Alternet: Hillary Rolls On - Are The Netroots A Paper Tiger?

[Hissyspit]

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/61882

Hillary Rolls on: Are the Netroots a Paper Tiger?

By Jeff Cohen, AlterNet. Posted September 7, 2007.

Why isn't there greater opposition to Hillary Clinton's candidacy by the progressive online movement?

As a longtime progressive tired of ineffective protesting, I've watched in glee as MoveOn has amassed political power by Webbing a few million of us and our dollars together. I'm a proud MoveOn member, even though I disagree sometimes with its leaders (mostly over too-cozy relations with top Democrats).

And as a longtime proponent of independent media, I'm gleeful that liberal/progressive bloggers have seized a new medium to mobilize millions of activists and confront a Democratic elite that seemed unwilling to confront and beat Team Bush.

Given my glee, it's difficult for me to have to pose this question: Are the Netroots a paper tiger -- more roar than bite?

Despite being overwhelmingly opposed to the nomination of Hillary Clinton, the Netroots have so far done little to slow down her coronation. Boosted by celebrity-worshipping corporate media (and a maximum donation from Rupert Murdoch himself), Hillary Clinton keeps rolling on -- allied with the corporate lobbyists and Democratic insiders loathed even by moderately liberal bloggers. Meanwhile, Clinton has never been popular among the Netroots. She's never moved out of single digits in the (unscientific) monthly straw poll of DailyKos readers, while John Edwards has averaged 38 percent in the last six months among Kossacks, with Barack Obama averaging 26 percent.

In an April straw poll of MoveOn members following a virtual town hall on Iraq, the results were Obama (28%), Edwards (25%), Dennis Kunicich (17%) and Bill Richardson (12%) -- followed by Clinton in fifth place with 11 percent. Clinton did better following a July town hall on climate change, but finished in third place, 17 points behind Edwards.

- snip -

Several factors may explain why most Netroots leaders are not taking stronger action:

1) They "misunderestimate" the potential hazards of another Clinton White House.

MORE

[wyldwolf]

1. Why isn't there greater opposition to Clinton's candidacy by the progressive online movement?

There is. It just isn't effective. Nor do the kingpins of the netroots want it to be. Why? Should Clinton win the party’s nomination, and it is looking like she will more and more each day, the only thing Clinton will need from the netroots is additional GOTV efforts and, of course, their votes - neither of which they will withhold. Again, Why? Because the netroots need a presidential victory to seal their status as a serious political movement.

So take all the “I will not vote for her under any circumstances” rhetoric that seeps from the blogosphere with a grain of salt. The netroots have looked forward to this presidential election for several years and they’re not about to let it get away. Like the rest of us Democrats, they will fight for Hillary Clinton in 2008. They have to. If they sit out this campaign as many have threatened and throw a winnable election to the GOP, it will be the death of their political movement.

And MoveOn, KOS (who sounds more and more like an Establishment Democrat), Arianna Huffington, David Sirota, and the rest know it.

[dipsydoodle]

2. I wouldn't have said rolls

Just a bit chubby round the jowls.

[oasis]

13. You can always write in Paris Hilton on YOUR ballot.

:eyes:

[ralphmich3]

18. Americans not paying attention...

Cheney and Bush were able to lie to the American people for about 4 years straight until America finally caught on. And some still haven't figured it out the truth (especially in Congress LOL)

It's what we do best... and the MSM helps... BTW: Whatever you do, don't look at Hillary's record in the Senate.... or the fund-raising scandals...

[oasis]

19. "..don't look at Hillary's record in the Senate". ???

How bad could it have been if voters in NY state re-elected her? :shrug:

[ralphmich3]

24. Texas: how bad could Bush be??

Bush was elected twice as Governor in Texas... how bad could Bush be??

[smalll]

14. As they say down in Alabama, "Roll Tide!"

Roll on, inevitable, irresitable tide...

No addled king nor misguided blogger can turn it back!

[Ian_rd]

3. I think part of it is that the number one priority is getting a Dem in the White House

This couldn't be a more different world than 2000, when so many (me included) ditched the DLC and voted for Nader when we thought the Republican and Democratic establishments were close enough together (NAFTA et al) that we could afford to cast a vote for the sole purpose of protesting and with the hopes of getting 5% in order to secure Green Party federal matching funds for 2004. And of course, some disillusioned Dems didn't vote at all. While Kucinich is most aligned with my values and opinions, I also know like many that the media would eviscerate him if he were the Democratic candidate. We need to win first, second, third, fourth, and fifth, and then maybe sixth we can start thinking of policy positions.

