Why The Blogosphere and the Netroots Do Not Like Hillary Clinton

by Chris Bowers, Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 10:21:57 AM EST

bumped again--jonathan

Mystery Pollster has been writing up quite a few good articles lately, including Muskie in'70, And Pew Makes Four, and So When Is An Attitude Really An Attitude?. These are all cool posts, but the one I would like to comment upon comes from last week, Hillary, The Blogs, and The Base.

I have placed my discussion in the extended entry. Please check it out. It is long and elliptical, but I really think it is worth a read.

First, I'd like to jump into a discussion that Mystery Pollster only glanced at:This leads to me want to rephrase Perlmutter's question: Do blogs represent the Democratic "base?"

The answer may depend in part on how what we mean by "the base." Are we talking about voters who think of themselves as Democrats? Or are we talking about only those who vote in primaries, who consistently support Democratic candidates or feel "strongly" about their party affiliation? Or are we talking about the yet smaller populations of those who donate to campaigns or who are active as supporters in the grass- or net-roots?

I do not know which of these three terms is the proper use of the term "base" in a political context. I do know, however, that the netroots and the blogosphere are best characterized by the third possibility, "the yet smaller populations of those who donate to campaigns or who are active as supporters in the grass- or net-roots." To be as blunt as I can, anyone who does not know this by now really just does not understand political blogging at all (not that I'm accusing Mystery Pollster and David Perlmutter of not knowing this, as I believe they do know this). This is really basic stuff. Bloggers and blog readers are not "the people." When understood as a group, they are not representative of America either in terms of demography or in terms of political engagement.

Political blog readers are the highly engaged avant-garde of American politics. As last year's Blogads survey showed, their level of engagement in politics is incredibly high. 67% said donated to a political campaign in 2004, compared to 15% nationwide. 72% of blog readers said they signed a petition in 2004, 66% said they contacted an elected official, 44% said they wrote a letter to the editor, and 43% said that they attended a campaign event. Further, among self-identified Democratic Blog readers, these percentages were actually much higher. Other studies of netroots activists, such as the study of Dean activists conducted by Pew, have shown similar, or even greater, levels of political engagement among the netroots.

I write this to try and put to bed, once and for all, two of the major stereotypes about bloggers. First, while many blog utopianists would have you believe otherwise, bloggers are not the people, and the blogosphere is not a spontaneous rise of the political rank and file to challenge to establishment. Blog readers are actually wealthy, highly educated, and highly politically active. That is not the profile of the rank and file of any political party (although it is more the profile of the Republican rank and file than the Democratic rank and file). The already linked demographics of blog readers demonstrate how different they are from the rest of the nation. Also, as David Perlmutter puts it:

When we look at actual surveys of bloggers we find that they may be high in number but they tend to come from the higher-education and upper-income portions of the population, which is as true in Kyrgyzstan or Nigeria as it is in the United States. In the U.S., bloggers are overwhelmingly white, and a majority are male. At the same time, this also disproves the other main stereotype about the blogosphere. Although many detractors, from Bill O'Reilly to Gary Trudaeu, would have you think otherwise, blog readers are actually wealthy, highly educated, and highly politically active. To again quote from Perlmutter: But...even if blogs are not vox populi it does not follow that, as blog critics love to taunt, bloggers are the fringe-dwellers, tinfoil-hatters, anti-fluorides and loony Star Trek fans of American political life. To the contrary, while bloggers may not be the people, there is growing evidence that they have an extraordinary and extra-proportional effect on the people--and politics, campaigns and elections, public affairs, policy making, press agendas and coverage, and public opinion. Vocal minorities, we should recall, have in political history changed the world and affected the fate of millions. The audience of the blogosphere is full of political activists, and the blogosphere has emerged as the primary means for progressive to communicate with a large segment of their activist class. That segment is perhaps best understood as the "creative class" segment of the progressive activist class. Got it?

Now I can explain what this all has to do with Hillary Clinton. As obvious as I thought my last point was, it is probably even more obvious by now that Hillary Clinton is, um, not exactly the most popular Democrat within the blogosphere and the netroots. I can offer loads of anecdotal information to support this, but perhaps the most striking evidence is that despite her large lead in national telephone surveys, she polls around fifth or sixth in our presidential preference polls. The real question we face is to figure out why she is not very popular among this large segment of the progressive activist class.

People will offer lots of reasons for this. In the past, I have done so myself. However, when one understands who actually makes up the blogosphere, a rarely, if ever, discussed reason comes to the fore. Within the progressive activist universe, there is also a very real class stratification. While the blogosphere and the netroots may not be "the people" within America or the Democratic party as a whole, within the world of progressive activists, they are definitely "the people,""the masses,""the rank and file," and any other populist term you want to throw out there. I believe the main mark against Hillary Clinton within the blogs and the netroots is the degree to which she is perceived as the uber-representative of the upper, aristocratic classes of the progressive activist world.

Really consider this idea. As an example, think about the way it realtes to fundraising. The main division in American political fundraising is not between large donors and small donors, but between people who donate the political campaigns and people who do not. When it comes to politics, big donors and small donors are similar in almost every way except that one group is wealthier than the other. Both small donors and wealthy donors are activists, and both highly politically engaged. However, those who donate to political campaigns are very different than those who do not, in that their levels of political engagement differ widely. "The people" do not donate to political campaigns, only activists do. However, within the world of donors, "the people" are the small donors. Small donors are the working and middle classes in the world of progressive activists, and hold much of the same class-based animosity against wealthy donors that the working and middle classes of America hold against "big business" plutocrats. Within the world of progressive activists, Hillary Clinton is seen as hopelessly on the side of the big donors, and against the small donors.

And this applies to more areas than just fundraising. Within the world of progressive activists, from the viewpoint of the working and middle class progressive activists, Hillary Clinton is seen as hopelessly aligned with the establishment activists, with the insider activists, with the wealthy activists, with the well-connected activists, and with every possible progressive activist "elite" you can possibly imagine. Is it thus in any way surprising that the activist base, which is largely on the outside looking in, generally does not harbor much positive feeling toward her? The progressive activist base considers the progressive activist elite to be the main culprit in progressives losing power around the country. We keep losing, and we blame them. Thus, why should it be a surprise to anyone that we dislike the person who is viewed as their primary representative? We literally hold her, and what she represents within the world of progressive activism, to be responsible for the massive progressive backslide that has taken place over the past twelve years.

This also present significant insight into what the progressive activist base does like. First and foremost, we like progressive who challenge the activist elite and who do not seem to be of the activist elite. Just look at Howard Dean's 2003 speech at the California Democratic convention, which was a major turning point online in the 2003-2004 primaries, and remains a seminal moment in the history of the netroots. The entire beginning of the speech takes direct aim at the Democratic activist elite, and appeals for support directly from the progressive activist base.

Now, look at progressive netroots preference for 2008 once again. The entire top tier--Senator Feingold, General Clark, Governor Warner and Senator Edwards--is filled with candidates who are perceived as coming from outside the progressive activist elite, or who regularly challenge that elite. These are candidates who are perceived by the activist base as for the activist base, rather than for the activist elite. Senator Feingold, who is viewed as perhaps the ultimate progressive maverick, is now comfortably leading these polls.

I believe that Hillary Clinton is disliked by a large segment of the progressive activist base primarily because she is perceived by the activist base as standing with the progressive activist elite. In 2008, I believe the Democratic candidate who will do best among the netroots will be the candidate who does the best job of overtly distancing themselves from the progressive activist elite while still representing him or herself as standing with the progressive activist base. In retrospect, this is pretty much exactly how the Dean campaign was able to portray itself, and portray Howard Dean, to the activist base in 2003. I intentionally list the Dean campaign and Howard Dean as two separate entities, because for any Presidential campaign to succeed among the netroots next cycle, it needs to portray not only its candidate, but itself as representative of the progressive activist base.

Figuring out exactly how a campaign does this will not be easy. In order for any campaign to pull it off, they will need to draw upon staffers and consultants from within the netroots itself. It is simply not possible to use institutional staffers and well-heeled consultants to pull this off, and not just because I don't believe such staffers and consultants would understand the nature of the beast with which they are dealing. The main problem is that the use of institutional staffers and well-heeled consultants are one of the primary complaints the progressive activist base has against the progressive elite, and no matter how brilliant those people may or may not be, they will usually be considered part of the problem on an a priori level.

I really think I am on to something here, and I would like to hear your thoughts on this matter. Is there really a class divide within the world of progressive activists, and could it be the primary source of not only blogosphere dislike of Hillary Clinton, but of our friction with nearly the entire Democratic establishment? Let me know.

Tags: Blogosphere (all tags)

  • 178 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

178 Comments

Shadow_head_small
brilliant post
by Matt Stoller 2006-01-13 10:17AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
substance over style
A few things:

  1. The survey you discuss has some methodological problems (e.g., it focuses only on those blogs with enough readership to attract blogads, which I believe excludes a large number of blogs -- the "long tail." My guess is that there is a lot of stuff going on in that long tail.) On the other hand, I'll guess it's largely accurate.

  2. The average income for blog readers hovers around $70,000. That is a very large number. I don't know what the variance is, but my guess is that it's not large enough to include the "working class." (I'll take a stab in the dark and interpret that income as per individual, not per family; not sure how the question was phrased. In general, I wouldn't be surprised if blogs skewed young so that $70k is either for a single person household or a DINKy or at least DIKy one.)

So I don't see how you can interpret the Hiliary Clinton distaste as a mild case of "class warfare". To do so you would want to figure out what the average income (or income distribution) of a Clinton donor. My guess is that it probably hits the same income distribution.

  1. You use the phrase "well-connected" and "insider" to describe Clinton donors. My guess is that this is mostly a stereotype. Clinton has a great deal of support among Democrats -- as you've noted yourself, she polls high in telephone surveys that presumably don't work from the secret DLC phonebook.

  2. My analysis: the reason Clinton polls so poorly among the grassroots is that she's perceived as insincere. She'll rally the best one day, and then go out and pal with Newt the next. Bloggers prefer greater predictability and control in their candidate: they have strong opinions and (good!) ideas, and they support candidates who go out and follow through on them.

That's why they (and I) supported Dean: they knew they could trust him to get on television and speak the truth about the Bush administration. Similar things can be said, e.g., for Clark and so forth (but not Kucinich, who many rightly perceived as the professional loser.)

To put it another way: bloggers see a much greater overlap between politics and the media. They support candidates who use their media platform to promote -- unambiguously -- progressive ideas.

by sdedeo 2006-01-13 10:33AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: substance over style
1. Yes, it has methodological problems, but it also had 30,000 responses. That is a prety large smaple size. And the entire notion that it is restricted to larger blogs does not seem to be a problem for me. Larger blogs actually strike me as necessarily more representative of the netroots. After all, they are large because a lot of netroots people read them.

2. Note that I repeatedly emphasized that progresive activists are only working and middle class within the world of progressive activists. They make a lot less than the millionaire donors who can drop $2K on several campaigns. The entire notion of the blogopshere being working class is only in the context of the progressive activist and donor community.

3. I use those phrases to describe her activist support. She does in fact have a lot of nationwide support among the Demcoratic rank and file, but within the activist community her support comes from the activist elite. The class strucutre I am talking about here is entirely within the world of the activist community--not nationwide.

by Chris Bowers 2006-01-13 11:08AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: substance over style
Two random thoughts:

  1. Cell phones.  Telephone polls exclude cell phones, and therefore probably underpoll a significant progressive demographic, the youth.

  2. I've heard a fair amount of anger at HRC from big donors as well as small.  This article doesn't quite jibe with the elitist point:

Although it is still more than two years before the main parties in the United States decide on their candidates for the 2008 presidential election, it is widely assumed that the Democratic Party candidate will be the junior senator from New York, Hillary Clinton.

You might expect the political conversation among Democrats to be along the lines of "is Hillary electable" (given the preponderance of red states on the American political map) but as I discovered during a recent visit to the US, many in her natural base have already washed their hands of her.

At a dinner party in New York last week with a group that included writers, lawyers, a former senior staff member for the Clinton administration and a columnist for The New York Times, the hatred of Hillary Clinton was unconcealed. It was articulated with the passion of people scorned. Clinton has not just disappointed, she has betrayed them. I might have been more surprised at the way these Upper West Side liberals were slagging off at someone many of them would once have seen as a political ally, if not a personal friend, had it not been for a pretty savage piece in that week's New York magazine.

"The Trouble with Hillary" by columnist Kurt Andersen pretty much covered the waterfront of why Clinton is disdained by so many New York liberals. She is "all about cool calculation and calibration in service of the main chance", Anderson wrote, but unlike her husband, who was equally calculating, she lacks his charm and appearance of sincerity. One problem Clinton has is that no one likes her. "She has cold, staring eyes," one of my dinner companions remarked. She comes across as "wooden, priggish, cold, too much super-ego and too little id," says Andersen.

A far bigger complaint is not about her personality, but her politics. In recent months, Clinton has cosied up to the leading members of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" she once excoriated for trying to bring down her husband. (That was before she knew the truth about Monica Lewinsky.) Former House speaker Newt Gingrich torpedoed the "Hillarycare" health insurance plan in 1994 but that hasn't stopped her making recent common cause with him - on the need to reform health care. She infuriated many on her side when she gave a joint news conference with what Andersen describes as "her two most appalling Christian-right colleagues", Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback, to call for $90 million in federal funds to investigate their contention that the internet and other electronic media are "satanic".

by Matt Stoller 2006-01-13 11:13AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: substance over style
Re: cellphones. I remember right before the 2004 election we were told that (the mostly young, liberal) people excluded from non-cellphone surveys would swing the vote to Kerry. It didn't happen. The cellphone-only crowd (which I just joined) is still a small fraction.
by sdedeo 2006-01-13 11:19AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: substance over style
The youth vote did swing decisively to Kerry.
by Matt Stoller 2006-01-13 11:34AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Missed one
In line with Chris' "elitist" point is the obvious. If her name was Hillary Gozdowski she'd be in some office somwhere passing paper. I've made this point before...in a nutshell

I will never, ever support anyone who gets where they are based on birth, or who they were banging. Period. End of subject.

Last I knew, we fought a revolution in part to eliminate having so say "Yes. M'lord/lady" to someone just by an accident of birth or marriage. Yet now we are all too willing to turn our brains off and let family dynasties take over, at a time when social mobility overall is dying.

by ElitistJohn 2006-01-13 11:28AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Missed one
Ridiculous. Whether or not you agree with her positions on anything at all, she's more qualified to be President than Bill was. Look at her resume. She's extremely bright and has an uncanny ability to forge consensus. Like her, husband, she's a skilled politician with a sharp mind. Again, you might hate her guts, but you can't argue with her qualifications.
by bluenc 2006-01-13 12:20PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Missed one
And there are tons of people who are even more qualified in this country who aren't in the public eye because they weren't banging a President. Her qualifications are irrelivant. So we only pick Crown Princes and Princesses if they are the most competent of the Dynasty?

Great, you're advocating a meritocracy among de-facto Aristocrats.

by ElitistJohn 2006-01-13 12:54PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Missed one
You mistake this post as anti-Hillary, or else I missed something.

I think Chris's analysis here is just as relevant to Clinton supporters, maybe moreso, than it is to detractors. If you support her, wouldn't it be helpful to understand why a certain type of activist doesn't?

I would urge you, as someone who sees Hillary's qualities, to say whether you think Chris is onto something or not. Do you think there is a split among different types of activists that's helps to explain why we don't universally love her?

by thief 2006-01-13 01:00PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Missed one
Correct. I would take the same stance regarding bayh, son of Bayh. Ford, son of Ford. Bush, grandson of Prescott, son of Bush (yeah, reaaal qualified). Kennedy of what can only be described as a literal US Aristo dynasty (and please tell me all about Patrick's pure genius and ability).

Etc..., etc...

by ElitistJohn 2006-01-13 01:28PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Missed one
I have been a straight democrat ticket voter all my life. I used to hope and could not wait for Hillary to run for president. Then came her coldly calculated move to the right. It disgusted me. I wanted the Hillary who wasn't going to act like "she stayed home and baked cookies" just because it would make her more popular. Or the one who stood by her man even though most people thought she was crazy to do so. She had her values and she did not apologise for them. Since getting elected to the senate she has turned into someone I could not cast a vote for. She has become a huge disappointment.
by Kankakee Voice 2006-01-14 09:23AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: substance over style
  1. You can't overcome systematic errors by increasing the sample size. And you miss the point of the long tail: the blogs there have fewer readers, but there are more of them. A very large fraction of blog readers may indeed be mainly participating in blogs that are way down the radar.

  2. You say this quite a bit, but you should provide statistics to show what the donor income distribution for Clinton versus (e.g.) Dean or versus (e.g.) the DailyKos dozen is. I am skeptical of the claim that Clinton receives a signiificantly larger amount of support from millionaires (e.g.) than the blogger's progressive. (As a side note, I still find the use of the term "working class" to describe $70k strange -- are you using it metaphorically?)

  3. You need to explain more what you mean by activist elite. Do you mean by income? (In which case, see #2.) Do you mean by connections to local Democratic organizations? (In which case, see Kerry victory in Iowa.) Etc., etc.

