Mrs. Triangulation
Oct 2nd, 2005 at 8:00 pm by Susie
Matt Bai has an interesting cover story on Hillary Clinton in today’s Times Magazine. He really seems to understand the netroots - and why it presents a bigger problem for Clinton than her advisors think:
What Dean’s candidacy brought into the open, however, was another kind of growing and powerful tension in Democratic politics that had little to do with ideology. Activists often describe this divide as being between “insiders” and “outsiders,” but the best description I’ve heard came from Simon Rosenberg, a Democratic operative who runs the advocacy group N.D.N. (formerly New Democrat Network), which sprang from Clintonian centrism of the early 1990’s. As Rosenberg explained it, the party is currently riven between its “governing class” and its “activist class.” The former includes the establishment types who populate Washington - politicians, interest groups, consultants and policy makers. The second comprises “Net roots” Democrats on the local level; that is, grass-roots Democrats, many of whom were inspired by Dean and who connect to politics primarily online, through blogs or Web-based activist groups like MoveOn.org. The argument between the camps isn’t about policy so much as about tactics, and a lot of Democrats in Washington don’t even seem to know it’s happening.
The activist class believes, essentially, that Democrats in Washington have damaged the party by trying to negotiate and compromise with Republicans - in short, by trying to govern. The “Net roots” believe that an effective minority party should disengage from the governing process and eschew new proposals or big ideas. Instead, the party should dedicate itself to winning local elections and killing each new Republican proposal that comes down the track. To the activist class, trying to cut deals with Republicans is tantamount to appeasement. In fact, Rosenberg, an emerging champion of the activist class, told me, pointing to my notebook: “You have to use the word ‘appease.’ You have to use it. Because this is like Neville Chamberlain.”
This is an ominous development for Hillary Clinton, because the activists’ attack on the party hierarchy is a direct and long-simmering reaction to the Clintonism of the 90’s and the “third way” instinct of the D.L.C. Hillary herself remains popular, and she often goes out of her way to reassert her partisan credentials; at a June fund-raiser, for instance, she lashed out at the Republicans for not being “acquainted with the truth” and told her supporters, “We can’t ever, ever give in to the Republican agenda.” More recently, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the destruction of New Orleans, Clinton jumped from one television show to another to denounce the Bush administration as inept - a public stand, she surely knew, that would resonate with online activists who were demanding a more combative response to the crisis from Democratic leaders. Even so, the more Clinton teams up with her Republican colleagues and appears to move closer to them on social issues, the harder it will become to keep a foot on each side of this new intraparty divide.
I like and respect Hillary, and she comes across a lot better in person than she does on TV. (She’s a lot warmer - and yes, prettier.) But I have serious doubts about her ability to satisfy the growing desire for a kick-ass Democrat to take back the White House. Hillary’s support for the war and her highly-publicized joint ventures with people like Newt Gingrich won’t exactly inspire the netroots to hit the “donate” buttons, and unless she figures out a way to make activists happy, she’ll go into battle with less-than-enthusiastic troops.
We did the “hold your nose and support the nominee” thing the last time, and look how well that turned out.
So far, whenever I talk with other bloggers, the same name gets favorable reaction: Wes Clark. Why? Because he doesn’t take any shit from anybody. I think we’d need to see some of that same fire from her.
At last weekend’s anti-war demonstration I got into a discussion with four other women in my “demographic” (i.e., 40’s, well-paid, well-educated, mad-as-hell) and we all commented on how we are somehow on Hillary’s mailing list and receive the frequent mailings and pleas for money, yet none of us even bother to open them, let alone respond, and do not plan to do so unless she takes strong, unequivocal stands on the major issues of the day - starting with the war. We want leadership.
Most folks see Hillary’s cooperation with Republicans not as an effort to govern, but simply the urge to rule. The same urge as the Republican urge to be in power.
What we want is a government, not an empire.
what’s wrong with wanting power? we should only elect people who don’t want to be elected? sure, she’s ambitious. would we care as much as if she were a man? we would care, but as much? i don’t care if she wants the job. i care if she can do it.
Why isn’t it more openly acknowledged that backing Clark is to totally abandon the Democratic party? He’s popular because he is everything a DC Democrat is not. He’s never even won a fucking election.
Hilarious to see Markos Zuniga get all gooey over Reid and then abandon his party with Clark.
Kiss your country goodbye. We lost it December 12th, 2000, and it isn’t coming back. Dream on if you think somebody like Hillary can do anything.