I don't want Hillary elected either. But I'll be damned if I say I won't vote for her if she wins the nomination. I'll get a goddamn tattoo if I think it would help.

[comtec]

4. Paper Tiger, hidden dragon?

I will vote Kucinich (assuming Gore doesn't step in) but I will support whoever the Dem. candidate is. I am hoping enough people vote for DK to make his points understood. IF Gore steps in, it's a synch. He'll get the nomination, and I really don't see him loosing the general, Hell I'd be surprised if he doesn't get a landslide!
I mean He just needs to run his old adds, with a little self deprecation about his weight gain :)

I'm not as thrilled about HRC as I used to be, But Ill support the candidate.

[DinahMoeHum]

5. I'm not crazy about HRC myself, but she'd still be a thousand times better

than any of the Republikan candidates out there.

:kick:

[Eurobabe]

25. Totally agree...

I just don't understand people who cut off their nose to spite their face. :shrug:

[MethuenProgressive]

6. Answering longtime HillHater Jeff Cohen's questions:

Jeff Cohen, longtime HillHater wonders:

Why isn't there greater opposition to Hillary Clinton's candidacy by the progressive online movement?

Perhaps because Progressives want progress, Jeff? And that means winning back the Whitehouse.

Are the Netroots a paper tiger -- more roar than bite?

The "Netrooters" are 90% starry-eyed slackivists. They'll sign e-petitions, post to websites, "DU" polls, send spamish emails, and occasionally buy a $2 bumpersticker with their Mom's PayPal - but that's really about it.

[durrrty libby]

8. "starry-eyed slackivists" You nailed it

I would not be surprised that many of the fire-breathers don't bother to vote

[wyldwolf]

10. Yeah... that about covers it.

[oasis]

17. tee hee hee

:rofl:

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

20. still no defending those positions, eh?

typical Clinton-era stuff. Guess we can look forward to more trade with China while being told that nonsense like V-chips is a progressive leap

[oasis]

23. I'm not looking for a messiah, I just want an administrator with the fix-it tools.

:thumbsup:

[TreasonousBastard]

7. He forgot #4...

"Netroots" is highly overrated as a movement.

Some things it can do well, but the real work on the ground is still done by local party committees, not keyboard warriors or leftwing pundits.

My town and county committees couldn't give a rat's ass what KOS or anyone on Huffington thinks. They'll tke some MoveOn money if it's available, but rarely see any actual MoveOn members.

[flpoljunkie]

9. Thanks! A definite must read! He really sums it up well in the paragraph below...

Ancient history, from 1993-1994, teaches us that loyalty to party should never come before loyalty to principles -- and that which Democrats hold power can be as important as whether Democrats hold power. I was a young(er) columnist when Bill Clinton entered the White House and Democrats controlled Congress. We didn't get promised campaign finance reform; we didn't get promised investment in the cities; we didn't even get a vote on healthcare -- since the Clintons had undermined and triangulated the 100 Democrats in Congress co-sponsoring a bill for nonprofit National Health Insurance. But we did get NAFTA.

And soon -- inevitably and predictably -we got the Gingrich counterrevolution.

[Maribelle]

11. It appears Jeff Cohen's ability to perceive and explain the meaning of Netroots is flawed.

What Dean did defined Netroots. What MoveOn did further enhanced the political power of Netroots. What many bloggers such as DailyKos are doing is trying to ride hide on the netroots wave - - they did not define it, they have not further enhanced its political power.

Get a grip Cohen - - bashing the netroots pallet for not having the same hatred of Hillary that you do just makes you seem squishy.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

12. so not wanting her as the nominee makes you a "hater?"

Why address Cohen's points on Hillary when you can just dismiss him with an ad hominem attack?
Thanks, Karl!

and since when is the Clinton record progressive? NAFTA? GATT? Welfare "reform?" bankruptcy bill?
whuich one of those was the defining progressive moment?

[Cha]

15. Oh yeah! They'd rather

mis-label than address reasons why hillary's policies just ain't doin' for some of us.

[Desperadoe]

16. I missed the vote

Did Hilly win? I didn't know the primaries were over.

This is like crowning the Super Bowl Champs in the preseason. Ya gotta play the damn game before you have a winner.

[AtomicKitten]

21. IMO it's because the non-Hillary vote can't get their sh*t together --

and get behind ONE CANDIDATE that can beat her.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

22. That would be Cohen's EDWAMA reason

which I think is the biggie, too

[Carrieyazel]

26. Hillary is rolling on, but she will flame out. its only a matter of time

No non-incumbent front-runner except Mondale has secured the Dem nomination since JFK. Hillary will flame out as soon as she loses the Iowa caucuses. Keep the faith, Jeff.