Wolcott’s got a When Democrats go Post-al look at the lefty blogosphere up at Vanity Fair that’s getting lots of attention and is generally none-too-flattering.

Then today Jeff Jarvis asks, What is Kos?

I’m thinking that Daily Kos is not — as it wants to be and is often painted — netroots, the voice of a popular movement.

No, it’s more like Tammany Hall, a would-be powerbroker and kingmaker. And Kos is the would-be party boss.

Notice I say would-be.

Remember too: a couple weeks ago the Village Voice did a guide to the Ragin’ Right of the Blogosphere.

“New tools” can mean many different things these days and often involve social media of some type.

But in a conference call today, Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean described “the rollout of a new field effort and Neighborhood Volunteer organizing tool” as one that emphasizes face-to-face contact between neighbors. (Also referenced was a new ad called called, “Better Off,” which you can view here. It aims at Senator John McCain.)

I didn’t get to ask a question during the call but I did e-mail DNC Communications Director Karen Finney immediately after the call ended:

“…who is setting the benchmarks and what are the benchmarks re: the numbers hoped to be achieved per state and nationwide with the organizing tool.”

Her response, which was extremely prompt: “Our political department, working with the state parties will set the state by state benchmarks. We are not discussing them publicly yet.”

I promised that I’d improve my *1 skills for the next conference call so that I can see if they’re discussing those benchmarks publicly yet (let’s hope I get asked to be in on the call again).

Other info from the call had to do with not allowing John McCain to re-invent himself and meeting him everywhere he goes to remind him and the voters of that fact, so that they don’t, as was said, “get bamboozled.”

Dean re-stated a couple of times his belief that setting up field stations now ensures that not having a nominee does not cripple the Democratic party because “we’re so far ahead of where we’ve been” at this stage in past races. It was stated that there are 50,000 individuals who have agreed to talk to their neighbors.

I’ve been on a few conference calls this year and this was the first one during which I actually tried to ask a question so I was a bit bummed that when I tried, for whatever reason, I didn’t get a chance. I temporarily had a complex - imagining that it was because I’m a blogger, or female (no questions from women were fielded though Karen Finney wrote me that there were other women in on the call) or the equipment was broken.

Though I’m sure none of the above were true, next time, I am going to practice my “star 1″ skills between now and the next time. Maybe I’ll even call on two phones at once to improve my odds.

Just kiddin’.

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:
Read the rest of this entry »

Here’s something the Clinton, Obama and McCain campaign consultants, advisers, strategists, directors or whatever they call themselves should read, from Idaho State University:

Noting the growing popularity of blogs as an information medium, [assistant professor in the James E. Rogers Department of Mass Communication at Idaho State University, Daekyung] Kim focused on blogging’s political impact. Blogs are online diaries or commentaries that readers can respond to and easily pass on to friends.

Kim’s study surveyed online political users to explore why users access political blogs after he wondered, “What motivates bloggers?”

“I found that many Internet users are attracted to political blogs, where they can freely express their opinions and communicate with like-minded people,” Kim said. “This seems to show the potential of blogs as an interactive forum with few controls. This study may offer useful insights into the roles of blogs during presidential elections and in politics in general.”

Note the “freely express their opinions and communicate with like-minded people.” That doesn’t bode too well for sites like RedBlueAmerica or Wide Open for that matter, unless people are using such sites as merely tools for information gathering. But for interacting? Maybe not so much or at least not crossing over to discuss with those who aren’t of a like-mind.

I’ve emailed Professor Kim in hopes of seeing the report.

Donna Brazile was quoted as saying, “If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this,” Brazile said.

And Chris Bowers of Open Left wrote this post, How I Could Quit the Democratic Party, that makes the same argument. (speaking of democratic anything, Open Left crashed Firefox twice - what’s with that?)

What do I think of these protestations? Read the rest of this entry »

I am (and many other Democrats are) disgusted with the way the Democratic Party has treated (and continues to treat) Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and other liberal hawks. Howard Dean, are you listening? Do you really want to lose votes, volunteers and donations?

If you peruse this list of policy initiatives provided by The White House in relation to President George W. Bush’s State of the Union address last night (transcript is here; C-SPAN video is here), you may notice that two topics concern science and technology, two topics concern education and no topics concern the arts.

[NB: The final topic on that list, about worldwide compassion, stands out to me because I recently read about Compassion, which is a faith-based initiative that will use word of mouth blog power in Uganda next month. (If you’re interested in how non-profits are trying to leverage blogs and blogging and bloggers’ enthusiasm, you might want to follow Beth Kanter’s blog and read about How Nonprofits Can Use Social Media; she is one of the top experts in this area.) But I digress.]

