In an WaPo op-ed column posted today, Markos does a
great job of pointing out why Hillary's nomination may not only
not be inevitable--it may be a bad idea as well:
...therein lie Hillary Clinton's biggest problems. She epitomizes the "insider" label of the early crowd of 2008 Democratic contenders. She's part of the Clinton machine that decimated the national Democratic Party. And she remains surrounded by many of the old consultants who counsel meekness and caution.
In his op-ed, Markos uses Hillary's candidacy to reiterate the arguments he's been making here and in Crashing the Gate: That the Democratic party has become overly cautious, unimaginative and has turned its back on the grassroots. More on the flip.
I found Markos' op-ed to be a real eye-opener in terms of how Hillary's advisers see us netroots folks:
Meanwhile, pollster Mark Penn, a brilliant numbers guy, has counseled the Hillary team to ignore the party's netroots activists as "irrelevant." (After all, didn't Dean lose?) Little surprise that in late March, the Daily Kos's bimonthly presidential straw poll delivered bleak results for Clinton, with just 2 percent of respondents making her their top choice for 2008.
At a time when rank-and-file Democrats are using technology to become increasingly engaged and active in their party, when they are demanding that their leaders stand for something and develop big ideas, Clinton's closest advisers are headed in the opposite direction.
This is very troubling. The netroots of the party are clearly in the ascendancy. We're making a number of significant contributions to the resurgence of the Party, not to mention financing it. The Clinton campaign's willingness to brush us aside bothers me not so much because it's yet another slam on the netroots from the Washington Party, but because it's such a short-sighted strategy. The Democratic nominee in '08 simply will not succeed without our enthusiastic support. If Mark Penn's attitude is an accurate reflection of the campaign as a whole, it's gonna be a problem.
Markos also rips on Hillary for her lack of leadership in the Senate:
Afraid to offend, she has limited her policy proposals to minor, symbolic issues -- such as co-sponsoring legislation to ban flag burning. She doesn't have a single memorable policy or legislative accomplishment to her name. Meanwhile, she remains behind the curve or downright incoherent on pressing issues such as the war in Iraq.
On the war, Clinton's recent "I disagree with those who believe we should pull out, and I disagree with those who believe we should stay without end" seems little different from Kerry's famous "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it" line. The last thing we need is yet another Democrat afraid to stand on principle.
Dissecting Hillary's positions on the war, along with the politics (including the gender politics) behind it, is worthy of its own diary. But I think we can all agree that voters will expect a much clearer position on the war in '08 than Hillary is offering right now.
Markos also does a great job of debunking the Washington Party's belief that our alienation from it has to do with ideology:
Clinton's third way failed miserably. It killed off the Jesse Jackson wing of the Democratic Party and, despite its undivided control of the party apparatus, delivered nothing. Nothing, that is, except the loss of Congress, the perpetuation of the muddled Democratic "message," a demoralized and moribund party base, and electoral defeats in 2000, 2002 and 2004.
Those failures led the netroots to support Dean in the last presidential race. We didn't back him because he was the most "liberal" candidate. In fact, we supported him despite his moderate, pro-gun, pro-balanced-budget record, because he offered the two things we craved most: outsider credentials and leadership.
Those two qualities--outsider credentials and leadership--will probably be right at the top of the list of qualities voters will seek in 2008. It seems pretty clear that Hillary has 'insider' written all over her by now, so she can't credibly claim the 'outsider' mantle. Can she at least claim the 'leadership' mantle? Perhaps she can, but time is running out.
As I read Markos' op-ed, I couldn't help but think about the old military adage: generals always fight the last war. In this case, Hillary and her advisors seem to be gearing up to fight the political war of '92. Perhaps this was a more pleasant time for them, when they didn't have to contend with issues of war and peace that require bold leadership, or with a newly empowered grassroots that is vocal and wants a seat at the table. Unfortunately, Hillary isn't gonna run in '92: She's gonna run in 2008, when the politics of contrast and effective collaboration with the netroots will be essential for victory. Can Hillary choose to fight the next war in time to win it?