She’s not a bad person, but she can’t even explain her war vote in a coherent forward political strategy. She’s terrible.
Wes Clark. How well did that work last time? Lord how hope springs eternal, how it blasts from the heavenly organs when discussing Democrats. Jesus what a total fucking disgrace.
The “Net rootsâ€? believe that an effective minority party should disengage from the governing process and eschew new proposals or big ideas. Instead, the party should dedicate itself to winning local elections and killing each new Republican proposal…
I hate it when jackasses try to speak for me. This guy clearly does NOT understand the netroots. Its not about always saying NO just for the hell of it, its about opposing CORRUPTION, LIES, and BAD GOVERNMENT.
Who pays this idiot? I want his job.
I’m still trying to figure what Hillary Clinton ever did to merit all of the attention beyond marrying a Democrat who became President; who was infidel to her and whom she forgave; then moved to Democratic New York and ran for the Senate against a nobody and won, principally because of the last name she bares. I understand that she has great political fundraising prowess and lived in the White House for eight years, but why does that qualify her to become President? I just don’t get it.
As for Wesley Clark; I think that his attempts to have the Clinton administration intervene in Rwanda; his diplomatic work in Bosnia, and the fact that he led and won the last war that America fought (against genocide, not oil)is a hell of a bigger accomplishment.
Certainly, any effective leader should have personal courage, and that can be said to be the case with both H. Clinton and Wes Clark. The difference might be that Hillary’s courage to remain married to “her man” is a sight less impressive to me than a General taking on the pentagon.
So who is best qualified to lead our nation? Hillary Clinton who said “I do” to a future President, or Wes Clark who said “I do” to our nation?
Juliette, I think you might be discounting the fact that she did have a significant role in her husband’s campaigns and his White House. I’m not saying it necessarily merits nominee status, but she did a little more than just live in the White House.
As to Hillary’s chances, I think if the war plays a factor in 2008 (and I think it will) her stance hurts her, and hurts her more than just from a netroots perspective. If netroots were her only problem, she could still get around it (as Kerry showed.) But I think netroots is more of an expression of a trend in the base than it is just a political force on its own.
As for the article, I disagree with the suggestion that netroots people don’t believe in compromise. Sure, there are some who do. But I think if you look at major bloggers like Kos or Atrios, they don’t attack compromise for compromise’s sake. They attack it because it never works. There’s no point to negotiation with the current Republican officials while the Democrats have no influence on legislative policy. They’ll end up giving up ground, gaining nothing, and still getting pummeled in the press. We’ve seen this over and over.
I would gleefully back a constitutional amendment that bans any first-degree relative of a President from ever running for the office. It’s never worked out well– JQ Adams was a good congressman, but only a slightly better president than his dad, who was lousy; poor Bobby Kennedy got whacked by the same Evil Forces who took out JFK, Ted has been a more effective Senator than he ever would have been as president, and now we’ve got at least two Bushies (which proves Marx’s maxim that history repeats itself as farce). Hell, even Benjamin Harrison, who was the grandson of a president, was thoroughly mediocre.
I liked Bill Clinton. I liked him even when he made policy decisions that I strongly disagreed with. I voted for him twice. I’m sure Hillary would be more than competent, and she won me over by laughing at all the properly funny (and filthy-funny) bits when I was sitting a row over from her at a play a couple years back. But I don’t want her to run because I hate this government-by-relation.
I actually liked Kerry. He wasn’t fierce enough on the campaign trail, but he was probably the major party nominee closest to my own views since Mondale. Closer to my views than Dean, actually, who I also liked.
Wes Clark would be ok, hell, anyone to the left of Ronald Reagan would be an improvement over what we have now. I’m sure I could work up some enthusiasm for Clark, Dean, or Feingold. But you know who I’d vote for gleefully?
Al Gore. He may have been to my right, he may have been stiff, but I haven’t seen any other Dem show quite the amount of outrage over the last 5 years than Al has. He stands for everything that Bush doesn’t. He shows the possibility of what could have happened if the Supreme Court hadn’t crowned Bush. And because he was so brutally screwed, he might be the only one who’s willing to consider, even for a second, the necessary levels of Vengeance that we need in a Democratic administration to ensure that this long, repeated theft of democracy that have been the Bush years will never happen again.
If we elect a democrate I don’t care if they have a pair of breasts or not, they need a pair of balls.