So, while it’s nice that President Bush leaves us with his thoughts on science-related issues and makes sure to mention education (given No Child Left Behind’s continued existence, it’s unlikely we could forget Bush’s role there), some groups are demanding (or trying to demand) that the presidential candidates pay attention to their specific issues: Science Debate 2008, Ed in ‘08 and Arts Vote 2008 are three examples. Read the rest of this entry »

What gift can you give to the people who have everything — or, rather, had everything until last November’s Congressional elections?

What kind of gift can you give them that will be a gift that keeps on giving…way into 2008…and right up until Election Day?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi apparently figured it out and gave this beautifully-wrapped-and-presented gift to the 2008 Republican Presidential candidate and Republicans running for Congress in 2008:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lashed out at Republicans on Thursday, saying they want the Iraq war to drag on and are ignoring the public’s priorities.

“They like this war. They want this war to continue,” Pelosi, D- Calif., told reporters. She expressed frustration over Republicans’ ability to force majority Democrats to yield ground on taxes, spending, energy, war spending and other matters.

This just isn’t foot in mouth. In political terms, it’s foot in mouth that will end with her foot emerging out of her other foot.

Republican campaign strategists who seek to paint the Democrats as way out there must be smiling tonight. People can (and will) debate the accuracy of her statement, but in political terms it’s a wonderful gift (just think of what former Mayor Rudy Giuliani will do with it if he is the nominee as he continues to fine-tune his talent for political ridicule).

“We thought that they shared the view of so many people in our country that we needed a new direction in Iraq,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference in the Capitol. “But the Republicans have made it very clear that this is not just George Bush’s war. This is the war of the Republicans in Congress.”

Pelosi’s basic point there is well taken.

In the wake of the 2006 election debacle, GOPers, despite some reservations and fears for their political future, took a deep breath and solidly-backed Bush on the war and the surge, turning thumbs-down on efforts by Democrats to build a coalition to exert more Congressional control over the war.

There had also been suggestions that Republicans running for the 2008 GOP Presidential nomination might try and distance themselves from the White House, but they have increasingly firmly hitched their futures to GWB and the war, too.

Read the rest of this entry »

Iraq is fading from the minds of the American public, and politicians, pollsters and pundits are trying to figure out how it happened.

Although 2007 casualties have been the highest in five years of war, a combination of Congressional Democrats’ ineffectual efforts to stop or slow it down along with Republican unwillingness to buck Bush in numbers large enough to override vetoes has created an Iraq fatigue in both the media and public.

Now, Politico reports, “Democrats plan to spend the December recess reviewing their strategy and determining if they missed opportunities to put limitations, even if they were smaller than war activists were demanding, on Bush’s war policies.

“Some Democratic strategists are warning that congressional leaders are ‘muddling through’ with a strategy that carries both political and military risks for the party.”

“News about the Iraq war,” the Pew Research Center reports, “does not dominate the public’s consciousness nearly as much as it did last winter” and cites figures to support that contention.

There is enough blame for this to go around–divided Democrats, absence of Republican spine, Petraeus’ flacking for the Surge, too little MSM courage coupled with too much posturing and puffing on the blogosphere–all adding up to impotence in resisting a pathologically stubborn Administration.

Now facing a new year, with the Presidential contest upstaging all else, where do the vast majority of Americans who want to end the most disastrous war in our history go from here?

Republicans, under the cover of electorate ennui, will try to ride it out behind their White House candidates’ bluster. Democrats will keep promising to get us out but not just yet.

Like it or not, those who hate this war are faced with no better hope than the kind of incremental easing out that seemed unthinkable a year ago.

We can only hope they don’t botch that, too.

Cross-posted from my blog.

(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)

My co-blogger Edward Copeland posted on Andrew Sullivan’s response to David Brooks on Hillary Clinton yesterday. His impassioned conclusion: STOP HILLARY NOW!

Here are my thoughts, intended as an update to Edward’s post but now a post on their own, which I now post here at TMV:

For blogospheric reaction to Sullivan’s excellent post, and the David Brooks love-in-with-Hillary, bash-the-Netroots, up-with-the-”center” column to which he was responding, see Memeorandum. In particular, see the ever-acute Steve Benen: “I wonder if Brooks has actually heard Clinton’s stump speech, or caught any of her appearances on the Sunday morning shows a few days ago, or taken a look at her voting record this year. Clinton isn’t stiff-arming the netroots; she’s delivering on most of what the movement wants to hear.”

I would (will?) support her in the general election, but Hillary isn’t my Democratic pick. I prefer Edwards and Obama (and, yes, of course, Gore). She’s too much like her husband, too much of a triangulator, too cozy with the right, too much about personal ambition and naked self-interest, not committed enough to the liberal, progressive values that lie at the heart of the Democratic Party and my own political philosophy.
Read the rest of this entry »