longtime progressive tired of ineffective protesting, I've watched in
glee as MoveOn has amassed political power by Webbing a few million of us
and our dollars together. I'm a proud MoveOn member, even though I disagree
sometimes with its leaders (mostly over too-cozy relations with top
Democrats).
And as a longtime proponent of independent media, I'm gleeful that
liberal/progressive bloggers have seized a new medium to mobilize millions
of activists and confront a Democratic elite that seemed unwilling to
confront and beat Team Bush.
Given my glee, it's difficult for me to have to pose this question: Are the
Netroots a paper tiger - more roar than bite?
Despite being overwhelmingly opposed to the nomination of Hillary Clinton,
the Netroots have so far done little to slow down her coronation. Boosted by
celebrity-worshipping corporate media (and a maximum donation from Rupert
Murdoch himself), Hillary Clinton keeps rolling on - allied with the
corporate lobbyists and Democratic insiders [1] loathed even by moderately
liberal bloggers.
Meanwhile, Clinton has never been popular among the Netroots. She's never
moved out of single digits in the (unscientific) monthly straw poll of
DailyKos readers, while John Edwards has averaged 38 percent in the last six
months among Kossacks, with Barack Obama averaging 26 percent.
In an April straw poll of MoveOn members following a virtual town hall on
Iraq, the results were Obama (28%), Edwards (25%), Dennis Kunicich (17%) and
Bill Richardson (12%) - followed by Clinton in fifth place with 11 percent.
Clinton did better following a July town hall on climate change, but
finished in third place, 17 points behind Edwards.
The reality is stark: While it's hard to find a MoveOn leader or respected
progressive blogger who supports Clinton, they can't (or won't) stop her.
Several factors may explain why most Netroots leaders are not taking
stronger action:
1) They "misunderestimate" the potential hazards of another Clinton White
House.
While progressives desperately want a Democratic president, the last Clinton
in the White House subverted the progressive agenda. Eight years of
Clintonite triangulation caused the Democratic Party to decline at every
level of government [2]. Hillary today is surrounded by the same staff and
would likely appoint the same corporate types [3] to top jobs as Clinton I,
where big decisions were often corrupt and calculated toward moneyed
interests.
The toughest brawl Bill Clinton was willing to wage (besides saving his own
hide from impeachment) was against the Democratic base: for the
corporate-backed NAFTA. Through the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Bill
brought us far more media conglomeration than George W. He pardoned
well-connected fugitive financier Marc Rich, while leaving Native American
activist Leonard Peltier to rot in prison despite pleas from Amnesty
International [4] and others.
Hillary's contribution to Clinton I was her botched healthcare proposal, a
corporate-originated "reform" [5] that would have enshrined a half-dozen of
the largest insurance companies at the center of the system, and was so
convoluted it never came up for a vote.
What we've seen of Hillary Clinton in the Senate and on the campaign trail
suggests that Clinton II would indeed be a sorry sequel. Today she's winning
the endorsement of Republican CEOs, after having had Murdoch host a benefit
for her at the Fox News building in 2006. Just as Bill Clinton's spine
achieved a rare firmness while battling for NAFTA, we recently observed in
Hillary a rare passion and firmness on a single issue: her YearlyKos defense
of lobbyists, including those who "represent corporations that employ a lot
of people." [6]
Like Bill campaigning as a populist and governing as a corporatist,
Hillary's stump speech proclaims she'll end the Iraq war in January 2009,
while she assures the New York Times of a long-term U.S. military presence
inside Iraq. She's tried to explain away her vote to authorize the war, but
avoids mention of her even more dubious vote hours earlier against requiring
United Nations approval (or, if U.N. approval failed, a second Congressional
authorization) before war could begin. Her overall bellicosity on Iran and
the Middle East wins praise from conservative pundits; her
"Israel-right-or-wrong" stance could make Christian Zionists blush.
In too much of the liberal blogosphere, history begins with the Florida
election theft of 2000, and events before that time seem ancient and
irrelevant. There is insufficient grasp of how the Clintons' rise to power
was intertwined with the corporate-sponsored Democratic Leadership
Conference - set up 22 years ago to weaken the power of the grassroots
(labor, feminist, civil rights) inside the party. Still on the attack in
2004, the DLC targeted new villains, like MoveOn and the Dean upsurge.
2) They want to be Democratic "team players."
Matt Bai's new book on the Democratic Party, "The Argument," has a passing
reference to Hillary Clinton's courtship of MoveOn leaders in private
meetings: "Her charm appeared to have paid off: while MoveOn's members
remained furious at Clinton for voting with Bush on the war resolution, its
leaders refused to criticize her publicly."
