Hillary Clinton’s Bad Friday: Blasts Democratic Activists And Gets Bad Poll Numbers

For Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton it is definitely not “Thank God it’s Friday” – today was the day when a tape of her surfaced blasting part of the Democratic party’s leftist base — and she got some stunningly bad poll numbers.

The tape creates yet another credibility problem for Clinton since MoveOn.org, the group in question with its millions of activists, was created to defend her husband Bill Clinton against impeachment — and the tape contains an assertion by Clinton about MoveOn.org that the group says is flat-out wrong. Meanwhile, a new poll conflicts with an earlier poll and indicates Clinton’s relentlessly negative campaign against rival Senator Barack Obama has definitely raised the negatives — of Hillary Clinton.

The Huffington Post — which last week unleashed a furor over comments Obama made at a fundraiser saying people in small towns were bitter and clung some traditional values — again got the scoop… a scoop in which Mrs. Clinton sounds bitter:

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.

And here is the key paragraph that is likely to spur Clinton’s foes to even more get to the polls to get the vote out for Obama:

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.

What will hurt Clinton is that the group immediately denied that it ever opposed going into Afghanistan. Additionally, this quote has many elements of how Bill and Hillary Clinton have framed the primary season: the caucuses (where Clinton has not done that well) are flawed because they are flooded with activists…and the activists aren’t just there to vote but to intimidate.

Whether you agree with Moveon.Org (and many of us on TMV do NOT) on many issues, this comment is similar to the tone of comments Clinton has made about Obama — on the offensive, seemingly to discredit. There is a pattern now to how Clinton deals with those who oppose her.

How has this fared among activists and blogosphere pundits? It’s not exactly good press:

–My DD’s Jonathan Singer:

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 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.

–The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder notes that the Obama campaign is getting the word out on the Clinton HP comments:

But doesn’t MoveOn.org, which was formed in response to Republican attempts to impeach President Clinton, represent (for Obama) the type of polarized pressure group that Obama seems to decry when he talks about moving beyond the traditional encumberances of Old Politics? (General Betray Us? etc. etc.) Anyway, maybe it’s not that great of a point. What makes this story interesting to me is that the last thing Hillary Clinton needs right now is another credibility question.

–The Daily Kos’ publisher Kos:

In short, Clinton doesn’t like us and doesn’t agree with us….Well, for a campaign that has morphed into nothing but “Republican talking points”, it shouldn’t come as any surprise. I’m curious though, what part of our foreign policy approach doesn’t she agree with? The ending the war in Iraq part? I’d like more details on that one.

–Democratic activist, blogger John Aravosis:

It’s funny. Hillary was a big fan of the online grassroots (or Netroots, as we call it) when ABC was defaming her husband in its fictional account of September 11, “The Path to 9/11.” At that time, we led a ferocious counterattack that put ABC in its place by exposing the serious errors in ABC’s bizarrely inaccurate account of that day’s fateful events. The Clintons didn’t seem to have much of a problem with the Netroots when we came to their rescue. But now that we’re defending Obama against the same biased attacks from ABC, Hillary dismisses us with a wave of her regal palm.

To paraphrase Rev. Martin Niemöller, Hillary has embraced so many right-wing talking points in her campaign, and bashed so many core Democratic constituencies (blacks, gays, gun control advocates, and now the Netroots), that pretty soon she’ll have no more Democrats left to blame. Nor will she have any Democrats left to support what has become a truly pathetic caricature of what was once a great Democratic family.

–TPM Election Central:

Well, this should get anti-war voters angry with Hillary Clinton — and be a real political headache for the home stretch in Pennsylvania.

–Air America’s Sam Seder:

Senator Clinton is now using Karl Rove lies in attacking MoveOn. It’s a bit galling as this is the same MoveOn that was born of a fight to stop impeachment of her husband because he had an affair with an intern. She needs to be rescues from herself. I’d still vote for her over McCain, but she will not be the nominee. And while I and every Dem I know will vote for her over Mccain… I’m starting to have a lot of NY Dems tell me they’ve never been so excited about a primarying a Dem for Senate since Joe Lieberman.

–The Politico’s Ben Smith:

But there’s some irony in the scorn for MoveOn, whom Hillary courted and which was founded, after all, to save her husband from impeachment. What’s striking here is the the “us” and “them” view — the almost cultural scorn — toward a section of the Democratic Party to whom, at times in the White House, Hillary was seen as the ambassador for the more conservative Bill.

–Jane Hamsher:

I defended Hillary Clinton when she refused to bow to right wing pressure and condemn MoveOn over the “General Betrayus” ad (and was sad when she finally capitulated). MoveOn are valuable progressive partners who have been with us on Donna Edwards, net neutrality, trying to bring an end to the war, FISA, and other issues we’ve been fighting for.

They’ve accepted the challenge of organizing the left in the virtual arena and done an amazing job that the right struggles to replicate. They now have 3 million members, of which I’m one. And their skill at online organization and movement building has developed a model that both of the Democratic candidates have been able to copy and learn from, acting as a democratizing influence and making candidates more responsive to the public at large and less to high dollar donors.