I don't think you're 100% wrong on this, but I think there are a lot of assumptions in your analysis.
by sdedeo 2006-01-13 11:17AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: substance over style
You're being needlessly nitpicky on this.
by Matt Stoller 2006-01-13 11:35AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: substance over style
Sorry, yes, I am. (Sorry, Chris.) It's this dissertation its turning me into a monster.
by sdedeo 2006-01-13 12:37PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: substance over style
1. That is just not true. I do not think you recognize just how much more traffic the larger blogs have over the smaller ones. Dailykos has over 600,000 readers per day. The top ten progressive blogs come in at over 1.5 million. Smaller blogs like you describe usually have around 10 readers per day or less. There just are not hundreds of thousands of regularly updated progressive political blogs with 10 readers filled with audiences that do not visit the major sites. That just isn't the case, and I spend a lot of time analyzing web traffic. Polling the major sites would indeed provide an accurate sample of who readers progresive political blogs.

2. Here you go. And here is the stuff for Clinton. This information isn't hard to find. It is, shall we say, an "open secret" that the Clintons raised the vast majority of their money from large donors, while Dean did the opposite. Also, on the first link, note that before he won New Hampshire and became the presumptive nominee, Kery's numbers from smaller donros were much less.

3. Dude, I don't know how mcuh clearer I can spell this out for you. As I tried to make clear in the post, those activists with more power (and money is a form of power) would be the activist elite, and those activists with less pwoer would be the activist base. Aka, the Demcoratic leadership would be the activist elite, and people on blogs would be the activist base. Is that good enough for you.

I think you are having a difficult time getting through my terminology, and understanding the scope of my discussion. I am not talking about the country as a whole. I am talking about the world of progressive activists.

by Chris Bowers 2006-01-13 11:39AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: substance over style
Umm just one point.  I don't think low traffic blogs get like 10 hits a day. Almost as soon as I started my blog I got 50 hits a day. And when I check site meter (which I often do) at other blogs, I still see at least 25 hits a day.  I think a more reasonable estimate of low-traffic blog traffic is 50-150 hits a day.  So I can believe that the long tail of political blogs equals Kos' traffic, although I have no idea how many of the low-traffic blog readers also go to the high traffic blogs.

Also, I know you mentioned readers per day, but if you check Kos' site meter you see that 600,000 is the number of hits, not the number of readers.  A lot of the hits, especially at a place like Kos, are people like me who go back a huge number of times a day.        

by Matt Lockshin 2006-01-13 12:19PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: substance over style
I know, but Kos actually has over 600,000 readers.

And you would be surprised by how few blogs have more traffic than you if you are getting 150 per day. Really, it is less than five hundred progressive political blogs. The tail isn't as long as you might think.

by Chris Bowers 2006-01-13 12:23PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: substance over style
I meant os ay, Kos ha$s around 760,000 page views per day. Also, sitemeter doesn't count visits from the same IP twice unless they are more than two hours apart. Thus, while the number of actual unique viists is probably less than the number of "visits" site meter record, it isn't that much less.
by Chris Bowers 2006-01-13 12:27PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: substance over style
Chris,

I'm pretty sure site meter counts visits from the same IP twice if more than 30 minutes has elapsed between page views.  That's how I read this:

Site Meter tracks page views and visits. You may also have heard the term "hits". When someone comes to your site, they generate a "hit" for every piece of content that is sent to their computer. Viewing a single web site page would generate one hit for the page and one hit for every individual graphics file that was on the page. A single page could easily generate a dozen or more hits. When you are browsing a site, every time you follow a link, it is treated as a single "page view". Site Meter defines a "visit" as a series of page views by one person with no more than 30 minutes in between page views.

Thus, I probably account for between 5-10 visits a day to Kos. (I'm not sure what your point was about page views btw unless it somehow relates to the fact that I used "hits" synonymously with "visits."  Looking at the Site Meter quote above, I suppose "hits" could also mean page views).  

Also, I'd really appreciate a link to back up your assertion that there are less than five hundred progressive political blogs that get more than 150 hits a day. I know I've seen some of your reports on the blogosphere, but my impression was that you focused on Ad Sense blogs, which probably under counts the lower traffic blogs.  

by Matt Lockshin 2006-01-13 01:36PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: substance over style
I'm a small blogger. That 50 to 150 hits per day is right on mark. And that's what I hear from and see from other small bloggers like me. I hardly ever go to D-Kos, because it is so big and so MALE.
by Kankakee Voice 2006-01-14 08:58AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: substance over style
Data is good. You're right that Clinton is getting her money from a much wealtheir group than progressives. Your use of terminology like "working class" was definitely confusing for me, but I get your drift.

I do disagree that Clinton dislike is generated by insider-outsider envy. I think if Clinton behaved differently, bloggers would flock to her. On the other hand, if Clinton behaved differently, she would no longer be the $2000+ darling (viz. Gore.)

by sdedeo 2006-01-13 12:28PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: substance over style
Chris,

be craeful of your assumptions. Internet readership, like internet linkages, follow a "Zipf" distribution. That basically is a double-logarithmic curve. Here's a plot courtesy Jakob Nielsen on both linear axes and double-log axes:

as Wikipedia notes, the distribution follows a 1/f law in its simplest form:

The simplest case of Zipf's law is a "1/f function". Given a set of Zipfian distributed frequencies, sorted from most common to least common, the second most common frequency will occur 1/2 as often as the first. The third most common frequency will occur 1/3 as often as the first. The nth most common frequency will occur 1/n as often as the first. However, this cannot hold precisely true, because items must occur an integer number of times: there cannot be 2.5 occurrences of a word. Nevertheless, over fairly wide ranges, and to a fairly good approximation, many natural phenomena obey Zipf's Law.

Many phenomena follow this distribution, including the english language (the word "the" being the highest frequency). The fact that website traffic follows Zipf's law has been extensively well-documented.

so it is true that the highest websites have a ton of traffic, but the distribution falls so suddenly that I dont think you can assume that most traffic revolves around them. At the very least, the traffic in teh tail is equal to teh traffic in the  head; and most of the traffic is in the second tier sites.

If you calculated traffic for the solid middle of sites (digby, drum, TAP, mydd, etc) youd rolly find that they easily exceed teh traffic of the top sites.

by azizhp 2006-01-14 07:25AM | 0 recs
N688806271_4717
Senator Clinton raises mostly small $
According to a Hotline posting excerpted on DailyKos 95% of her contributions in 2005Q3, her largest fundraising quarter, were less than $100. The suggestion that Senator Clinton is not popular with small dollar donors, Democratic activists, working and middle class progressive activists or any other large segment of Democrats is simply false. She is very popular, and for good reason. That she is so unpopular with segments of the left and right blogosphere tells you more about the blogosphere than about her standing with Democrats.

I do not like Senator Clinton's position on Iraq, and I cringe when she takes up issues like flag burning and video games. But those disagreements do not blind me to her record of progressive activism, nor do they blind me to her broad popularity in the Democratic party.

by tib 2006-01-14 11:27AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I don't think money is the determining factor
Chris -- When I started reading your post I thought you were going to say that Hillary was unpopular among bloggers because we are the ones paying attention to the details of what she does as opposed to just her image.  I disagree with you that the difference in views about Hillary among bloggers is because of the class differences between the bloggers -- I have never met so many rich people as when I got involved with Dean's campaign (and I raised tens of thousands of dollars for him and met many members of the "Dean's List") and most of them could not be described as Hillary backers.  Actually, most middle class Dems I know like Hillary more than the rich people I know -- maybe because the rich people have actually met her.  Bartcop, hardly an upper class Dem, seems to me to be Hillary's biggest booster in the blogosphere, and that's because he is desperate to win.
by Flatiron Dante 2006-01-13 07:35PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I don't think money is the determining factor
As I've been reading through this, and I didn't know quite where to stick this comment in, my thought is this: I, like many people assume that the internet is slanted towards the young and those with higher incomes. Yet my experience, especially since starting my own blog, has been surprise at how many others blogging and commenting are babyboomers like myself. We are hardly kids.

Also my income is quite modest, I pay big bucks (in percentage to my income) to have high speed internet access and a decent laptop. I could care less about clothes and furniture and do-dads for the house. My husband and I spend what little extra money we have on internet access and related equipment. Would I rather have a new couch or a new laptop? Laptop wins every time. I don't think we are that different from most people our age.

by Kankakee Voice 2006-01-14 09:13AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Your argument
Your argument has alot of strengths and is an interesting look at the potential power of the blogosphere but unfortunately evades MP's crucial question. You make great comments about the engaged qualities that many bloggers have, and a nice suggestion on the so-called "creative class" but again, avoid his essential quesion. As he notes, over 90% of self-described "liberals" have favorable views of Hillary Clinton, and less than 5% have unfavorable views. If readers and participants of blogs like DailyKos and MyDD, the two largest groups of liberal bloggers, are so avowedly anti-Hillary, then how relevant can we consider their stances to be? Put another way, how can these bloggers claim that to be representative of the Democratic left when they so absolutely disagree with the vast majority of Democratic liberals?

The vast majority of your lengthy post seemed to be devoted to answering the question, "do bloggers matter?" This is indeed the peripheral question suggested by the post, but not the crucial one. Yes, bloggers donate money, yes bloggers donate time, yes bloggers donate ideas. But are they representative of any larger group? The answer I would submit is yes, to a point. Despite their occasionally near mythical-status in some circles, readers of the most popular political blogs remain merely one subset of the larger populace - representative certainly of that subset, suggestive of larger portions of the left, and occasionally informative on the nation as a whole. The MP (I feel like I'm talking about the British parliament) makes the case that their hatred of Hillary, which though it might spill over into the broader liberal community, is currently still limited into an especially small subset of the left.

Are there liberals who hate Hillary? Certainly. Will they ultimately thwart her potential attempt to win the nomination or the general election? Perhaps. Currently, however, despite the passion which some have on sites like this one, it remains a limited emotion of a small group of a part of the populace which has unfortunately been defeated in the last few election. For now, however, Hillary-hatred remains in the province of the right.

by FDRDem 2006-01-14 06:43PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: A lot to chew on
"we really want a candidate that's willing and able to grab a microphone and validate our actions and ideas."

Yes -- I think this is the key to a lot of what's going on in blog vs. telephone polls (and I just posted something similar before reading your comment.)

by sdedeo 2006-01-13 10:37AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: substance over style
True. But on the other hand the average American watches 3 hours 46 minutes of television a day. I'll take a stab in the dark and say that's roughly constant over a wide range of incomes (if anything declining with increasing income as other entertainment options become available.)

While internet access and a computer is not free, it is becoming increasingly cheap -- certaintly cheaper than a cellphone plan. The barriers to greater online participation at this point seem to me to be both income and culture related, with culture (i.e., how you chose to spend your free time and how relevant you perceive the internet to be to your life) increasing in importance.

by sdedeo 2006-01-13 10:43AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Where is Hillary?
I essentially agree with the profiling of the netroots outlined here. I would argue that the dislike of Hillary in this group is based not so much on who she's connected with, but rather on her public passivity that borders on the irresponsible.

Today, Harry Reid made a dramatic statement comparing the republican culture of corruption to the Vegas mafia he fought earlier in his life.  Hillary Clinton is a universally recognized public figure, far more than any other current democrat. But does she do her part for the mighty left Wurlitzer? No.  Does she pull her weight in the national debate? No.  Does she exercise her responsibility to lead, as a statesman? No. She picks the little fights, the incremental issues.

Many republicans are calling for democrats to assume the submissive position, to accept that republicans have won, to limit ourselves to offering milquetoast incremental improvements to obvious universal issues like gas mileage and nuclear plants.   Hillary, I am sad to say, has internalized this dynamic, and acts as the docile good democratic wife to the aggressive republican establishment.  "We're not hear to rock the boat, dear. Just be patient and let me tinker with some marginal, safe issues.  We're in no position to cause a raucus".  

Meanwhile, we have a President who is flaunting his illegal wiretapping orders and is unilaterally assuming authority without a peep of oposition.  Bush's behavior makes Nixon's look like child play.  And where's Hillary?

(I know you will also ask, where's ___ ? ) Good question!

by camilow 2006-01-13 11:05AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Where is Hillary?
Oddly enough, the rightist blogs are falling all over themselves this week, attacking Clinton for criticizing Bush. Malkin "wrote" a column (largely plagiarized) from a news report that was already biased against her.

They're all furious that, on Good Morning America, in reference to the lack of body armor for the troops, she said that Bush has "three more years in office. Some of us wish this wasn't the case." It was the first time in a while that I'd really heard her open fire like that. I hope it's a sign of a growing trend.

by Scott Shields 2006-01-13 11:44AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Where is Hillary?
The RWNM does not need an excuse to attack any leading Democrat in general or Hillary in particular. It's a combination of their natural instinct to attack and a question of keeping their knives sharp.

I noticed Hillary's attack on the continuing shortage of body armor and was surprised, even taking the Alito hearings into consideration, that she didn't have more company in her criticism. This is precisely the kind of issue that Democrats should jump on with both feet and drive into the public consciousness.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-01-14 01:36AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: substance over style
That's an excellent point; I think you are right that the class warfare between bloggers and insiders will grow with time.

The question, though, is how blogging will change as it becomes democratized and the blog-reader's profile grows increasingly representative of the population at large. My guess is that blogs will retain many of the characteristics they posess today; to put it another way, bloggers I think are more "in touch" than their incomes suggest.

Just thinking of families I know, the main predictor of internet access is whether or not they have a kid who grew of age in the internet era. Income is less important. I was surprised to see that the dailykos readership spans a wide range of ages and centers much higher (30s+) than you would expect; that doesn't square with my personal experience.

by sdedeo 2006-01-13 11:10AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
We're Not The Loony Star Trek Fans!
We're the sane Star Trek fans!  The ones who spend more time with political conventions than Star Trek conventions, but still think it's a cool political slogan:
    Live long (Social Security, Medicare, universal pre-natal care, etc.) and prosper (GDP growth under Dem presidents since 1930 is an order of magnitude higher than under Reps).

p.s. We're also majorly into Buffy, The Vampire Slayer, and just about anything else Joss Whedon does, except sneeze.

by Paul Rosenberg 2006-01-13 11:19AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: We're Not The Loony Star Trek Fans!
Let's not leave out the new Battlestar Galatica!
(And lets credit Sci-Fi for it's role of considering the the real life ramifications of politcal ideas, opinions and actions.)
by David in Burbank 2006-01-14 04:16AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Here's another way of looking at it
This leads to me want to rephrase Perlmutter's question: Do blogs represent the Democratic "base?"

I would suggest that a better question is "Do blogs represent the interests of the Democratic base?"

Your paradigm of a political class divide is on target Chris, but the discussion has gone off on tangents of income and voting behavior.

Income - Of course bloggers and blog readers are going to have an average income above the norm. Working Americans who are working two jobs or 60 hours a week don't have time for the luxury of blogging.

Voting behavior - This is a variation of the standard "electability" theme that DLCers constantly turn to when they claim progressives are "out of the mainstream." The real question that progressives are challenging is the "chicken or egg" question of whether Democratic voters are choosing conservative Dems or the Democratic party structure is choosing conservative Dems in the primaries.

I would like to suggest that your analysis is precisely correct when you reframe it as whether bloggers represent the interests of the Democratic base. Now we can examine the polls that demonstrate conclusively that the interests and desires of the Democratic base, no matter how it is defined, are more accurately reflected by bloggers and progressives than by "mainstream" corporatist Democratic politicians like Hillary.

This also allows us to take into account the messaging that even most Democratic primary voters are receiving as it is filtered through the M$M and the Democratic Party machine. On both factual and ideological grounds progressives and bloggers represent the interests of the Democratic base, but their message is muted and overwhelmed by the RWNM, the M$M and the typical voices of the Democratic Party that most voters get a chance to hear.

It takes a great deal of effort to sift through the information smog and search out the unfiltered progressive message that addresses the needs of both the Democratic base and average American voters.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-01-13 11:52AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Here's another way of looking at it
I very much agree with you that, "the Democratic base message...is muted and overwhelmed by the RWNM", and I can't help feeling that the RWNM has influenced the way that we react to Hillary. She has been demonized by them and it can't help but influence some activist reactions to Clinton when she dissapoints us. If it didn't I feel like we would react to her in a way more like how we react to Bayh, more with a simple dismissal.

There is so much negative hype around Hillary, including Chris Matthews' and the toesucker's conspiracy theories about her inevitability, that I think it shades our collective response to her.

We might dislike her for good rational reasons, but the depth of our collective negative reaction to her seems to sample from something else.

by thief 2006-01-13 01:14PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Here's another way of looking at it
There is so much negative hype around Hillary, including Chris Matthews' and the toesucker's conspiracy theories about her inevitability

Tweety and the RWNM is already geared up to "Gore" Hillary. I'm not sure the entire M$M is on board. A couple of months ago Tweety tried to hype Hillary as a "witch" for being critical on some issue. The rest of his guests refused to play along with his game. That could change of course.

I would not have as big a problem with Hillary is she was not so blatantly triangulating, right along with the DLC, and pandering to the RWNM instead of the progressive, activist base of the party. I also have a lot of problems with Bill's move even further to the right since he left office.

