A Hillary Clinton presidency means she will get to choose her own head of the Democratic National Committee. All Presidents get to choose their party's chairman. So how many of you think Howard Dean will be her choice to continue in the job? Booman doesn't think so, considering her top advisers call Dean an asshole from Vermont.
The problem is that the 50-state strategy isn't just one person from Vermont. It's an integral part of what the blogosphere is and does. There has been an explosion of local and state blogs dedicated to taking the fight to the Republicans. And it's an enormously valuable tool for the Democratic Party. When Paul Begala calls Dean an a-hole, he is really calling all of us a-holes. And he certainly doesn't want any of us telling him what to do.
Carville is no different than Begala when it comes to hostility to the netroots. And the sense I get from this is that a Hillary Clinton presidency will quickly remove Dean from the DNC, abandon the 50-state strategy, and revert to the top-down hierarchy of the past. This should give everyone in the blogosphere cause for concern.
I am less concerned than Booman. I think the progressive movement thrives in opposition. If John Edwards or Al Gore were elected President, and we garnered supermajorities in Congress, I would then be concerned about how and in what form the progressive netroots would continue. As I said before, we have rarely been in the situation of a governing majority. Would we succeed? Or would we devolve into fighting amongst ourselves? Would we have continued influence in Washington after our goals are accomplished, or would be ignored? Would the netroots shrivel up and die?
If we get a Hillary Clinton presidency, our opposition will continue.
Booman's opinion is that if Hillary wins, we lose. And by "we," he means the netroots. I disagree. If she wins, the movement would continue, and I think, get stronger.
For we would then have a President, while being much more sympathetic and kind to our politics and goals, will still be hostile in some areas. In policy areas, perhaps she does not go far enough for our likening. So we will have to be there to push her further. In organizational areas, the Clinton team obviously prefers a top-down structure, not only for their campaign but for the party and the Administration, whereas we obviously prefer a bottom up, grass roots style. We would have to redouble our efforts to pressure the DNC and a potential Clinton White House to pursue the 50 state strategy. Indeed, if a Hillary Clinton White House and DNC won't take the fight to the Republicans in every district, we will have to.
In my opinion, the Clinton team's hostility to us can be overcome. All that they need be shown is what is in it for them. Does anyone really think Hillary Clinton would turn down the chance to increase the party's numbers in Congress? Well, the 50-state strategy can provide that. Does anyone think Hillary Clinton would turn down money and low cost campaign organization? The netroots provides that too.
With respect to policy, our opposition to her may actually result in a successful campaign for the Presidency, but also a successful Presidency. How can the Republicans label her a loony leftist or a radical if we looney leftists and radicals here at Daily Kos and elsewhere in the blogosphere oppose her? Hillary Clinton can rightly claim to be independent from us, but she needs our opposition to do it.
Now, the more strident among us will scream and shout that Hillary Clinton is a Republican, a zionist, a neocon, a conservative, a war criminal, etc. etc. etc. You are wrong of course, but I encourage you to continue to oppose her. For you make her stronger.
Comments are closed on this story.