…Does Hillary Clinton not want my vote either?

–Bang The Drum:

Clinton’s words to her supporters go beyond the “elitist” charge. They’re outright lies told behind another’s back for the purpose of personal gain. That’s not leadership; it’s liarship.

–Democrats.com:

I like the “intimidate” part. Not long ago, the Clintonistas were calling Obama’s voters “latte drinkers,” but now they’re thugs. Latte-drinking thugs – somehow I’m having trouble conjuring up that image…

I never thought Obama’s “bitter” remark would hurt him because it wasn’t an attack on anyone, just a bad attempt at amateur pop psychology. But I think Hillary’s remark will hurt her, because it is an attack on 3.5 million Moveon members and every Democrat who agrees with them.

Bloggers want clarification: what specifically does she not agree with us on? Getting out of Iraq, perhaps? She has said at least 1,000 times, “I will end the war.” Has she been lying to us about the single most important issue in the campaign? I certainly hope not.

–American Street’s Kevin Hayden:

Here’s the deal, Senator Clinton: you’re not going to win enough pledged delegates. You’re not going to convince the remaining majority of superdelegates. The people who decide these things are us, the party’s base of active primary voters. It will be us who complete the job of defeating your endeavor and you’ve made that a fait accompli with your dishonest remarks that now try to slur all of us who’ve fought against this damnable war in Iraq since well before the first shot was fired. Even a majority of Congrssional Democrats voted against the AUMF while supporting the effort against the Taliban and Al Qaida.

–Raising Kaine:

Needless to say, this (“Clinton Slams Democratic Activists At Private Fundraiser”) was not a good move by Hillary Clinton.

–Political Chase:

I’m shocked. Hillary doesn’t like voters. Especially those that are concerned about national security and foreign policy. It must be a left-wing conspiracy.

–Left Wing Cracker:

Does the junior Senator from New York have a deathwish for her campaign? ….What part of THE BASE DOES NOT WANT YOU have you not figured out, Senator?

THE BOTTOM LINE: Politicians generally try to win votes by aggregating interests. The Clinton campaign in recent weeks has been a medley of negative tactics and statements more aimed at raising Obama’s negatives then making an affirmative argument to vital Superdelegates that she herself can excite voters and win the election. And, in the process, Clinton seems to be aggravating interests.

Clinton’s own negatives have already started going up — and now she has now seemingly thrown down the gauntlet to a key segment of the Democratic party that helps to get out the vote…and fund political campaigns.

What impact is THIS and the likely criticism it will spark — and activist efforts to defeat her in future primaries — going to have on her efforts to move Superdelegates to overturn Obama’s delegate count, if he remains the front-runner at convention time?

Even worse for Clinton: a new Newsweek poll that directly contradicts the latest Gallup tracking poll that showed Clinton’s campaign on the upswing against Obama. If the Newsweek findings prove accurate, they are nearly catastrophic for the Clinton campaign:

Despite her campaign’s relentless attacks on Barack Obama’s qualifications and electability, Hillary Clinton has lost a lot of ground with Democratic voters nationwide going into Tuesday’s critical primary in Pennsylvania, a new NEWSWEEK poll shows.

The survey of 1,209 registered voters found that Obama now leads Clinton by nearly 20 points, or 54 percent to 35 percent, among registered Democrats and those who lean Democratic nationwide.

No other poll has shown Obama ahead by this much.

The previous Newsweek poll, conducted in March after Clinton’s big primary wins in Ohio and Texas, showed the two Democrats locked in a statistical tie (45 percent for Obama to 44 percent for Clinton). The new poll puts Obama ahead among women as well as men, and voters aged 60 and older as well as younger voters.

And here is the part that should be most troubling to the Clinton campaign — and raise eyebrows among Superdelegates:

One of the more devastating results for Clinton was that a majority of all registered voters now see her as dishonest and untrustworthy. According to the poll, just four in 10 (41 percent) registered voters view the New York senator as honest and trustworthy, while 51 percent think the opposite. This compares with solid majorities of voters who see Obama and McCain as honest and trustworthy (both polled 61 percent).

The results suggest that Clinton was damaged more by being caught in a tall tale about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire than Obama has been by his recent controversies, including the firestorm of criticism provoked by the Illinois senator’s remarks that blue-collar voters “cling” to religion, guns and other issues because of their bitterness. In addition, over half (53 percent) of voters say they believe Obama shares their values, more than those who say the same thing about Clinton (47 percent) or McCain (45 percent).

The poll has some bright spots (go the link and read it in full) for Clinton — but overall this poll is not exactly a compelling argument for her being more electable than Obama.

And if her comments about Democratic activists spark a new blogosphere and weekend talk show firestorm, it’s unlikely to help her in Pennsylvania, either.

You can summarize Clinton’s problem in a nutshell: over the past few months she and her husband have been stuck in negative mode and unable to turn their efforts to making an affirmative case for her candidacy without demonizing people and groups who oppose her or come out for Obama. The result: she is alienating key parts of the Democratic party’s traditional base.

It used to be said by her critics that Clinton could polarize the country.

She has now polarized her own party.