I think my problem is with the political construction more accurately described as "BillandHillary." Both of them are tacking right to "position" themselves as "centrists." Both of them are pandering to Bushco.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-01-13 02:18PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Here's another way of looking at it
"I would not have as big a problem with Hillary is she was not so blatantly triangulating..."

Absolutely, I don't think she is doing anyone any favors with her positioning. In terms of Chris's post, I have to wonder if I would feel differently if I was somebody like Bob Shrum.

by thief 2006-01-13 02:39PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Here's another way of looking at it
RWNM has influenced the way that we react to Hillary  

I don't think this is true.  I think the RWNM has influenced the way that Hillary reacts.  

by oakland 2006-01-14 11:51PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Here's another way of looking at it
That's surely true, that Hilary is reacting to what is said about her, but I was focussing on why the blogosphere reacts the way it does to her.

I think widespread propaganda affects everyone.

by thief 2006-01-15 06:01AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Hillary's problem is no principles
There is room for the elitest theory in combination with the recognition that many oppose Hillary because she has shown that she does not stand on principles. She caves in to right-wing causes to build support that she considers more important than protecting constitutional values. She votes for a war to show that she can be strong on national security, letting politics trump human lives. The fact that she may have a strong progressive voting record is merely relative to others in Congress rather than a statement as to her strength on progressive/liberal issues. What we hear all the time, is not just that people do not support Hillary, but there is a problem with supporting Democrats who do not appear to any longer believe in liberal/progressive values and no longer function as an opposition party.
by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse 2006-01-13 11:57AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
why do progressive net people hate Hillary?
I ask this all the time and the answers I get are

  1.  She supports the Iraq war.  This is far and away the most important reason.  It is the biggest issue of our time and she is on the wrong side of it.  That alone would be enough for most of us to be against her.

  2.  She is obviously blowing with the wind of the polls.  Triangulating, splitting the difference, etc.  People I talk to want a leader, not a calculating pol.

I actually think she might be a good Prez.  I think she would be a horrible candidate.  I am tired of losing.  I want someone who will galvanize.  Hillary isnt it, except that for some unfathomable reason she galvanizes the nut jobs on the right into hating her.

steve kyle

by sck5 2006-01-13 12:02PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: why do progressive net people hate Hillary?
Amen. Chris' class analysis rings quite true -- but there is content to our revulsion from the lady. She is flat wrong on the stuff that motivates us to be political activists.

Loath her as I do, I agree too that she might make a passable President, though one, like Bill, who smoothed the way for the rich at the expense of the people who elected them. But at least she is not a moron and has to make the right noises once in a while.

If she is the nominee, I'll work around the edges, trying to increase Dem registration in emerging sectors etc., because I will not be able in conscience to work for Hilary. I'd be lying to people about what I think she'd do for them.

by janinsanfran 2006-01-13 02:11PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: why do progressive net people hate Hillary?
And I always have to wonder how the Clinton Presidency would have been different if he had even one house of Congress on his side.
by David in Burbank 2006-01-14 04:24AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
He did. First term
And passed the tax increase which balanced the budget.

Harry and Louise have a lot of 'splaining to do. As does Ira Magaziner who had the opportunity to design a real system of national medical coverage but totally botched it by producing a insurance company friendly plan of "regional alliances" hatched in a totally closed process that more resembled Cheney's energy plan than anything else. And Hillary helped.

The Democratic Congress could have survived the tax increase, but the arrogance of Ira Magaziner, fully aided and abetted by Hillary paved the way for the Gingrich Contract on America (sic). You could not have designed a more top-down, think tank, ivory tower close out American citizen process if you tried.

Hillary was given an assignment. She was supposed to deliver universal health care to all Americans. Instead she gave us a Republican Congress because she screwed up that assingnment.

I wasn't excited about Hillary even before the Iraq war, since then her down the line support for the war makes her politically dead to me. I got in line behind Kerry because he at least started taking a position that Bush was screwing up the war. I haven't even heard that from Hillary.

by Bruce Webb 2006-01-14 06:28AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
You're absolutely onto something, but what is it?
You make an excellent argument and analysis, but I keep thinking that attitudes towards Hillary are not the best measure of what you've identified.

Here's what I mean: you are making a systematic argument, and removing agency from the explanation. But I think that agency, individual choices based on a lot of information, is very important to understand how different types of activists view candidates.

Choices about Hillary by activists are based on information, not ignorance and also not just on class issues.

The contrast is to this is Tom Frank's Kansas Republicans. In that case we often assume that grassroot Republican voters vote against their class interests. Essentially we think they vote out of ignorance. This group of people, who you aren't talking about here, seem to respond first to the social posturing of Republicans, and ignore so much of the information that we progressive activists gorge ourselves with.

So you've nicely identified a group, activists, who we should never assume are making choices based on ignorance. Yet there is a major split within this group, which you've put your finger on as well as anyone I've recenty read.

But does the split itself explain the gulf in attitudes towards Hillary?

Basically we have two separate groups competing in the political arena through the same cause: the Democratic party, using similar tools: activism. The same label can be applied to them, but I really believe that there is more separation between these groups, activist elite and activist base, than one label, progressive activists, would lead anyone to believe.

Do the Democratic elite activists truly share more with wealthy conservatives than they do with the the activist base? It's possible, and it's important if they do, but it might be beside the point in discussing Hillary.

In the case of Hillary, her attention to the attitudes of the elite activist base may explain our hostility towards her acts. But there are other politicians who do the same dance, yet are not seen at all in the same way as Hillary.

I think you've identified a real split between activist elites, and the activist base. I think it's an important point that could help us to understand so much. But I'm really not sure that, in itself, this split is what determines activist base attitudes toward Hillary.

I'm really not discounting your whole post by saying that. I'm just giving you my first response.

by thief 2006-01-13 12:47PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Why not Hillary?
Chris,
I really think you're off-base about the attitude towards Hillary. I think your analysis of the blogosphere is pretty good. But one piece is missing: What kind of memory do bloggers have?

I used to be a Hillary Rodham Clinton - Jesse Jackson liberal. That was about 10 years ago. Since her election to the Senate, and her rise in the national polls, however, it has become quite clear that she has abandoned her liberal past and is in bed with Al From and the DLC. She has obviously been positioning herself as a centrist. The tipping point for me came with a "survey" she sent to supporters about a month ago, asking us to rate priorities for the coming year. IRAQ WAS NOT EVEN MENTIONED. There was an article in the NYT, I think, several weeks ago detailing her strategy going forward: she is deliberately ignoring her liberal "base" in order to build her centrist image. A lot of us have seen this happening, and we are offended. She has abandoned us, so we are abandoning her. THAT is the answer to your question.

by Bob Schacht 2006-01-13 12:52PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Why not Hillary?
Here's the NYT article that I refered to in my comment:
Anger Over Her Iraq Vote Is Unlikely to Hurt Clinton
December 28, 2005, Wednesday
By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ (NYT); Metropolitan Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section B, Page 3, Column 5, 1322 words

DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 1322 WORDS -Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's support for the war in Iraq has outraged many liberal activists in the Democratic Party, who are warning of retribution, including a primary challenge to her re-election campaign next year. But the activists are in the same sort of political bind that liberals found themselves...

by Bob Schacht 2006-01-13 01:31PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Bob a question
On what evidence do you base the assertion that Hillary was ever a Jesse Jackson liberal? Hillary was always presented as being to the Left of Bill, mainly by a Right that was intent on demonizing her, but where is the substance?

Because for the life of me I can't think of a single position she ever publically staked out that was particularly progresssive in comparison to Bill. To some degree liberals who have fallen in love with Hillary are reacting more to the stage Hillary of right wing shadow plays than the real woman.

As Democrats and as decent people we had to rally around Hillary when scuzbags like Rush started calling her a "feminazi" and worse, that kind of personal attack couldn't go unchallenged. But somehow she ended up on a policy pedestal that she has never really earned.

Anyone that is so hated and reviled by the Right has to be doing something right, I am just not sure I know what it is. Because delivering good constituent services to upstate New York (which by all accounts she does) isn't pushing my political buttons.

by Bruce Webb 2006-01-14 06:42AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Bob a question
You asked,

On what evidence do you base the assertion that Hillary was ever a Jesse Jackson liberal? Hillary was always presented as being to the Left of Bill, mainly by a Right that was intent on demonizing her, but where is the substance?

Because for the life of me I can't think of a single position she ever publically staked out that was particularly progresssive in comparison to Bill.

First, the pairing of Hillary and Jesse was done by some popular author writing for "Parade" magazine or some such Sunday supplement in the early 1990s, who provided a pop quiz to guage your position on the political spectrum, years ago, as I said.

More importantly, however, you don't seem to recall the early years of Bill's first term, when Hillary's kitchen cabinet came up with a health care bill that sent Republicans baying at the moon and doing a death dance on it. In those days, Hillary was liberal and naive. She has changed tactics since then. Bob

by Bob Schacht 2006-01-16 03:36AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Bob? NO, SHE WAS NEVER LIBERAL & NAIVE
In fact, my general observation is that she has always been an absolute admirer of white upper-class kulture. She thinks she is "better" than most of us. And she doesn't really care very much about what happens to us. She does care a tiny little bit, and that alone is enough to make the Masters of the Universe despise her. But at the end of the day, that tiny little bit of "compassion" doesn't amount to much.
by blues 2006-01-16 03:46PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Why not Hillary?
Exactly. And that is why progressive democrats, and progressives, need to draw a line in the sand in certain races in 06 and 08 and not vote against our values. I will not cast a vote for president if Hillary is the democratic choice, or I'll write in someone who shares my values.

In the IL 06 Congressional race, Rahm Emmanuel brought in a carpetbagger, Duckworth, over the locally supported and progressive democrat candidate Cegelis. I'm sure there are more races around the country that are in similiar situations. I say in those races progressive should NOT VOTE. It's the only way we are going to get respect.

In my own (11th Il)district I have no choice and no problem voting for the democrat that Rahm hand picked, John Pavich. There was no progressive there before him who wanted to run again. But if the situation were one like in Il. 06 - and I support Cegelis with financial donations - I would not cast a vote in that race if the Rahm picked candidate won the primary after coming in and having a campaign bought and run by big business democrats when they could have just backed the popular progressive candidate and that candidate would easily - may still - win.

by Kankakee Voice 2006-01-14 09:39AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Many people do not enjoy reading...
...Period.

Blogs are text based.  They can be wordy.  Many many Americans cannot read, either because of learning disibilities or just poor education.  They don't read blogs.  They watch TV.

Other people do not find reading about the dire straits of American politics relaxing.  They really, really need to relax because their jobs stress them out and their families stress them out and their relationships stress them out...

They watch TV.

TV is visual.  TV watching is passive.  Reading takes effort.

TV wins.

And so the blogosphere ends up representing us weirdos who would rather read and write about politics that watch Lost or the OC.  Not very representative of America as a whole.

Because we pay attention, we know that Hillary didn't support our favorite doctor.  We know that she supported the war like nobody's business.  That she pals around with Newt.  That she's about as progressive as Michael Bloomberg.

Most people know more about whoever is winning American Idol than they do Hillary Clinton.

by Flynnieous 2006-01-13 01:10PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Hillary Clinton vs. netroots
Hillary Clinton would be a much better president than George Bush.

But it is hard to get excited with her mainly because during the critical times that we saw our country being usurped by the neocons to engage in a needless war risking lives and costing hundreds of billions of dollars,  she did not speak up.  People like her lost my respect--because during times like this we need leaders who will go against the grain and speak out--like Howard Dean, Al Gore, Wes Clark, Bob Graham.  Harry Reid is also a great leader because he will say what he thinks is right not what will get him elected.

It is really all about Iraq.  

by jasmine 2006-01-13 01:25PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Missed one
No, it doesn't mean they may not have merits, it means that they are disqualified. Otherwise you end up with a self-perpetuating system.

High status of birth = prep school education = standing out in applying to top colleges (plus tons of international travel) = (great contacts + prestige + better recruitment opportunities) = better experience = high status

Rinse, lather, repeat generationally.

Even a mongoloid like GWB can be on top in this rigged game.

No one ran around asking the various European nobility about their personal qualifications before removing their titles and privileges precisely for this reason. Of course they would be more qualified on paper (and maybe even in reality)...they were the only people in the game.

It's precisely the attitude you are giving that is leading to the slow death of social mobility in the U.S. (that's not my opinion...the Conservative British journal "The Economist" had a magazine devoted to the subject).

by ElitistJohn 2006-01-13 02:13PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Missed one
good luck finding a prominent politician who's succeeded solely on their merits...
by bluenc 2006-01-13 09:12PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Bill Clinton is your man
Elitist John,

If you're looking for a politician who came from dirt poor without any connections, then, Bill Clinton is your man.

Not Howard Dean, Not John Kerry, Not Al Gore.

Let me remind you that we live in the United States of America. Why in the world would you penalize a high achieving person who happens to be born out of a Highly Successful Family?

We are all here to be the best we can be. To go for your full potential. Any responsible & loving parent would encourage their children to reach for the stars & even provide them with all the tools to prepare their child. That's any parent regardless if they were Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative.

Either you're a person with NO KIDS & would NEVER understand or you're one of those people who have this attitude of " I HATE SUCCESSFUL PEOPLE", " I HATE ALL RICH PEOPLE".

by labanman 2006-01-14 07:21AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
"Successful"
Entirely my point. To paraphrase Ann Richards, there's nothing more pathetic than watching someone born on third base declaring magnificent "success" of the Triple they hit. Your assumption of fabulous success when you start most of the way there is funny...and telling.

Yes, you provide all the "tools"...congrats. At the same time this makes sure that a brighter and more capable kid unlucky enough to be born to lesser parents loses out.

Let me put it to you this way. If your kids are so great...why do they need your status to get them ahead? Isn't their innate ability and merit going to make them "high achievers" or "successful"? Aren't you insulting them by not trusting their brilliance?

Or is it that you know there are better, smarter, or more capable people out there and you need to make sure those bastards don't have a level playing field?

by ElitistJohn 2006-01-14 10:18AM | 0 recs
Jeffhead2
Understood
I haven't followed this thead carefully but I would like to comment here.

If the level of the field is such that everyone gets medical care, housing, food, a chance at a decent job etc. then yes I should feel guilty giving my kids extra advantages. If on the otherhand it's a field reduced to a social darwinist heaven then I am not going to feel guilty giving my kids a leg up.

But in both cases I need to support and work for a cooperative rather than a competitive winner take all reality. In both cases I need to work for that level field where all are protected and where all abilities are used for moving society forward in harmony with the planet, etc. etc.

by Jeff Wegerson 2006-01-14 10:58AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Understood
That she is so unpopular with segments of the left and right blogosphere tells you more about the blogosphere than about her standing with Democrats.

Yeap, it implies that we within the blogosphere are partisan. You know what I think of that? Good. Being a partisan Democrat is a step up from being a typical Democrat because the latter will always be castigated and pidgeonholed by the right (e.g. "you don't know where they stand on the issues") and as a result, the typical Dem will compromise their values in order to appease perception amongst the elitists within the media and rightwing punditry circles in a vain attempt to "grab the center" for votes. That's the DLC strategy and Hilary Clinton milks it for everything it's worth. Thus, she's not very popular with us in the blogosphere because of her penchant for sanctimony and demagoguery -- she'll use any "old school" crutch such as "Deadbeat Dads" and "Mortal Kombat Creates Child-Killers" just to get elected even if facts surrounding those crutches are wrong. She and Joe Lieberman share the same cerebrum (as well as membership cards with L. Brent Bozell's PTC organization).

On the other hand, you won't ever hear that "you don't know where they stand on the issues" line when the media and the rightwing attack dogs discuss partisan because partisans won't waste time telling you where they stand on the issues (commonly laced with a liberal supply of choice expletives) and certainly won't apologize for them either. Unlike Dick Durbin who'd gladly pluck out his spinal collumn and hand it over to the Republicans as if it were contraband, partisan Democrats will pluck out their spinal collumns only to wave it proudly in the air as if it were a flag and say, "Ooooh, look what I have here - it's a spine! And I don't need a permission slip to brandish it!" In reponse, the media and the rightwing attack dogs approach partisans by sliming and castigating them (e.g. "This guy is off the chart left!") because they know they can't defeat them in a heated issues debate (as evidenced by Wolf Blitzer's recent exasperated sigh after getting schooled by Howard Dean).

Let me remind you that we live in the United States of America. Why in the world would you penalize a high achieving person who happens to be born out of a Highly Successful Family?

How did that success come? I'm not going to fall for the usual excuses trucked out on AM Radio by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Neil Boorts such as "They worked hard", "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps", and the like. I won't fall for them because they're bullshit. They don't tell the whole story. Their success has more to do with either good fortune, luck, and/or text-book exploitation of the masses by prostating themselves at the feet of Mammon - the Great Balaam of Capitalism - than it does with actual work. Although Capitalism has been the engine of our nation for some time now, it is also the very engine that can not survive unless it divides, conquers, and exploits the people. It must divide the people into camps (Compact Cars Vs. SUVs; $20 Vs. $120 tennis shoes; "haves" Vs. "have-nots") in order to maintain it's own relevence and distract people from noticing the values it espouses: cronyism, corruption, greed, selfishness, rougery, tyranny.

