The blogosphere is atwitter because Hillary Clinton slammed MoveOn.org at a private fundraiser back in February. Specifically, she falsely alleged that the organization that was created to tell people it was time to “move on” from the Lewinsky scandal had opposed the war in Afghanistan.
“MoveOn didn’t even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that’s what we’re dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it’s primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don’t agree with them. They know I don’t agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me.”
I thought that Hillary Clinton agreed with MoveOn.org about the need to end the war in Iraq. But, either way, the focus on MoveOn misses the larger point. She didn’t just attack MoveOn.
“We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party.”
A more exact analysis would be that she does worse in caucuses because, to bring out the casual low-information voter to a caucus, organization is required. Obama has superior organization.
About Clinton’s remarks suggesting dismay over high Democratic activist turnout, [communications director Howard] Wolfson said, “I’ll let my statement stand as is.”
We all know that Obama has built a small donor database the size of Montana. This has also dismayed Hillary Clinton.
“Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] — which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down,” Clinton said to a meeting of donors. “
But it’s a mistake to equate this resource with MoveOn; Obama’s movement is so much broader than than that one organization of 3.2 million Americans. It includes, in a general sense, the progressive blogosphere and the whole new social networking-powered generation of young voters. It isn’t even accurate to call this the ‘activist base’ because ‘base’ indicates something solid that is always there. But Obama’s activists include more than reliable Democrats, many of whom have stuck with Clinton. Much of Obama’s ‘base’ is brand spanking new to politics and to the party. And there is nothing solid about them. If Clinton is the nominee, they will drift back into apathy. Or, if Obama is the nominee, they will form a new base, creating a durable governing majority for the left for a couple of generations.
A long time ago I said that Team Clinton hates us and that, if nominated, they will marginalize us and undo all the hard work we’ve put in and that Howard Dean has put in, to make the Democrats more progressive and more competitive all across the country. The Clinton campaign has fully vindicated my view. They hate and vilify Howard Dean, they criticize the 50-state strategy, they dislike the ‘activist base’ and consider its will to be illegitimate. They disagree with us on foreign policy and national security.
This is exactly what I have always said. My initial opposition to Clinton’s campaign was actually about self-preservation for our movement. Early on, I was dismayed at how many of my fellow bloggers seemed to be marching like lambs to the slaughter, even as their readers showed in poll after poll, less than 10% support for Clinton.
Fortunately, the readers took actions into their own hands and linked up with a nation of young people to organize Obama’s massive network.
Now the writing is on the wall for even the most myopic of pundits.
My guess is that the superdelegate tidal wave is about to begin.- Joke Line.
Obama’s victory is a victory for the activist base that stood up, when no else would, against the invasion of Iraq, against the Patriot Act, against outing our own spies, against Guantanamo Bay, against censoring the Downing Street Minutes, against illegal warrantless electronic surveillance, and against torture. Woe unto us, if we had not prevailed.