It's Official: Hillary Clinton is Not Your Friend

Hillary Clinton explains why she's lost this primary:

We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me.
Yes, Hillary. We know you don't agree with us. But are your supporters really so easily swayed? Are they threatened with bodily harm? Are the crazy peace activists who don't support you putting a gun to the heads of your real supporters? And why are you lying about MoveOn and Afghanistan? Would you call that Rovian, by chance?

Quick! We need another debate so that we can find out why Obama won't reject/denounce his lunatic peace-nik supporters who are threatening violence toward Hillary's voters!

UPDATE: Matthew Yglesias makes a substantive point about why Hillary's statement reflects a larger problem with her strategy:
The Clintons, and many of their key supporters, come out of a school of political analysis which holds that the problem with the Democratic Party in the United States is that progressive institutions are too strong. Only by curbing the influence of these institutions, the theory goes, can Democratic Party politicians engage in the tactical repositioning necessary to win elections.

Whether or not that was true in 1988-92 or, indeed, whether or not it remains true today, this is clearly not a long-term strategy for progressive politics. This "crush the left, move to the right" theory of electoral political may or may not work for politicians in the short run, but to create big change you need to strengthen progressive institutions and move the entire spectrum to the left.
Yglesias' argument essentially sums up many of my problems with Hillary's entire campaign (and even several parts of Obama's, as I've mentioned before).

Add to | DiggIt! | Reddit | Stumble This | Add to Technorati Faves

Nothing New byslag at 6:42 PM

2 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here):

Gye Greene said...

Over-all, Demos trying to move to the center is a bad move: in trying to steal the other folks' customers, you're actually playing to the other team's strengths -- on their terms -- and failing to offer the voters any real choice.

Rather than "Republicans" vs. "Republicans Lite", why not "Republicans" vs. "Anti-Republicans" -- and trust the inherent value of your message?


slag said...

gg: I couldn't agree more! It's all about branding. And no one will out Republican the Republicans. So, the Dems need to offer an alternative. Hence, Obama is a better candidate overall than Clinton.

Blogger Template by Blogcrowds