Either you're a person with NO KIDS & would NEVER understand or you're one of those people who have this attitude of " I HATE SUCCESSFUL PEOPLE", " I HATE ALL RICH PEOPLE".

And why not loath them? How is it that in a country of 300 Million people, the upper 1-7% get more stroke, more privlege, more access, etc. than the remainder? How is it that such a minority can systematically run roughshod or the majority time and time again? Where would the rich be at if they didn't have an underclass to exploit?!? Simple -- they'd be in the same place the Religious Right would be if it weren't for their ACLU meal ticket: scratching their asses while standing in a welfare/unemployment line! Forget the fully loaded Lexuses, SUVs, Rolls Royces, and multi-million vacation homes. They would be living in a van down by the river. Considering the ever widening gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" in this country, I've got very bad news for the Rich: history shows us via the Roman empiracism and European colonialism that it's a very, very, dangerous thing to be surrounded by a bunch of poor people with nothing left to lose. A gun is a poor man's lawyer. A lawyer is a rich man's gun.

If the level of the field is such that everyone gets medical care, housing, food, a chance at a decent job etc. then yes I should feel guilty giving my kids extra advantages. If on the otherhand it's a field reduced to a social darwinist heaven then I am not going to feel guilty giving my kids a leg up. But in both cases I need to support and work for a cooperative rather than a competitive winner take all reality.

I would agree and, interestingly enough, comedian George Carlin was a guest on Don Imus recently and he was asked about how he felt regarding how starkly divided the nation is. Carlin said that the corruption of the GOP, the incompetence of Bush regarding Katrina, and the borderline complicit/complacent nature of the Democrats have created a virulent melting pot at the individual/citizen level where there's simply way too much competition and not enough cooperation. The scales need to tip over in the latter area soon to balance everything out or we're in for an upheaval that'll make the 1960s look tame.

by Sizemore 2006-01-15 02:55AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Understood
Perfect. If Che here is representative of the netroots, I hope to God the blogosphere doesn't get the candidate it wants.
by bluenc 2006-01-15 09:06AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Not at all
You'll note that I never said Mark Warner (rich) or Jon Corzine (rich) or John Edwards (rich) doesn't deserve to be there. Because they earned their way on their own efforts. Big difference.

But electing people who got there by connections and a family name is insipid. The only reason Evan Bayh is where he is is because Daddy was where he was.

I would note that we regularly, as a country laugh at supposed "democracies" like Pakistan  (or the Perons of Argentina) where the Presidency shuffles between a couple of dynastic clans who utilize connections and wealth to be placed on the ballot.

Yet here we are in the US, with literally two decades where the Presidency has bounced back and forth between to immediate families, and you're demanding we all enjoy making it three.

So who are we to call Pakistan a joke anymore?

by ElitistJohn 2006-01-15 11:09AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Not at all
beg your pardon? two immediate families? well, the bush family is one, and the other is....? even if clinton wins, what's your point? that no rich person ever deserves political power? simply because of how or where they were born, they shouldn't be in leadership? a woman who has the good fortune of marrying a future president is therefore disqualified from doing anything besides smiling and looking pretty?
by bluenc 2006-01-15 12:17PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
And again
I love turning the entire world on its head. Now it's an evil thing to want to expand opportunity to everyone because it discriminates aginst the privileged? That's to laugh.

I suppose you are also one of those who feel affirmative action was vile because it discriminated against white people? Or that eliminating inherited nobility was a vile intrusion on private property and tradition?

I also love how you munge "rich" with birth and/or connections. I already noted the difference, which you pretended to not see and kept arguing the strawman.

We have a society which is moving more and more into a de-facto aristocracy, with de jure structures which pretend everyone has opportunity. Just like when technically a minority was equal under the law, except that numerous social and economic structures made that untrue in reality. We instituted affirmative action understanding that nothing short some reverse discrimination would break those de facto structures. Same here.

by ElitistJohn 2006-01-15 12:56PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: And again
Why do people think Hillary Clinton is so damn smart just because (unlike the current Warlord) she is able to put one word in front of another? I can't think of anything she's ever done that I could agree with. Why is she even on a par with, say, Donald Trump, or Martha Stewart? At least they had to do something to get what they have. She is nothing more than a rather dirty political animal with expensive makeup.
by blues 2006-01-16 02:44PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: And again
So because you don't agree with her she's not smart? My original point was that Clinton is extremely qualified and exceptionally bright. You can hate her guts as much as you like, but she has a hell of a resume. Also, you didn't agree with providing health insurance for all Americans? Or making women's rights a topic of conversation in the global community? Or making college education a real possibility for everyone in America?
by bluenc 2006-01-16 04:17PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: And again
My problem is just that you have completely exhausted her qualifications as a liberal. The disqualifications are endless, much like those of Bush. She still supports the war. She is oddly obsessed with our "morality." I do not bother to make a list of these things, but when they become as routine as they are with her and Bill (millions and millions of kids starved in Iraq), it seems pointless. We really do need a "Daily Sin Sheet" for these people. It would be horrifying. One good thing about Bill is that he never let any 9-11s happen. But I don't think of him (or Hillary) as liberal.
by blues 2006-01-17 08:04AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: And again
Okay, I did say:

She is nothing more than a rather dirty political animal with expensive makeup.

But I also said:

I would vote for her if she was running against Bush

Believe me, I could say far worse things about a politician. There was just no excuse for Democratsin06 08 to give me a one for that. I give people a lot of leeway when they say things I don't like. That's why I can honestly call myself a liberal.

by blues 2006-01-17 08:54AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Why I will never vote for Hillary
This "progressive" cosponsored a bill criminalizing flag desecration.  It's that simple. Spare me the class analysis.
by SqueakyRat 2006-01-13 02:36PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Why I will never vote for Hillary
I pray to God that this is not your sentiment when primary season rolls around. If you and those who feel the same way about her as you do stay home or vote for a third party candidate on election night then this country is finished. It is so selfish to just say that you are taking your ball and going home because you didn't get the perfect candidate in the primaries.

Have you not paid any attention to what has been happening to our country over the last five years!? I can't believe that you would punish the good people of this country by allowing another neo-con presidency. You would allow all of our civil liberties to be revoked becasue she isn't your precious Russ Feingold or General Clark?

This kind of extreme selfishness is what liberals are supposed to be fighting against. We are progressives and sometimes in order to make progress one must make compromises. And don't give me any snarky remark like "I won't compromise my values" . The reason we have primaries is to compromise on some of our values so that we can have a candidate who represents the broader values of the whole party, not just a handful of bloggers.

For all our sakes please don't divide this party when it needs to be strongest, don't give up just because things aren't perfect. The transition from today's America to a liberal America cannot happen all at once, it must happen in stages. Maby we need a centrist right now who will balance the budget and point us in the direction of true progressive reform. I know Hillary Clinton isn't a liberal but we can use the infrastructure that she can create to actually enact social programs, help impoverished nations, cure devastating diseases, bring about world peace, universal equality, and all that other good liberal stuff.

by nibit25 2006-01-13 06:22PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Oh Christ
And it's already back to the one sided loyalty oaths. It worked so well for you folks last time when you got your "electable" candidate. I know I'm enjoying year two of the "electable" Kerry Admin.

Stuff it.

by ElitistJohn 2006-01-14 04:57AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Why I will never vote for Hillary
This kind of comment is what they told us about Kerry -- and many of us went out and worked our butts off for him, depsite him not being our candidate of choice, despite our private worries about him . . . and look what happened.  He disappointed us.  His strategy didn't work well enough -- well enough to overcome the Republican cheating.  

I don't think Hillary can win, period.  I don't think she can win the primary, and I certainly don't think she can win the general -- unless the Republicans put up someone with zero charisma and foot-in-mouth disease AND the TV actually reports both.

I also think she's on the wrong side of the Iraq War, and that will be a HUGE issue in the next election.  I think its a strike against her, both primaries and general.  I don't think there's a way she can play it where she actually looks principled and not like a wuss.

So this time I'm going to support a candidate who actually represents my values.

by Maven 2006-01-14 05:16AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Why I will never vote for Hillary
Amen. Even if it means we lose a few races in the short term. The democrats are always asking their base to support this candidate even if they are not "perfect". As Sen. Stevens of Alaska said recently on the house floor "NOOOO!!!!" Mainstream dems are making choices right now on who to support in what races, how about if they suck it up, and just because a candidate isn't perfect - like according to Emmanuael in Il-06 Cegelis isn't cuz she isn't pro-corporate - and they support a progressive candidate who is perfectly capable of winning with a little help from the mainstream dems. It seems to always work ONE WAY, Progressives have to support mainstream dems, never the other way around.
by Kankakee Voice 2006-01-14 09:47AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You sound just like Nader in 00
Your logic is exactly like what Nader used in 2000 to justify his run.

His infamous, " It would actually benefit Democrats & the country to have Bush as President for the long term. It would expose the real conservative agenda".

Fast forward 2006, Bush has gotten us into a Major War which has cost thousands of lives, $ 2 Trillion dollars. He has curtailed our freedom, appointed two Supreme court justices for many years to come, destroyed our "world reputation", etc.

He has two more years to destroy this country.

Is this worth it? Is this the long term you're talking about?

People who have that logic have lost reality. They are living in a fantasy. The longer the Right Wing Machine continues to hold on to power, the tighter & stronger is their grip & influence in american society.

The only way you can push a Democratic agenda is to be in the majority. With your logic, we'll be a 70%-30% minority in Congress.

by labanman 2006-01-14 10:18AM | 0 recs
Jeffhead2
KV said a few races
And I bet knows quite well when to stand on principle and when not. I would be careful about accusing you of being a Liebeman who always compromises principles in order to be in a position to gain power in order to help those principles along. A sort of "Destroy the village to save it."

So lets be careful with the N-word. It's becoming like what's his name's law about the use of the word NAZI.

by Jeff Wegerson 2006-01-14 11:04AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Nader was right
First, Gore didn't lose because of Nader.

Second, Kerry lost for the very same reasons Gore lost - no backbone.            

Third, Nader was right.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

 "His infamous, " It would actually benefit Democrats & the country to have Bush as President for the long term. It would expose the real conservative agenda".

Fourth, the only long term hope for the Democratic Party is returning to its roots.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

by Gary Boatwright 2006-01-14 11:18AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Nader was right
I think this is your point but just to clarify: Gore didn't lose. The Supreme Court stole the election from the American people. There are some very good arguements out there that make the case that Kerry did not lose either, the election was stolen by Diebold and other republican tricks. But you are right about Gore and Kerry not having backbone because they did not fight each of those election results. We all know what how the Republicans would have reacted had those elections gone that way for them.

Nadar was right - it's high price to pay, no one enjoys saying we told you so....

All the more reason for Progressives to take their stand in strategic races (Like the congressional race in Il 06) and make our point to the Democratic mainstream that they need us, and they will only get our votes if they start respecting us - by promoting and backing candidates that stand for real change, not the lesser of two evils.

by Kankakee Voice 2006-01-14 03:23PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Nader was right
Fair clarification Kankakee. Scalia and O'Connor stole Florida from Gore, but Gore didn't fight very hard either. Gore also didn't stand up to the smear by the M$M. Gore was probably swiftboated worse than Kerry. Democrats have to learn that the M$M is not on their side.

The feckless resistance by the Democratic leadership to Bush's agenda has demonstrated Nader's essential point about both parties. Corporate Democrats control the Democratic Party and are not interested in opposing Bush's economic agenda.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-01-14 04:07PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Why I will never vote for Hillary
I can't even vote for someone else in PRIMARY?
by SqueakyRat 2006-01-14 06:16PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Why I will never vote for Hillary
Excuse me but why should anyone vote against their
principles.  Did that in 2004 and sure didn't get
us anything other than more lost seats in the Senate and House.  Maybe we could win if we at least looked like we stood for something and was willing to fight for it.  If I wanted to vote for continuos military action and wefare programs for big business, I'd vote Republican and keep the small tax break that I get.
by MOBlue 2006-01-16 02:30AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Wrong
1. Bloggers have -- or should have -- little disdain for the "activist elite."

(The activist elite is composed of folks who were once members of the "progressive activist base.")

2. Bloggers have taken -- or should take -- issue with the tactics (or lack there)of the "activist elite."

(Bloggers don't find fault with the "activist elite" as people, but as strategists and policymakers).

3. Bloggers are -- or should be -- upset with Hillary Clinton for her "centrist" strategy and policymaking.

(In the substantive sense, Hillary Clinton stands with the "activist elite.")

4. Bloggers don't like Hillary Clinton because they are -- gulp -- more elite: more informed, more active, more partisan, etc.

(Wheras the larger pool of Democrats buys the oh so effectively marketed Republican talking point of Hillary as a "liberal." My non-activist friends never ask if Hillary is liberal enough, but rather if she is too liberal to be President -- even though they themselves are significantly more liberal than she).

by Democratic Wing 2006-01-13 02:43PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
This is pointless
  I've always been proud to call myself a liberal, until recently.  Why??? Because of Hillary Clinton.  I've always loved her and supported her and still do, probably more than ever.  But now because of the blogs & some on the extreme left not supporting her I'm to the point of saying that I'm no longer a LIBERAL and am about to just start saying a DEMOCRAT.  You might be asking yourself why I would leave the Liberal base over a blog or somepeople not supporting my candidate, but that's not it.  It's the reason's why they & all of you don't support her.  The answere is the IRAQ WAR & HER WORKING WITH REPUBLICANS.  

  Even though I don't agree with the Iraq war at all I agree more with her than I do anyone else on it.  We can't leave right this second because of Bush's mistakes.  Hillary and I believe that as soon as we can train the people of Iraq to defend their own country then we can leave.  If you all think about it in two year's that is going to be the winning position.  She wins in all three parties more with Republicans and Independents than Democrats, but still all three.  In two year's after we've pulled out a lot of our troops and Iraq is looking like it's going to sucede Hillary is going to look like the winer and here's why.  She can tell the Republicans and the conservative Independents that she supported us staying their till till "we" felt the job was done when almost no other Democrat would that will give her brownie points with those two groups.  The liberal Independents and Democrats she can say that she never would have supported the war if she knew what she knew know and that it was a terriable mistake but now were out and the Iraqi people are defending their own country succesfully.  By doing this she wins brownie points with all groups because she took the middle position.

  Also what's so wrong with being bi-partisan.  That's what is supposed to happen in Washington.  As much as I hate those bastards on the right we should try to work with them for the good of the country.  If we continue to fight nothing will get done and this country will continue to fall even further and further into a hole that we can't climb out of.

  Last she is our nominee wether anyone likes it or not.  Regardless of anything else the main reason that no one can beat her in the primary is money.  By the end of this year everyone expects her to have at lest $100 million raised and maybe spend $20 mill of it.  No ONE IN THE PRIMARY CAN MATCH THAT.  She knocks out a big part of the feild and leave's the following Kerry, Edwards, Fiengold, and Warner.  Her biggest challenger is Warner and he doesn't have the money to stop her.  So the sooner we accept her the sooner we can help to elect her President.  Like a great man once said "United we stand, divided we fall".  

  Here's the latest poll to show the her move to the center is working.  But add a few points to her side because Rasmussen tends to favor Republicans slightly.

          Hillary Meter: 39% Liberal

Survey of 1,000 Adults

January 10, 2006

Election 2008

If Hillary Runs?
Definitely Vote For     34%
Def Vote Against     35%
Depends On Who She Runs Against     25%

RasmussenReports.com

Election 2008

Hillary Political Ideology
Conservative     11%
Moderate     38%
Liberal     39%

RasmussenReports.com

Election 2008

Hillary Clinton
Favorable     47%
Unfavorable     39%

RasmussenReports.com

Election 2008

How likely is it that Senator Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic candidate for President in Election 2008?
Very Likely     30%
Somewhat Likely     36%
Not Very Likely     17%
Not at All Likely     9%

RasmussenReports.com

January 11, 2005--The first Hillary Meter of 2006 shows a more positive perception of New York's Junior Senator than any survey conducted in 2005.

For the first time ever, fewer than 40% of Americans view Clinton as politically liberal. Thirty-nine percent (39%) now see her as liberal while 38% say moderate. Last January, 51% of Americans viewed the former First Lady as liberal. (see trends).

The perceived shift to the right has made her more appealing to voters--34% now say they would definitely vote for Clinton while 35% say they would definitely vote against her. In mid-December, those numbers were 30% for and 37% against.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) would definitely vote against Senator Clinton. Demographic crosstabs are available for Premium Members.

Collectively, today's Hillary Meter places Senator Clinton a net 45 points to the left of the nation's political center. That's the closest to the political center she has been since we began bi-weekly polling last year. As with all tracking polls, it remains to be seen whether this is a lasting improvement or merely statistical noise.

[Explanation of the political center and more data below]

The political center is calculated by subtracting the number of liberals from the number of conservatives among the general public (35% conservative, 18% liberal for a net +17). For the Senator, 11% conservative minus 39% liberal equals a net minus 28. The minus 28 reading for Senator Clinton is 45 points away from the plus 17 reading for the general public.