This morning on Meet the Press, WaPo’s Dan Balz characterized the Democratic Party thus: MoveOn vs. the Clintons, particularly over the Iraq war. He said there was a good probability of a strong anti-war Democrat emerging to challenge Hillary. The question is, who’s going to be the one to make that argument?
I swear to God, I wish Howard Dean hadn’t promised not to run if he was elected DNC Chair. He’s been right on almost every issue, AND he was right FIRST, which takes a courage that has been hard to find among leading Dems.
Wes Clark’s the last, and best, hope that I see on the near horizon.
Get a clue, paradox. Clark is popular precisely because he’s what a Democrat should be, DC or otherwise. Smart, gutsy, tireless, and steeped in the values that are the best hope of making liberalism politically relevant again. In other words, the sort of Democrat who could make our party worth not abandoning, if only there were more of ‘em.
The only “fucking disgrace” is that too many refuse to abandon their preconceptions and open their eyes to see what real leadership looks like.
Fortunately, more and more are starting to catch on. Hence Clark’s influence with the Out of Iraq caucus, and the success of his concomitant effort to get the truth out to the more moderate portion of the Fox audience. He has a vision and a strategy, and that’s more than you can say about any of the other 2008 hopefuls.
I think never having been elected works to Clark’s advantage. People are sick of politics as usual, and it’s going to take someone who can take the heat to handle Washington politics. Clark might not be my first choice, but my first choice can’t win, and I think Clark can.
I used to love Hillary, and she’s a great lawyer who worked in the most successful White House in history, but I don’t trust her. She’s too willing to play to the crowd, and too tied to the odious DLC.
I could get behind Al Gore if he’d keep being angry and stop making dumb moves.
The one who wants my vote is going to have to look GW in the face and call him a liar and a traitor. Thos e are not insults, they are facts. Anything less is spineless.
Of course, this is all futile, because we are never going to win another election while Diebold controls the machines.
Well, I’m one blogger who is not ga-ga over Clinton or Clark. My spouse tried to work with Clark’s team during the primary, and finally concluded that they, and Clark himself, were not ready for prime time.
I want a anti-war nominee, but I want it to be not just against the war in Iraq, but against the war here at home. I want someone who doesn’t just believe “testosterone issues” get you elected, because those are the ones the (still mostly) male-dominated media wants to discuss. I want a candidate, male or female, who talks about child care, universal healthcare, race, and most importantly, poverty.
I want John Edwards as the nominee, or at the very least, his clone.
“I hate it when jackasses try to speak for me.”
I thought that Bai’s portrait of the “activist class” was deliberately unfair.
MB, I am confused. You are supportive of John Edwards, a Senator who was very supportive of the Iraq war (too supportive IMO) and said this the day of the IWR vote:
“As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It’s about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability — a capability that could be less than a year away.
I believe that Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.”
Statement on the floor of the senate 9/12/02
also;
“Congress must also make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East. We must do more to support existing nonproliferation and disarmament programs that can help prevent access to the weapons-grade materials that tyrants such as Hussein want. We must demand America’s active and continuous involvement in addressing the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and in promoting democracy throughout the Arab world. We must commit to developing a national strategy for energy security, one that would reduce our reliance on the Middle East for such critical resources.
Iraq is a grave and growing threat. Hussein has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people.
Iraq’s destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and it poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam Hussein’s arsenal and would stop at nothing to use it against us. America must act, and Congress must make clear to Hussein that he faces a united nation.”
http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_09/alia/a2091910.htm
John Edwards Op Ed in the WAPO dated 9/17/02
That’s your idea of a great leader for the Democrats? One who repeats and justifies the GOP administration’s for starting an illegal invasion of another country?
Look, Edwards might be “good” on the poverty issue, but as Commander-in-chief, that just not enough. Edwards was very naive about Iraq, and that disqualifies him in my book.
Plus, it’s not like there is any money left in the treasury to implement any programs for the poor. Maybe if Edwards had any remote capabilities of going to the Pentagon and asking for cutting of the pork, he might be someone to look at, but he won’t. He’ll have to prove National Security bonafides instead. On the other hand, Clark has already said that he would cut pentagon pork, and for that, he has my vote.
Clark will be in the Lion’s Den via Fox’s Billy O’reilly this evening discussing his Exit plan for Iraq. He’s at a point of talking “Exit Strategy” like NOW to those who most supported the invasion. Now that’s a leader for ya!