I'm decidedly in the camp that believes that increased Democratic activism is a good thing, both for the party and the nation as a whole. With more of the Democratic base voting and volunteering and contributing, the Democrats have a much better shot at winning the White House with more than 50.1 percent of the vote -- a feat they haven't accomplished in 44 years -- and thus begin to enact much of the progressive change this country so desperately needs at this juncture. Apparently, though, some believe that increased Democratic activism isn't wholly a good thing, that there are negative consequences to these voters becoming more engaged in the American democracy. Here's The Huffington Post:
At a small closed-door fundraiser after Super Tuesday, Sen. Hillary Clinton blamed what she called the "activist base" of the Democratic Party -- and MoveOn.org in particular -- for many of her electoral defeats, saying activists had "flooded" state caucuses and "intimidated" her supporters, according to an audio recording of the event obtained by The Huffington Post."Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," Clinton said to a meeting of donors. "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."
Senator Clinton's remarks depart radically from the traditional position of presidential candidates who in the past have celebrated high levels of turnout by party activists and partisans as a harbinger for their own party's success -- regardless of who is the eventual nominee -- in the general election showdown.
The comments also contradict Clinton's previous statements praising this year's elevated Democratic turnout in primaries and caucuses, and appear to blame her caucus defeats on newly energized grassroots voter groups that she has lauded in the past as "lively participants" in American democracy.
[...]
The disclosure of Clinton's remarks disparaging the prominence of party activists in the caucus process comes after she repeatedly suggested that Obama's electability had been compromised because he had allegedly offended other key Democratic constituencies.
This is pretty remarkable audio, Clinton attacking MoveOn -- incorrectly, in fact -- for purportedly opposing the Afghanistan War when that was not at all the case.
But even more astounding than Clinton's specific attacks on MoveOn, a grassroots organization founded to defend her husband against the Republican power-grab that was the 1998 impeachment, an organization that is made up of more than three million activists, most of whom are diehard in their loyalty to the Democratic Party, is the fact that Clinton is maligning the Democratic base, specifically those who have been driven to the polls at least in part in response to the Iraq War.
It's not clear to me what it is about the view of American foreign policy held by these party regulars that Clinton disagrees with -- whether it was the view that Congress should not have authorized the Bush administration to commence military action against Iraq, whether it is that Congress should stand up against the Bush administration so that it cannot do the same against Iraq, or something else. I would actually be interested in hearing what that disagreement is.
I would also be interested in hearing more about this so-called "intimidation," if Clinton believes that it is a bad thing that voter turnout in almost every primary and caucus this year has set new records.
It could be that there is a valid explanation for these comments, that they were taken out of context, that they don't really reflect her views of the Democratic base and the netroots, that they were merely the result of the inevitable exhaustion brought on by near-constant campaigning. I'd like to hear it. But until I do, it's hard not to come away from these comments with the sense that Clinton holds a key part of the Democratic base in contempt.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 322 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