Nationally, 47% of Americans have a favorable opinion of New York's junior Senator while 39% hold an unfavorable view. Demographic crosstabs are available for Premium Members.

Thirty percent (30%) of Americans say New York's junior Senator is "very likely" to win the Democratic nomination in 2008. Another 36% say she is "somewhat likely" to be the party's nominee. Senator Clinton leads the pack among Democratic Primary voters, attracting more votes than the next three candidates combined.

The Hillary Meter is a twice monthly measure of Senator Hillary Clinton's effort to move to the political center. Rasmussen Reports will not conduct a Hillary Meter poll between Christmas and New Years. The next update is scheduled for Wednesday, January 25. For as long as the former First Lady is a viable candidate for the White House, Rasmussen Reports will monitor public perceptions of her political ideology.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

Visit our Election Polls page to see a summary of our latest state-by state polling. Rasmussen Reports is polling every Senate and Governors' race at least once a month this year. We also update the President's Job Approval on a daily basis.

Rasmussen Reports was the nation's most accurate polling firm during the Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry's vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome.

During Election 2004, RasmussenReports.com was also the top-ranked public opinion research site on the web. We had twice as many visitors as our nearest competitor and nearly as many as all competitors combined.

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.
Sign up for our free Weekly Update

This survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted by Rasmussen Reports January 10, 2005.  The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

by Democratsin06 08 2006-01-13 04:46PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This is pointless data
This is the stuff that electability and triangulation are made of. This is the type of political calculus that is killing the Democratic Party. Trying to get the "center" excited about a candidate is like trying to get an accountant excited about a new pair of green eyeshades. Everybody else is bored to death and loses interest.   .  .  .   I lost my train of thought.  .  .  .   What were we talking about again?
by Gary Boatwright 2006-01-14 01:13AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This is pointless data
This analysis just strikes me as the wrong metric for a candidate. This kind of number crunching maybe what political parties should be looking at for how their overall message is received, but is the last thing specific candidates should be looking at.
by Gary Boatwright 2006-01-14 01:42AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I see
We should all turn our brains off show some damn party loyalty.

However, sucking up spare cash in a critical 2006 election for an unchallenged Senatorial run to load up a 2008 Presidential warchest is...uh...party loyalty.

Sometimes the material just writes itself folks.

by ElitistJohn 2006-01-15 12:39AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: substance over style
Bingo.

She epitomizes the worst of the beltway and is utterly out of touch with 'the base'.  Only Holy Joe and Biden are worse.  

by weinerdog43 2006-01-13 05:44PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Name me Politician who isn't
I'm not a Hillary supporter.

But let's not get carried away now. HRC is a Professional Politician playing in the highest level of the political arena. Regardless of how you feel about her, she is now in the "superstar" rank among a very select group of politicians who are serious contenders for the Presidency.

To get to that level in the Political Profession, you have to be Highly Ambitious, Determined, have a strong base of loyal supporters, a deep desire to succeed & a Big Ego.

With that said, how in world can you declare that only  Hillary is out of touch, ambitious & has a big ego? Hello, each & every serious candidate for the Presidency have All these traits. If not, they would NOT reach these levels among thousands of Highly ambitious politicians across the country.

It would be ignorant or naive to think that HRC is the ONLY one who is "self centered, ambitious, ego driven, out of touch, etc." At this level in politics, ALL THESE Men & Women Politicians in BOTH parties have those SIMILAR traits. If they did not, they would not reach that 1% of Top politicians among thousands of fellow ambitious politicians.

It's all about perception. But at the end of the day, Feingold, Clinton, Dean, Warner, Bayh, Edwards are ALL PROFESSIONAL , Ambitious, Driven, politicians with Big Egos. They have to be ! Or they would not be thisclose to being their Party's Presidential nominee. They may really want to be President to change the world, BUT they are also human & would love the Attention, the Power, the Recognition. If not, they wouldn't be running for the presidency !

This is no different than sports. The Michael Jordans, Magic Johnson's, Larry Bird, Steve Young's, Jerry Rice's, Roger Clemen's ARE ALL "ELITE" among their Profession. All these Professionals have BIG EGOS, Strong Determination, Tremendous Ambition to be #1.

It would be very naive( just because you don't like HRC )to conclude that HRC is ambitious, ego driven, out of touch, etc. while your FAVORITE Democratic candidate for President is NOT.

You may think he or she is  different, but ALL THESE HIGH LEVEL politicians have VERY SIMILAR traits or they would not be in the Top 1% in their field.

by labanman 2006-01-14 07:44AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Name me Politician who isn't
With that said, how in world can you declare that only  Hillary is out of touch, ambitious & has a big ego?

Hllary is out of touch, ambitious and has a big ego. See how easy that was? You went to a lot of trouble to say that all politicians are human  beings. So what? Are you trying to claim that since all politicians are human there are no differences between them? As usual, I suspect you have no point, but are simply blathering.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-01-15 02:27AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Candidate Knowledge
I think knowledge of candidates and where they stand on issues has the most to do with Hillary's poor polling on blogs.  

The avg Democrat knows Hillary but does not know Russ Feingold, Mark Warner or Tom Vilsak.  However, bloggers and their readers know these candidates because they stay on top of this stuff.  Look at the periodic Presidential polls and see how split people are on blogs.  I have been a big Mark Warner fan for years going back to when I lived in VA and he ran against John Warner.  I know others here have their favorites that are not necessarily well know to the voting public yet.  

I will not support Hillary for President because she is completely unelectable nationally.  We keep talking about how 2006 is going to be our year because independents are trending our way.  We will need this vote in 2008 and Hillary is the one candidate who cannot win it.  

Maybe bloggers and their readers have figured this out.

by John Mills 2006-01-13 06:10PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
they said that about Howard Dean
and all this reminds me of the feverish media campaign to pull him down during the primary.
We'd better vote for Kerry because there is so much energy against Dean now he'll never get elected.
by synthia 2006-01-15 10:42AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Gatekeepers
I agree with Chris's point about the "class" divide, or the activist elite vs. the activist hoi polloi (someday I'd love to learn where that phrase comes from -- it does mean "riff raff" right?).  Put another way, it describes the divide between the grassroots activists and the "gatekeepers" within the activist "base" of any political formation, even pre-net.  These are the people who have set themselves up, or who are set up, often by their ability to donate, but often by their real, or perceived (more likely) claims to be able to mobilize a segment of that political formation to support financially or with votes or volunteers, access to the political system.  At the micro scale, they are the people who hang around the campaign office shooting the shit with the campaign insiders, gossiping, laughing, drinking coffee, while the volunteers are busy making phone calls, lit drops, stuffing envelopes.       They're the ones who advise the candidate that the important thing is to have a really cool computer system, or a really neat brochure, or have lots of lawn signs, or suck up to the power brokers, instead of actually getting out and meeting voters and converting them one voter at a time.  They're the ones who, when a group of actual volunteers comes back from a canvass, and wants to report on what they've done and learned, are met with smiles and glazed eyes and their key input is tossed in the trash as soon as they're safely out the door. Writ large, they're the activist elite that Chris describes.  I could go on -- as my suppressed rage at all of the times I've seen these people screw up campaigns at the local and national level comes to the surface, but I'd be preaching to the choir.  But either way, they're killing us.

But I also agree that there's another element to the Hillary-dislike and that is based on what she does.  As others have said, she has used the stature she has not to define who she is and what her party stands for, but what she's not.  This is why we lose.  And no, I can't agree that she'd be an o.k. president.  I think she'd be a disaster for progressives for the same reason her husband was -- she'd complete the process of running away from the party's base and thereby further the dissolution of what's left of the Democratic Party.  Finally, there's just something about her affect that comes across as insincere.  I truly believe people vote based primarily on their impression of who the candidate is as a person, and whether justified or not, I believe people's impression of her will be as an opportunist with no "there" there.

by Jimbob Kinnikin 2006-01-14 04:01AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Gatekeepers
hoi polloi is from Ancient Greek it literally means "the many."  It has passed into English usage as a stand-alone word meaning something like rif-raff.  So, it often takes a definite article in English.  People say the hoi polloi, but it's a bit redundant--as this would translate into English as "the the many."
by Abby 2006-01-14 11:48AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Gatekeepers
I think you are putting just a wee bit too fine a point on this one.
by blues 2006-01-16 04:02PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Gatekeepers
I only mentioned that bit about the redundancy, because I had a Greek professor whose pet peeve this was.  It is, nonetheless, standard English to refer to "the hoi polloi."
by Abby 2006-01-17 01:50PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
You are on track.
Hillary's problem is no principles, and she is DLC, which means more concerned about wealthy elitists and corporate donors.  Concerned means loyal to and willing to work for.   While I agree the Dems had to get out of "black and poor" doing a complete flip flop to "white and rich" (rich = Bill Gates/Cheney/Paris Hilton rich) is just as bad.   Loyalty needs to belong to the "middle class" (all the way up to 250K or so) not the "middle of the political spectrum" insert triangulated pap.  This is what the DLC (Hillary and Bill) either don't care about or are too stupid to get.  Bill was trusted to NAFTA, and he sold us down the river.  Hillary and the rest of the DLC crowd will do the same.  
by oakland 2006-01-14 04:32AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
This is interesting, but I hope it's wrong...
Here's the part that caught my eye:
In 200[8], I believe the Democratic candidate who will do best among the netroots will be the candidate who does the best job of overtly distancing themselves from the progressive activist elite while still representing him or herself as standing with the progressive activist base.

Given that the best way to 'distance' is to stand against everything that the leading candidates are for, what you've essentially argued is that in order to win amongst the netroots, a candidate must be losing in the election--that the netroots do not search for good candidates with good ideas, but simply evaluate the candidate relative to their standing.  

In this logic, if Hilary Clinton wanted to gain ground the netroots, all she would need to do is post a series of blog articles criticizing the 'elite' of the party--without changing one of her ideas.

I've long sincce suspected that in order to win the netroots, a candidate must first Demonstrate that they are an outsider--and the clloser they come to being the insider (e.g., the front-runner in the actual world, not online polls) the less passionately they are supported by progressives online.  

I think what this means is that many online progressives are mistaking outsider status with political philosophy.

The reason I hope it's wrong is because it means that any progressive candidate who actually does well in the real world, exposes themselves to the risk of being attacked by the netroots as too establishment.

We have already witnessed this happening to Dean and Obama.  

The big picture is a divide between netroots folks and everyday voters that may mean losing prospects for real progressive candidates.  

Daily political involvement (blogging, etc.) seems to produce a type of political supporter who forms allegiance to candidates based on dissent (e.g. how are they positioned against the pack), whereas everyday voters seem to form allegiance based on exposure (e.g., the more they see a candidate).  Based on this, the candidate with the most money will win broad public support, while the candidate with the most blog posts criticizing the party will win the netroots.

If this is correct (and who knows, really) Clinton can overcome a large percentage of her deficit amongst bloggers by simply posting to the blogs everyday in broad themes that dissent against the party.  For Feingold, it's much harder.  To overcome his deficit amongst everyday voters, he has to raise more money and buy 'face time' with the public.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-01-14 04:37AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This is interesting, but I hope it's wrong...
Given that the best way to 'distance' is to stand against everything that the leading candidates are for, what you've essentially argued is that in order to win amongst the netroots, a candidate must be losing in the election--that the netroots do not search for good candidates with good ideas, but simply evaluate the candidate relative to their standing.  

That assumpmtion is false.

by Matt Stoller 2006-01-14 05:02AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This is interesting, but I hope it's wrong...
How so?
by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-01-14 05:06AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This is interesting, but I hope it's wrong...
Given that the best way to 'distance' is to stand against everything that the leading candidates are for

That is false.  Dean did not stand against everything the leading candidates were for.  He stood for a different type of political engagement.

what you've essentially argued is that in order to win amongst the netroots, a candidate must be losing in the election--that the netroots do not search for good candidates with good ideas, but simply evaluate the candidate relative to their standing.

That's nonsense.  The netroots seek a connectivity with the candidate and campaign.  Wes Clark didn't run against the party establishment, he ran on a synthesis of the party establishment with new participants having a seat at the table.  It worked, at least as far as having netroots support goes.

Also, track Warner and Feingold and their leap forward within the Daily Kos presidential polls.  They jumped ahead not by standing against everything the leading candidates stood for.

by Matt Stoller 2006-01-14 07:03AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This is interesting, but I hope it's wrong...
OK....

But what if I don't agree that Dean stood for a different kind of political engagement?  Sure, that's what he said, but that doesn't make it true.  That idea of 'political entrepreneurship' etc. is part of his message.  At a general level, Dean was successful at recruiting volunteers--beyond that, we won't know what he succeeded at until...he succeeds.  So far, what Dean succeeded at was creating a hug reservoir of volunteers (which was a great accomplishment).

I also think Dean did stand completely against everything the party stood for when he rose to the top in 2004.  He effectively defined the only real issue as Iraq, then he stood against the party on Iraq.  All the rest was noise.  Was there any other issue in 2004 that mattered besides national security?  

I agree that the netroots seek connectivity.  But one could also argue that they seek 'broadcast capacity'--media presence.  They want to reach a wide audience.  In the Daily Kos informal polls on who was the one person people wanted most to headline at the YearlyKos convention--it was John Stewart who came out ahead.  Dean was  obviously up there, but I think it's not accurate to over-attribute to the blogs a drive for campaign participation alone.  By which I mean--it's a very traditional idea of what politics is about.  

I by and large think that bloggers with past lives as campaign activists tend to err in their view of blogs as 'campaign' oriented, while the rest of us see the blogs as media (with a smidgen who view them as 'community').

But look: I agree with Bower's broader critique of Markos and Jerome's thesis.  The netroots are a form of elite politics--albeit effectively framed as 'the people.'

(And this is a very well-timed, interesting discssion...)

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-01-14 07:24AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This is interesting, but I hope it's wrong...
I also think Dean did stand completely against everything the party stood for when he rose to the top in 2004.  He effectively defined the only real issue as Iraq, then he stood against the party on Iraq.  All the rest was noise.  Was there any other issue in 2004 that mattered besides national security?

If the issue was only about Iraq, then why didn't Kucinich find success?

by Matt Stoller 2006-01-14 10:04AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This is interesting, but I hope it's wrong...
But what if I don't agree that Dean stood for a different kind of political engagement?

I don't care if you agree or not.  This isn't about subjective opinions for parlor games sake.  You stated a bad assumption and then used it to twist what Chris said.  I called you on it, and then you turned around and asked me to justify disagreeing with your argument.  Usually the people who make the arguments bear the burden of proof.

Sure, that's what he said, but that doesn't make it true.  That idea of 'political entrepreneurship' etc. is part of his message.  At a general level, Dean was successful at recruiting volunteers--beyond that, we won't know what he succeeded at until...he succeeds.

With all due respect, this is a very top-down and solipsistic way of analyzing what happened in 2004 (shorter Feldman: Success happens when I say it happens so only I know the road to success).  Dean's campaign described a new way of generating political leadership.  The people involved in Clark's and Dean's campaigns, and then Kerry's, were doing basic organizing work, and they were doing it of their own volition to achieve power for progressives.  This wasn't licking stamps stuff, where Dean managed to attract a lot of new peons to come and do whatever the candidate wanted.  This was people taking power for themselves; the netroots is a continuation of that process.  By contrast, Gore recruited volunteers.  After 2000, they went back to regular life.

Has the netroots been successful yet?  Within a limited context, yes.  Social Security, Bolton, Ford, Microsoft, Hackett... yes, I would say it has.  Can it project consistent political power in a disciplined manner?  Not yet.  But to claim that Dean simply recruited volunteers and we'll have to wait and see whether anything else came out of 2004 is not true.  

by Matt Stoller 2006-01-14 10:20AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This is interesting, but I hope it's wrong...
Twisting Chris' words?  Wait a sec...what?  I don't understand.  This has been a totally easy going discussion up to this point. Not sure why this suddenly got personal.  I think I'm missing something here.

Anyway...I guess it's been a long week for everyone...

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-01-14 11:51AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This is interesting, but I hope it's wrong...
No, it hasn't been easy going, it has been polite.  You started out by misrepresenting what Chris wrote, and I find that irritating.  
by Matt Stoller 2006-01-14 11:56AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This is interesting, but I hope it's wrong...
(What's with cracking the whip all of the sudden?  I don't think Chris is so fragile that he needs protection--certainly not from me.  Yeesh.  I'm not exactly an enemy combatant around here..._

I see it this way: if HRC (or her staffers) suddenly started posting on dKos or MyDD, her numbers in the netroots would go up considerably because suddenly--at the very least--she would spark a discussion.  And in fact, she may have a plan to do just that (I have no idea).  Ask and ye shall receive.  And if you don't...then ask again.  

As for the Kucinich vs. Dean question:  that's a very interesting one, indeed.

Charisma is a strange thing.  Dean has it.  Kucinich doesn't.  I also believe that a large part of the problem we have right now in the Democratic party is that the people with influence are not the people with charisma.  So we have good operators, who are bad parlor speakers.  Good fundraisers, who are bad stumpspeakers.   Great speakers, who are bad organizers.  If HRC, for example, was charismatic then I think many of these problems would not be with us.   Not that I agree with her policies--that's not my point--but that she would overcome many of her campaigning issues if she was more charismatic.

It's amazing what Rove did with Bush over the first term.  They took a guy who could work a room and turned him into a first rate public speaker.  I think he's lost his edge since the campaign, but he definitely had it back then.  

I mean, when was the last time we actually heard Hilary Clinton's voice?  She's my senator and I can't even recall.  

So, Bowers asks if we have a class stratification in the netroots?  Sure, but I wouldn't call it the determining factor.   To run a successful campaign that draws in the netroots, I'd say the first step is that the candidate has to ask for netroot support and be convincing.  Outreach and personality.  

Not as concrete sounding as Chris terminology (and not nearly as eloquent), but I think just as plausible.  

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-01-14 12:25PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This is interesting, but I hope it's wrong...
I'm not exactly an enemy combatant around here..._

Again, you took what Chris wrote, and misrepresented it.  This has nothing to do with Chris, it has to do with a willingness to discuss ideas in good faith with the rest of the community.  Misrepresenting what people say to justify your own conclusions is a problem, period.

by Matt Stoller 2006-01-14 02:01PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This is interesting, but I hope it's wrong...
 I know I'm often wrong, bad faith--I never realized.

Have a good weekend.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-01-14 02:39PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This Is Interesting, But I Am 100% Confused!
This must be another of the horrors consequent to a fall into the HRC Vortex. The normal rules of space, time and logic are all distorted. In fact this in itself may be the main reason I hate Hillary. I would vote for her if she was running against Bush. But that damn vortex is totally creepy.
by blues 2006-01-16 04:38PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
lighten up!
Matt, lighten up.  who appointed you master of mydd anyway?
by aiko 2006-01-15 01:14PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This is interesting, but I hope it's wrong...
JefferyFeldman  Hate to say this but everything
that Dean said before the war was true and it is
a real shame that not emough people listened to
him.  If they had, maybe we would caught Osama, maybe more of our young men and women would be
alive and we sure will have spent a hell of lot less money.
by MOBlue 2006-01-16 03:03AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This is interesting, but I hope it's wrong...
Why would I ever disagree with that?  The points I make in this comment thread have nothing to do with whether I did or did not agree with Dean in the 2005 campaign.  I was merely talking about what accomplishments he left in the wake of that campaign--which I argued where very important, but should be defined in much more specific terms.

That's all.

I appreaciate your perspective, but check again what I wrote.  I think you'll find that I am not in any way attacking Dean...

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-01-16 10:57AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This is interesting, but I hope it's wrong...
Let me add this:

To find the candidate who leads in the netroots, first find the candidate who leads amongs the party elite. Then, find the candidate who consistently critiques the positions of the party elite (e.g., embodied by their candidate)--there's your netroots winner.  

What I meant by 'losing in the election' is that they are the party opposite--they critique the party, therefore, have the hardest time winning the nomination.  This is exactly what happened to Dean.  

Isn't that the whole issue with the progressive netroots and national candidates?  it's all about the desire to support an outsider without a formula for transforming that outsider into the insider (e.g., the winner).  

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-01-14 05:14AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This is interesting, but I hope it's wrong...
Interesting post and I think it may be right.  One of the interesting things that no one talks about here is that today's outsiders will probably be tomorrow's insiders.  One thing I would hope the "new insiders" learn is that DC can be a very insular place and you need to get out of there to learn what people are really thinking.  It is something today's progressive elite have forgotten.
by John Mills 2006-01-14 06:07AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This is interesting, but I hope it's wrong...
Also:  In order for an outsider to win, he/she needs to bring with them an entire new party structure.  This is what the radical wing of the Republicans did--both with Reagan, and then again with Bush. They launched them as outsiders, carried the 'roots' of the party, and brought a whole new structure with them.

Arguably, Clinton did this, too with the DLC (by which I mean the structure, not the policy positions).

It's almost as though the netroots is committed to an impossible proposition:  back an outsider, who then 'transform's the already existing party.  It's the 'magic leap' in the fable that holds us back.  We have the right answers as to what the Democratic Party should be doing to win back the White House.  We just don't seem to have the pieces in place, yet, to build a new party structure out from under the old.

I've written this many times, but I believe that this must all begin by having several of the larger Progressive blogs capitalize so that their intellectual power can be combined with cash power.  Can't build a new party structure on ideas alone (although it would be nice if we could).

This approach, obviously, is much more long term than just battling the elite--investing in a new structure--duking it out with the old structure in local races, followed by a big showdown at a national convention.  It's what will happen eventually.  I just don't see any other way, because the 'party elite' as they currently stand are not just going to be politiely convinced to change course.  They will need to be outflanked and (ehem) shoved off stage...

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-01-14 06:29AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This is interesting, but I hope it's wrong...
Agreed.  And many of the people who are "insiders" today were outsiders brought in by the Clinton team.  Unfortunately, they have forgotten the lessons of 1992.
by John Mills 2006-01-14 06:41AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: This is interesting, but I hope it's wrong...
Elites can be persuaded to join outsider forces.  FDR transformed the Democratic Party pretty dramatically, but the party also retained its residual strength.

The point here is not to remove the elites entirely, but to remove enough elites so that the others change their way of doing business.  It's an incentive game.

I largely agree with you that we need more of our own institutional fabric.

by Matt Stoller 2006-01-14 06:58AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Mixing apples and oranges Jeffrey?
The reason I hope it's wrong is because it means that any progressive candidate who actually does well in the real world, exposes themselves to the risk of being attacked by the netroots as too establishment. We have already witnessed this happening to Dean and Obama.

Obama has given us an overabundance of reasons to be critical. Where and when has Howard Dean been criticized by anyone except DLC Dems?

If this is correct (and who knows, really) Clinton can overcome a large percentage of her deficit amongst bloggers by simply posting to the blogs everyday in broad themes that dissent against the party.

I think you have misgauged the level of distrust progresssives and the netroots have towards Hillary. I believe you have also misgauged the willingness of BillandHillary to triangulate back towards the center. In fact, I'm of the opinion that BillandHillary are finally showing their true colors and have been Republican Lite Lieberman Democrats the whole time.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-01-14 06:42AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Mixing apples and oranges Jeffrey?
I don't think so.  We may just be using different definitions of 'netroots.'  I'm talking about the broad readership of the big blogs. I've seen time and time again that whenever an elected official posts to dKos, for example, they win support. Period.  Doesn't really matter all that much what they say.   People who run their own sites--that's different, I agree. If they don't like a candidate,now, they probably never will.  

But, ultimately, I don't really think this is about trust for one candidate or another. I see it as a structural issue for the netroots. In a sense, we need to get past looking to what we think about one candidate against another to solve this problem.  It's about designing a system and then running that system, not about the candidate, per se.  We should be able to find dozens of candidates that meet the bill (eventually), as opposed to depending on the one to deliver us.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-01-14 06:58AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Mixing apples and oranges Jeffrey?
I still am not buying the Dean/Obama comparison. To the best of my knowledge Dean has not been attacked by the netroots, because he has not betrayed his promise.

We should be able to find dozens of candidates that meet the bill (eventually), as opposed to depending on the one to deliver us.

We would have dozens of candidates to support if we weren't also fighting the DLC, DCCC and DSCC. We either have to help reform Democrats win back control of the party or switch our allegiance to another party.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-01-14 03:50PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Mixing apples and oranges Jeffrey?
I see our point, but I don't know that we have to switch allegiance to another party.  The debate as I see it is really very normal--competing definitions of what will constitute the next 'era' or 'phase' of the Party.  I confess that I am a newcommer to formal party politics, but it seems to me that we should just get rid of the idea of abandoning the Democrats--throw that idea away--and focus instead on strategies for gaining greater control over the direction/practice of the party.  

Matt makes a version of this point up thread and I agree with it.  

This is what Clinton did, what Reagan did--I think it's what FDR did.  

Doesn't that make sense?  I mean, you have more exprience with party dynamics than I do, but isn't it more viable in the long run to think about dominating the party with new/better ideas than  trying to launch a new party altogether?  The new party approach seems very European to me--a forumula for success in a parliamentary list system, but not in the U.S. system.

For example, I am less and less of a fan of HRC with each passing day. But I also realize that she is very 'partied' in every sense of the word (money, staff, geographic distribution, etc.).  So, what frustrates me about her is not just that I don't know what the heck she stands for anymore, but that I don't see anyone with my views who has that same level of party structure attached to them.  You know...without that structure, a Presidential bid doesn't seem to make it.  So we need a candidate that can challenge the leadership both at the level of ideas and party organization.  

Make sense?

(As for criticism of Dean/Obama--there was a backlash from some in the netroots against Dean about a month or so after he took over the DNC, although it subsided.)

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-01-15 12:56AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Mixing apples and oranges Jeffrey?
it seems to me that we should just get rid of the idea of abandoning the Democrats--throw that idea away--and focus instead on strategies for gaining greater control over the direction/practice of the party.

That is exactly the crux of the problem.

Is there a strategy for gaining greater control over the direction of the party that can succeed?

Will that strategy be more successful than a third party challenge?

Will a strategy that combines both approaches in a complimentary manner be more effective than either strategy alone?

I am an active participant in DFA and Democratic primaries on the side of progressive Dems. I am also willing to walk away from the table if that will be more effective in transforming the Democratic Party. Your assumption that this is an either/or choice is not valid.

I favor a strategy of challenging the DLC party leadership from both inside and outside the party structure. I am constantly informed that if Hillary loses (or whoever the Democratic Machine chooses) it will be my fault for not being a loyal soldier. Too bad, so sad.

I am no longer willing to play the NABA Game where the DLC, DCCC and DSCC rig the primaries to exclude progressives and then accuse me of not being a good Dem if I don't support the result of a rigged primary.

Even in this diary there are DLC hacks who attempt to convince everyone that Hillary is the foregone winner of a Democratic primary and anyone who disagrees is stupid or a Bad Democrat. Again, too bad, so sad. The Bad Democrats like Howard Dean are going to take back the party eventually. In the meantime, it is a bad idea for the party bosses to assume our vote is a given.

One final point. There is no valid comparison between Dean and Obama. Obama is a faux reformer who is playing footsie with the Democratic Machine and campaigning against progressive Dems. Screw Obama.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-01-15 03:04AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Mixing apples and oranges Jeffrey?
Those are all good points.  I see what you mean about the third party option, and what I missed--third party as a form of leverage.  But if, for example, we say "We can always vote Greeen (e.g.) so don't count on us," can we then say "It's not our fault" when the Dems lose?  It's like we want to claim the power to take down the party by voting elsewhere, but then at the same time we want to disavow that power once we are accused of betrayal.

I think that's what happened to Nader.  He said, basically, the party is corrupt, and I will challenge it by speaking the truth and taking away votes. Then when the party said, we lost because you took away our votes, Nader responded by saying, it wasn't my fault you lost--which is kind of right, but not 100%, if you see what I mean.

I didn't vote Nader, but I've always wished he had had a better answer than that, because without it, I think it leaves many of us wondering exactling what it means to withhold a vote from the Democrats.  I always end up returning to the 'lesser of two evils' logic.  Who is worse, HRC or McCain?  In the end, I'd probably work for Feingold then if he didn't get the nod, vote for HRC.  Not because of the DLC, but just because that's pretty normal, right?

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-01-15 03:26AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Mixing apples and oranges Jeffrey?
I put in at least six months on repentantnadervoter (dot) org, prior to the 2004 debacle arguing about this exact thing. I suspected that Kerry was some peculiar sort of a wus, but I supported him more than anyone else there. For many months I had more posts there (yes, as blues) than everyone else combined!

Now here is a very funny thing. The "super" at the blog (actually a BB), Aaron Soto, let me spend about half of that bandwidth ranting that computer voting was about to become the "new Nader." I was right.

I think Gary Boatwright is right about most of this. It's like the song says: "You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em , know when to walk away, know when to run!" Democracy, and Anti-Democracy, comprise a fluid medium. Unlike Poker, the Democracy / Anti-Democracy Game often involves far more than just money. People get killed...

by blues 2006-01-16 05:12PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
What "The Base" means to me
Looking at the Republican side, I'd have to say that "The Base" are the people who couldn't possibly vote for the other party, no matter how bad there own is.  The worst they can do is not show up.

If the same holds for the Democrats, then we are that base.  We will vote for Hillary if she is nominated, no matter who the Republican's pick.  

The difference then is that we are self motivated and Bush has to play to his base regularly.  Why?  Maybe it's the Perot factor.  Maybe once in a blue moon the base can be moved to show up and vote for an independent.  Maybe also Bush's support amoung moderates is so low that he needs to be assured of 100% support from his base.  Hillary knows we have to vote for her so she is playing to the middle.  This worked for Kerry, didn't it?  He lost, sure, but by one of the smallest margins ever.

We ought to give her one hell of a primary fight though.

by David in Burbank 2006-01-14 04:40AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: A lot to chew on
Listen, I don't think we've been doing that.  I don't think our elected officials have been very good at articulating our values -- and I think we've been losing elections because they've been so good at "positioning themselves to the center" that they haven't been able to make a good case for our values.  Dems haven't been running on progressive values, they've been running as "Republican lite."  And that's why they're losing.

What we need is a leader who will LEAD, who can articulate our values clearly, who will bring the rest of the country along with us.  The Republicans have pulled the country pretty far right, that now what used to be "centrist" policies are now called "liberal."  Huh?  I want someone who can lead us, who can show the world the difference between Democratic values and Republican values.  In other words, that we have them, and for all their gas about them -- its just so much hypocrisy.  I don't want someone who has spent her life "triangulating."  

On the other hand, if I lived in NY, I would probably vote for Hillary for Senate.  But I will not vote for her for President.  I think she's smart, I view with distrust reports that she's not personable or is "cold" -- a real trope for an ambitious woman -- but I do wish she would articulate real values and not sham ones. AND I wish that she would stand up for Democrats when she goes on national TV.

by Maven 2006-01-14 05:25AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: A lot to chew on
"We will not get there by being Republican Lite. We will not get there by being Republican Quiet. We will not get there by being Republicans on Monday and Democrats on Tuesday." - Russ Feingold

:)

by KainIIIC 2006-01-14 07:45AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: A lot to chew on
KainIIIC - Probably the shortest and truest statement in the entire blog.
by MOBlue 2006-01-16 02:47AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Sincerity relevant & works both ways
The way Clinton conducts herself through her votes and public statements/appearances, etc. results in her getting the big donors and very few of the small donors from the blogosphere.

Thus, sdedeo's point about her insincerity is very relevant and fits within the argument being made - it is a quality that the small-fish activists demand while clearly not being a priority for big establishment donors.  I'd also say her ideological inconsistencies both in her voting record and her public statemetns would tend to reinforce the perception among those who aren't giving enormous sums that (1) she's doing what's popular to cynically position herself for higher office and (2) those who are giving the big bucks are looking for something in return.  

For small-fish activists, while we focus on electibility, we aren't going to embrace someone we don't believe is a reliably-solid Dem; big-donors might not care so much.  And sincerity of a politician's following is measured by the number small donors, not the dollar amount raised from big ones.  Since no one in their right mind would expect a Senator to give a political favor to anyone giving them a $50, $250, or even $500 donation, their ability to attract these modest (in relative terms) donations in large numbers proves that they've got sincere support.  That's certainly this small-fish looks for.

by PeterB 2006-01-14 06:15AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Wow.
Great post. Dead on to my perceptions, only I never was able to provide the level clarity that you have Chris.

The difference between the "insider" activist class and the blog activists for me is centered on access and influence. The insider class of activist donors get face time with the candidates they support. They get special treatment, perks like being wooed directly with special meet and greet events not open to ordinary residents, and seem to be given (in truth or in fiction) more importance through the focus on the bottom line of campaign finance reports. A small number of insiders with ties to DC giving $2,100 checks makes a bigger dent on an FEC report than a bunch of locals giving $50 they can't really afford.

This level of influence is probably core for me at the heart of the friction. Local activists are seen as the unwashed masses who will do the GOTV grunt work and stuff envelopes. Pat them on the head and make them feel important by waving at them while the high paid campaign consultant schedules another high dollar meet and greet at some DC lawfirm.

But campaigns cost money and in some respects this has to happen. But it is a source of friction as you've noted.

One last thought -this line did make me smile:
"Political blog readers are the highly engaged avant-garde of American politics."

Never thought of myself as avant-garde before!

by michael in chicago 2006-01-14 06:36AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re-frame class analogy
Great post and comments.

1.  The working class analogy should probably be re-phrased.  As everyone has pointed out, by and large the blogs are not frequented by working class folks.  And I don't think working class folks will ever flock to the blogs because there is often a disconnect around here when it comes to debating solutions to low income urban issues like wages, housing, education, crime, jobs, health care. I enjoy/crave the political analysis but go out of blogs for policy.  (Kid Oakland would be a remarkable exception.)

Your post is fantastic! But using a class analogy and crafting an imaginary class divide to compare the well off vs. the rich is demeaning to the more problematic and painful class divides that exists all over America and is very rigid and often almost impossible to bridge.

  1.  I wil never vote for Hillary, unless she wins the democratic nomination--then I will do anything to get her elected.  Bottom line:  I believe a woman president would be good thing and I believe that HRC didn't suddenly forget her liberal ideology. It is still there and will emerge if she becomes president.

  2.  I find your analysis helpful and I hope the next step is to define a more permanent role for this endeavor and group of people.  
by aiko 2006-01-14 06:38AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
For me...
I want a 'new' face in 08. Biden, Kerry, and Clinton are old.  

I also don't like the idea of two families in the WH for the better part of three decades.  

by Newsie8200 2006-01-14 06:58AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
At the End of the Day, Disconnect
At the end of the day, one thing is for sure- There is a BIG DISCONNECT between netroot activists & the rest of the Democratic Party.

Three Simple yet Perfect examples.

One, Hillary Clinton.
Not even on the radar among the netroots community.
But is the number 1 choice right now among all Democrats. ( Regardless of what poll you're looking at) BIG DISCONNECT!

Two, Joe Lieberman. The Most Unpopular politician among Netroots.
But is getting almost a 70% approval rating among Democratic voters in his state.
BIG DISCONNECT !

Three, Howard Dean in 2004. The Most Popular Netroots candidate who made history in fundraising among small donors online.
But in the big tent of the Democratic party, John Kerry, John Edwards, & Wes Clark came in higher in the 2004 Primary.
BIG DISCONNECT !

A fusion ticket will probably be the best solution in '08.

by labanman 2006-01-14 08:03AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Um didn't Dean lose
in the primary?

I dont' remember that the DNC selected Kerry.  Or is my memory failing?

by synthia 2006-01-15 05:36AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
It is just about IRAQ and LEADERSHIP
Chris Bowers says:
"Now, look at progressive netroots preference for 2008 once again. The entire top tier--Senator Feingold, General Clark, Governor Warner and Senator Edwards--is filled with candidates who are perceived as coming from outside the progressive activist elite, or who regularly challenge that elite. These are candidates who are perceived by the activist base as not for the activist base, rather than for the activist elite. Senator Feingold, who is viewed as perhaps the ultimate progressive maverick, is now comfortably leading these polls."

The entire top tier--Senator Feingold, General Clark, Governor Warner and Senator Edwards--And add Gov Dean or Al Gore--common characteristics is--They were against the Iraq War. Gov Warner though was not involved in it but is a popular red-state governor with results and Sen Edwards apologized for his Iraq War vote and got involved in anti-poverty issues.  

These people are who I and I suspect the netroots are TRUE LEADERS because they would speak out on issues even if it is against common wisdom.  They are who we think will make things happen instead of just be reactive.  They are who we think have lots of character and principled.  They are people with characteristics of who we see as charismatic good leaders.

Harry Reid fits this category too.  Why dont Harry Reid run as president--I think he will be popular with netroots too.

Just imagine if Hillary Clinton uses her visibility and her status as former first lady, her being "elite" voted against the Iraq War and consistently speaks out and tries to influence public opinion towards issues that matter to the average Joe--people will call her maverick but she will be loved by the netroots.

Or if the whole Democratic Party Senators were against the Iraq War and spoke out---then we wont be distinguishing between inside or outside elite.

I think it is really about our idea of "LEADERSHIP"  and  Iraq War tested their mettle and many failed the test.

by jasmine 2006-01-14 08:17AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Only One Problem with that
>>Just imagine if Hillary Clinton uses her visibility and her status as former first lady, her being "elite" voted against the Iraq War and consistently speaks out and tries to influence public opinion towards issues that matter to the average Joe--people will call her maverick but she will be loved by the netroots.
Or if the whole Democratic Party Senators were against the Iraq War and spoke out---then we wont be distinguishing between inside or outside elite.
I think it is really about our idea of "LEADERSHIP"  and  Iraq War tested their mettle and many failed the test.
by jasmine >>

Jasmine, I certainly understand and agree with what you're saying. However, there is one Major problem with it.

You have to remember that back in 2002 & 2003, a big portion of rank & file registered Democrats across the country supported the Iraq war. An even higher # of registered Independent voters also had favorable opinions of the Iraq war & removing Hussein. ( Of course, thanks to the Misrepresentation of the facts by Bush & Rumsfeld)
( The tide of public opinion only started shifting in summer of 2005)

 Therefore, the same divide was reflected by Democratic politicians since many among their constituency also supported the Iraq war. If you recall, even Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid were both torn on this issue since a sizeable number among their partymates supported the Iraq war then.

And based on the public & confidential data given at that time, a good number of Democratic Senators voted for the war. ( which mirrored the sentiments of many of their constituents).

Polls back then showed about half of Democratic voters were against the war, but the other half supported it?

20/20 hindsight. Today, 2006, polls show close to 80% of Democratic voters think the war was a mistake.

Feingold had the belief that the War was wrong, he voted against it, and today, I think many of us will agree that he made the right decision. While people like Edwards, Clinton, Kerry, Bayh voted for the war & today most of them admit that it was a mistake.

While the rest of the Democratic politicians  who did not have to Vote on record,I don't pay too much attention. It's easy to scream & yell that you're Anti-War when you don't have to make a critical vote as a representative of the people in your state.

But making a correct decision versus an incorrect decision on a vote does not make you less of a Democrat or a more deserving democrat.

What I have a problem with is HRC's refusal to admit that she made a mistake. I understand why she refuses to admit it ( Kerry learned the hard way how the Right Wing Machine can label you a " Flip Flop 24/7), but she has to if hopes to reach out to democrats who hate her for that. Unless of course, she really believes that she did the right thing & is still correct today.

by labanman 2006-01-14 08:48AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Only One Problem with that
You know why I think the rank and file Democrats  and the average guy supported the war--because they thought Iraq had something to do with 911 and that Iraq had WMD ready to strike the US.  The netroots are the informed who read a lot and thus know it is not true.  Once the rest of the rank and file Democrats or the average guy realized that the reasons purported were not true they are now against the Iraq War.

So it was a matter of being informed about the issues--because the netroots response is really the mainstream response if they have they same info as the netroots.

And the reason why the rank and file and mainstream were not informed is the failure of the Democrats and the media to inform them.

by jasmine 2006-01-14 02:07PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Honostly
what are you all going to do when she is the nominee.  Regardless of what you all think of here as I mentioned earlier, no one can match the amount of money she is going to have in the primary.  Money is going to make her the nominee.  Mark Warner is the best chance to knock her off her horse, and he doesn't have the money to do it.  So when she is the nominee are you all going to just sit here and cry about it, and say "I'm not voting now" and let another Republican asswhole get into office.  Or are you all going to do the right thing and work your ass'es off to make sure we have a Democrat in the White House?
by Democratsin06 08 2006-01-14 10:19AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
In the immortal words of Douglas Adams
"The people are peope, the candidates are Lizards."

"So why vote for a Lizard."

"If you don't, then the other guy's Lizard will win."

No thanks.

by ElitistJohn 2006-01-14 10:36AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: In the immortal words of Douglas Adams
I really don't understand people like you.  You would rather have more people lose their jobs, homes, healthcare, etc.. Because Hillary got the nominee.  Well fuck you. This country deserves better a lot better than you're willing to give it.  I hope people like you are in the minority, because if you're not then we have to go threw another four years of HELL.  Just make sure that if Hillary does lose the presidency that whenever one of your friends or family member's is effected by right wing agenda they have you to thank for that.
by Democratsin06 08 2006-01-14 11:46AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: In the immortal words of Douglas Adams
Trnslation - Support my aristocrat you're gonna pay, buddy!
by ElitistJohn 2006-01-14 12:03PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Honostly
Why would I work my ass off to make sure a Lieberman Democrat like Hillary gets into the White House?

I'll probably support the Green candidate or whoever is attacking Hillary from the left. If another Republican asshole gets into officce it will be the fault of Hillary and the Democratic leadership for screwing up the Democratic Party to the point where only GOP lite Reagan Democrats are represented.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-01-14 03:38PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Especially since we have a such
great president in office right now.  Maybe we'll get lucky and Cheney will run!  

I'm trying to figure out if the bad buzz on Hillary is being put out by an opportunistic liberal wannabe, that Arkansas psychotic who has it in for the Clintons or trolls.

She would make the strongest president, mainly because of her close connection.  By herself, I don't think she would do much more than she has as a senator.  But these persistant Hillary bashings in the blogs are coming from something besides grass roots.

by synthia 2006-01-14 05:05PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Especially since we have a such
I agree with you soooooooo much.  These bashing wont mean a thing in the primaries she'll win regardless of what the "blogers" say or do.  It's the trolls and the PESIMESTIC DEMS/LIBERALS who are afraid of Hillary.  They want to believe she can win but their just to afraid of taking risks.  I'm tired of running the "SAFE" candidate.  Last time we chose Kerry over Dean because he was the "SAFE" candidate.  Take a risk for once choose Hillary and in 08 she's our next PRESIDENT.
by Democratsin06 08 2006-01-14 05:31PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Especially since we have a such
Hillary is Not As Bad As Bush. Great campaign slogan. How could anyone possibly disagree with logic like that?

Persisitent HIllary bashings are coming from the same people who bash Lieberman for much the same reasons. Why is that so difficult to understand?

by Gary Boatwright 2006-01-14 07:07PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Especially since we have a such
Do you honestly believe that the only people who have trouble with Hillary must have some sort of ulterior motive? The very real criticism leveled at her from honest, principled Democrats is well documented. Co-sponsoring an anti-flag burning law, supporting for the Iraq war, proposing to ban sales of 'violent' video games -- just because you're okay with all of that doesn't mean that everyone else should be, too.
by Scott Shields 2006-01-14 08:08PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Especially since we have a such
No what we don't understand is how she could have went from the "DARLING OF THE LEFT" to being someone who everyone on the blogs hates.  The reason is so stupid to because of her Iraq stance, that's the real reason and you all know it.  Like someone said in an earlier post all of you need to quit being so selfish.  No one is saying you have to vote for her in the primary what were saying is that it's stupid not to vote for her in the NATIONAL ELECTION.  No Republican is better than her PERIOD.  Because of all of your selfishness and because she isnt your "perfect" candidate your going to take your ball and go home.  So yes it is your fault if you sit home and let another Republican get into office.  You can say its the DLC's fault all you want but it's yours.  You sat home, you didn't care, you let this country have four more years of hell.  People like you don't deserve the right to vote.  One more time let me make my self clear. It's not because you don't support her in the primaries you can support whoever you want, it's because you don't support your party's nominee and would sit home and let everyone in this country suffer because your to selfish and stuborn to do the right thing and get this country out of the HELL hole it's in.
by Democratsin06 08 2006-01-14 08:21PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Especially since we have a such
Let her win the primary first.  I doubt she can.
by Maven 2006-01-15 06:08AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Especially since we have a such
Regardless of how anyone feels about the national election, why don't you think she can win the primary?  Everyone has basically said the it's her if she wants it.  Their is no one who can stop her in the primary.  Her biggest opposition will be Feingold and Warner.  Hillary will have at least $80 million in the bank and no one can match that especially Feingold he'll be the first one to drop out then it'll be left to Warner.  Everyone will rally behind him as the anti-Hillary candidate, and he wont gain enough support or money to beat her.  Hillary already has at least 8/10 of the conservative/moderate Dems.  Then she has at least 5/10(probably more) of the liberal Dems.  That support is solid and wont fade away.  So regardless of what everyone thinks about the national election, it's going to be almost impossible to beat Hillary in the primary.
by Democratsin06 08 2006-01-15 11:38AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I'm calling Bullshit!
The reason is so stupid to because of her Iraq stance, that's the real reason and you all know it.

We just went through this bullshit with Lieberman. One of the conservatives here kept insisting that nobody had any real complaint against Joementum except his stand on Iraq.

If Hillary and the DLC want to get America out of Bush's "HELL hole" then they can start cooperating with the progressive grass/netroots instead of cooperating with and pandering to the GOP base. If Hillary wants to talk and vote and act like a damned Republican, don't be surprised if a hell of a lot of Democrats don't vote for her in the general election.

If Democrats are stupid enough to choose Hillary in the primary, it won't be anyone's fault except Hillary's and the Democratic Party's if she loses in '08.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-01-15 09:19AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Especially since we have a suchDemocratsin06 0
You know there are a lot of us selfish and stuborn people that would sure like to do the right thing and vote for someone that has some principles, is willing to fight for them and is not in the pocket of big business.  Woops sure doen't sound like Hillary.
by MOBlue 2006-01-16 03:24AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Especially since we have a such
You have absolutely no idea how stupid it is of you to accuse me of all of this crap.

It's actually quite funny.

by Scott Shields 2006-01-16 06:55AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Honestly
It would be a disaster if she won the primary because she wouldn't have a prayer in the general election: she's way too polarizing a figure.  The GOP could energize more people to vote against her than the Democrats could to vote for her.
by pzykr 2006-01-14 09:27PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I only have one reason
She's too dumb or ego-ridden to know she would lost 65-35 and destroy the party ticket down to the dog-catcher election.
by tuffie 2006-01-14 10:33AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I only have one reason
Before you comment do your homework.  Hillary only loses to one person McCain.  She's tied with Guiliani and kicks everyone else's ass.  McCain wont win the nomination because of his maverick stance, and almost everyday I check one of those right wing blogs and almost everyone of them says they wont vote for him even if he's the only one who can beat Hillary, so he's gone.  Then Guiliani he's way to liberal and the republicans couldn't live with theirselves if they nominated a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and anti-gun person.  He's only doing so good in the polls because of name id and 9/11 once Republicans find out who he really is he's toast.  George Allen will win the nomination.  Hillary will carry every Kerry state plus Ohio, Iowa, and Missouri(only MO because since 1900 with one exception no one wins without MO).  Then depending on her VP she can possibly win Arkansas, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado.  So if McCain doesn't get the nomination then Hillary is our next President.
by Democratsin06 08 2006-01-14 11:54AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
You can't possibly believe this.
I'm stunned that someone could actually think this is possible.  There are strong Democratic women in my office who would sooner gouge out their eyes with a flaming poker than vote for a Republican, who will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton.  Too many people simply do not like her; she is a phony and opportunist to many on the left, and to the rest of the country ... certainly enough to have her slaughtered in the election ... she is the wrong gender.  Plus she's a lousy, whining, droning speaker ... and why are we even arguing?  Polls, now?  Would "only lose to McCain" who "can't be nominated"?  Why? Because Freepers don't like him?  Tell that the GOP regulars who are actively filling his coffers right now.  Doesn't matter anyway.  She would be a disaster of epic proportions.
by tuffie 2006-01-14 03:15PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You can't possibly believe this.
Your right their is no point arguing with you because your to stupid to see what's right in front of your face.  My prediction is extremely possible, I always laugh at people like you.  The same thing was said about Regaan and look what happened to him not one Repulican or anyone thought he could win and he won two terms.  How many people doubted Margret Thatcher and I can't remember her name but the new Chancelor of Germany, but they both won and they were WOMEN.  If it was any other year but 08 I would agree with you. But because of Bush and the GOP's screw ups she will win.  Also about your "Democrat women who wont vote for her" thing.  I know plenty of moderate and even some hard core Republican women who have voted GOP their whole life.  I went threw every Democrat I could name in 2008 and they said no to all of them except HILLARY.  I asked them why they would vote for her when she stands against everything that their for.  They all said because she's a woman and I want to see a woman become President in their life.  Plus all of these "blogers" who hate her right now will all fall in line after she wins the nomination.  All of you always do and you'll do it again this time, if you don't then it's all of your faults for another four years of HELL.  Last her move to the center is working and here's a poll to prove it, but since it's Rasmussen add more points to her side.

P.S.-Maybe if more Liberals weren't as arrogant as you maybe we would be pulling more people to our side.

     Hillary Meter: 39% Liberal

Survey of 1,000 Adults

January 10, 2006

Election 2008

If Hillary Runs?
Definitely Vote For     34%
Def Vote Against     35%
Depends On Who She Runs Against     25%

RasmussenReports.com

Election 2008

Hillary Political Ideology
Conservative     11%
Moderate     38%
Liberal     39%

RasmussenReports.com

Election 2008

Hillary Clinton
Favorable     47%
Unfavorable     39%

RasmussenReports.com

Election 2008

How likely is it that Senator Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic candidate for President in Election 2008?
Very Likely     30%
Somewhat Likely     36%
Not Very Likely     17%
Not at All Likely     9%

RasmussenReports.com

January 11, 2005--The first Hillary Meter of 2006 shows a more positive perception of New York's Junior Senator than any survey conducted in 2005.

For the first time ever, fewer than 40% of Americans view Clinton as politically liberal. Thirty-nine percent (39%) now see her as liberal while 38% say moderate. Last January, 51% of Americans viewed the former First Lady as liberal. (see trends).

The perceived shift to the right has made her more appealing to voters--34% now say they would definitely vote for Clinton while 35% say they would definitely vote against her. In mid-December, those numbers were 30% for and 37% against.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) would definitely vote against Senator Clinton. Demographic crosstabs are available for Premium Members.

Collectively, today's Hillary Meter places Senator Clinton a net 45 points to the left of the nation's political center. That's the closest to the political center she has been since we began bi-weekly polling last year. As with all tracking polls, it remains to be seen whether this is a lasting improvement or merely statistical noise.

[Explanation of the political center and more data below]

The political center is calculated by subtracting the number of liberals from the number of conservatives among the general public (35% conservative, 18% liberal for a net +17). For the Senator, 11% conservative minus 39% liberal equals a net minus 28. The minus 28 reading for Senator Clinton is 45 points away from the plus 17 reading for the general public.

Nationally, 47% of Americans have a favorable opinion of New York's junior Senator while 39% hold an unfavorable view. Demographic crosstabs are available for Premium Members.

Thirty percent (30%) of Americans say New York's junior Senator is "very likely" to win the Democratic nomination in 2008. Another 36% say she is "somewhat likely" to be the party's nominee. Senator Clinton leads the pack among Democratic Primary voters, attracting more votes than the next three candidates combined.

The Hillary Meter is a twice monthly measure of Senator Hillary Clinton's effort to move to the political center. Rasmussen Reports will not conduct a Hillary Meter poll between Christmas and New Years. The next update is scheduled for Wednesday, January 25. For as long as the former First Lady is a viable candidate for the White House, Rasmussen Reports will monitor public perceptions of her political ideology.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

Visit our Election Polls page to see a summary of our latest state-by state polling. Rasmussen Reports is polling every Senate and Governors' race at least once a month this year. We also update the President's Job Approval on a daily basis.

Rasmussen Reports was the nation's most accurate polling firm during the Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry's vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome.

During Election 2004, RasmussenReports.com was also the top-ranked public opinion research site on the web. We had twice as many visitors as our nearest competitor and nearly as many as all competitors combined.

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.
Sign up for our free Weekly Update

This survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted by Rasmussen Reports January 10, 2005.  The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

by Democratsin06 08 2006-01-14 05:27PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You can't possibly believe this.
Double posting a lengthy cut and paste comment in the same diary is stupid. Your entire analysis is stupid. What is right in front of your face, that you refuse to recognize, is that HRC will never win a Democratic primary, and if she does will lose the general election.

The American people will never vote for a woman to be CinC. What people say in a poll today has zero relevance to how they will vote in 2008.

If DLC Dems were not so arrogantly stupid the Democratic Party could win back both houses of Congress and the White House. If the GOP controls anything in 2008 it will be all on you and the rest of the GOP lite Dems over at Blueprint Magazine.

by Gary Boatwright 2006-01-15 03:10AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Let's cancel the election
Since you have it all figured out on your homework assignment, why bother with voting? We'll just tell the GOP they can conceed the election a couple of years early and we'll start planning Hillary's coronation.
by Gary Boatwright 2006-01-14 07:01PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Last thing
I have to say is this picture did it for me.

http://www.votehillary.org/img/SplashHeader.jpg

by Democratsin06 08 2006-01-14 08:44PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Last thing
I prefer the one in the 2004 Convention, where the idiot got caught on camera with Chelsea sucking down Crystal out of a Waterford flute during John Edwards "two Americas" speech. Chelsea had the common sense to realize that sucking down multi-hundred dollar Crystal might just be in appropriate in context and put it down. Good ol'Hil just sneered at the camera and took another long drink.
by ElitistJohn 2006-01-14 10:39PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I don't hate the progressive activist elite.
Sorry, I haven't read the zillions of comments on this post, but I have to say Chris, this is one of the only things I've read of yours that I completely disagree with. I have absolutely nothing against what you call the "progressive activist elites." I agree that they seem to support Clinton, and that doesn't put her down a notch in my mind. Instead, it puts them down. They should be supporting a real Democrat, not a DLCer. Clinton is a pro-business Democrat which is a code word for "I take bribes." The epilogue of Frank Thomas's What's the Matter with Kansas? was enough to convince me of that.

I think that the progressive elite (i.e. wealthy donors) are an essential part of the Democratic caucus, and the netroots should be supporting them, not pushing them away.

by nstrauss 2006-01-14 08:47PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
If Hillary is the Nominee, I Predict.....
It's January, 2006. There is tremendous anger, dislike, disdain against Hillary Clinton among a clear majority of the netroots community.

But I can confidently predict that if indeed Hillary Rodham-Clinton survives the Democratic Primary & goes on to be the nominee- we will see the ovewhelmingly majority of the netroots Democratic community rallying behind Clinton.

When I say majority, I am talking about 90% of bloggers & netroot activists will end up supporting her. Why? Because most of them will do anything to stop the Republican party from winning again & continuing o destroy our nation.

I have no doubt that Netroots leaders from Markos, Chris, Jerome, etc. will all unite in endorsing Hillary if indeed she is the nominee.

Yes, we will see a loud minority of bloggers who will chose to go Green Party & abandon the Democratic Party nominee- but it will be a relatively small number.

As I've always said, for every radical Left wing Democratic voter who abandons the party, we gain 5 mainstream, independent voters who will openly vote for a moderate mainstream democrat.

There is NO perfect candidate. You cannot satisfy everyone.

by labanman 2006-01-14 09:24PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: If Hillary is the Nominee, I Predict.....
There will be a Naderite candidate that doubles the number of votes Nader got on his best day. Independents will decide they can't vote for a woman to be CinC during a war. The GOP candidate will win anothe squeaker with more help from black box vote irregularities and another court decision that Scalia, Thomas and Alito all insist is not precedent.
by Gary Boatwright 2006-01-15 03:15AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Hillary, right or wrong?
I have read most of the comments here but I have to admit, some of them just got too melodramatic.  I understand the hatred of her from the right wingers but I don't understand why most of you appear to hate her as well.  

1-She tried to devise the first plan for health care for all Americans, not just the welfare junkies and the uber-rich.
2-War, so she sided with  little bush on this.  Ya know something, so did Bill, Bush1, Kerry and many other people.  Like it or not, this war wasn't illegal.  After 17 resolutions, it was high time.  BUT, I think that it should have been stated from the fact that it was about controlling the oil interests not WMD.  
3-Hillary sees the need to go to the middle of the road because most clear minded individuals don't want the right wingers or the left wingers controlling everything.  I believe you will see a new party evolving over the course of the next ten years that represents more of a centrist view.  She sees this and is moving in that direction.  
4-Dean is not presidential material, never was, never will be.  I'd like the Democratic party to put someone out there like Hillary so this country can get away from the looney partisan blogging of a few who claim to be knowledgeable about the 'common man'.  Visit a rez sometime people.  No one can see through the fog of political war better than an indian can.  They know that the only way to govern is right down the middle.

by TrueCentrist 2006-01-15 04:25AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
You've captured the problem with her
right there - an embrace of "middle-of-the-road"-ism and "centrism".  Governing by splitting the difference in the parties in theory might give you a position that the largest portion of Americans would agree on.  But this is not what happens because Replicans KNOW that many Democrats are doing this calculation and use that as encouragement to simply play to their own base and take the most extreme positions possible.  

They get these Democrats to do the lite-version of what their doing, and know they will not face criticism from them for being so extreme because they will compromise themselves by half-adopting their position.  It results long-term in veering the country further rightward ideologically because much of the Dem party never stands on principle and focuses on positioning instead, and the American people know it.  If you never stand for anything and try to appeal to all, and don't have the courage to even play to your base, no one will ever think you have core beliefs.  Thus the impression that R's believe in what they do, and D's don't.  That's where centrism gets you.  

by PeterB 2006-01-15 05:22AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Hillary has been harassed since
her husband first took office, and she attempted to revamp
natioinal health.

Threads like this are part of an on-going campaign of the same
thugs for hire. Who booed her when she spoke in NYC after 9/11.

Even though Dean is my choice for president, I find myself defending one of our own, and I feel like this is at the point of needing a -FULL- investiagion.

I want to know the real names of the people making the blog rounds.

This is beyond politics.  This is the same manure that prevented President Gore from taking office.

by synthia 2006-01-15 05:26AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
My real name
is Gary Boatwright.
by Gary Boatwright 2006-01-15 09:21AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: My real name
My real blog name, for years, has been blues. If you really want to track me down, I have mentioned my very-slowly- being-constructed linguistics bulletin board at anti-grammar (dot) com in several places. (Not the nifty antigrammar (dot) com, without the dash.)

I come from Danbury, Connecticut, and have lived in Putnam County New York (not at all far from the Clinton's current place). (The area has this really interesting little nook called "Nuclear Lake," which you are supposed to steer very clear of.)

If you had kept a close eye on the Clintons, you would have noticed a very disturbing pattern years ago. You might have noted the real-world effects of the Iraq sanctions. Etc., etc., etc. Yes, there is a "vast right-wing conspiracy" out to get them. But life is just so damn complicarted and all...

by blues 2006-01-16 06:05PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Tweety (the Whore) Matthews
bashes Hillary at every opportunity.

We know the man's mouth is a rental property.

I'd forgotten to mention this in the previous post.

Once again, the threads are coming from somebody's pocket, and I feel strongly that after all these years, an investigation is in order.

by synthia 2006-01-15 05:31AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Since when is an attack on someone's
politics an attack on them?  Are you confusing the right-wing demonization of Hilary Clinton as a person with the criticism she gets from the lefty blogs that has to do with her politics?  Chris' post and most of the comments here don't attack Clinton personally
by PeterB 2006-01-15 09:53AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Are you kidding?
In the 2 years, before I stopped watching Hardball altogether, Matthews came out with more Hillary potshots than I can count.  They were personal.
One of his shows was devoted exclusively to Hillary-bashing.  He had 4 guests, and they all sat there agreeing with each other, yukking it up at Hillary's expense. This was a few months before the democratic primaries.  Around that point, there must have been a policy change and bloviators on MSNBC started having guests with "opposing" opinions.
by synthia 2006-01-15 10:39AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
CLINTON'S POLICIES NOT CLASS DIVIDE
Not sure I fit your demographic.  I'm in my sixties and my income is much, much less than $70m.  My reasons for not being a HRC fan is that she is trying to out Republican the Republicans in order to get elected and much too into an America by big busines and for big business.  By trying to appeal to the red states she is willing to give up most of the principles the Democratic Party use to stand for.  The flag burning bit is a crock by the way and will not fool anyone in the red states!  Her Ruplican Lite positions are removing her from the one part of base that would work the hardest and be willing to contribute to win.  By the way people in the red states don't like her much ether.
by MOBlue 2006-01-16 01:59AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Netroots, elitism, &ideology
You don't have to read many blogs, whether Progressive or Conservative, to walk away with a clear notion that the netroots collectively view themselves as the vanguard of moving the masses of voters in whatever the desired direction is.  This is pretty much an elitist stance.

It's an accepted dogma in the study of American politics that the average primary voter is more ideological than the average general election voter.  This is reflected in the oft-observed running to center in a general election after winning a primary by appealing sufficiently to the party's base.

I strongly suspect that a moderately rigorous academic study would show the blogsophere is even more ideological than the average primary voter.  The cream of the cream as it were.

Reading the comments in this thread, two bits of subtext are relevant:  the echo chamber..."such-and-such is the dominant position here so it must be so, and over-estimation of impact on voting behavior...it's like adding a quart of boiling water to a luke-warm bath tub...the boiling water will have some effect but not nearly as much the boiling water would think...if it were conscious, LOL.

This by no means is meant to disparage the netroots, the blogosphere, or any such, though I'm confident that someone will manage to feel victimized by these statements.   It is a caution, however, against over-estimating effect and otherwise mistaking maps for territory.

by InigoMontoya 2006-01-17 08:52AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Hillary and the progressive activist elite
Chris Bowers wrote,

I believe the main mark against Hillary Clinton within the blogs and the netroots is the degree to which she is perceived as the uber-representative of the upper, aristocratic classes of the progressive activist world. . . .

Within the world of progressive activists, from the viewpoint of the working and middle class progressive activists, Hillary Clinton is seen as hopelessly aligned with the establishment activists, with the insider activists, with the wealthy activists, with the well-connected activists, and with every possible progressive activist "elite" you can possibly imagine. Is it thus in any way surprising that the activist base, which is largely on the outside looking in, generally does not harbor much positive feeling toward her? The progressive activist base considers the progressive activist elite to be the main culprit in progressives losing power around the country. We keep losing, and we blame them. Thus, why should it be a surprise to anyone that we dislike the person who is viewed as their primary representative? We literally hold her, and what she represents within the world of progressive activism, to be responsible for the massive progressive backslide that has taken place over the past twelve years.

. . . I believe that Hillary Clinton is disliked by a large segment of the progressive activist base primarily because she is perceived by the activist base as standing with the progressive activist elite. . . .

I really think I am on to something here, and I would like to hear your thoughts on this matter. Is there really a class divide within the world of progressive activists, and could it be the primary source of not only blogosphere dislike of Hillary Clinton, but of our friction with nearly the entire Democratic establishment? Let me know.
I think you're barking up the wrong tree. I take your point of how you are defining the progressive activists in terms of demography, level of engagement, etc. But I don't think you have a good handle on the "elite" thereof. What you identify as the "progressive" elite really isn't all that "progressive." The answer really is much simpler, as Molly Ivins has recently written [http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/1/2006/1304 I Will Not Support Hillary Clinton for President, by Molly Ivins, January 20, 2006, The Free Press (Ohio)].

Furthermore, your article fails to distinguish among those to whom progressive activists look for leadership, such as John Conyers, Barbara Boxer, Cindy Sheehan and others. The division is really between the power elite of the Democratic "Leadership" Council, i.e. the War Faction within the Democratic Party, and the Anti-war Faction within the Democratic party. You are onto something in looking at the demographics of the progressive activists, but you're way off base in understanding who they are in other terms. Bob
by Bob Schacht 2006-01-20 08:52PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Why The Blogosphere and the Netroots Do Not Li

LHS1 LHS2 LHS3 LHS4 LHS5 LHS6 LHS7 LHS8 LHS9 LHS10 LHS11 LHS12 LHS13 LHS14 LHS15 LHS16 LHS17 LHS18 LHS19 LHS20 LHS21 LHS22 LHS23 LHS24 LHS25 LHS26 LHS27 LHS28 LHS29 LHS30 LHS31 LHS32 LHS33 LHS34 LHS35 LHS36 LHS37 LHS38 LHS39 LHS40 LHS41 LHS42 LHS43 LHS44 LHS45 LHS46 LHS47 LHS48 LHS49 LHS50 LHS51 LHS52 LHS53 LHS54 LHS55 LHS56 LHS57 LHS58 LHS59 LHS60 LHS61 LHS62 LHS63 LHS64 LHS65 LHS66 LHS67 LHS68 LHS69 LHS70 LHS71 LHS72 LHS73 LHS74 LHS75 LHS76 LHS77 LHS78 LHS79 LHS80 LHS81 LHS82 LHS83 LHS84 LHS85 LHS86 LHS87 LHS88 LHS89 LHS90 LHS91 LHS92 LHS93 LHS94 LHS95 LHS96 LHS97 LHS98 LHS99 LHS100 LHS101 LHS102 LHS103 LHS104 LHS105 LHS106 LHS107 LHS108 LHS109 LHS110 LHS111 LHS112 LHS113 LHS114 LHS115 LHS116 LHS117 LHS118 LHS119 LHS120 LHS121 LHS122 LHS123 LHS124 LHS125 LHS126 LHS127 LHS128 LHS129 LHS130 LHS131 LHS132 LHS133 LHS134 LHS135 LHS136 LHS137 LHS138 LHS139 LHS140 LHS141 LHS142 LHS143 LHS144 LHS145 LHS146 LHS147 LHS148 LHS149 LHS150 LHS151 LHS152 LHS153 LHS154 LHS155 LHS156 LHS157 LHS158 LHS159 LHS160 LHS161 LHS162 LHS163 LHS164

by koana1 2006-08-14 09:44AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: A lot to chew on
"Having to go on faith that we can slip it in the back door once we get our candidates elected who don't like to talk about it isn't nearly as satisfying."
*
Forgive me, but it isn't very realistic, either.  Wasn't this how the Clintons won, before?  After we all voted for Bill despite his triangulating weathervane rhetoric, what part of the progressive agenda did his administration accomplish beyond the Family Medical Leave Act?  Even that was compromised beyond recognition.  Yes, it IS something that a lot of people want and need, but (like W's tax cuts) it's a rather paltry record to hang a legacy on.  And I don't believe Bill's "wars of terror" were any more justified or effective than Chimpy's.
BTW, I'm not dissing Lucas - it's a thoughtful and useful analysis.  I just don't trust these "centrists" at all.  FWIW
by Bob in AZ 2007-02-13 12:58PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Chris Bowers

"Within the world of progressive activists, Hillary Clinton is seen as hopelessly on the side of the big donors, and against the small donors."
(Chris Bowers)

Saying Hillary is against the small donors is inaccurate, if not off-the-wall.  80% of her senate re-election donors gave less than $100; and she raised close to five million on the internet from activist donors.

This is another attempt to "cast inaccurate perceptions" about Hillary.  And it sucks, coming from someone who calls himself a Democrat.

by samueldem 2007-04-16 09:54AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------