It’s totally unrealistic, but I think the netroots would make more progress for the country if we ignored the Presidential race and even the Senate races, and just focused on electing progressives to local, state, and House races. But, obviously, people are going to be most interested in the presidency. The problem for the netroots is that we don’t have a champion in the race.
If there is any kind of consensus at all, that consensus is that it would be a shame if Hillary Clinton won the nomination. It’s a little harder to answer why there is this anti-Hillary feeling. Part of it is over her vote authorizing force in Iraq. But that alone doesn’t distinguish her from Kerry, Edwards, Biden, or Dodd. Her refusal to apologize for that vote or call it a mistake isn’t helpful for those that would otherwise be inclined to forgive her, but that doesn’t explain the anti-Hillary feeling either.
There are some other factors at play. Electing a Clinton feels a little like electing a monarch. There is also an element of Clinton fatigue. No one wants to discuss Bill’s sex life. And there is concern that Hillary is so polarizing that she will hurt the Democrats chances in many areas of the country. All of this is a concern. But the real issue with Hillary is her close relationship with the Democratic Leadership Council. And the DLC has emerged in the Bush years as an opponent of the netroots and an opponent of Howard Dean, the 50-State plan, and all the different organizations that have spun out of Dean’s campaign.
It isn’t only the DLC that is hostile to the netroots. Outfits like The New Republic have also made themselves into enemies of the netroots. They work very hard to marginalize us and paint us as radicals. We also receive this treatment from the bigfoot press. Reporters like Adam Nagourney, David Broder, Richard Cohen, Thomas Friedman, and Joe Klein have all used their columns and articles to slam the netroots. Their most typical attacks aim to paint us as radicals that will lead the Democrats astray by pushing them too far to the left. Our biggest sin is in pushing the Democrats to oppose the war and do something to end it.
This has been the case ever since Howard Dean first questioned the wisdom of invading Iraq and it continues to be the case even after the bloodletting of the midterms.
Hillary Clinton is the representative of this common wisdom. You will hear her allies mouth these talking points over and over again. There is simply no way for us to make common cause with her because her operation is so fundamentally opposed to what we do and they do not think and never have thought that opposing this war was politically acceptable.
In spite of this reality, which is quite clear to most inhabitants of the blogosphere, Hillary Clinton remains enormously popular among rank and file Democrats. Her favorability among Democrats is 87%-10%. And, as Chris Bowers points out, Hillary is not only leading in the polls, but she is also leading as people’s second choice.
Bowers argues that Clinton is so strong that she can only be defeated by a large field of candidates. Since she is the second choice for supporters of Edwards and Obama, if either dropped out it would benefit Clinton.
He also argues that Edwards and Obama supporters should not tear each other down because they need both candidates to be strong for either to have any chance at beating Clinton. In other words, Edwards and Obama supporters should call a truce as part of a larger anti-Hillary strategy.
It’s nice advice but not very realistic. Campaigns cannot control their supporters like that. In my opinion, there isn’t any prospect of the netroots coalescing behind a single alternative to Hillary. Nor is there any prospect that supporters of Richardson will play nice with supporters of Obama or vice-versa.
But there is one thing that everyone that doesn’t support Hillary can do. And that is to take down her favorables among rank and file Democrats. If she maintains an 87-10 split there is no way she can lose.
But there are still problems with this. First of all, many of the typical attacks on Hillary are unfair. For example, she is definitely electable. She is definitely capable and qualified. Which leads me to my second point. Hillary is still the most likely Democratic nominee. And we don’t want to do the Republicans work for them by spreading mean-spirited and unfair attacks on our most likely nominee.
This all makes for a potentially toxic stew where the left and the netroots tears itself apart. I actually predict that this will happen for all the reasons I’ve laid out. I don’t think there is anyway it can be avoided as long as Hillary is ahead in the polls and is considered the clear front-runner. For me, this makes it all the more important that she doesn’t win the nomination.
And to be absolutely clear, I do not want Hillary Clinton to be our nominee but I don’t think she would be a bad President. Aside from his poor judgment with Monica Lewinsky, I don’t think her husband was a bad President. I have a lot of problems with individual policies that Clinton pursued, but when I compare him to other recent Presidents I have to give him high marks. I don’t think a Hillary presidency would be the end of the world. But I do hope we can do better. And I intend to oppose her candidacy because I think we need to move in a much different direction as a nation. I’m not sure that any of the candidates are likely to move in the directions I would like. But I know Hillary won’t. And it’s impossible to work with a campaign that sees us as the enemy.
And, yes, Paul Begala and James Carville should step down from their jobs at CNN unless they’re are prepared to appear with a big I SUPPORT HILLARY stamped on their foreheads.