In truth, MoveOn leaders have gone beyond refusing to publicly criticize
Hillary Clinton - actually finding bizarre excuses to praise her on some of
her worst issues, like Iran [7] and Iraq [8]. During the 2006 Democratic
Senate primary in New York, it was not a shock that MoveOn's leadership
would not help Clinton's antiwar challenger, Jonathan Tasini, an
under-funded long shot. But what purpose was served by not criticizing her
when she brazenly refused to even debate Tasini on the war - or by lauding
her for a McCain-like critique of Don Rumsfeld's war "mismanagement"?
With MoveOn avoiding criticism of Clinton in '05, '06 and half of '07, then
when?
Netroots leaders seem almost mute today as Hillary Clinton makes full use of
old media/old money advantages. Bloggers who loudly championed the Dean
insurgency are oddly quiescent as the candidate of the party establishment
gains ground. Have these young insurgents become Democratic Party elder
statespersons - team players first and foremost? Has the courtship by Party
insiders quieted them?
What animated the meteoric growth of MoveOn and progressive blogs was a
crucial insight: that the Democratic establishment was too spineless or
clueless to stand up to the Bush agenda. This insight has never been more
relevant than now - with Bush an unpopular lame duck and Democratic leaders
in Congress offering "little other than one failure after the next since
taking power in January," in Glenn Greenwald's words.
Ancient history, from 1993-1994, teaches us that loyalty to party should
never come before loyalty to principles - and that which Democrats hold
power can be as important as whether Democrats hold power. I was a young(er)
columnist when Bill Clinton entered the White House and Democrats controlled
Congress. We didn't get promised campaign finance reform; we didn't get
promised investment in the cities; we didn't even get a vote on healthcare -
since the Clintons had undermined and triangulated the 100 Democrats in
Congress co-sponsoring a bill for nonprofit National Health Insurance. But
we did get NAFTA.
And soon - inevitably and predictably -we got the Gingrich
counterrevolution.
3) There's no Dean campaign to unite them - just "Edwama."
In the last three months of DailyKos reader polls [9], Edwards and Obama
have combined for more than 60 percent of the vote - as against only 8
percent for Clinton.
Despite being hammered by corporate media [10], Edwards retains deep
Netroots support as he pushes a progressive, populist message [11] that
evokes Bobby Kennedy's 1968 campaign. Fueled by Internet fundraising, Obama
has inspired a huge grassroots following, especially among youth and people
of color. Both are tagging Clinton as the candidate of moneyed lobbyists.
Either - especially Edwards - would likely appoint a cabinet quite different
than the corporate Clintonites one would get from Hillary. At this stage, it
looks like only Edwards or Obama can beat Clinton; polls of Iowa Democrats
show a three-way race among them.
Were Edwards or Obama to drop out of the race today, Netroots support would
likely galvanize behind the other. The current 63-8 percent "Edwama" edge
over Clinton among Kossacks would become at least a 50-15 percent landslide
for Edwards or for Obama. (And it's hard to argue Clinton is more electable
in a general election, since she provokes even more loathing among
conservatives than wariness among progressive activists.)
The reality is that neither Edwards nor Obama is dropping out. There is no
Dean candidate at the moment.
But that should not prevent Netroots leaders and progressive bloggers from
speaking out loudly and clearly about their objections to Clinton's policies
and associations, and the negative consequences of her leading the Democrats
in 2008 - in long-term electability, governance and movement building.
Reporting the results of his July straw poll in which Edwama outpolled
Clinton 7 to 1, DailyKos founder Markos gloated that he was among the 5
percent who voted "No Freakin' Clue": "I'm enjoying the campaigns without
any emotional investment in any of them. It's quite liberating. I wish more
of you would give it a shot."
Here was a key Netroots backer of Dean sitting on the sidelines four years
later, encouraging a laissez-faire attitude over who is the 2008 Democratic
nominee.
If 2004 taught anything, it's that it matters mightily who the nominee is.
Despite all the organizing, fundraising, phone-banking, canvassing and
concertizing, it's hard to beat even a discredited Republican with a
Democratic candidate who comes across as a vacillating and calculating
Washington insider.
I was never prouder to be a MoveOn member as when, after Kerry's defeat, Eli
Pariser of MoveOn PAC blasted corporate Democrats in a mass email: "For
years, the Party has been led by elite Washington insiders who are closer to
corporate lobbyists than they are to the Democratic base. But we can't
afford four more years of leadership by a consulting class of professional
election losers." Eli's email called for a "bold Democratic vision" - not a
phrase typically associated with Hillary Clinton.
In a bit of hyperbole, Eli proclaimed on behalf of grassroots donors who'd
given $300 million to Kerry and the Democrats: "Now it's our Party. We
bought it, we own it, we're going to take it back." But unlike owners,
Netroots leaders today act more like field hands - deferring to other powers
the selection of the candidate.
If Clinton coasts to the Democratic nomination without need of Netroots
support, the "elite Washington insiders" denounced by Eli will be laughing -
ad commissions in hand - all the way to the bank.
And they'll be ridiculing the Netroots as a paper tiger.
_______
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson